So Is the cell really a super processor?

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] "excuses excues" for why i cant show those types of crysis modded situations running on ps3? whats your excuse for why god of war 3 doesnt run on on your pc? i mean your pc has blu-ray drive right? seriously, your lack of knowledge when it comes to software engineering and even game development helps me sleep better at nighti_am_interested

Ummmm no I don't want you to show me a Crysis moddedvideoon a PS3 I want you to show me any PS3 video game that shows something comparable.

Sorry can't think of any, maybe because it can't handle such things and that even the games like UC2 and KZ2 which are constantly brought up are small games with lots of limitations.

1. it is still a demonstration of physics and mass calculation.Your point? you still have lost alot of credability when you claimed crysis used physx and then claimed you knew what you were talking about.

2. Ummm no......I have some of his mods and they run just fine. Thats nice that you can download the particle chaos mod, but considering that Xigmatek himself says on his videos that he slows the timescale down to give his 3.7ghz quad core more time to calculate its physics and that 250,000 particle video you showed was running @15fps on that 3.7ghz quad core.

3. I can run mafia 2 on high physx just fine on an amd athlon x2 5200+, I just removed the NPC clothes phsyx. It still shows vito's clothes in high phyxs and destructible environments too. Erm, yeah point 1 is see the part is selected. And i still greatly doubt that a 5200+ could handle modded physx fine on a 5200+, why dont you do a little backing that statement up, yeah?

4. Sure it may be good at encoding h .x264 videos but when it comes to games it has yet to be seen at all so it is useless. I used h.x264 encoding as an example of how the cell can do paralell processing well. As i already explain, the cell can work in physics calculations the same way as a graphics card which is indisputably better than a traditional CPU at physics processing.

RyviusRan

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

1. it is still a demonstration of physics and mass calculation.Your point? you still have lost alot of credability when you claimed crysis used physx and then claimed you knew what you were talking about.

2. Ummm no......I have some of his mods and they run just fine. Thats nice that you can download the particle chaos mod, but considering that Xigmatek himself says on his videos that he slows the timescale down to give his 3.7ghz quad core more time to calculate its physics and that 250,000 particle video you showed was running @15fps on that 3.7ghz quad core.

3. I can run mafia 2 on high physx just fine on an amd athlon x2 5200+, I just removed the NPC clothes phsyx. It still shows vito's clothes in high phyxs and destructible environments too. Erm, yeah point 1 is see the part is selected. And i still greatly doubt that a 5200+ could handle modded physx fine on a 5200+, why dont you do a little backing that statement up, yeah?

4. Sure it may be good at encoding h .x264 videos but when it comes to games it has yet to be seen at all so it is useless. I used h.x264 encoding as an example of how the cell can do paralell processing well. As i already explain, the cell can work in physics calculations the same way as a graphics card which is indisputably better than a traditional CPU at physics processing.

ferret-gamer

1. Sorry I misused it. I meant Physics and calculations. The credibility is not lost.

2. Still he has no comparison vidz I use the extreme particle mod which will run fine with a cpu like that.

3. It does run fine. Can't record video with FRAPS as that lowers performance. Maybe I will record with my camera although I don't see the point as it won't change your mind about anything.

4. It still has no direct comparison of it's power.

3. It does run fine. Can't record video with FRAPS as that lowers performance. Maybe I will record with my camera although I don't see the point as it won't change your mind about anything.

RyviusRan

Some people have different comprehensions of "runs fine" i know someone who thinks 10fps is smooth. A 5200+ will not run even tweaked mafia 2 physx on high over 30fps consistently on max settings. It wont run it over 30fps consistently even without physx enabled. Look i dont get why you are even trying to argue that, get back to reality. I used a e4600@2.8ghz with a GTX 280 on mafia 2 without physx, it dropped under 30fps quite alot. an e4600@2.8ghz is easily more powerful than a 5200+.

Stop, dude just stop.

Look, let's all be reasonable here. We all know that Sony developed the PS3 around the Cell (actually two of them) and that there were no plans to include a proper GPU. This solution is and was the biggest mistake Sony has ever made since they got into this business.

