The PS3's price point would have already been $300 had the "Cell" never existed.
They spent billion$ on making the Cell and merely partered on the Blu Ray's development costs.
Should Sony stop making custom made processors for their consoles?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
A huge part of the PS3 price tag was Blu-Ray, not the cell.
The only real problems the cell has really brought up have been development problems from Devs who wont bother learning how to use the hardware well.
A huge part of the PS3 price tag was Blu-Ray, not the cell.
The only real problems the cell has really brought up have been development problems from Devs who wont bother learning how to use the hardware well.
"Only inferior developers complain about the cell processor" --- Tomnobo Igataki.
A huge part of the PS3 price tag was Blu-Ray, not the cell.
The only real problems the cell has really brought up have been development problems from Devs who wont bother learning how to use the hardware well.
"Only inferior developers complain about the cell processor" --- Tomnobo Igataki. Valve ...inferior...lol >.>
[QUOTE="swazidoughman"]"Only inferior developers complain about the cell processor" --- Tomnobo Igataki.And that's a very narrow-minded view to take. Developers work on tight budgets and time constraints. Requiring teams of developers to learn a new programming paradigm every generation is unrealistic and drives up costs.A huge part of the PS3 price tag was Blu-Ray, not the cell.
The only real problems the cell has really brought up have been development problems from Devs who wont bother learning how to use the hardware well.
Bluray001
A huge part of the PS3 price tag was Blu-Ray, not the cell.
The only real problems the cell has really brought up have been development problems from Devs who wont bother learning how to use the hardware well.
"Only inferior developers complain about the cell processor" --- Tomnobo Igataki. Valve ...inferior...lol >.> No, just arrogant. Gabe has stated time and time again his dislike for the PS3. He almost hoped it would fail, at one point, it seemed. I'm a big fan of Valve games, and as I own a gaming PC, I'm also very happy with Steam. However, I am disappointed in their "King of the World" attitude they've taken this gen, which is a bit of a shame, really. Valve could have gotten a lot out of the PS3, if they had of put the effort in, but their arrogance, and reluctance to work on new architecture, prevented that.The bigger problem is that developers don't bother adjusting themselves to the Cell, rather than a price increase. That hurts the user at the end of the day.Danm_999Or is the underlying problem that the Cell requires developers to adjust to it, thereby increasing already skyrocketing development costs?
[QUOTE="Danm_999"]The bigger problem is that developers don't bother adjusting themselves to the Cell, rather than a price increase. That hurts the user at the end of the day.mattbbplOr is the underlying problem that the Cell requires developers to adjust to it, thereby increasing already skyrocketing development costs? Either way, its caused problems for Sony and hasn't given them a distinctive edge in multiplats.
[QUOTE="110million"]No. :| The best Super Computer in the world, has a CPU based off the architecture of the cell, it might not have helped the PS3 too much directly, but the Cell was an important step in some recent technology.VandalvideoAnd yet your average PC game processor nowadays generally outperforms the cell.
The ps3 has a gimped version of the cell, and I'm sure since the release of the ps3 there have been many advancements upon the cell.
Also keep in mind that the computer the the other person was referring to probably has more than 1 cell processor in it.
Though, I assume you already knew this.
"Only inferior developers complain about the cell processor" --- Tomnobo Igataki.And that's a very narrow-minded view to take. Developers work on tight budgets and time constraints. Requiring teams of developers to learn a new programming paradigm every generation is unrealistic and drives up costs.[QUOTE="Bluray001"][QUOTE="swazidoughman"]
A huge part of the PS3 price tag was Blu-Ray, not the cell.
The only real problems the cell has really brought up have been development problems from Devs who wont bother learning how to use the hardware well.
mattbbpl
Apparently not Polyphony Digital.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]
"Only inferior developers complain about the cell processor" --- Tomnobo Igataki.Bluray001And that's a very narrow-minded view to take. Developers work on tight budgets and time constraints. Requiring teams of developers to learn a new programming paradigm every generation is unrealistic and drives up costs.
Apparently not Polyphony Digital.
