NO EXCUSES!!! The CELL has FLOPPED on ALL FRONTS!!!

Here's the FACTS for foolish fanboys. Not only is the Cell the best around. The PS3's hardware overall unrinates on the competition.

The cell is clocked at 3.2GHz and has 9 cores (one control processor and 8 SPEs). You cant compair GHz to GHZ, because the processors are two completely different designs. In that case the PS3 and 360 would be the same. It just doesn't work like that. First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. Secondly, there are 8 of them(2 reserved). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. there is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated RAM instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of innefficiencies inherent in cache. 4th it has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5th, as a vector processor it can also render graphics. meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6th, blueray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. they are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 100GB. In other words the PS3 PWNs all.

Vaizard34

[QUOTE="NitaraPwnzU"][QUOTE="angel-of-rain"][QUOTE="NitaraPwnzU"]Excuse me for not having to use spell check for all my posts.. But you sir are the most idiotic poster of them all.. It was corrected way before you even posted your response..

LOL you actually looked at my profile? ROFLMAO!!!! Stalker !!!:D

angel-of-rain

Awww I guess I used to many big words for you :D

I think your last post just scored a 1/10 on the originality board.. Your come backs have been lame..

Again you WIN.. I wasted another minute of my life responding to someone who has no idea what this forum is for..

Score 1 point for the brainless!!

Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.angel-of-rain

You are the one being immature, my friend. The topic creator stated unbiased facts and you can't accept it so you lash out in anger.

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.dracula_16

You are the one being immature, my friend. The topic creator stated unbiased facts and you can't accept it so you lash out in anger.

But he thinks he is hollier then thou.. Trust me your wasting your breath on this guy !!!

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"][QUOTE="NitaraPwnzU"][QUOTE="angel-of-rain"][QUOTE="NitaraPwnzU"]Excuse me for not having to use spell check for all my posts.. But you sir are the most idiotic poster of them all.. It was corrected way before you even posted your response..

LOL you actually looked at my profile? ROFLMAO!!!! Stalker !!!:D

NitaraPwnzU

Awww I guess I used to many big words for you :D

I think your last post just scored a 1/10 on the originality board.. Your come backs have been lame..

Again you WIN.. I wasted another minute of my life responding to someone who has no idea what this forum is for..

Score 1 point for the brainless!!

[QUOTE="Vaizard34"]

Here's the FACTS for foolish fanboys. Not only is the Cell the best around. The PS3's hardware overall unrinates on the competition.

The cell is clocked at 3.2GHz and has 9 cores (one control processor and 8 SPEs). You cant compair GHz to GHZ, because the processors are two completely different designs. In that case the PS3 and 360 would be the same. It just doesn't work like that. First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. Secondly, there are 8 of them(2 reserved). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. there is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated RAM instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of innefficiencies inherent in cache. 4th it has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5th, as a vector processor it can also render graphics. meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6th, blueray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. they are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 100GB. In other words the PS3 PWNs all.

Flim_Flam07

Here let me further teach some things about the PS3. Read below.

360 vs. ps3 respond to this There are three critical performance aspects of a console:
* Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell. Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.
* Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.
* Memory System Bandwidth:
Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.dracula_16

You are the one being immature, my friend. The topic creator stated unbiased facts and you can't accept it so you lash out in anger.

Why are my comebacks lame? Because you've been getting trashed from them? :lol: I see how it is.angel-of-rain

Hahhahaah Hold up !!! Hahahahah..

Wait a sec .. *cough cough* Hahhahahaha

You are the man dog.. I think I need to go create a new YTMD just for you.. LOL I will get started on that!!!

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.angel-of-rain

You are the one being immature, my friend. The topic creator stated unbiased facts and you can't accept it so you lash out in anger.

Yeah right.. He posted an opinion and you attacked him.. Dont sit here and lie.. The guy called you out for it!!

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.Flim_Flam07

Why is stating FACTS immature?:roll:

because cows dont like to hear facts :lol:

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.NitaraPwnzU

You are the one being immature, my friend. The topic creator stated unbiased facts and you can't accept it so you lash out in anger.

Yeah right.. He posted an opinion and you attacked him.. Dont sit here and lie.. The guy called you out for it!!