If Sony would have made their homework before planning the PS3 (like they should have) they would have known that the solution of making a hybrid all mighty CPU/GPU combo processor is not a good idea. Intel had their Larabee project that got canned and that thing had 16 cores. It sounded good on paper but compared to a dedicated GPU it fell very short (comparable to a Geforce 6600).

No, no and no. Todays GPUs have many hundreds (I believe the 480 GTX has 480 of them) of cores designed to render graphics. It has been proven since so many years ago that the best solution is a good dedicated CPU and GPU working together. If Sony would have carried out with their original plan with two cell processors, it would have meant the end for the Playstation brand, seriously.

The cell is a half assed CPU and a half assed GPU.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Right... because every PS3 exclusive has incredible physics and AI. :roll: A mid end dual core can out perform the Cell processor when it comes to gaming. Hell, and E8400 would eat it alive. And ironically, the only thing the cell is good as, is some number crunching, which is pretty much a Office suite. :lol:

WhenCicadasCry

When a dual core is running Crysis completely maxed out, with physics far superior to any PS3 game.

Which Dual Core and what kind of gfx card would you be using? Because my rig can't max Crysis at decent framerates. I have to do a few tricks to get max'ish gfx at 25+ fps (as in never below 25).

And I agree that Sony probably would'nt have faced so many problems this gen, had they gone with a more traditional design and had focused on beefing the specs instead.

A nice quad core, a beafier gfx card and 1 Gb of RAM had most likely pleased devs a lot :) Especially the memory is an astounding lack of foresight from both MS and Sony if you ask me.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] and what exactly is that mid-end dual core outperforming the cell at when it comes to this basic term you refer to as "gaming"Filthybastrd

When a dual core is running Crysis completely maxed out, with physics far superior to any PS3 game.

Which Dual Core and what kind of gfx card would you be using? Because my rig can't max Crysis at decent framerates. I have to do a few tricks to get max'ish gfx at 25+ fps (as in never below 25).

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

When a dual core is running Crysis completely maxed out, with physics far superior to any PS3 game.

ferret-gamer

Which Dual Core and what kind of gfx card would you be using? Because my rig can't max Crysis at decent framerates. I have to do a few tricks to get max'ish gfx at 25+ fps (as in never below 25).

Certainly not at 1680*1050 or 1920*1080.... You're looking at at least 470, high end 5xxx or SLI/CF if you want to go there.

A super processor is more like a congregation of multiple processors, utilizing much of their actual power. The Cell, does neither of these.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Which Dual Core and what kind of gfx card would you be using? Because my rig can't max Crysis at decent framerates. I have to do a few tricks to get max'ish gfx at 25+ fps (as in never below 25).

Filthybastrd

Certainly not at 1680*1050 or 1920*1080.... You're looking at at least 470, high end 5xxx or SLI/CF if you want to go there.

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

3. It does run fine. Can't record video with FRAPS as that lowers performance. Maybe I will record with my camera although I don't see the point as it won't change your mind about anything.

ferret-gamer

Some people have different comprehensions of "runs fine" i know someone who thinks 10fps is smooth. A 5200+ will not run even tweaked mafia 2 physx on high over 30fps consistently on max settings. It wont run it over 30fps consistently even without physx enabled. Look i dont get why you are even trying to argue that, get back to reality. I used a e4600@2.8ghz with a GTX 280 on mafia 2 without physx, it dropped under 30fps quite alot. an e4600@2.8ghz is easily more powerful than a 5200+.

Stop, dude just stop.

You must have some finicky hardware then.

Works fine on mine so I don't care about you experience.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Which Dual Core and what kind of gfx card would you be using? Because my rig can't max Crysis at decent framerates. I have to do a few tricks to get max'ish gfx at 25+ fps (as in never below 25).

Filthybastrd

Certainly not at 1680*1050 or 1920*1080.... You're looking at at least 470, high end 5xxx or SLI/CF if you want to go there.

I ran Crysis fine at 1680x1050 with a CCC config that was the setting below ultra high which made it look like very high settings but run better.

This was done on an 8800gt and a amd athlon x2.

Crysis is not really cpu intensive as it is gpu.

I had a friend with a super weak amd cpu that was 2.01ghz dual core and a gtx 260 and she ran it smoothly at very high 1680x1050.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] probably at a lower framerate like 1280x1024.RyviusRan

Certainly not at 1680*1050 or 1920*1080.... You're looking at at least 470, high end 5xxx or SLI/CF if you want to go there.