Yeah, there are a few developers who have a lot of free reign in terms of time, but that's only because so far the competition hasn't been able to catch them and their funds haven't run dry. 3DRealms was one such party whose funds did run out, and it looks like PD may be getting caught by Turn 10. If you take the "Time/money is no object" approach you're playing with fire in a competitive environment. I wish PD the best (if for nothing else some healthy competition), but from our current vantage point it appears that they have squandered their previous competitive advantage.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="110million"]No. :| The best Super Computer in the world, has a CPU based off the architecture of the cell, it might not have helped the PS3 too much directly, but the Cell was an important step in some recent technology.Martin_G_NAnd yet your average PC game processor nowadays generally outperforms the cell. No, not in T.flops performance (calculations per scond). In general purpose processing, yes. Do your PC CPU handle 3d rendering, physics, 7.1 surround, and all the other stuff at once? No!! The PC is better because of the amount of RAM and the higher budget GPU's. The GPU is what does the hardest work in PC games, physics and rendering. Hell, all the games today can run on a single core Pentium 4.So we're taking one type of performance benchmark now and applying it across the board as an indication of overrall power? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a single netburst core would adequately power all of the modern PC games.
[QUOTE="Epak_"]"Developing for the PS3 is hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would be doing it. The hard is what makes it great" -- Tom HanksYes. The Cell is only making things harder.
Bluray001
Oh yes Tom Hanks, that famous game developer :roll: That statement is also pretty ****** up.
There's no point in Cell really, it might be more powerful than the alternative at the time, but most likely they could had achieved more with less money by investing in a better GPU and more Ram, and at the same time made it easier to develop for. Development costs being what they are devs are forced to develop on multiple platforms, making your system completely different is a needless hindrance.ManicAcethe industry needs these "breakthroughs" in order to prevent monotonous hardware...not like most people care, but still...
You got things completely wrong. Cell is the only processor NOT custom made. 360's Xenon is only used and designed for 360, same case for Wii Broadway CPU. Cell was conceived to be used in everything, from media players to TVs, notebooks and videogames. That was their marketing reason for using Cell, it would be mass produced so much it would cost much less than the standard custom made vg cpu. I guess it didn't turn out like they expected. lordxymorBut the Cell is the only one that isn't based on a standardized general purpose architecture. It took a radical departure from previous PC-like architecure and implemented an asynchronous model, which is where the problem lies.
There's no point in Cell really, it might be more powerful than the alternative at the time, but most likely they could had achieved more with less money by investing in a better GPU and more Ram, and at the same time made it easier to develop for. Development costs being what they are devs are forced to develop on multiple platforms, making your system completely different is a needless hindrance.ManicAceYea, innovation is so last century...
That so many PS3 users only expect better graphics from Cell shows how pointless its implementation was.
PS3 would have been better off with a more powerful GPU, then people could get their extra visuals without it being twice as hard to develop for. People aren't interested in using Cell to do stuff previously impossible on traditional architectures; they only want more eye candy.
And yet your average PC game processor nowadays generally outperforms the cell.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="110million"]No. :| The best Super Computer in the world, has a CPU based off the architecture of the cell, it might not have helped the PS3 too much directly, but the Cell was an important step in some recent technology.swazidoughman
The ps3 has a gimped version of the cell, and I'm sure since the release of the ps3 there have been many advancements upon the cell.
Also keep in mind that the computer the the other person was referring to probably has more than 1 cell processor in it.
Though, I assume you already knew this.
The CELL isn't a general processor, it will out perform desktop pc's at secific tasks, take a look at the statistics on folding at home. Gaming isn't really one of them though[QUOTE="ManicAce"]There's no point in Cell really, it might be more powerful than the alternative at the time, but most likely they could had achieved more with less money by investing in a better GPU and more Ram, and at the same time made it easier to develop for. Development costs being what they are devs are forced to develop on multiple platforms, making your system completely different is a needless hindrance.OdrecYea, innovation is so last century... innovative is one thing, good design is another, all they did for the ps3 was move parts of the gpu onto the cell and make it a b**** to program for
[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="ManicAce"]There's no point in Cell really, it might be more powerful than the alternative at the time, but most likely they could had achieved more with less money by investing in a better GPU and more Ram, and at the same time made it easier to develop for. Development costs being what they are devs are forced to develop on multiple platforms, making your system completely different is a needless hindrance.savagetwinkieYea, innovation is so last century... innovative is one thing, good design is another, all they did for the ps3 was move parts of the gpu onto the cell and make it a b**** to program for Who says it was poorly designed? Not even developers who have worked with it have said that, they have said that it is difficult to program for at one point but it looks more and more now that they are getting the hang of it. Like with mostly every other console ever we won't be seeing a truly mastering of the hardware until its last years so I'm sure the Cell has still lots to offer and it is already showing what it is capable of. If you say that a processor who can handle graphics and gameplay like those in Killzone, UC2 and GT5 is poorly designed you have no idea what you're talking about.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Odrec"] Yea, innovation is so last century...Odrecinnovative is one thing, good design is another, all they did for the ps3 was move parts of the gpu onto the cell and make it a b**** to program for Who says it was poorly designed? Not even developers who have worked with it have said that, they have said that it is difficult to program for at one point but it looks more and more now that they are getting the hang of it. Like with mostly every other console ever we won't be seeing a truly mastering of the hardware until its last years so I'm sure the Cell has still lots to offer and it is already showing what it is capable of. If you say that a processor who can handle graphics and gameplay like those in Killzone, UC2 and GT5 is poorly designed you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have any idea what your talking about? The fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it shows the poor design. Only companies with big budgets so far can really use the CELL. And even then they could have just made it easy and made an innovative GPU that allowed for all of that, and keep all the programing much simpler. assymetric multi cores are harder to write code for because you have to split up all your code and tell it when and where you want it to run. Its a highly parrallized processor thats use is best when you have large amounts of data that you need to do some sort of math on, IE folding at home.On gaming though to get them all running its almost impossible to have them all working 100% of the time. Theres a massive lack of efficiency and could have been done better in a differen't way. Why split up the code for the gpu, why assymetric design for gaming?
[QUOTE="swazidoughman"]"Only inferior developers complain about the cell processor" --- Tomnobo Igataki.A huge part of the PS3 price tag was Blu-Ray, not the cell.
The only real problems the cell has really brought up have been development problems from Devs who wont bother learning how to use the hardware well.
Bluray001
Itagaki praised the PS3? When did this happen? :shock:
[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] innovative is one thing, good design is another, all they did for the ps3 was move parts of the gpu onto the cell and make it a b**** to program forsavagetwinkieWho says it was poorly designed? Not even developers who have worked with it have said that, they have said that it is difficult to program for at one point but it looks more and more now that they are getting the hang of it. Like with mostly every other console ever we won't be seeing a truly mastering of the hardware until its last years so I'm sure the Cell has still lots to offer and it is already showing what it is capable of. If you say that a processor who can handle graphics and gameplay like those in Killzone, UC2 and GT5 is poorly designed you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have any idea what your talking about? The fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it shows the poor design. Only companies with big budgets so far can really use the CELL. And even then they could have just made it easy and made an innovative GPU that allowed for all of that, and keep all the programing much simpler. assymetric multi cores are harder to write code for because you have to split up all your code and tell it when and where you want it to run. Its a highly parrallized processor thats use is best when you have large amounts of data that you need to do some sort of math on, IE folding at home.On gaming though to get them all running its almost impossible to have them all working 100% of the time. Theres a massive lack of efficiency and could have been done better in a differen't way. Why split up the code for the gpu, why assymetric design for gaming? No, the fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it means the technology is quite new and they have to master it. Were processors with 2 or 4 cores poorly designed because at the beginning less developers were using their capabilities to full and it was easier to develop for 1 core? No, they needed to get to know the technology! and the fact that games like Killzone 2 are coming out is proof that some developers are being able to use what the processor is capable of and the slight differences between multiplat games at the beginning only showed that Sony's technology was newer but not at all incapable or poorly designed. Again you don't know what you are talking about.
@TC
the problem isn't the cell per se, it was sony's sdk and lack of support early on. sony has designed the cpu's in in the ps2 & 3 as well as the emotion engine (gpu) for the ps2. as with the ps2, sony's developer support was lacking early on with developers complaining about it's difficulty to use and design for. after ta few years when the devs learned to use it, they were making games that performed and looked stunning. case in point, gow 1&2. the same thing is happening with the ps3.
the cell be itself, though not originally designed for games but rather networking and video processing, is still a very powerful little chip that is bottlenecked by the low amount of ram. the same goes for the 360. the difference however, is that the 360 doesn't have dedicated memory for the cpu and gpu but instead has a unified memory architecture with an extra 10MB ram for the gpu's daughter die.
