Teh Cell. Might be old but heck, i just read it today...

"Cell is a revolution, a completely new microprocessor architecture which, while it may take some time to get used to, promises a vast performance boost over today's systems.  GPUs can already run 10 times faster than desktop CPUs, Cell will not only bring similar performance but will do so for more applications andit'll be easier to program.

Being produced in large volumes also means the Cell will be cheap.  They will likely see wide spread not just in living rooms but but in the realm of industry and science as well.  The embedded world is much, much larger than the PC world and often imposes stringent constraints on the components used, the same sort of constraints the Cell has been designed for."

Source:

AlmighyIstilldontUnderstand****

thoughts?

^bolded statements^

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

It's a failure, give it up. Just like blu-ray just like the PS3.

"Cell is a revolution, a completely new microprocessor architecture which, while it may take some time to get used to, promises a vast performance boost over today's systems.  GPUs can already run 10 times faster than desktop CPUs, Cell will not only bring similar performance but will do so for more applications andit'll be easier to program.

Being produced in large volumes also means the Cell will be cheap.  They will likely see wide spread not just in living rooms but but in the realm of industry and science as well.  The embedded world is much, much larger than the PC world and often imposes stringent constraints on the components used, the same sort of constraints the Cell has been designed for."

Source:

AlmighyIstilldontUnderstand****

thoughts?

^bolded statements^

It's a failure, give it up. Just like blu-ray just like the PS3.

 

CreepyBacon

your fanboyism has really clouded your reading comprehension.

as i am not proud of these sources, since they were too positive, and yet we ps3 owners are aware of the points this source has pointed out, and still found them unjustified.

 your thoughts are enough, i'm not even ranting about anything. 

[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]

It's a failure, give it up. Just like blu-ray just like the PS3.

 

rs0101

damn, i'm really not into reading unbacked-up claims, that dont justify anything.

It's a failure, give it up. Just like blu-ray just like the PS3.

damn, i'm really not into reading unbacked-up claims, that dont justify anything.

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

Verge_6

It's a failure, give it up. Just like blu-ray just like the PS3.

 

CreepyBacon

Cell does not seem like something that would appreciate a low memory environment, it was stupid to put it into a system were it would be fighting for resources. PS3 has the same memory capacity as 360, when you have pushed PS3 to its limit without Cell; where is Cell supposed to get the resources for additional computation? Everything requires memory on some level, you cannot store calculations in the air.AnnoyedDragon

but somehow they did store calculations in the air..... how can something like KZ2 be achieved? 

but somehow they did store calculations in the air..... how can something like KZ2 be achieved? 

Bauer_24

The same way MGS4 was achieved, they made sacrifices somewhere to free up the required memory. What those sacrifices are I cannot attempt to guess until I see the game in action, which is unlikely seeing how I have no intention of picking it up and the genre doesn't interest my brother. In MGS4's case the frequent loading screens tell me they sacrificed level size to free up memory.

The thing is if they are only going to use Cell for visual effects, they might as well of just had a better GPU and avoided all these Cell development difficulties.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

Eyezonmii

[QUOTE="Bauer_24"]

but somehow they did store calculations in the air..... how can something like KZ2 be achieved? 

AnnoyedDragon

The same way MGS4 was achieved, they made sacrifices somewhere to free up the required memory. What those sacrifices are I cannot attempt to guess until I see the game in action, which is unlikely seeing how I have no intention of picking it up and the genre doesn't interest my brother. In MGS4's case the frequent loading screens tell me they sacrificed level size to free up memory.

The thing is if they are only going to use Cell for visual effects, they might as well of just had a better GPU and avoided all these Cell development difficulties.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

Eyezonmii

There wasn't a significantly better GPU available at the time. Using the Cell gives the developers the flexibility to choose how they want to use their computing budget. Developers can use the Cell for more visual effects (e.g. K2) or to build a more interactive game world with particles and physics (e.g. LBP).skektek

I think developers would have preferred ease of development to flexibility, easier development can actually lead to flexibility because you have more time and resources to dedicate. As it stands Cell requires so much effort to get the basics right there isn't room for flexibility for most developers, even Carmack struggles with the thing. In the time it took for PS3 to get Killzone 2 360 has had two GOW games, that isn't good.

I stand by what I said, if they are mostly going to use it for visuals anyway they would have been better off with a better GPU than Cell. PS3 could have easily got a normal CPU out at the time in place of Cell just like 360.

