The cell really is pretty nifty

That's nice but the cell is basically 9 cores. 1 is disabled. One is a full PPE. The others are basically floating point units. Plus the GPU. Plus the Blu-Ray lol. Oh the Blu-Ray. Can't forget that. It lacks in bandwith between the GPU but for certain applications that are being processed at the core it doesn't matter.

Celtic_34

http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/design/10974250/type/png/width/190/height/190/u-jelly_design.png

The ps3 is basically a scalar core with 8 vector processing units attached. As far as efficiency for certain applications it is more than powerful enough. It has a weak gpu by todays standards. It has blu-ray. But even still the 360 which has 3 scalar cpu's and a better gpu wouldnt be as efficient doing certain things.. It doesn't mean it's as efficent for certain tasks. It's a completely different design. The vector processors in the cell coupled with blu-ray excel at certain functions particularly video encoding and I gave examples.

Celtic_34

I dont know why we bother arguing with you - you don't even know the basics! One of the SPEs is disabled to increase yield and one is reserved for the OS.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

The ps3 is basically a scalar core with 8 vector processing units attached. As far as efficiency for certain applications it is more than powerful enough. It has a weak gpu by todays standards. It has blu-ray. But even still the 360 which has 3 scalar cpu's and a better gpu wouldnt be as efficient doing certain things.. It doesn't mean it's as efficent for certain tasks. It's a completely different design. The vector processors in the cell coupled with blu-ray excel at certain functions particularly video encoding and I gave examples.

KiZZo1

I dont know why we bother arguing with you - you don't even know the basics! One of the SPEs is disabled to increase yield and one is reserved for the OS.

But I do. I stated that.

Not sure where this thread is going anymore but IMO CELL was a failure for the following reasons:

1) It was intended to replace the GPU- it failed.

2) It cost Sony billions in research and put the PS3 price tag up.

3) Final version were significantly downgraded.

5) It's difficult to program for which raises dev costs.

6) Failure to replace the GPU meant Sony had to go rushing to Nvidia for an off-the-shelf design. Microsoft went for a custom made ATI design which proved to be a lot better in the end.

CELL was a gamble, it was meant to revolutionise chip design. It did not.

Not sure where this thread is going anymore but IMO CELL was a failure for the following reasons:

1) It was intended to replace the GPU- it failed.

2) It cost Sony billions in research and put the PS3 price tag up.

3) Final version were significantly downgraded.

5) It's difficult to program for which raises dev costs.

6) Failure to replace the GPU meant Sony had to go rushing to Nvidia for an off-the-shelf design. Microsoft went for a custom made ATI design which proved to be a lot better in the end.

CELL was a gamble, it was meant to revolutionise chip design. It did not.

CwlHeddwyn

This is where youa re wrong. It wasn't meant to revolutionize chip design. It was designed for games and a specific purpose. It was designed to be a multimedia arcade style game machine which is exactly what it's good at. It's as good as anything for that.

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

Not sure where this thread is going anymore but IMO CELL was a failure for the following reasons:

1) It was intended to replace the GPU- it failed.

2) It cost Sony billions in research and put the PS3 price tag up.

3) Final version were significantly downgraded.

5) It's difficult to program for which raises dev costs.

6) Failure to replace the GPU meant Sony had to go rushing to Nvidia for an off-the-shelf design. Microsoft went for a custom made ATI design which proved to be a lot better in the end.

CELL was a gamble, it was meant to revolutionise chip design. It did not.

CwlHeddwyn

SPE ISA follows PowerPC VMX legacy, while the ISA with NV CUDA or AMD Stream GPUs doesn't follow any legacy CPU designs e.g. register count in the thousands.

All you PC guys are here saying oh but the PC architecture can do this this and that. That's great. But who cares. That's not what the ps3 is designed to be lol.

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

Celtic_34

:roll:You haven't proven anything in this entire thread, and just embarrassed yourself by making ludicrous claims like "K3 and UC2 can't be done on the PC".

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[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.Ballroompirate

No not really, I had a 2009 HP and it barely could run The Witcher on medium settings, if you had a custom built pc that had pretty good hardware for 2007 then yes.

Fyi after getting my new PC last year that HP I had is now in a thousand pieces.

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

Celtic_34

A high-end PC from 2006 (QX6700, 4B, 8800GTX) that PC play any maltiplat better than the ps3, and what i mean better is higher resolution, more fps, better settings etc. if you think that ps3 is more power full then why is not play the same exact games better than this pc from 2006? the answers is simple... a PC from 2006 is more power full than the ps3.

Also the 8800GTXalone is more power full than the cell and RSX combined. and the funny part is that this GPU is older than the ps3.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

ronvalencia

So this means you know everything? There are diffent coders that prefer the ps3 for what they are trying to accomplish. Coders have biases too you know and aren't all knowing. The term code monkey exists for a reason. Because you are stuck in a box all day and can't think outside of it sometimes.

Again the cell was not designed to revolutionize chip design. It was designed for a specific purpose. It's designed for a multimedia arcade style game machine which is exactly what it's good at. It's as good as anything for that if designed for. Hence the cell is pretty nifty. Is it limited? Absolutely. It has one PPE and low bandwith. Why it runs linux. IT's designed that way for a reason. Linux is designed that way for a reason why it's a good fit to run on the cell.

The design of the cell, coupled with blu-ray and how it's designed in general is designed to be exactly what I'm saying it is and it's designed to be just as good at those tasks as anything if coded for properly.

Does it have it's weaknesses? Totally.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

Celtic_34

So this means you know everything? There are diffent coders that prefer the ps3 for what they are trying to accomplish. Coders have biases too you know and aren't all knowing. The term code monkey exists for a reason. Because you are stuck in a box all day and can't think outside of it sometimes.

Sorry, PC professional application devs already assimulated CELL via SpursEngine or certain Toshiba multimedia laptops e.g.Cyberlink.

There's nothing magical about VMX kitbash.

CELL concept is a good idea, but SPE's VMX legacy holds it back. AMD Fusion APU's Radeon HD is not being hold back by any CPU ISA.

----

Practical 1TFLOPS SGEMM with AMD Stream (near-the-metal programming) thin layer and AMD Radeon HD 4870 (RV770)

http://forum.beyond3d.com/archive/index.php/t-54842.html

PC coders near-the-metal programming.

Again the cell was not designed to revolutionize chip design. It was designed for a specific purpose.

Celtic_34

ANYTHING that is designed, is designed for a specific purpose, that is implied from the definition of the word. The Cell was designed to replace the GPU chip, and it failed to do that.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

ronvalencia

I have a CS degree btw. Am I a programmer. No. I hate it. I should have gone for IS or Marketing or something lol. I'm better at the design and troubleshooting of systems than I am at coding for them. So two different pov's. I'm not that big on details like coding but I do understand the bigger picture I think. Am I always right? no. I could be wrong but when I look at the design of the ps3 logically it makes sense to me. It's designed to excel at certain tasks and those tasks happen to be what it's designed for.

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"]

Not sure where this thread is going anymore but IMO CELL was a failure for the following reasons:

1) It was intended to replace the GPU- it failed.

2) It cost Sony billions in research and put the PS3 price tag up.

3) Final version were significantly downgraded.

5) It's difficult to program for which raises dev costs.

6) Failure to replace the GPU meant Sony had to go rushing to Nvidia for an off-the-shelf design. Microsoft went for a custom made ATI design which proved to be a lot better in the end.

CELL was a gamble, it was meant to revolutionise chip design. It did not.

Celtic_34

This is where youa re wrong. It wasn't meant to revolutionize chip design. It was designed for games and a specific purpose. It was designed to be a multimedia arcade style game machine which is exactly what it's good at. It's as good as anything for that.

Since you didn't reply to my post above TC, I will assume that you finally accept that a pc from 2006 is more power full that the ps3 in every way.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

Celtic_34

I have a CS degree btw. Am I a programmer. No. I hate it. I should have gone for IS or Marketing or something lol. I'm better at the design of systems than I am at coding for them. So two different pov's. I'm not that big on details like coding but I do understand the bigger picture I think. Am I always right? no. I could be wrong but when I look at the design of the ps3 logically it makes sense to me. It's designed to excel at certain tasks and those tasks happen to be what it's designed for.

How come you made a mistake with scalar and vectors? Did you forget PPE includes vector co-processor units?

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] What have you proven? Your scalar vs vector indicates issues with the basic CPU computer science. PS; I mostly program in native C++ as my day job.

ronvalencia

I have a CS degree btw. