The cell really is pretty nifty

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this.Celtic_34

PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.BigBoss255

It's more powerful at certain tasks. If you are tryign to pump a lot of textures to the screen and make a realistic looking environment yes. But the cell still has advantages that a PC can not pull off.

PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.BigBoss255

[QUOTE="BigBoss255"]PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.Celtic_34

It's more powerful at certain tasks. If you are tryign to pump a lot of textures to the screen and make a realistic looking environment yes. But the cell still has advantages that a PC can not pull off.

Like making me waffles in the morning ?!

720p and no AA is about 10 years old to me. Im glad your impressed:lol:

It's a completely different architecture. You are talking about a central core and a lot of spe's for specific tasks with low bandwith but can do a lot of different things vs a strong gpu with high bandwith. They are completely different.

Right... Shame Sony paired this 'super processor' with a terrible GPU and less ram than a smartphone then.

most of pc elitists who brag about visuals can't even get their pc's to run the game without it chopping up every 2 seconds. Highest settings is out of the question for most of you lol.

I agree that the idea behind the cell is great. Speeding up complicated tasks by breaking them up into pieces, working on a number of pieces at once, then putting out one result is genius.

The problem is that the cell is not so advanced that existing hardware can't do similar tasks in a different fashion. So what happens is that the cell becomes much more difficult to properly utilize (let alone "max out") and there is minimal advantage to even bothering. So most developers don't really bother and just do their best to port 360 version of a multiplat over. That is why despite being more powerful on paper, most PS3 versions of games have slight inferior differences. It just isn't worth the extra time and money for developers to bother.

[QUOTE="BigBoss255"]PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.Celtic_34

It's more powerful at certain tasks. If you are tryign to pump a lot of textures to the screen and make a realistic looking environment yes. But the cell still has advantages that a PC can not pull off.

PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.BigBoss255

[QUOTE="BigBoss255"]PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.Celtic_34

It's more powerful at certain tasks. If you are tryign to pump a lot of textures to the screen and make a realistic looking environment yes. But the cell still has advantages that a PC can not pull off.

most of pc elitists who brag about visuals can't even get their pc's to run the game without it chopping up every 2 seconds. Highest settings is out of the question for most of you lol.

rasengan2552

That's what is funny to me. The 360 architecture is actually holding back pc development. The 360 is actually outdated by PC standards. The Cell isn't. It's more like an arcade machine. It's designed specifically for games. It has limitations yes. It struggles when you are pumping a lot of textures and trying to make a real world environment. It bottlenecks. But if you want to see multiple explosions and stuff going on in the background and all sorts of crazy stuff going while streaming media at the same time from blu-ray, the ps3 will kick the crap out of a PC.

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

most of pc elitists who brag about visuals can't even get their pc's to run the game without it chopping up every 2 seconds. Highest settings is out of the question for most of you lol.

Celtic_34

That's what is funny to me. The 360 architecture is actually holding back pc development. The 360 is actually outdated by PC standards. The Cell isn't. It's more like an arcade machine. It's designed specifically for games. It has limitations yes. It struggles when you are pumping a lot of textures and trying to make a real world environment. It bottlenecks. But if you want to see multiple explosions and stuff going on in the background and all sorts of crazy stuff going on the ps3 will kick the crap out of a PC

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

most of pc elitists who brag about visuals can't even get their pc's to run the game without it chopping up every 2 seconds. Highest settings is out of the question for most of you lol.

SamiRDuran

That's what is funny to me. The 360 architecture is actually holding back pc development. The 360 is actually outdated by PC standards. The Cell isn't. It's more like an arcade machine. It's designed specifically for games. It has limitations yes. It struggles when you are pumping a lot of textures and trying to make a real world environment. It bottlenecks. But if you want to see multiple explosions and stuff going on in the background and all sorts of crazy stuff going on the ps3 will kick the crap out of a PC

The guy from IBM who designed the chips is. He basically said the same thing I am.

It really depends on what you are trying to design and the develop. This has been an argument in development of games for as long as I can remember. All this marketing stuff is just that. Microsoft saying this. Sony saying this. It's marketing but it's true at the same time.

Some developers hate the ps3. Take Valve for example. They are PC developers. They don't like the architecture.