I ran Crysis fine at 1680x1050 with a CCC config that was the setting below ultra high which made it look like very high settings but run better.

This was done on an 8800gt and a amd athlon x2.

Crysis is not really cpu intensive as it is gpu.

I had a friend with a super weak amd cpu that was 2.01ghz dual core and a gtx 260 and she ran it smoothly at very high 1680x1050.

Granted, I run Crysis with HD FOliage Mod, Rygel's Texture Pack and CCC level 5 at 1680*1050, 16xAA, or 1920*1080, 2xAA but the game does fluctuate between 25-50 fps with those settings.

Go to the console and type R_displayinfo=1 and you'll see the actual fps.

This is how the rig in my sig performs..... My GTX285 was very similar but slightly worse (even though the benchmarks I've seen claim the opposite).

Edit: I assume you were doing the dx9 tweaks then?

and foliage for good measure :P

FPS can be seen in the top right corner of the picture.

I played in directx 10.

I played in directx 10.

RyviusRan

Thanks. I'm pleased to see that my GTX460 does actually have an advantage over the 8800's:P

Also, Crysis has insane gfx memory imprints! I've seen it use over 1400 Mb :shock:

http://s852.photobucket.com/home/RyviusRan6/recentuploads?page=5 Um I think Ryvius does infact know what he's talking about. He plays Vindictus on PC.ocstew

It's Mabinogi Heroes (Korean Version)......not sure if you are just joking and making it out to be an insult.

Also I have around 12 PhotoBucket accounts as bandwidth is easily used up lol!

Kind of creepy that you are checking all my previous screenshots.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]http://s852.photobucket.com/home/RyviusRan6/recentuploads?page=5 Um I think Ryvius does infact know what he's talking about. He plays Vindictus on PC.RyviusRan

It's Mabinogi Heroes (Korean Version)......not sure if you are just joking and making it out to be an insult.

Also I have around 12 PhotoBucket accounts as bandwidth is easily used up lol!

Kind of creepy that you are checking all my previous screenshots.

By the way... If you still play Crysis, get HD Foliage Mod.

It does'nt hit the fps very hard and it becomes a little prettier :)

Works with CCC as well.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]http://s852.photobucket.com/home/RyviusRan6/recentuploads?page=5 Um I think Ryvius does infact know what he's talking about. He plays Vindictus on PC.RyviusRan

It's Mabinogi Heroes (Korean Version)......not sure if you are just joking and making it out to be an insult.

Also I have around 12 PhotoBucket accounts as bandwidth is easily used up lol!

Kind of creepy that you are checking all my previous screenshots.

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"]http://s852.photobucket.com/home/RyviusRan6/recentuploads?page=5 Um I think Ryvius does infact know what he's talking about. He plays Vindictus on PC.Filthybastrd

It's Mabinogi Heroes (Korean Version)......not sure if you are just joking and making it out to be an insult.

Also I have around 12 PhotoBucket accounts as bandwidth is easily used up lol!

Kind of creepy that you are checking all my previous screenshots.

By the way... If you still play Crysis, get HD Foliage Mod.

It does'nt hit the fps very hard and it becomes a little prettier :)

Works with CCC as well.

Wow you may have given me another reason to install Crysis.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

1. it is still a demonstration of physics and mass calculation.Your point? you still have lost alot of credability when you claimed crysis used physx and then claimed you knew what you were talking about.

2. Ummm no......I have some of his mods and they run just fine. Thats nice that you can download the particle chaos mod, but considering that Xigmatek himself says on his videos that he slows the timescale down to give his 3.7ghz quad core more time to calculate its physics and that 250,000 particle video you showed was running @15fps on that 3.7ghz quad core.

3. I can run mafia 2 on high physx just fine on an amd athlon x2 5200+, I just removed the NPC clothes phsyx. It still shows vito's clothes in high phyxs and destructible environments too. Erm, yeah point 1 is see the part is selected. And i still greatly doubt that a 5200+ could handle modded physx fine on a 5200+, why dont you do a little backing that statement up, yeah?