[QUOTE="skektek"]There wasn't a significantly better GPU available at the time. Using the Cell gives the developers the flexibility to choose how they want to use their computing budget. Developers can use the Cell for more visual effects (e.g. K2) or to build a more interactive game world with particles and physics (e.g. LBP).AnnoyedDragon

I think developers would have preferred ease of development to flexibility, easier development can actually lead to flexibility because you have more time and resources to dedicate. As it stands Cell requires so much effort to get the basics right there isn't room for flexibility for most developers, even Carmack struggles with the thing. In the time it took for PS3 to get Killzone 2 360 has had two GOW games, that isn't good.

I stand by what I said, if they are mostly going to use it for visuals anyway they would have been better off with a better GPU than Cell. PS3 could have easily got a normal CPU out at the time in place of Cell just like 360.

i wouldnt have any reason to come to system wars if it came to that. :P

[QUOTE="skektek"]There wasn't a significantly better GPU available at the time. Using the Cell gives the developers the flexibility to choose how they want to use their computing budget. Developers can use the Cell for more visual effects (e.g. K2) or to build a more interactive game world with particles and physics (e.g. LBP).AnnoyedDragon

I think developers would have preferred ease of development to flexibility, easier development can actually lead to flexibility because you have more time and resources to dedicate. As it stands Cell requires so much effort to get the basics right there isn't room for flexibility for most developers, even Carmack struggles with the thing. In the time it took for PS3 to get Killzone 2 360 has had two GOW games, that isn't good.

I stand by what I said, if they are mostly going to use it for visuals anyway they would have been better off with a better GPU than Cell. PS3 could have easily got a normal CPU out at the time in place of Cell just like 360.

1. Again, there wasn't a better GPU at the time. 2. Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Kojima Productions, Evolution Studios, etc have all produced amazing games on the Cell. I don't think it is quite as hard to "get the basics right" as you seem to think. Certainly not as hard after they have transcended the learning curve. 3. In the same time it has taken to produce K2 we have had R1, R2, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, R&CF:TOD etc. There is no indication that the length of time it is taking to develop K2 is related to the supposed difficulty of working with the Cell. In fact K2 has been playable in one form or another for a while now. skektek

you keep saying there wasn't a better gpu at the time...maybe your saying it so much to convince your self its been proven time and time again the 360's gpu trumps the ps3's so how did a system released a year earlier get a better gpu? sorry to say but there were gpu's better then the ps3's at the time and in the works at the time, not only that sony could have just had Nvidia make a unique gpu for the ps3 like microsoft had ATI make a unique one for the 360.

 All the companies you mentioned are either 1st party or 2nd party thus receiveing the most funding and Q&A,R&A support directly from sony this might be the key to why their games came out so good.

1. Again, there wasn't a better GPU at the time. 2. Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Kojima Productions, Evolution Studios, etc have all produced amazing games on the Cell. I don't think it is quite as hard to "get the basics right" as you seem to think. Certainly not as hard after they have transcended the learning curve. 3. In the same time it has taken to produce K2 we have had R1, R2, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, R&CF:TOD etc. There is no indication that the length of time it is taking to develop K2 is related to the supposed difficulty of working with the Cell. In fact K2 has been playable in one form or another for a while now. skektek

Sounds like a load of damage control to me, the games you listed are not high utilization so it isn't surprising they didn't take as long. Games that aim to push the hardware on the other hand like KZ2, MGS4 and FF13 take years to come out. I don't think it is even up for debate whether Cell is difficult to use or not, it has been echoed by many developers in a position of authority and PS3 needs special care in cross platform games. Cell is hard to use and even harder to fully utilize, are you seriously questioning the truthfulness of this after all that has happend over the last few years?

You also keep saying there wasn't a better GPU, that didn't stop 360 getting a more powerful GPU for release a year before the PS3 came out. PS3 couldn't access a better GPU because they were silly enough to think they could use two Cell processors, when they realised what a mistake this would have been they quickly grabbed a PC GPU coming out at the time and renamed it RSX. It was a quick fix job, if they decided on a GPU from the start they could have customized something better.

Regardless it's just my opinion that Cell was a waste of time, of money and of effort. Consoles are standardized hardware for the mainstream, they shouldn't be experimenting with new CPU designs before thoroughly testing them elsewhere. I don't see how anyone, PS3 fanboy or not, can attempt to defend Cell's use in consoles at this point considering what it has cost the PS3. If Sony is stupid enough to put it in the next Playstation then they deserve to be abandoned by game developers.

[QUOTE="skektek"] 1. Again, there wasn't a better GPU at the time. 2. Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Kojima Productions, Evolution Studios, etc have all produced amazing games on the Cell. I don't think it is quite as hard to "get the basics right" as you seem to think. Certainly not as hard after they have transcended the learning curve. 3. In the same time it has taken to produce K2 we have had R1, R2, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, R&CF:TOD etc. There is no indication that the length of time it is taking to develop K2 is related to the supposed difficulty of working with the Cell. In fact K2 has been playable in one form or another for a while now. WilliamRLBaker

you keep saying there wasn't a better gpu at the time...maybe your saying it so much to convince your self its been proven time and time again the 360's gpu trumps the ps3's so how did a system released a year earlier get a better gpu? sorry to say but there were gpu's better then the ps3's at the time and in the works at the time, not only that sony could have just had Nvidia make a unique gpu for the ps3 like microsoft had ATI make a unique one for the 360.

