PS3 Cell Barely More Powerful than Wii CPU

:|

http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/01/ps3-cell-processor-less-than-2-times-as.html

After doing benchmark tests on both the Wii and PS3's CPU it was found that the PS3's Cell processor which is over 3GHz was only about equal to a 1.5 GHz CPU. While the Wii's Broadway chip was about 8oo MHz. If benchmarking is to be believed, then the Cell processor is less than twice as fast as the Broadway. More tests should be made but this is a interesting find no doubt.

it would depend on what benchmarks were used. I'll comment more after i watch the video.

for anyone looking at the video this comparison is at time 8:08.

I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.Unstoppable_1

That is the most ridiculous statement ever on SW. I hated it the first time it was said, and I still hate it. It doesnt matter if its serious or sarcasm...I HATE IT.

Maybe they forgot to turn on the SPEs?

I have a hard time believing this.

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"]I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.gromit007

That is the most ridiculous statement ever on SW. I hated it the first time it was said, and I still hate it. It doesnt matter if its serious or sarcasm...I HATE IT.

I know! Well whats going to unlock it then? A firmware update? I know, i love my ps3 of course, but don't brag about the system using not 100% power. Why? That means developers are lazy.

[QUOTE="gromit007"]

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"]I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.hazuki

That is the most ridiculous statement ever on SW. I hated it the first time it was said, and I still hate it. It doesnt matter if its serious or sarcasm...I HATE IT.

I know! Well whats going to unlock it then? A firmware update? I know, i love my ps3 of course, but don't brag about the system using not 100% power. Why? That means developers are lazy.

dont argue with the fanboys. Argue with developers and sony.

Im not reading the article but an SPU on Cell is more powerful than Wii's CPU.Pro_wrestler

totally incorrect. unless all you do in single precision calculations. for double and integer it's much worse.

They were probably only clocking the PPE. That'd be like only clocking one of the Xbox 360's 3 cores.Timstuff

the 360's cores are all general processors so they would all be used in his comparison of general processing.

The Playstation 3's CPU is capable of outperforming a 7800 GT at GPU optimized code by a margin of 30%. It is capable of outperforming the same GPU when the code is optimized for the Cell by a factor of 5.

IBM: "We don't know how to build CPUs! We've never done it before! Well, let's revel in the inefficiencies of our Cell design even though it barely matches a 10 year old CPU design!"

The guy in this video is an amateur and a foreigner. He doesn't understand the language and he doesn't understand the reality of the situations. Direct him, simply, to the white paper on the Cell processor by none other than IBM themselves who say that the Cell processor outperforms general purpose processors.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]They were probably only clocking the PPE. That'd be like only clocking one of the Xbox 360's 3 cores.Ontain

the 360's cores are all general processors so they would all be used in his comparison of general processing.

Your comments are all insanely uneducated.

okay got it. his comparison is on general processing. and as well know the SPUs are not for general processing. the are meant for single precision work. of course there will be some game code that will indeed take advantage of the SPUs so it's really more than 2x.Ontain

I would think that the PPE would be more than 2X as powerful as the Wii processor. They are both based on the PPC architecture, but the Cell runs at roughly 4X the clock speed.

The fact that he's make a comparison just based on Hz alone seems a little... well... noob...munu9

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I mean 1.5 GHZ on what architecture? Core? PPC? K8? Netburst?

There is a huge difference.

The Playstation 3's CPU is capable of outperforming a 7800 GT at GPU optimized code by a margin of 30%. It is capable of outperforming the same GPU when the code is optimized for the Cell by a factor of 5.

IBM: "We don't know how to build CPUs! We've never done it before! Well, let's revel in the inefficiencies of our Cell design even though it barely matches a 10 year old CPU design!"

The guy in this video is an amateur and a foreigner. He doesn't understand the language and he doesn't understand the reality of the situations. Direct him, simply, to the white paper on the Cell processor by none other than IBM themselves who say that the Cell processor outperforms general purpose processors.