4. Sure it may be good at encoding h .x264 videos but when it comes to games it has yet to be seen at all so it is useless. I used h.x264 encoding as an example of how the cell can do paralell processing well. As i already explain, the cell can work in physics calculations the same way as a graphics card which is indisputably better than a traditional CPU at physics processing.

RyviusRan

1. Sorry I misused it. I meant Physics and calculations. The credibility is not lost.

2. Still he has no comparison vidz I use the extreme particle mod which will run fine with a cpu like that.

3. It does run fine. Can't record video with FRAPS as that lowers performance. Maybe I will record with my camera although I don't see the point as it won't change your mind about anything.

4. It still has no direct comparison of it's power.

of course i have no comparison

all youre doing are showing CUSTOM SETTINGS comparisons that happen to be set by the user, you might as well ask me to show you some game with 3000 stacked barrels to play with

yeah, just let me set up that 3000 barrel comparison in uncharted 2, and let me set up that 1700 ai that cant do anything other than kill itself in the first minute in uncharted 2 also

show me a developer that felt like included a bald guy thats fighting enemies on a titan half a mile tall that can climb mountains on your pc and ill show you the imaginary comparison that you expect me to pull out of thin air because apparently i can just pull random settings out of games on my ps3

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

i_am_interested

1. Sorry I misused it. I meant Physics and calculations. The credibility is not lost.

2. Still he has no comparison vidz I use the extreme particle mod which will run fine with a cpu like that.

3. It does run fine. Can't record video with FRAPS as that lowers performance. Maybe I will record with my camera although I don't see the point as it won't change your mind about anything.

4. It still has no direct comparison of it's power.

of course i have no comparison

all youre doing are showing CUSTOM SETTINGS comparisons that happen to be set by the user, you might as well ask me to show you some game with 3000 stacked barrels to play with

yeah, just let me set up that 3000 barrel comparison in uncharted 2, and let me set up that 1700 ai that cant do anything other than kill itself in the first minute in uncharted 2 also

show me a developer that felt like included a bald guy thats fighting enemies on a titan half a mile tall that can climb mountains on your pc and ill show you the imaginary comparison that you expect me to pull out of thin air because apparently i can just pull random settings out of games on my ps3

The titan wasn't amazing and had low res textures.

The PS3 has no chance of handling 1700+ (unscripted) AI or 3000 stacked barrels falling or exploding this is a fact.

Even a low end PC today could easily handle anything God of War 3 had.

Do they use it in the LHC? (large Hadron Collider)

Is it really more powerful than the latest PC processor (including i7)

I heard the cell outperform other processors? (in game?)

If so, when will it be commercialized as PC processor?

It's IBM, is it not? IBM started PC last I remembered.

Someone tell me how much powerful the cell is than a regular processor and why PS3 is cheaper than a latest gaming PC if the cell is so powerful?

Ravenchrome

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

1. Sorry I misused it. I meant Physics and calculations. The credibility is not lost.

2. Still he has no comparison vidz I use the extreme particle mod which will run fine with a cpu like that.

3. It does run fine. Can't record video with FRAPS as that lowers performance. Maybe I will record with my camera although I don't see the point as it won't change your mind about anything.

4. It still has no direct comparison of it's power.

RyviusRan

of course i have no comparison

all youre doing are showing CUSTOM SETTINGS comparisons that happen to be set by the user, you might as well ask me to show you some game with 3000 stacked barrels to play with

yeah, just let me set up that 3000 barrel comparison in uncharted 2, and let me set up that 1700 ai that cant do anything other than kill itself in the first minute in uncharted 2 also

show me a developer that felt like included a bald guy thats fighting enemies on a titan half a mile tall that can climb mountains on your pc and ill show you the imaginary comparison that you expect me to pull out of thin air because apparently i can just pull random settings out of games on my ps3

The titan wasn't amazing and had low res textures.

The PS3 has no chance of handling 1700+ (unscripted) AI or 3000 stacked barrels falling or exploding this is a fact.