Arma 2 1500 A.I. battle

Call me when Ps3 would be able to pull something like this with its 256mb of Ram and a 7800gt without melting

Arma 2 1500 A.I. battle

Call me when Ps3 would be able to pull something like this with its 256mb of Ram and a 7800gt without melting

adamosmaki

you are right. The ps3 would melt. But put Killzone on a PC and it would melt.

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

That's what is funny to me. The 360 architecture is actually holding back pc development. The 360 is actually outdated by PC standards. The Cell isn't. It's more like an arcade machine. It's designed specifically for games. It has limitations yes. It struggles when you are pumping a lot of textures and trying to make a real world environment. It bottlenecks. But if you want to see multiple explosions and stuff going on in the background and all sorts of crazy stuff going on the ps3 will kick the crap out of a PC

Celtic_34

The guy from IBM who designed the chips is. He basically said the same thing I am.

It really depends on what you are trying to design and the develop. This has been an argument in development of games for as long as I can remember. All this marketing stuff is just that. Microsoft saying this. Sony saying this. It's marketing but it's true at the same time.

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"]

Arma 2 1500 A.I. battle

Call me when Ps3 would be able to pull something like this with its 256mb of Ram and a 7800gt without melting

Celtic_34

you are right. The ps3 would melt. But put Killzone on a PC and it would melt.

You're right. Don't think our PCs could handle processing so much blur.

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"]

Arma 2 1500 A.I. battle

Call me when Ps3 would be able to pull something like this with its 256mb of Ram and a 7800gt without melting

Celtic_34

you are right. The ps3 would melt. But put Killzone on a PC and it would melt.

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

most of pc elitists who brag about visuals can't even get their pc's to run the game without it chopping up every 2 seconds. Highest settings is out of the question for most of you lol.

Celtic_34

That's what is funny to me. The 360 architecture is actually holding back pc development. The 360 is actually outdated by PC standards. The Cell isn't. It's more like an arcade machine. It's designed specifically for games. It has limitations yes. It struggles when you are pumping a lot of textures and trying to make a real world environment. It bottlenecks. But if you want to see multiple explosions and stuff going on in the background and all sorts of crazy stuff going while streaming media at the same time from blu-ray, the ps3 will kick the crap out of a PC.

Ok, so let me get this straight: You think that the paralell processing capability is something special? Are you serious? PCs have these nifty little things called unified shader graphics cards. Any decent one utterly craps all over the cell in paralell processing capabilities. Their existence is one of the main reasons that the Cell never caught on and never will.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="BigBoss255"]PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.SamiRDuran

It's more powerful at certain tasks. If you are tryign to pump a lot of textures to the screen and make a realistic looking environment yes. But the cell still has advantages that a PC can not pull off.

Sorry i like my ps3 but there is nothing it can do better than a budget modern gaming PC and a high end one blows it away.SirDigby84

See I disagree. Consoles have certain advantages. The 360 really doesn't in ways. It's basically standard pc architecture in a little box and it's outdated. The ps3 does. I'm not saying it can push the textures a pc does but it does have advantages as far as gaming and fun is concerned. Gameplay etc... It might look a bit more cartooney and not have the same textures but there are advantages as far as gameplay is concerned. Watch the fight scenes in infamous and watch all that is going on. A PC can't do that. If you think it can you are wrong.

This is a game that is an open and it basically shows the strengths and weaknesses of the ps3. Watch all the little effects that are going on. A pc would choke. That said the world itself isn't as detailed. The textures aren't that great.

[QUOTE="BigBoss255"]PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.Dibdibdobdobo

Exactly. Plus Crysis 2 proves that the 360 can compete with the PS3. ;)

But Cows will ignore that & will still think that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 due to "da power of teh cell." :roll:

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"]

Arma 2 1500 A.I. battle

Call me when Ps3 would be able to pull something like this with its 256mb of Ram and a 7800gt without melting

Celtic_34

you are right. The ps3 would melt. But put Killzone on a PC and it would melt.

TC do you realize that a 8800GTX that is older than the ps3 is more power full than the cell and the RSX put together.

that shows how behind is the ps3...

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"]

Arma 2 1500 A.I. battle

Call me when Ps3 would be able to pull something like this with its 256mb of Ram and a 7800gt without melting

ferret-gamer

you are right. The ps3 would melt. But put Killzone on a PC and it would melt.

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

Celtic_34

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

you are right. The ps3 would melt. But put Killzone on a PC and it would melt.

adamosmaki

Watch the fight scenes in infamous and watch all that is going on. A PC can't do that. If you think it can you are wrong.