Redfingers

IBM and sony often use benchmarks that make the cell look good. this guy is using benchmarks that make the cell look bad. you shouldn't completely trust either. it's up to the dev and the program they are writing.

This isn't a benchmark from Sony. It is a benchmark from here:

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

But we know for a fact that the Cell increased the maximum computing power of the F@H project by 2-3 fold, meaning this video is absolute and utter nonsense.Redfingers

Irrelevant information. The amount of processing power on the F@H is because of the addition of hundreds of thousands of PS3s, and the code they're running is well suited for the cell. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Still, the video is *technically* right, though the information is useless. The cell is a terrible general purpose processor to run the code you'd run on a Pentium or Core 2 Duo, because the SPUs cannot be utilized this way, and the PPU is a single degraded core.

If you try to run a windows/linux/mac centric app, you're gonna get some really, really bad results. The Cell requires different coding algorythms and techniques to work anywhere close to it's full potential.

Of course, the comparison done in the video is akin to taking a ferrari into a motocross track and being surprised when it ends up in last place

[QUOTE="Ontain"]okay got it. his comparison is on general processing. and as well know the SPUs are not for general processing. the are meant for single precision work. of course there will be some game code that will indeed take advantage of the SPUs so it's really more than 2x.thriteenthmonke

I would think that the PPE would be more than 2X as powerful as the Wii processor. They are both based on the PPC architecture, but the Cell runs at roughly 4X the clock speed.

I don't know exactly but from the video the cell's ppc is more stripped down (probably because it was designed to off load most of the work) than the wii's cpu. the wii's is a little better than what is in G3 macs.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]But we know for a fact that the Cell increased the maximum computing power of the F@H project by 2-3 fold, meaning this video is absolute and utter nonsense.Grive

Irrelevant information. The amount of processing power on the F@H is because of the addition of hundreds of thousands of PS3s, and the code they're running is well suited for the cell. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Still, the video is *technically* right, though the information is useless. The cell is a terrible general purpose processor to run the code you'd run on a Pentium or Core 2 Duo, because the SPUs cannot be utilized this way, and the PPU is a single degraded core.

If you try to run a windows/linux/mac centric app, you're gonna get some really, really bad results. The Cell requires different coding algorythms and techniques to work anywhere close to it's full potential.

Of course, the comparison done in the video is akin to taking a ferrari into a motocross track and being surprised when it ends up in last place

The information provided by F@H isn't irrelevant at all. Yes, the code is optimized for the Cell, which is described as a middle ground between GPU and CPU. Still, the ratio of Playstation 3's to PC's is not proportionate. The Playstation 3 is providing a dramatically higher amount of processing power than each PC.

But you can run Yellow Dog Linux on the Playstation 3. Moreover, the GPU cannot be accessed by Linux.

But you can run Yellow Dog Linux on the Playstation 3. Moreover, the GPU cannot be accessed by Linux.

Redfingers

And it runs very poorly, as if running on a 1.5GHz processor.

I find it impossible to gather what you were trying to say with your post.

This isn't a benchmark from Sony. It is a benchmark from here:

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

Redfingers

still it's not general processing which is what this dude is using. it's a very specific benchmark, all calculations that can be done in parallel (the type that the cell is made for, remember it's made for digital processing).

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

471 TFLOPS for Playstation 3 with 25998 Playstations contributing

178 TFLOPS for PC with 186866 PC's contributing. How many times does 178 go into 471? Moreover, how many times does 25998 go into 186866? Add them together and get a shocking number.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

But you can run Yellow Dog Linux on the Playstation 3. Moreover, the GPU cannot be accessed by Linux.

Grive

And it runs very poorly, as if running on a 1.5GHz processor.

I find it impossible to gather what you were trying to say with your post.

I've seen it running on a PS3. Smooth as butter.