Even a low end PC today could easily handle anything God of War 3 had.

no its not fact, your only argument is "show it to me otherwise its not possible" which is a pretty stupid argument to begin with

i can come up with stupid arguments too - show me gameplay on a moving half mile tall character on your pc - otherwise it has "no chance of handling it"

how typical of you to talk about its textures, how about talking about having to animate a character like that, heres another stupid argument like yours - show me a half mile tall character being animated to climb a mountain on your pc with characters fighting on it otherwise "it has no chance of handling it"

show it to me othwerwise "it has no chance of handling it" - that seems to be your only argument, a stupid one, so let me use it too

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

of course i have no comparison

all youre doing are showing CUSTOM SETTINGS comparisons that happen to be set by the user, you might as well ask me to show you some game with 3000 stacked barrels to play with

yeah, just let me set up that 3000 barrel comparison in uncharted 2, and let me set up that 1700 ai that cant do anything other than kill itself in the first minute in uncharted 2 also

show me a developer that felt like included a bald guy thats fighting enemies on a titan half a mile tall that can climb mountains on your pc and ill show you the imaginary comparison that you expect me to pull out of thin air because apparently i can just pull random settings out of games on my ps3

i_am_interested

The titan wasn't amazing and had low res textures.

The PS3 has no chance of handling 1700+ (unscripted) AI or 3000 stacked barrels falling or exploding this is a fact.

Even a low end PC today could easily handle anything God of War 3 had.

no its not fact, your only argument is "show it to me otherwise its not possible" which is a pretty stupid argument to begin with

i can come up with stupid arguments too - show me gameplay on a moving half mile tall character on your pc - otherwise it has "no chance of handling it"

how typical of you to talk about its textures, how about talking about having to animate a character like that, heres another stupid argument like yours - show me a half mile tall character being animated to climb a mountain on your pc with characters fighting on it otherwise "it has no chance of handling it"

show it to me othwerwise "it has no chance of handling it" - that seems to be your only argument, a stupid one, so let me use it too

zzz you are really ignorant......there are many reasons a PS3 cannot handle it.

One is that the PS3 has too low of RAM another is the GPU is far too weak.

Anyone with knowledge of draw distance, LOD, texture res, unscripted AI and other things will know this.

Show me a PS3 game with a 10km draw distance.

You won't be able to because the PS3 cannot handle such things.

WOAH WOAH WOAH

why are you bringing up ram and gpus along with rendering in this thread?

the title says cell processor and the topic and its arguments are in regards to CPUs, stick to the topic

of course i cant show it to you, just like you cant show me the animated half mile tall character climbing

WOAH WOAH WOAH

why are you bringing up ram and gpus along with rendering in this thread?

the title says cell processor and the topic and its arguments are in regards to CPUs, stick to the topic

of course i cant show it to you, just like you cant show me the animated half mile tall character climbing

i_am_interested

I could show the stone giant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTBB94ewUmo

also you have no clue what you are talking about if you think the god of war 3 is anything surprising just because it can have a giant....

I fought a giant in Painkiller and that game is from last gen.

Size doesn't really matter.

The Wii game Xeno Blade had giants the size of continents.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

WOAH WOAH WOAH

why are you bringing up ram and gpus along with rendering in this thread?

the title says cell processor and the topic and its arguments are in regards to CPUs, stick to the topic

of course i cant show it to you, just like you cant show me the animated half mile tall character climbing

RyviusRan

I could show the stone giant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTBB94ewUmo

also you have no clue what you are talking about if you think the god of war 3 is anything surprising just because it can have a giant....

I fought a giant in Painkiller and that game is from last gen.

Size doesn't really matter.

The Wii game Xeno Blade had giants the size of continents.

the point isnt the giant, the point is that no one on pc has made a game that displays such a half mile tall character climing a mountain, a topic of game design

just like no one has has made a game on ps3 that lets users fool around with 3000 barrels

neither one of us can show what the others asking for

anyways, i had asked you to stick to the topic but its obvious that like others in this thread, you dont understand the difference between a gpu and a cpu in regards to their "roles" (or lack of) when it comes to the rendering process...

like i said, the topics about CPUs so i dont see the importance of you touting rendering benchmarks set by a gpu

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

WOAH WOAH WOAH

why are you bringing up ram and gpus along with rendering in this thread?

the title says cell processor and the topic and its arguments are in regards to CPUs, stick to the topic

of course i cant show it to you, just like you cant show me the animated half mile tall character climbing

i_am_interested

I could show the stone giant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTBB94ewUmo

also you have no clue what you are talking about if you think the god of war 3 is anything surprising just because it can have a giant....