Celtic_34

Infamous 2 the most impressive fight scene i saw was against that giant purple thing. But what can't a PC do in that? It is a fairly sparsly detailed world, a large skeletal mesh tropming around, Cole throwing some cars at the thing, some particle effects, motion blur, some spots of non-shadow casting dynamic lights when certain actions are triggered, normal mapped textures.

So explain what can't a PC do in that?

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"][QUOTE="BigBoss255"]PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.garland51

Exactly. Plus Crysis 2 proves that the 360 can compete with the PS3. ;)

But Cows will ignore that & will still think that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 due to "da power of teh cell." :roll:

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Any specific reason as to why? You still have yet to give any reason for your claims what so ever.MFDOOM1983

motion blur can only melt Ram. Thats nothing :P

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"] And yet it hasnt been proven to this day which was more powerful between 360 and PS3. Oh because theyre pretty much exactly the same.lowkey254

Exactly. Plus Crysis 2 proves that the 360 can compete with the PS3. ;)

But Cows will ignore that & will still think that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 due to "da power of teh cell." :roll:

The difference of FFXIII & L.A. Noire isn't really all that huge between the 360 & PS3.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"] And yet it hasnt been proven to this day which was more powerful between 360 and PS3. Oh because theyre pretty much exactly the same.lowkey254

Exactly. Plus Crysis 2 proves that the 360 can compete with the PS3. ;)

But Cows will ignore that & will still think that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 due to "da power of teh cell." :roll:

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

kuraimen

Thanks for the more technical breakdown. I'm more going by what I see. I've always noticed there is a different feel to the games that are specifically designed for different kinds of architecture. That's more what I'm going by. I'm not imagining it. I've been gaming for a long time and have had all sorts of PC's, game machines etc... From the commodore, to the amiga and PC's to the playstation etc. There are different advantages to each. The style of games and how they play if you look at exclusive games are telling imo.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

Celtic_34

Thanks for the more technical breakdown. I'm more going by what I see. I've always noticed there is a different feel to the games that are specifically designed for different kinds of architecture. That's more what I'm going by. I'm not imagining it. I've been gaming for a long time and have had all sorts of PC's, game machines etc... From the commodore, to the amiga and PC's. There are different advantages to each. The style of games and how they play if you look at exclusive games are telling imo.

The Commodore 64 is a perfect example a low bandwith machine coupled with a risc processor. The thing would blow doing certain things because it was totally limited as far as memory. But it also was amazing for its time at certain things. Yes that was years ago and pc's have come a long way, but the archictecture itself isn't that different. PC's went a different route and were more designed for general purpose tasks.

The ps3 because of it's design coupled with blu-ray has advantages even over current pc's. It also has weaknesses. Like you said it struggles with general purpose tasks. EVen it's OS struggles doing multiple things at the same time. It craps the bed. But from a gaming perspective and arcade quality games it excels in certain areas.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="BigBoss255"]PC has been more powerful than PS3 for years so I don't agree on that. I do think PS3 is more powerful than 360 though.SamiRDuran

It's more powerful at certain tasks. If you are tryign to pump a lot of textures to the screen and make a realistic looking environment yes. But the cell still has advantages that a PC can not pull off.

Exactly. Teh cell is a lie.

Thanks for the more technical breakdown. I'm more going by what I see. I've always noticed there is a different feel to the games that are specifically designed for different kinds of architecture. That's more what I'm going by. I'm not imagining it. I've been gaming for a long time and have had all sorts of PC's, game machines etc... From the commodore, to the amiga and PC's to the playstation etc. There are different advantages to each. The style of games and how they play if you look at exclusive games are telling imo. The ps3 because of it's design coupled with blu-ray has advantages even over current pc's. It also has weaknesses. Like you said it struggles with general purpose tasks. EVen it's OS struggles doing multiple things at the same time. It craps the bed. But from a gaming perspective and arcade quality games it excels in certain areas.

Celtic_34

You are either wrong or completely misinformed in every point you've either made or came to the conclusion.

The Cell CPU has some strengths that go beyond other CPU's, even current ones - except none of its strengths happen to be particularly useful for games. Thats right. The PS3 doesnt even have a CPU designed to handle its primary function.

Naturally you are going to spin that into "Really? And yet it looks sooo good!"