what is really holding the cost of the ps3 at $400 and not allowing to go down in the near future (unless sony decides to take a bigger loss per unit sold), is the blu-ray drive.
sony has stated that if they are to make a ps4, that they will continue to use the cell be, just a newer version that is faster. whether it provides more spe's i can't tell you for certain but the cell be was originally designed (on paper at least) to accommodate 32 spe's. MS has stated that for the xbox 720, which is currently in the design phases, they themselvs will design the cpu. i have a bad feeling about that. back to the ps4, early rumors state that sony will use the larrabee for it's gpu so expect a steep over $400 price tag at launch.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Odrec"] Who says it was poorly designed? Not even developers who have worked with it have said that, they have said that it is difficult to program for at one point but it looks more and more now that they are getting the hang of it. Like with mostly every other console ever we won't be seeing a truly mastering of the hardware until its last years so I'm sure the Cell has still lots to offer and it is already showing what it is capable of. If you say that a processor who can handle graphics and gameplay like those in Killzone, UC2 and GT5 is poorly designed you have no idea what you're talking about.OdrecDo you have any idea what your talking about? The fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it shows the poor design. Only companies with big budgets so far can really use the CELL. And even then they could have just made it easy and made an innovative GPU that allowed for all of that, and keep all the programing much simpler. assymetric multi cores are harder to write code for because you have to split up all your code and tell it when and where you want it to run. Its a highly parrallized processor thats use is best when you have large amounts of data that you need to do some sort of math on, IE folding at home.On gaming though to get them all running its almost impossible to have them all working 100% of the time. Theres a massive lack of efficiency and could have been done better in a differen't way. Why split up the code for the gpu, why assymetric design for gaming? No, the fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it means the technology is quite new and they have to master it. Were processors with 2 or 4 cores poorly designed because at the beginning less developers were using their capabilities to full and it was easier to develop for 1 core? No, they needed to get to know the technology! and the fact that games like Killzone 2 are coming out is proof that some developers are being able to use what the processor is capable of and the slight differences between multiplat games at the beginning only showed that Sony's technology was newer but not at all incapable or poorly designed. Again you don't know what you are talking about. Actually, the technology is not new by hardware standards. At almost three years, it's getting ancient. That's a long time for a CPU. If wipespread ease of use hasn't been achieved in three years, it's probably not going to be.
no, i don't think they should stop making processors. the big cost for the ps3 was the blu-ray. blu-ray had just came out when the ps3 did. everything is expensive when it first comes out. xscott1018
well sony sold off their entire stake in the cell to toshiba. being that sony still has semiconductor facilities around the world, they are going to continue to design and make chips, though not necessarily cpu's, mostly opitcal sensors and dsps. they may continue to use the cell for the ps4.
[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] Do you have any idea what your talking about? The fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it shows the poor design. Only companies with big budgets so far can really use the CELL. And even then they could have just made it easy and made an innovative GPU that allowed for all of that, and keep all the programing much simpler. assymetric multi cores are harder to write code for because you have to split up all your code and tell it when and where you want it to run. Its a highly parrallized processor thats use is best when you have large amounts of data that you need to do some sort of math on, IE folding at home.On gaming though to get them all running its almost impossible to have them all working 100% of the time. Theres a massive lack of efficiency and could have been done better in a differen't way. Why split up the code for the gpu, why assymetric design for gaming? Danm_999No, the fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it means the technology is quite new and they have to master it. Were processors with 2 or 4 cores poorly designed because at the beginning less developers were using their capabilities to full and it was easier to develop for 1 core? No, they needed to get to know the technology! and the fact that games like Killzone 2 are coming out is proof that some developers are being able to use what the processor is capable of and the slight differences between multiplat games at the beginning only showed that Sony's technology was newer but not at all incapable or poorly designed. Again you don't know what you are talking about. Actually, the technology is not new by hardware standards. At almost three years, it's getting ancient. That's a long time for a CPU. If wipespread ease of use hasn't been achieved in three years, it's probably not going to be.
Yea but you are talking PC-wise. In console terms it is always different since you can't be upgrading your system every couple of years. I bet no developer could master what a 2 core processor could do before 4 core processors were out (as evidenced by most processor benchmarks in the market). Now you see 2 core processors doing better then 4 cores depending on the software used. Is not only the technology that matters but how you use it.