I fought a giant in Painkiller and that game is from last gen.

Size doesn't really matter.

The Wii game Xeno Blade had giants the size of continents.

the point isnt the giant, the point is that no one on pc has made a game that displays such a half mile tall character climing a mountain, a topic of game design

just like no one has has made a game on ps3 that lets users fool around with 3000 barrels

neither one of us can show what the others asking for

anyways, i had asked you to stick to the topic but its obvious that like others in this thread, you dont understand the difference between a gpu and a cpu in regards to their "roles" (or lack of) when it comes to the rendering process...

like i said, the topics about CPUs so i dont see the importance of you touting rendering benchmarks set by a gpu

God Of War 1 had you traversing Kronos... :| Crysis has an exploding mountain, revealing a buried derelict alien organization. That doesn't make it anything special when discussion CPUs. :?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

3. It does run fine. Can't record video with FRAPS as that lowers performance. Maybe I will record with my camera although I don't see the point as it won't change your mind about anything.

RyviusRan

Some people have different comprehensions of "runs fine" i know someone who thinks 10fps is smooth. A 5200+ will not run even tweaked mafia 2 physx on high over 30fps consistently on max settings. It wont run it over 30fps consistently even without physx enabled. Look i dont get why you are even trying to argue that, get back to reality. I used a e4600@2.8ghz with a GTX 280 on mafia 2 without physx, it dropped under 30fps quite alot. an e4600@2.8ghz is easily more powerful than a 5200+.

Stop, dude just stop.

You must have some finicky hardware then.

Works fine on mine so I don't care about you experience.

The ignoranceon this forum is amazing. For general purpose CPU functions no the Cell is not as powerful as current processors. For the purpose of running games an actually assiting the GPU in visual rendering its far ahead of any processor of its time.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

I could show the stone giant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTBB94ewUmo

also you have no clue what you are talking about if you think the god of war 3 is anything surprising just because it can have a giant....

I fought a giant in Painkiller and that game is from last gen.

Size doesn't really matter.

The Wii game Xeno Blade had giants the size of continents.

WhenCicadasCry

the point isnt the giant, the point is that no one on pc has made a game that displays such a half mile tall character climing a mountain, a topic of game design

just like no one has has made a game on ps3 that lets users fool around with 3000 barrels

neither one of us can show what the others asking for

anyways, i had asked you to stick to the topic but its obvious that like others in this thread, you dont understand the difference between a gpu and a cpu in regards to their "roles" (or lack of) when it comes to the rendering process...

like i said, the topics about CPUs so i dont see the importance of you touting rendering benchmarks set by a gpu

God Of War 1 had you traversing Kronos... :| Crysis has an exploding mountain, revealing a buried derelict alien organization. That doesn't make it anything special when discussion CPUs. :?

Are you serious? Kronos in GOW1 was a set peace that barely moved. The cell aids the processor in rendering actual geometry , it also does 4xMSAA taking that burden off the GPU and handles all the animations. As I said for gaming purpopes the cell is great given its architecture.

the PS3 running linux is stomped by regular PCs. the CELL is only suited for certain types of processing.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

The titan wasn't amazing and had low res textures.

The PS3 has no chance of handling 1700+ (unscripted) AI or 3000 stacked barrels falling or exploding this is a fact.

Even a low end PC today could easily handle anything God of War 3 had.

RyviusRan

no its not fact, your only argument is "show it to me otherwise its not possible" which is a pretty stupid argument to begin with

i can come up with stupid arguments too - show me gameplay on a moving half mile tall character on your pc - otherwise it has "no chance of handling it"

how typical of you to talk about its textures, how about talking about having to animate a character like that, heres another stupid argument like yours - show me a half mile tall character being animated to climb a mountain on your pc with characters fighting on it otherwise "it has no chance of handling it"

show it to me othwerwise "it has no chance of handling it" - that seems to be your only argument, a stupid one, so let me use it too

zzz you are really ignorant......there are many reasons a PS3 cannot handle it.

One is that the PS3 has too low of RAM another is the GPU is far too weak.

Anyone with knowledge of draw distance, LOD, texture res, unscripted AI and other things will know this.

Show me a PS3 game with a 10km draw distance.