Im not reading the article but an SPU on Cell is more powerful than Wii's CPU.Pro_wrestler

Um no... The SPE's withing the SPU's are stripped down RISC processors and do not have the same computational capabilities of a full feature core. The article is talking about the Cell's main core which is an "in order" Power PC core. The Wii's Power PC core on the other hand is an "out of order" core. For that reason the Wii's CPU operates within it's maximum capabilities while the Cell's Power PC core is crippled.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

This isn't a benchmark from Sony. It is a benchmark from here:

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

Ontain

still it's not general processing which is what this dude is using. it's a very specific benchmark, all calculations that can be done in parallel (the type that the cell is made for, remember it's made for digital processing).

This is GPU optimized code. Remember, the Cell occupies a middle ground between CPU and GPU. Therefore, that it is so remarkable with GPU optimized code doesn't necessarily mean that the Cell is completely horrible with CPU optimized code...

I like how you wrote off the entire IBM white paper because IBM "would like to sell their product" and "make it sound good"

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]They were probably only clocking the PPE. That'd be like only clocking one of the Xbox 360's 3 cores.Redfingers

the 360's cores are all general processors so they would all be used in his comparison of general processing.

Your comments are all insanely uneducated.

how do you figure that? are the 360's cores general processing cores?
is general processing what the guy is benchmarking?

[QUOTE="Grive"][QUOTE="Redfingers"]

But you can run Yellow Dog Linux on the Playstation 3. Moreover, the GPU cannot be accessed by Linux.

Redfingers

And it runs very poorly, as if running on a 1.5GHz processor.

I find it impossible to gather what you were trying to say with your post.

I've seen it running on a PS3. Smooth as butter.

Yeah right. Old clumpy butter.

Apparently more graphic intensive Fedora Linux on PS3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnAn3h7kTM4&mode=related&search=

"You can't handle PS3 with one hand" LOL that part was the best and showed that they are complete idiots. :lol:

The Playstation 3's CPU is capable of outperforming a 7800 GT at GPU optimized code by a margin of 30%. It is capable of outperforming the same GPU when the code is optimized for the Cell by a factor of 5.

IBM: "We don't know how to build CPUs! We've never done it before! Well, let's revel in the inefficiencies of our Cell design even though it barely matches a 10 year old CPU design!"

The guy in this video is an amateur and a foreigner. He doesn't understand the language and he doesn't understand the reality of the situations. Direct him, simply, to the white paper on the Cell processor by none other than IBM themselves who say that the Cell processor outperforms general purpose processors.

Redfingers

Of course IBM is going to say that. By the way what does the guy in the video being a foreigner have to do with anything? Also why are you defending the Cell against this video anyway if it is so "amature"? You are amature. This video is only pointing out that Sony and IBM are full of crap. Get over it.

So they are using weight and saying its hard to hold with one hand? Who the **** in their right mind holds any expensive electronics with one hand?

That aside from the fact that there are generally carrying cases and/or backpacks for that. :|

This whole thing stinks of pro-Nintendo garbage, nobody is buying the PS3 or Cell Processors for general purpose work as that is obviously not the design focus.

Completely made up "fun" ratios...yeah, sure.

Promoting gender stereotypes at the same time, whatever man the gender split is almost even between male and female gamers.

God, did anybody actually watch this whole thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSP9b4Qcu4M

"Unlike other boxes, the Playstation 3 is also designed to be a home computer," runs full versions of Linux

He lists applications for like 30 seconds that run on the Playstation 3 and it runs applications insanely fast

Applications, graphics, instant messaging, programming tools

Same processor as some of the high end IBM processors

limitation in RAM, but not an issue in Linux because its so efficient

absolutely incredible performance with the Cell, in 4 days they ported Mesa, running 80 times faster than the Intel Woodcrest

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

The Playstation 3's CPU is capable of outperforming a 7800 GT at GPU optimized code by a margin of 30%. It is capable of outperforming the same GPU when the code is optimized for the Cell by a factor of 5.