 All the companies you mentioned are either 1st party or 2nd party thus receiveing the most funding and Q&A,R&A support directly from sony this might be the key to why their games came out so good.

It's a failure, give it up. Just like blu-ray just like the PS3.

 

CreepyBacon

How is Blu Ray a failure?

am i crazy or is Blu Ray still around unlike something else i know.....

[QUOTE="skektek"]1. Again, there wasn't a better GPU at the time. 2. Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Kojima Productions, Evolution Studios, etc have all produced amazing games on the Cell. I don't think it is quite as hard to "get the basics right" as you seem to think. Certainly not as hard after they have transcended the learning curve. 3. In the same time it has taken to produce K2 we have had R1, R2, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, R&CF:TOD etc. There is no indication that the length of time it is taking to develop K2 is related to the supposed difficulty of working with the Cell. In fact K2 has been playable in one form or another for a while now. AnnoyedDragon

Sounds like a load of damage control to me, the games you listed are not high utilization so it isn't surprising they didn't take as long. Games that aim to push the hardware on the other hand like KZ2, MGS4 and FF13 take years to come out. I don't think it is even up for debate whether Cell is difficult to use or not, it has been echoed by many developers in a position of authority and PS3 needs special care in cross platform games. Cell is hard to use and even harder to fully utilize, are you seriously questioning the truthfulness of this after all that has happend over the last few years?

You also keep saying there wasn't a better GPU, that didn't stop 360 getting a more powerful GPU for release a year before the PS3 came out. PS3 couldn't access a better GPU because they were silly enough to think they could use two Cell processors, when they realised what a mistake this would have been they quickly grabbed a PC GPU coming out at the time and renamed it RSX. It was a quick fix job, if they decided on a GPU from the start they could have customized something better.

Regardless it's just my opinion that Cell was a waste of time, of money and of effort. Consoles are standardized hardware for the mainstream, they shouldn't be experimenting with new CPU designs before thoroughly testing them elsewhere. I don't see how anyone, PS3 fanboy or not, can attempt to defend Cell's use in consoles at this point considering what it has cost the PS3. If Sony is stupid enough to put it in the next Playstation then they deserve to be abandoned by game developers.

Even if the Xenos was the superior GPU it is still a custom part that would not have been available for inclusion in the PS3. skektek

360 had no problems getting a custom GPU for their system because they planned it from the start, maybe if Sony wasn't putting funding and effort into getting Cell into the PS3; they could have afforded their own custom GPU? One that preferably wasn't using an obsolete shader setup in a system hyped to last 10 years.

[QUOTE="skektek"]Even if the Xenos was the superior GPU it is still a custom part that would not have been available for inclusion in the PS3. AnnoyedDragon

360 had no problems getting a custom GPU for their system because they planned it from the start, maybe if Sony wasn't putting funding and effort into getting Cell into the PS3; they could have afforded their own custom GPU? One that preferably wasn't using an obsolete shader setup in a system hyped to last 10 years.

At the release of the 360 and PS3 unified shaders were at the cusp of introduction. Besides, its not like it is all roses for unified shaders, there is a trade off: raw shader performance. 136 billion vs 48 billion SOPS respectively in the case of RSX vs Xenos.skektek

Raw performance figures are meaningless if you cannot put it to work mate, that figure difference hasn't changed that the 360 GPU is considered more powerful. It also hasn't changed that unified shaders are now standardised, every single GPU produced for well over a year now are using unified shaders.

It's the flexibility, being able to use 100% of your shading power at any one time is considered better than having higher potential performance. Developers don't care about what is written on paper, they care about what can be applied in the real world. It's the same with Cell, all of that theoretical performance they have written down doesn't matter if it is so difficult to apply it.

RSX has two different types of shaders, even if they perform better at certain tasks than unified; they are still performing a juggling act were some shaders are used and some are not. Using all your available performance with ease is better than struggling to use it with a higher potential peak, the end result is the supposedly less performing general purpose shader gets better performance than the dedicated.

[QUOTE="skektek"]At the release of the 360 and PS3 unified shaders were at the cusp of introduction. Besides, its not like it is all roses for unified shaders, there is a trade off: raw shader performance. 136 billion vs 48 billion SOPS respectively in the case of RSX vs Xenos.AnnoyedDragon

Raw performance figures are meaningless if you cannot put it to work mate, that figure difference hasn't changed that the 360 GPU is considered more powerful. It also hasn't changed that unified shaders are now standardised, every single GPU produced for well over a year now are using unified shaders.

It's the flexibility, being able to use 100% of your shading power at any one time is considered better than having higher potential performance. Developers don't care about what is written on paper, they care about what can be applied in the real world. It's the same with Cell, all of that theoretical performance they have written down doesn't matter if it is so difficult to apply it.

RSX has two different types of shaders, even if they perform better at certain tasks than unified; they are still performing a juggling act were some shaders are used and some are not. Using all your available performance with ease is better than struggling to use it with a higher potential peak, the end result is the supposedly less performing general purpose shader gets better performance than the dedicated.

keep going at it guys!!!.... my knowledge is expanding  :D (and no it's not sarcasm)

somehow ppl fail to realise that

-CELL used in supercomputers is not same as CELL in ps3

-something you can do on cell,you can do 3 times easier on some other processor

- cell is not some "uber non unleashed" thing its just procesor with different architecture which is little more powerfull than competition,but have its disadventages

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

Verge_6

Do you deny that a GPU has better performance than a desktop CPU? Do you deny that the Cell has better (at LEAST peak) performance than a CPU?

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

BobHipJames

Do you deny that a GPU has better performance than a desktop CPU? Do you deny that the Cell has better (at LEAST peak) performance than a CPU?

I do deny that the Cell has better performance than desktop CPU, particularly when stepping outside the bounds of FLOPS. Again, I deny that the Cell has a better peak performance than more traditional CPUs. There is more to performance than the much ballyhooed FLOPS statistic.

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

Do you deny that a GPU has better performance than a desktop CPU? Do you deny that the Cell has better (at LEAST peak) performance than a CPU?

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"] The quote says it will be easier to program than a GPU....do you deny that fact?

Do you deny that a GPU has better performance than a desktop CPU? Do you deny that the Cell has better (at LEAST peak) performance than a CPU?

BobHipJames

Care to explain why? I wouldn't mind learning a thing or two. I enjoy the tech side of things.

[QUOTE="skektek"]At the release of the 360 and PS3 unified shaders were at the cusp of introduction. Besides, its not like it is all roses for unified shaders, there is a trade off: raw shader performance. 136 billion vs 48 billion SOPS respectively in the case of RSX vs Xenos.AnnoyedDragon

Raw performance figures are meaningless if you cannot put it to work mate, that figure difference hasn't changed that the 360 GPU is considered more powerful. It also hasn't changed that unified shaders are now standardised, every single GPU produced for well over a year now are using unified shaders.

It's the flexibility, being able to use 100% of your shading power at any one time is considered better than having higher potential performance. Developers don't care about what is written on paper, they care about what can be applied in the real world. It's the same with Cell, all of that theoretical performance they have written down doesn't matter if it is so difficult to apply it.

RSX has two different types of shaders, even if they perform better at certain tasks than unified; they are still performing a juggling act were some shaders are used and some are not. Using all your available performance with ease is better than struggling to use it with a higher potential peak, the end result is the supposedly less performing general purpose shader gets better performance than the dedicated.

somehow ppl fail to realise that

-CELL used in supercomputers is not same as CELL in ps3

-something you can do on cell,you can do 3 times easier on some other processor

- cell is not some "uber non unleashed" thing its just procesor with different architecture which is little more powerfull than competition,but have its disadventages

Lidve

Care to explain why? I wouldn't mind learning a thing or two. I enjoy the tech side of things.mattbbpl

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

Eyezonmii

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

What a load of crock that turned out to be....

Yeesh Sony, what the hell happened?

Skittles_McGee

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Care to explain why? I wouldn't mind learning a thing or two. I enjoy the tech side of things.skektek

sony: i have a big penis

*devs oull down their pants*: ha ha hahahahahaha

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"][QUOTE="Bauer_24"]

but somehow they did store calculations in the air..... how can something like KZ2 be achieved? 

skektek

The same way MGS4 was achieved, they made sacrifices somewhere to free up the required memory. What those sacrifices are I cannot attempt to guess until I see the game in action, which is unlikely seeing how I have no intention of picking it up and the genre doesn't interest my brother. In MGS4's case the frequent loading screens tell me they sacrificed level size to free up memory.

The thing is if they are only going to use Cell for visual effects, they might as well of just had a better GPU and avoided all these Cell development difficulties.

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Care to explain why? I wouldn't mind learning a thing or two. I enjoy the tech side of things.mattbbpl

Yes there was. The 360's GPU solution from ATI was much more flexible, for one - the generation of hardware it borrowed from off ATi was at a point where ATi's GPU's were much more futureproof than what nVidia was doing at the time.Makari