... Which is exactly why it took nearly the end of the PS3's lifespan to have games that look notably better than the 360 - and even then its only exclusives. What a great hardware design decision made by Sony, no?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

Celtic_34

Thanks for the more technical breakdown. I'm more going by what I see. I've always noticed there is a different feel to the games that are specifically designed for different kinds of architecture. That's more what I'm going by. I'm not imagining it. I've been gaming for a long time and have had all sorts of PC's, game machines etc... From the commodore, to the amiga and PC's to the playstation etc. There are different advantages to each. The style of games and how they play if you look at exclusive games are telling imo. The ps3 because of it's design coupled with blu-ray has advantages even over current pc's. It also has weaknesses. Like you said it struggles with general purpose tasks. EVen it's OS struggles doing multiple things at the same time. It craps the bed. But from a gaming perspective and arcade quality games it excels in certain areas.

Seriously now, you need to understand that the ps3 has absolutely no advantages from a PC from 2006( in fact a pc from 2006 is superior in every way), let alone the current PC :lol:

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You are right in that the Cell is not like a regular CPU. It is specialized for vector processing while normal CPUs are not specialized for that kind of tasks. Therefore the Cell can excel in some types of processing, namely SIMD (single instruction multiple data) type of processing over most CPUs even new ones. Nevertheless normal CPUs excel over the Cell in a regular more flexible type of processing. Which is more important to gaming? well it depends on the game but I will give the edge to regular processing since games are not homogenous programs, they need many types of processes going on at once so a regular CPU would be more apt for that. Besides most PCs now come with GPUs and since GPGPU techniques continue to grow then PCs have a device for SIMD-style processing (the GPU) generally much more powerfull than the PS3's Cell.MK-Professor

Thanks for the more technical breakdown. I'm more going by what I see. I've always noticed there is a different feel to the games that are specifically designed for different kinds of architecture. That's more what I'm going by. I'm not imagining it. I've been gaming for a long time and have had all sorts of PC's, game machines etc... From the commodore, to the amiga and PC's to the playstation etc. There are different advantages to each. The style of games and how they play if you look at exclusive games are telling imo. The ps3 because of it's design coupled with blu-ray has advantages even over current pc's. It also has weaknesses. Like you said it struggles with general purpose tasks. EVen it's OS struggles doing multiple things at the same time. It craps the bed. But from a gaming perspective and arcade quality games it excels in certain areas.

Seriously now, you need to understand that the ps3 has absolutely no advantages from a PC from 2006( in fact a pc from 2006 is superior in every way), let alone the current PC :lol:

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You are right in that the Cell is not like a regular CPU. It is specialized for vector processing while normal CPUs are not specialized for that kind of tasks. Therefore the Cell can excel in some types of processing, namely SIMD (single instruction multiple data) type of processing over most CPUs even new ones. Nevertheless normal CPUs excel over the Cell in a regular more flexible type of processing. Which is more important to gaming? well it depends on the game but I will give the edge to regular processing since games are not homogenous programs, they need many types of processes going on at once so a regular CPU would be more apt for that. Besides most PCs now come with GPUs and since GPGPU techniques continue to grow then PCs have a device for SIMD-style processing (the GPU) generally much more powerfull than the PS3's Cell.MK-Professor

Thanks for the more technical breakdown. I'm more going by what I see. I've always noticed there is a different feel to the games that are specifically designed for different kinds of architecture. That's more what I'm going by. I'm not imagining it. I've been gaming for a long time and have had all sorts of PC's, game machines etc... From the commodore, to the amiga and PC's to the playstation etc. There are different advantages to each. The style of games and how they play if you look at exclusive games are telling imo. The ps3 because of it's design coupled with blu-ray has advantages even over current pc's. It also has weaknesses. Like you said it struggles with general purpose tasks. EVen it's OS struggles doing multiple things at the same time. It craps the bed. But from a gaming perspective and arcade quality games it excels in certain areas.

Seriously now, you need to understand that the ps3 has absolutely no advantages from a PC from 2006( in fact a pc from 2006 is superior in every way), let alone the current PC :lol:

See this is just sillyness now. There are a lot of things that go into making that difference matter. It's a business as well. If the PC is so much more powerful as far as gaming is concerned then why are most of the best looking games on the ps3? I'm not talking about screenshots either. Play the games.