[QUOTE="NitaraPwnzU"][QUOTE="angel-of-rain"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.angel-of-rain

You are the one being immature, my friend. The topic creator stated unbiased facts and you can't accept it so you lash out in anger.

Yeah right.. He posted an opinion and you attacked him.. Dont sit here and lie.. The guy called you out for it!!

Now I know I am talking to someone whom is out of touch.. Go look it up!!! That is what google is for.. Oh wait I am sorry.. Perhaps that is to complicated.

Here's the FACTS for foolish fanboys. Not only is the Cell the best around. The PS3's hardware overall unrinates on the competition.

The cell is clocked at 3.2GHz and has 9 cores (one control processor and 8 SPEs). You cant compair GHz to GHZ, because the processors are two completely different designs. In that case the PS3 and 360 would be the same. It just doesn't work like that. First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. Secondly, there are 8 of them(2 reserved). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. there is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated RAM instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of innefficiencies inherent in cache. 4th it has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5th, as a vector processor it can also render graphics. meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6th, blueray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. they are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 100GB. In other words the PS3 PWNs all.

Vaizard34

isnt that good?? the more flops it has the better it is?exiledsnake

LOL oh I get it but I higly doubt the TC will.

Now I know I am talking to someone whom is out of touch.. Go look it up!!! That is what google is for.. Oh wait I am sorry.. Perhaps that is to complicated.NitaraPwnzU

[QUOTE="NitaraPwnzU"]Now I know I am talking to someone whom is out of touch.. Go look it up!!! That is what google is for.. Oh wait I am sorry.. Perhaps that is to complicated.angel-of-rain

Alrighty Then :D

[QUOTE="Flim_Flam07"]

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.bobaban

Why is stating FACTS immature?:roll:

When you know the meaning of a fact, come back.

Cell sucks=fact.

Actually the version of cell in the PS3 is only 8 core. One SPE is disabled for fabrication yield purposes so it is basically useless. Another SPE is reserved for OS purposes. That leaves only 6 SPE's for developers to work with. Also each SPE has only 256k of local store. Ya sure it is fast, but 256k isn't a whole lot to work with. Also the PPE only as 512k L2 cache memory whereas the 360's cpu has 1M of cache memory. You also forgot that the 360's cpu can do 6 hardware threads.

First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives,so they can do more at a lower clock.

Vaizard34

Obviously you haven't done your homework. The 360's cpu has VMX 128, which is a large extension to ALTIVEC. Actually the 360's CPU has 2 VMX128 register files per core, one for each thread. That is 256 physical vector registers per core.

I don't like the ps3 but please shut up, thanks to u this thread will get like 100 pages of fanboys killing each other.-wii60-

What he said.

[QUOTE="bobaban"][QUOTE="Flim_Flam07"]

[QUOTE="angel-of-rain"]Jesus Christ, the imaturity continues on and on. :| Disgrace to humanity.turgore

Why is stating FACTS immature?:roll:

When you know the meaning of a fact, come back.

Cell sucks=fact.

Seeing as were making up our own facts ill make one too :)

Xbox 360 sucks = fact.

You started it end of.

Here's some more facts to add to the only true arguments here(Highlander's and Vaizard's).

PhysX is on the 360. In fact, AGEIA tried very hard to make a statement this summer that the 360 was capable of doing physics. Earlier, an AGEIA scientist said that the PS3 was doing very well but that the 360 wasn't as good as the PS3. This was also right after Microsoft sent specs to ign and were making the claim that the 360 was just as powerful as the PS3. A few weeks later, AGEIA made a rebuttal and said that the scientists was speaking only theoretically and that the 360 wasn't performing as well "under certain conditions"..

What those conditions were at the time has never been clarified, mainly due to the fact that it could be more damaging to a prospective customer (Microsoft) if the word got out that the 360 (set to launch in 2005) wasn't as capable as a machine that already "stole the show" at E3. Now, AGEIA must not really care about pleasing MS so much, or they know that we know the writing is on the wall and are more forthcoming about the PS3s abilities when compared to the 360.

AGEIA isn't BSing anyone, they have nothing to gain by BSing people. Their bread and butter is in PC gaming and the console war has very little to do with their bottom line, ESPECIALLY since both systems will have software utilizing their DevTools.