Edit: Also I was talking that it was new at launch when most of the multiplat games that looked slightly bettter on 360 came out. Now it's more evidently that the differences are practically null and exclusive games show that many developers don't find the Cell technology that tricky anymore.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Odrec"] Who says it was poorly designed? Not even developers who have worked with it have said that, they have said that it is difficult to program for at one point but it looks more and more now that they are getting the hang of it. Like with mostly every other console ever we won't be seeing a truly mastering of the hardware until its last years so I'm sure the Cell has still lots to offer and it is already showing what it is capable of. If you say that a processor who can handle graphics and gameplay like those in Killzone, UC2 and GT5 is poorly designed you have no idea what you're talking about.OdrecDo you have any idea what your talking about? The fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it shows the poor design. Only companies with big budgets so far can really use the CELL. And even then they could have just made it easy and made an innovative GPU that allowed for all of that, and keep all the programing much simpler. assymetric multi cores are harder to write code for because you have to split up all your code and tell it when and where you want it to run. Its a highly parrallized processor thats use is best when you have large amounts of data that you need to do some sort of math on, IE folding at home.On gaming though to get them all running its almost impossible to have them all working 100% of the time. Theres a massive lack of efficiency and could have been done better in a differen't way. Why split up the code for the gpu, why assymetric design for gaming? No, the fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it means the technology is quite new and they have to master it. Were processors with 2 or 4 cores poorly designed because at the beginning less developers were using their capabilities to full and it was easier to develop for 1 core? No, they needed to get to know the technology! and the fact that games like Killzone 2 are coming out is proof that some developers are being able to use what the processor is capable of and the slight differences between multiplat games at the beginning only showed that Sony's technology was newer but not at all incapable or poorly designed. Again you don't know what you are talking about. but with the CELL your doing twice the work to get games that look marginally better, thats bad design, M$ going with more efficient hardware do half the work, and get results comparable to the ps3, that is GOOD design. The fact that people still argue over graphics kings just shows how close these two systems are. Killzone 2 was an example of alot of time and money spent, nothing more, and its not leaps and bounds better then anything M$ can offer. UC2 isn't phenomenal either over anything M$ has... Having 512mbs of ram make the two systems very very very comparible, since, the ps3 can't any more to the game world then the 360 can, so regardless of how much power each system has, the games are still limited to what can be stuffed into the 512mb at a time. Slightly less for the ps3 since it isn't using a shared architecture and the ps3 OS has a larger foot print. Ps3 shader capabiliies still aren't as good as the 360 either, nor is its general pupose code, the 360 will be able to hadle ai (more smart enemies on screen at once), other programs running in the background better (cross game party chat). And keep touting Killzone 2 and UC2, they aren't that much better then 360 games like gears 2, I've played Killzone 2 and yes it has some pretty effects, but it still has some pretty bad weaknesses, with shadows, textures. And once I get my ps3 back I'll tackle the UC2, but after seeing some videos of it, I know it looks good, but so far I woudln't say its leaps and bounds ahead of anything. The only level I've seen wasn't exactly large in scope.
Actually, the technology is not new by hardware standards. At almost three years, it's getting ancient. That's a long time for a CPU. If wipespread ease of use hasn't been achieved in three years, it's probably not going to be.[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Odrec"] No, the fact that most companies can't really get the performance out of it means the technology is quite new and they have to master it. Were processors with 2 or 4 cores poorly designed because at the beginning less developers were using their capabilities to full and it was easier to develop for 1 core? No, they needed to get to know the technology! and the fact that games like Killzone 2 are coming out is proof that some developers are being able to use what the processor is capable of and the slight differences between multiplat games at the beginning only showed that Sony's technology was newer but not at all incapable or poorly designed. Again you don't know what you are talking about.Odrec
Yea but you are talking PC-wise. In console terms it is always different since you can't be upgrading your system every couple of years. I bet no developer could master what a 2 core processor could do before 4 core processors were out (as evidenced by most processor benchmarks in the market). Now you see 2 core processors doing better then 4 cores depending on the software used. Is not only the technology that matters but how you use it.