IBM: "We don't know how to build CPUs! We've never done it before! Well, let's revel in the inefficiencies of our Cell design even though it barely matches a 10 year old CPU design!"

The guy in this video is an amateur and a foreigner. He doesn't understand the language and he doesn't understand the reality of the situations. Direct him, simply, to the white paper on the Cell processor by none other than IBM themselves who say that the Cell processor outperforms general purpose processors.

Ichiroisawsome

Of course IBM is going to say that. By the way what does the guy in the video being a foreigner have to do with anything? Also why are you defending the Cell against this video anyway if it is so "amature"? You are amature. This video is only pointing out that Sony and IBM are full of crap. Get over it.

An amateur pointed out that Sony and IBM are full of crap. You need to get real, man.

[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="Redfingers"]

This isn't a benchmark from Sony. It is a benchmark from here:

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

Redfingers

still it's not general processing which is what this dude is using. it's a very specific benchmark, all calculations that can be done in parallel (the type that the cell is made for, remember it's made for digital processing).

This is GPU optimized code. Remember, the Cell occupies a middle ground between CPU and GPU. Therefore, that it is so remarkable with GPU optimized code doesn't necessarily mean that the Cell is completely horrible with CPU optimized code...

I like how you wrote off the entire IBM white paper because IBM "would like to sell their product" and "make it sound good"

I didn't say it would be horrible with CPU optimized code. I'm just stating the arguements of the guy in the video. he's talking about general processing. not just the "extremely high arithmetic intensity and almost zero bandwidth usage" algorithm they benchmarked in your link.

personally i think the eventually they will find ways to program for the cell better but right now it's not been any better than the 360 in terms of games. also yes i don't trust 1st party papers about their own products. i'm in IT and i've been on the phone with companies that claimed their products do something when they infact did not or the feature was never really tested.

Example of general processing above. 4 days, 80 times faster than Intel Woodcrest, presumably general purpose processor.

The guy who said it can't run Linux applications is eating his words right now, I hope. Watch the video.

The Wii's Power PC core on the other hand is an "out of order" core. For that reason the Wii's CPU operates within it's maximum capabilities while the Cell's Power PC core is crippled.

Ichiroisawsome

Can I get a link to that?

*bangs head against wall* the Sony fanboys absolutely *do not get it* and that's the problem we have here. Look, the "Cell" isn't the most powerful all around processor on earth - it's a processor that works extremely well on parallel processing tasks (such as folding@home or video decoding) and absolutely goes to crap when faced with general computing problems. There's a reason that type of processor design isn't replacing more general CPUs. Great for *specific* small, repetitive tasks, terrible at anything else.

What do you think developers meant when they said it was difficult to develop for the PS3 CPU? Not every task can be optimized for that type of processing - and in those type of tasks it could very well get *eaten alive* by a solid single-core CPU. Saying "the Wii CPU is close to the PS3 CPU?" a bit far fetched, but the PS3 CPU isn't some miracle device.

I mean, come on, the PS3 is $600 *total* - do you really think they have something in there that can best a CPU that cost $500+ *alone*? Anyway, stop saying it's the end-all-be-all Sony fanboys, it's not, but it's a league ahead of the Wii.
subrosian

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]Im not reading the article but an SPU on Cell is more powerful than Wii's CPU.Ichiroisawsome

Um no... The SPE's withing the SPU's are stripped down RISC processors and do not have the same computational capabilities of a full feature core. The article is talking about the Cell's main core which is an "in order" Power PC core. The Wii's Power PC core on the other hand is an "out of order" core. For that reason the Wii's CPU operates within it's maximum capabilities while the Cell's Power PC core is crippled.

O.o Power architectures are RISC processors. Anyways, I really only believe theres one person here who actually knows these things. His name starts with a "T":D