You know why the 360 didn't do as good under those conditions???? Because it's inferior to the PS3!!!!!!

A little about the GPU...

Allow for me to paint you another picture. Unified shader technology IS the direction that PC graphics are going to go. In fact, Nvidia have a unified shader GPU in the works called the G80. The thing that always struck me as kind of odd about the Xbox 360 is that it has a very early version of the architecture in it and it seems to be rather under powered to run games like Oblivion. Gamespot ran a comparison on Oblivion on a low end, mid-grade, and high-end PC to see how the 360 verison matches up.

The 7800 and 7900 were both more impressive than the 360 and that was at the same resolution, which we all know PCs can have higher resolutions than x720. So, the good news for us is that the GPU going in the PS3 WILL be more powerful than the Xbox 360.. Also, 1080p is not going to be a big stretch of the imagination since a 7900 can run INSANE resolutions on PC that no TV in the next three or four years is going to support.

Make no mistake about it, though.. Unified shader technology is the wave of the future because it CAN do things traditional cards cannot and when the technology actually matures, you will see some amazing graphics on PC games. The good news for the PS4 is that by the time it launches, there will be multi-core Cell processors that Sony may be very wise in putting in the PS4. Imagine what the clock rate on a Cell can be five or six or even seven years down the road? On top of that, Nvidia will be well into the unified shader architecture and be able to deliver on what is only dreams and random musings from the Xbox crowd about what the GPU actually does. With high throughput and full programmability, unified GPUs matched with Cell's processing capabilities could very well be the "perfect console". IMHO

Well... If you were to look ay both of the console's specs you'd clearly see that the PS3 is far superior to the 360 in every way. Also, what I've written above is even more proof.

Don't forget that the the rsx has fully programmable shaders as well, in fact it has even more power than the xenos in that area.

the only thing it doesn't have is unified shader architecture, which allows it to use its resources better, but does not make it better than the rsx since it has less raw power overall.

with USA, the xenos can choose to use 0/48 16/32 32/16 or 48/0 pipelines for vertices/pixels.

the rsx is always using 8/24; however those 24 pixel pipelines have 2 ALU and are just as good as 48 pixel pipelines in the xenos;

on top of those the 8 vertex pipelines are able to push 1 billion vertices/second while the 48 pipelines of the xenos can only push max 500 million vertices/second, which means those 8 vertex pip.. are equivalent as 96 in the xenos.

so in xenos space, the rsx got 96/48 constant vs 0/48 or 16/32 or 32/16 or 48/0

summary:
- general processors (unified shaders arch) are less efficient than specialized ones
- the xenos has always less computational power, in every scenario

hopefully the xenos got some advantages like the EDRAM, free AA, 10bit HDR etc.
which might make the difference sometimes, and when it doesn't, then the rsx power does the difference.

The PS3 kills the 360 in every aspect.

Actually the version of cell in the PS3 is only 8 core. One SPE is disabled for fabrication yield purposes so it is basically useless. Another SPE is reserved for OS purposes. That leaves only 6 SPE's for developers to work with. Also each SPE has only 256k of local store. Ya sure it is fast, but 256k isn't a whole lot to work with. Also the PPE only as 512k L2 cache memory whereas the 360's cpu has 1M of cache memory. You also forgot that the 360's cpu can do 6 hardware threads.

[QUOTE="Vaizard34"]

First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives,so they can do more at a lower clock.

MrHanson6

Obviously you haven't done your homework. The 360's cpu has VMX 128, which is a large extension to ALTIVEC. Actually the 360's CPU has 2 VMX128 register files per core, one for each thread. That is 256 physical vector registers per core.

360 vs. ps3 respond to this There are three critical performance aspects of a console:
* Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell. Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.
* Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.
* Memory System Bandwidth:
Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

The Cell wasn't made for PCs.

Fission Mailed

[QUOTE="MrHanson6"]

Actually the version of cell in the PS3 is only 8 core. One SPE is disabled for fabrication yield purposes so it is basically useless. Another SPE is reserved for OS purposes. That leaves only 6 SPE's for developers to work with. Also each SPE has only 256k of local store. Ya sure it is fast, but 256k isn't a whole lot to work with. Also the PPE only as 512k L2 cache memory whereas the 360's cpu has 1M of cache memory. You also forgot that the 360's cpu can do 6 hardware threads.