You won't be able to because the PS3 cannot handle such things.

You tried RDR or AC2? You are clueless not to mention the textures in that photo are a blurry mess.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

the point isnt the giant, the point is that no one on pc has made a game that displays such a half mile tall character climing a mountain, a topic of game design

just like no one has has made a game on ps3 that lets users fool around with 3000 barrels

neither one of us can show what the others asking for

anyways, i had asked you to stick to the topic but its obvious that like others in this thread, you dont understand the difference between a gpu and a cpu in regards to their "roles" (or lack of) when it comes to the rendering process...

like i said, the topics about CPUs so i dont see the importance of you touting rendering benchmarks set by a gpu

TheSterls

God Of War 1 had you traversing Kronos... :| Crysis has an exploding mountain, revealing a buried derelict alien organization. That doesn't make it anything special when discussion CPUs. :?

Are you serious? Kronos in GOW1 was a set peace that barely moved. The cell aids the processor in rendering actual geometry , it also does 4xMSAA taking that burden off the GPU and handles all the animations. As I said for gaming purpopes the cell is great given its architecture.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

the point isnt the giant, the point is that no one on pc has made a game that displays such a half mile tall character climing a mountain, a topic of game design

just like no one has has made a game on ps3 that lets users fool around with 3000 barrels

neither one of us can show what the others asking for

anyways, i had asked you to stick to the topic but its obvious that like others in this thread, you dont understand the difference between a gpu and a cpu in regards to their "roles" (or lack of) when it comes to the rendering process...

like i said, the topics about CPUs so i dont see the importance of you touting rendering benchmarks set by a gpu

TheSterls

God Of War 1 had you traversing Kronos... :| Crysis has an exploding mountain, revealing a buried derelict alien organization. That doesn't make it anything special when discussion CPUs. :?

Are you serious? Kronos in GOW1 was a set peace that barely moved. The cell aids the processor in rendering actual geometry , it also does 4xMSAA taking that burden off the GPU and handles all the animations. As I said for gaming purpopes the cell is great given its architecture.

It's been stated before how simple the procedure is to have those moveable levels. Shadow Of The Collosus had you traversing huge monsters. Remember the last battle? :roll: Design choice =/= Represents CPU power.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

God Of War 1 had you traversing Kronos... :| Crysis has an exploding mountain, revealing a buried derelict alien organization. That doesn't make it anything special when discussion CPUs. :?

WhenCicadasCry

Are you serious? Kronos in GOW1 was a set peace that barely moved. The cell aids the processor in rendering actual geometry , it also does 4xMSAA taking that burden off the GPU and handles all the animations. As I said for gaming purpopes the cell is great given its architecture.

It's been stated before how simple the procedure is to have those moveable levels. Shadow Of The Collosus had you traversing huge monsters. Remember the last battle? :roll: Design choice =/= Represents CPU power.

Its not the fact its a moving levlel that matters. Its the fact that the quality of those levels and visuals in general are so high.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

God Of War 1 had you traversing Kronos... :| Crysis has an exploding mountain, revealing a buried derelict alien organization. That doesn't make it anything special when discussion CPUs. :?

ferret-gamer

Are you serious? Kronos in GOW1 was a set peace that barely moved. The cell aids the processor in rendering actual geometry , it also does 4xMSAA taking that burden off the GPU and handles all the animations. As I said for gaming purpopes the cell is great given its architecture.

http://www.highdefforum.com/gaming-systems/107094-mlaa-technique-can-give-results-4x-better-than-16x-msaa.html

Oh im sorry it did MLAA wich is better then MSAAwhich proves my point even futher for what the cell is designed to do it works great. I dont think a 7800gtx and a pc with a standard processor would be giving the effect of 16xMSAA on the pc.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Are you serious? Kronos in GOW1 was a set peace that barely moved. The cell aids the processor in rendering actual geometry , it also does 4xMSAA taking that burden off the GPU and handles all the animations. As I said for gaming purpopes the cell is great given its architecture.