Edit: Also I was talking that it was new at launch when most of the multiplat games that looked slightly bettter on 360 came out. Now it's more evidently that the differences are practically null and exclusive games show that many developers don't find the Cell technology that tricky anymore.
how are the differences NULL, considering there still are difference, see RE5, having both copies the 360 version definitly runs slightly smoother, sharper textures, AA, and i've noticed teh ps3 does this weird thing where it will look like sectioned texteures.I think the ps3 is a great value u get a blu ray 2.0 player,dvd,game system for $399 blu ray players alone are like 199-250 for the cheap ones
kemar7856
the only bad things that i can think of about the ps3's blu-ray drive would be the 2x speed and the lack of multichannel audio output. thankfully i have a 4x blu-ray drive and multichannel out on my pc. :P
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Odrec"] Yea but you are talking PC-wise. In console terms it is always different since you can't be upgrading your system every couple of years. I bet no developer could master what a 2 core processor could do before 4 core processors were out (as evidenced by most processor benchmarks in the market). Now you see 2 core processors doing better then 4 cores depending on the software used. Is not only the technology that matters but how you use it.OdrecConsole hardware development is slower, yes. But that doesn't mean Sony's hardware should be causing significant quality concerns this far into development of the console. Bottom line, the Cell processor appears to be difficult to work with, discouraging third party titles, and decreasing the quality of multiplats, and its greatest strength lie in functions that are largely irrelevant to gaming. Seems like a boneheaded move to me on their part. Even if they get developers working more efficiently, it provides no intrinsic advantages. Ok, by market hardware standards a poorly designed processor wouldn't survive as long as the cell and developers wouldn't even take it into account. We would see how the Cell processor does and if in a year or two no one wants to program for the Cell anymore we can agree it was poorly designed. Your challenge makes no sense, as we know the Cell excels at certain applications and thus will be used in specialty applications such as weather modeling, medical imaging, stream processing, etc. We also know that developers will continue to use it in the PS3 because developers have no choice if they want to access the PS3 userbase. It would make sense if you were referring to an open platform such as PCs, but the Cell isn't being used in PCs and likely never will be.
No. :| The best Super Computer in the world, has a CPU based off the architecture of the cell, it might not have helped the PS3 too much directly, but the Cell was an important step in some recent technology.110millionwell... roadrunner(the computer your talkign about) is composed of cell(well more advanced cell cpu like u mantioned) cpus and amd opertrons, so its basedof of 2 cpus. cell in this case is used soley for floatign point calculations, anything else is done with amd cpu. so being that the ps3 is a GAMING console, it should have a cpu meant for GAMING not calculations like floating point calculations where the cell shines.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Odrec"] Yea but you are talking PC-wise. In console terms it is always different since you can't be upgrading your system every couple of years. I bet no developer could master what a 2 core processor could do before 4 core processors were out (as evidenced by most processor benchmarks in the market). Now you see 2 core processors doing better then 4 cores depending on the software used. Is not only the technology that matters but how you use it.OdrecConsole hardware development is slower, yes. But that doesn't mean Sony's hardware should be causing significant quality concerns this far into development of the console. Bottom line, the Cell processor appears to be difficult to work with, discouraging third party titles, and decreasing the quality of multiplats, and its greatest strength lie in functions that are largely irrelevant to gaming. Seems like a boneheaded move to me on their part. Even if they get developers working more efficiently, it provides no intrinsic advantages. Ok, by market hardware standards a poorly designed processor wouldn't survive as long as the cell and developers wouldn't even take it into account. We would see how the Cell processor does and if in a year or two no one wants to program for the Cell anymore we can agree it was poorly designed. The CELL will be around for a while, its bad design for gaming, but if you want to use it for things like, folding at home, encoding/decoding files, compressing/uncomprossing files, probably even encrypting files, anythign where your going to have large data sets that you just need to chug through, the CELL we'll be very usefull. But for games not so much, if they wanted to make it like an aegis physics card though, except it also does animations, post processing effects, and w/e else it is good for with gaming, that could also be usefull, but add in cards aren't very supported. If anything they could have made the ps3 like the 360 but put in as an extra for copmaines that want to use to to really enhance whats already there.
[QUOTE="kemar7856"]
I think the ps3 is a great value u get a blu ray 2.0 player,dvd,game system for $399 blu ray players alone are like 199-250 for the cheap ones
cowgriller
the only bad things that i can think of about the ps3's blu-ray drive would be the 2x speed and the lack of multichannel audio output. thankfully i have a 4x blu-ray drive and multichannel out on my pc. :P
ye also I add the backwards compadablity mess and lack of games hurt them the mostPlease Log In to post.
Log in to comment