[QUOTE="Vaizard34"]

First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives,so they can do more at a lower clock.

Flim_Flam07

Obviously you haven't done your homework. The 360's cpu has VMX 128, which is a large extension to ALTIVEC. Actually the 360's CPU has 2 VMX128 register files per core, one for each thread. That is 256 physical vector registers per core.

360 vs. ps3 respond to this There are three critical performance aspects of a console:
* Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell. Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.
* Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.
* Memory System Bandwidth:
Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

What Xbox fanboy site did you get this garbage from?? Here's the truth.

Apparently, the PS3 will have close to ten times the bandwidth of a typical PC due to Flex I/O. If after reading this article, you think there is anything you can get for less than a grand that comes even close to being as good a gaming machine, then you are nuts. The 360 doesn't compare. Here's a link for the nay-sayers.

In general processing the PS3's CELL murders all PC processors..............if you have read IBM's official documentation............it clearly said that all SPEs could be tweaked to run general purpose applications when necessary.

the PPE is general core and as sated by CRYTEK is much more efficient and powerful compared to both 360's XENON and dual core pc processors.


powerpc 6 architecture is around 35% more powerful than power5......how do you expect it to outgun CELL....


Furthermore, the core 2 duo extreme is 20-40% more powerful than fx62................it is not even a match for CELL.


for the benchmarks go to www.anandtech.com


the itanium was beaten by CELL by a minimum margin of 10:1 in all server based applications


it might take years for both intel and AMD to build something as powerful as the CELL


wait we might have the priviledge to see CELL 2 if CELL becomes successful..........since the architecture is already unveiled we might be seeing a much refined CELL 2 with 100 general cores SPEs.


the core 2 duo extreme is 20-40% more powerful than fx62................it is not even a match for CELL.


for the benchmarks go to www.anandtech.com


The itanium was beaten by CELL by a minimum margin of 10:1 in all server based applications


it might take years for both intel and AMD to build something as powerful as the CELL


wait we might have the priviledge to see CELL 2 if CELL becomes successful..........since the architecture is already unveiled we might be seeing a much refined CELL 2 with 100 general cores SPEs


THE MOST ADVANCED CPU FOR YEARS TO COME IS THE CELL. NOTHING WILL TOUCH IT FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS BESIDES THE CELL2 OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES!!!!!!!!!!


THE PS3's PROCESSOR IS THE CELL PROCESSOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THE PS3 IS BETTER THAN YOUR COMPUTER AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually the version of cell in the PS3 is only 8 core. One SPE is disabled for fabrication yield purposes so it is basically useless. Another SPE is reserved for OS purposes. That leaves only 6 SPE's for developers to work with. Also each SPE has only 256k of local store. Ya sure it is fast, but 256k isn't a whole lot to work with. Also the PPE only as 512k L2 cache memory whereas the 360's cpu has 1M of cache memory. You also forgot that the 360's cpu can do 6 hardware threads.

[QUOTE="Vaizard34"]

First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives,so they can do more at a lower clock.

MrHanson6

Obviously you haven't done your homework. The 360's cpu has VMX 128, which is a large extension to ALTIVEC. Actually the 360's CPU has 2 VMX128 register files per core, one for each thread. That is 256 physical vector registers per core.

each of the 6 SPEs has its own hardware thread, and the PPE has two hardware threads. the Cell has a total of 8 hardware threads for game purposes.

Here's some more facts to add to the only true arguments here(Highlander's and Vaizard's).

PhysX is on the 360. In fact, AGEIA tried very hard to make a statement this summer that the 360 was capable of doing physics. Earlier, an AGEIA scientist said that the PS3 was doing very well but that the 360 wasn't as good as the PS3. This was also right after Microsoft sent specs to ign and were making the claim that the 360 was just as powerful as the PS3. A few weeks later, AGEIA made a rebuttal and said that the scientists was speaking only theoretically and that the 360 wasn't performing as well "under certain conditions"..

What those conditions were at the time has never been clarified, mainly due to the fact that it could be more damaging to a prospective customer (Microsoft) if the word got out that the 360 (set to launch in 2005) wasn't as capable as a machine that already "stole the show" at E3. Now, AGEIA must not really care about pleasing MS so much, or they know that we know the writing is on the wall and are more forthcoming about the PS3s abilities when compared to the 360.