TheSterls

http://www.highdefforum.com/gaming-systems/107094-mlaa-technique-can-give-results-4x-better-than-16x-msaa.html

Oh im sorry it did MLAA wich is better then MSAAwhich proves my point even futher for what the cell is designed to do it works great. I dont think a 7800gtx and a pc with a standard processor would be giving the effect of 16xMSAA on the pc.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] the cell didnt do msaa in GoW it did MLAA, and it had to dedicate 5spus for it too.

ferret-gamer

http://www.highdefforum.com/gaming-systems/107094-mlaa-technique-can-give-results-4x-better-than-16x-msaa.html

Oh im sorry it did MLAA wich is better then MSAAwhich proves my point even futher for what the cell is designed to do it works great. I dont think a 7800gtx and a pc with a standard processor would be giving the effect of 16xMSAA on the pc.

It may not be as good for traditonal pc architectures but for the PS3 ts fine. GOW3 used this very technique and it worked great .

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Are you serious? Kronos in GOW1 was a set peace that barely moved. The cell aids the processor in rendering actual geometry , it also does 4xMSAA taking that burden off the GPU and handles all the animations. As I said for gaming purpopes the cell is great given its architecture.

TheSterls

http://www.highdefforum.com/gaming-systems/107094-mlaa-technique-can-give-results-4x-better-than-16x-msaa.html

Oh im sorry it did MLAA wich is better then MSAAwhich proves my point even futher for what the cell is designed to do it works great. I dont think a 7800gtx and a pc with a standard processor would be giving the effect of 16xMSAA on the pc.

MLAA is not better than MSAA, MLAA you must design a game with it in mind, thus limiting many factors. Also, the xbox360 only does 4xAA. With the upscale technology that ps3 does, many of that MLAA is lost in translation.

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

Some people have different comprehensions of "runs fine" i know someone who thinks 10fps is smooth. A 5200+ will not run even tweaked mafia 2 physx on high over 30fps consistently on max settings. It wont run it over 30fps consistently even without physx enabled. Look i dont get why you are even trying to argue that, get back to reality. I used a e4600@2.8ghz with a GTX 280 on mafia 2 without physx, it dropped under 30fps quite alot. an e4600@2.8ghz is easily more powerful than a 5200+.

Stop, dude just stop.

ferret-gamer

You must have some finicky hardware then.

Works fine on mine so I don't care about you experience.

And what will you do if I prove it to you?

I don't know if I want to waste my time setting my camera up to record a video then edit and compress the video then upload it to youtube.

It all takes time.

And Whenever I take my time to do stuff like that people don't really care and it just ends up with me wasting my time.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

You must have some finicky hardware then.

Works fine on mine so I don't care about you experience.

RyviusRan

And what will you do if I prove it to you?

I don't know if I want to waste my time setting my camera up to record a video then edit and compress the video then upload it to youtube.

It all takes time.

And Whenever I take my time to do stuff like that people don't really care and it just ends up with me wasting my time.

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Yeah, you know im still waiting for you to actually back up your claim. ferret-gamer

And what will you do if I prove it to you?

I don't know if I want to waste my time setting my camera up to record a video then edit and compress the video then upload it to youtube.

It all takes time.

And Whenever I take my time to do stuff like that people don't really care and it just ends up with me wasting my time.

Takes longer than you think since I would have to either reinstall the game or redownload the demo when my download speed is only 350 KB/s.

Also uploading to youtube can take a while.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

And what will you do if I prove it to you?

I don't know if I want to waste my time setting my camera up to record a video then edit and compress the video then upload it to youtube.

It all takes time.

And Whenever I take my time to do stuff like that people don't really care and it just ends up with me wasting my time.

RyviusRan

Takes longer than you think since I would have to either reinstall the game or redownload the demo when my download speed is only 350 KB/s.

Also uploading to youtube can take a while.

My AMD Phenom II x4 would run circles around the Cell. It is the most powerful of current consoles but not current PC's.djsifer01

Take a look at this then.... Here

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] So in other words you cant. it takes about 5 minutes, get camera record gameplay with fraps to show framerate, transfer to computer, put on youtube cameras already compress their footage, i dont need any fancy editing. And make sure that the Physx is running on the 5200+ NOT the 8800gt.ferret-gamer

Takes longer than you think since I would have to either reinstall the game or redownload the demo when my download speed is only 350 KB/s.

Also uploading to youtube can take a while.

Fine I will resinstall the demo and show you.

Just wait a few hours for everything to be done. And I will post a link