AGEIA isn't BSing anyone, they have nothing to gain by BSing people. Their bread and butter is in PC gaming and the console war has very little to do with their bottom line, ESPECIALLY since both systems will have software utilizing their DevTools.

You know why the 360 didn't do as good under those conditions???? Because it's inferior to the PS3!!!!!!

A little about the GPU...

Allow for me to paint you another picture. Unified shader technology IS the direction that PC graphics are going to go. In fact, Nvidia have a unified shader GPU in the works called the G80. The thing that always struck me as kind of odd about the Xbox 360 is that it has a very early version of the architecture in it and it seems to be rather under powered to run games like Oblivion. Gamespot ran a comparison on Oblivion on a low end, mid-grade, and high-end PC to see how the 360 verison matches up.

The 7800 and 7900 were both more impressive than the 360 and that was at the same resolution, which we all know PCs can have higher resolutions than x720. So, the good news for us is that the GPU going in the PS3 WILL be more powerful than the Xbox 360.. Also, 1080p is not going to be a big stretch of the imagination since a 7900 can run INSANE resolutions on PC that no TV in the next three or four years is going to support.

Make no mistake about it, though.. Unified shader technology is the wave of the future because it CAN do things traditional cards cannot and when the technology actually matures, you will see some amazing graphics on PC games. The good news for the PS4 is that by the time it launches, there will be multi-core Cell processors that Sony may be very wise in putting in the PS4. Imagine what the clock rate on a Cell can be five or six or even seven years down the road? On top of that, Nvidia will be well into the unified shader architecture and be able to deliver on what is only dreams and random musings from the Xbox crowd about what the GPU actually does. With high throughput and full programmability, unified GPUs matched with Cell's processing capabilities could very well be the "perfect console". IMHO

Well... If you were to look ay both of the console's specs you'd clearly see that the PS3 is far superior to the 360 in every way. Also, what I've written above is even more proof.

Don't forget that the the rsx has fully programmable shaders as well, in fact it has even more power than the xenos in that area.

the only thing it doesn't have is unified shader architecture, which allows it to use its resources better, but does not make it better than the rsx since it has less raw power overall.

with USA, the xenos can choose to use 0/48 16/32 32/16 or 48/0 pipelines for vertices/pixels.

the rsx is always using 8/24; however those 24 pixel pipelines have 2 ALU and are just as good as 48 pixel pipelines in the xenos;

on top of those the 8 vertex pipelines are able to push 1 billion vertices/second while the 48 pipelines of the xenos can only push max 500 million vertices/second, which means those 8 vertex pip.. are equivalent as 96 in the xenos.

so in xenos space, the rsx got 96/48 constant vs 0/48 or 16/32 or 32/16 or 48/0

summary:
- general processors (unified shaders arch) are less efficient than specialized ones
- the xenos has always less computational power, in every scenario

hopefully the xenos got some advantages like the EDRAM, free AA, 10bit HDR etc.
which might make the difference sometimes, and when it doesn't, then the rsx power does the difference.

The PS3 kills the 360 in every aspect.

EwokAssassin

This is SO WRONG i'm not going to even to begin to get into with you becuase you will not listen to reason for sure.

But just about every major developer and someone who knows there FACTS all agree and say the 360 GPU is better then RSX.

[QUOTE="EwokAssassin"]

Here's some more facts to add to the only true arguments here(Highlander's and Vaizard's).

PhysX is on the 360. In fact, AGEIA tried very hard to make a statement this summer that the 360 was capable of doing physics. Earlier, an AGEIA scientist said that the PS3 was doing very well but that the 360 wasn't as good as the PS3. This was also right after Microsoft sent specs to ign and were making the claim that the 360 was just as powerful as the PS3. A few weeks later, AGEIA made a rebuttal and said that the scientists was speaking only theoretically and that the 360 wasn't performing as well "under certain conditions"..

What those conditions were at the time has never been clarified, mainly due to the fact that it could be more damaging to a prospective customer (Microsoft) if the word got out that the 360 (set to launch in 2005) wasn't as capable as a machine that already "stole the show" at E3. Now, AGEIA must not really care about pleasing MS so much, or they know that we know the writing is on the wall and are more forthcoming about the PS3s abilities when compared to the 360.

AGEIA isn't BSing anyone, they have nothing to gain by BSing people. Their bread and butter is in PC gaming and the console war has very little to do with their bottom line, ESPECIALLY since both systems will have software utilizing their DevTools.

You know why the 360 didn't do as good under those conditions???? Because it's inferior to the PS3!!!!!!

A little about the GPU...

Allow for me to paint you another picture. Unified shader technology IS the direction that PC graphics are going to go. In fact, Nvidia have a unified shader GPU in the works called the G80. The thing that always struck me as kind of odd about the Xbox 360 is that it has a very early version of the architecture in it and it seems to be rather under powered to run games like Oblivion. Gamespot ran a comparison on Oblivion on a low end, mid-grade, and high-end PC to see how the 360 verison matches up.

The 7800 and 7900 were both more impressive than the 360 and that was at the same resolution, which we all know PCs can have higher resolutions than x720. So, the good news for us is that the GPU going in the PS3 WILL be more powerful than the Xbox 360.. Also, 1080p is not going to be a big stretch of the imagination since a 7900 can run INSANE resolutions on PC that no TV in the next three or four years is going to support.

Make no mistake about it, though.. Unified shader technology is the wave of the future because it CAN do things traditional cards cannot and when the technology actually matures, you will see some amazing graphics on PC games. The good news for the PS4 is that by the time it launches, there will be multi-core Cell processors that Sony may be very wise in putting in the PS4. Imagine what the clock rate on a Cell can be five or six or even seven years down the road? On top of that, Nvidia will be well into the unified shader architecture and be able to deliver on what is only dreams and random musings from the Xbox crowd about what the GPU actually does. With high throughput and full programmability, unified GPUs matched with Cell's processing capabilities could very well be the "perfect console". IMHO

Well... If you were to look ay both of the console's specs you'd clearly see that the PS3 is far superior to the 360 in every way. Also, what I've written above is even more proof.

Don't forget that the the rsx has fully programmable shaders as well, in fact it has even more power than the xenos in that area.

the only thing it doesn't have is unified shader architecture, which allows it to use its resources better, but does not make it better than the rsx since it has less raw power overall.

with USA, the xenos can choose to use 0/48 16/32 32/16 or 48/0 pipelines for vertices/pixels.

the rsx is always using 8/24; however those 24 pixel pipelines have 2 ALU and are just as good as 48 pixel pipelines in the xenos;

on top of those the 8 vertex pipelines are able to push 1 billion vertices/second while the 48 pipelines of the xenos can only push max 500 million vertices/second, which means those 8 vertex pip.. are equivalent as 96 in the xenos.

so in xenos space, the rsx got 96/48 constant vs 0/48 or 16/32 or 32/16 or 48/0

summary:
- general processors (unified shaders arch) are less efficient than specialized ones
- the xenos has always less computational power, in every scenario

hopefully the xenos got some advantages like the EDRAM, free AA, 10bit HDR etc.
which might make the difference sometimes, and when it doesn't, then the rsx power does the difference.

The PS3 kills the 360 in every aspect.

Flim_Flam07

This is SO WRONG i'm not going to even to begin to get into with you becuase you will not listen to reason for sure.

But just about every major developer and someone who knows there FACTS all agree and say the 360 GPU is better then RSX.

The big thing that you forget is that the PS3's GPU is more than the RSX. The Cell also renders. When those are combined they urinate on the 360.

why is the TC so adamant against the Cell? some unoptimized ports are total proof of its failure? Mordred19

No that isn't a reason to be against the Cell. If anything he should be against the developers for their shoddy workmanship and laziness.

The bottom line is the Cell has not taken off and become the next best CPU in the world and put into everything and taken over computers and so on.

Listen the Truth is the Cell is overly complicated to work with it has not made a dent in the PC market and being put into PC's and being the new thing like Sony had hope and planned.

It has caused the PS3 to suffer hugely in so many areas SALES, TIME, DELAYS, DEVELOPMENT etc etc etc.

And the FACT is already new Quad core CPU's are running circle around cell being faster and much more efficient to work with.

Sony listen very closely your CPU called Cell has FLOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flim_Flam07

http://gametomorrow.com/blog/index.php/2005/11/30/gpus-vs-cell/

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/711/711617p1.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379

http://research.scea.com/ps3_deferred_shading.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats

When looking at the folding@Home statistics page I want you to look very carefully at the numbers there.

9.54e-4 TFLOPs per PC versus 0.02 TFLOPS per PS3. Playstation 3 is providing 711 TFLOPS overall on 34366 Playstation 3s, versus 164 TFLOPS from Windows on 171866 active PCs.

That's 4.3x the processing power from 1/5 the number of Playstation 3's. That means the Playstation 3 is providing the same processing power per PS3 as 21.5 PCs.

Now, you might say: "but, most of those PCs are P3's/P4s! That doesn't take into account teh awesomeness of teh quad cores!" If that was significant enough, I would suppose the grunt force of the number of processors would at least match the output of 1/5 the number of Playstation 3s if there was anything seriously significant that they were adding. Anyway you slice it, you're pretty much wrong.

[QUOTE="Flim_Flam07"]

The bottom line is the Cell has not taken off and become the next best CPU in the world and put into everything and taken over computers and so on.

Listen the Truth is the Cell is overly complicated to work with it has not made a dent in the PC market and being put into PC's and being the new thing like Sony had hope and planned.

It has caused the PS3 to suffer hugely in so many areas SALES, TIME, DELAYS, DEVELOPMENT etc etc etc.

And the FACT is already new Quad core CPU's are running circle around cell being faster and much more efficient to work with.

Sony listen very closely your CPU called Cell has FLOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Redfingers

http://gametomorrow.com/blog/index.php/2005/11/30/gpus-vs-cell/

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/711/711617p1.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379

http://research.scea.com/ps3_deferred_shading.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats

When looking at the folding@Home statistics page I want you to look very carefully at the numbers there.

9.54e-4 TFLOPs per PC versus 0.02 TFLOPS per PS3. Playstation 3 is providing 711 TFLOPS overall on 34366 Playstation 3s, versus 164 TFLOPS from Windows on 171866 active PCs.

That's 4.3x the processing power from 1/5 the number of Playstation 3's. That means the Playstation 3 is providing the same processing power per PS3 as 21.5 PCs.

Now, you might say: "but, most of those PCs are P3's/P4s! That doesn't take into account teh awesomeness of teh quad cores!" If that was significant enough, I would suppose the grunt force of the number of processors would at least match the output of 1/5 the number of Playstation 3s if there was anything seriously significant that they were adding. Anyway you slice it, you're pretty much wrong.

Redfingers, your attempt to reasonably explain things to the TC is definetly admirable. But I really don't think there is anything anyone can do for someone like him. He's just too far gone.

oh boy, here we go again. just because the cell is more complex to work with doesnt mean it 'flops'!!! and developers just need to get a handle on it. nuff saidbiggamerhk

"just wait" :lol:

[QUOTE="biggamerhk"]oh boy, here we go again. just because the cell is more complex to work with doesnt mean it 'flops'!!! and developers just need to get a handle on it. nuff saidBurnout_Player0

"just wait" :lol:

Burnout_Player 0: "I can win any thread anywhere because I shove words down peoples' throats."

being misquoted sucks, doesn't it?

First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock.Vaizard34

Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. there is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system.

 5th, as a vector processor it can also render graphics.

[QUOTE="Vaizard34"]First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock.lowe0

Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. there is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system.

5th, as a vector processor it can also render graphics.

1). "First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock."

-Completely true. ADV PS3

2). There's generally little to no lag with dedicated memory due to the aformentioned reasons.

3). Pure Vector processors on top of the RSX is godly.

1). "First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock."

-Completely true. ADV PS3

2). There's generally little to no lag with dedicated memory due to the aformentioned reasons.

3). Pure Vector processors on top of the RSX is godly.

highlander0659

[QUOTE="highlander0659"]

1). "First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock."

-Completely true. ADV PS3

2). There's generally little to no lag with dedicated memory due to the aformentioned reasons.

3). Pure Vector processors on top of the RSX is godly.

lowe0

By responding to above post you were responded to as well. There's more than enough technical information that shows that the PS3 is superior just look as the thread the proves the Cell is more powerful than intel's new quad core cpu.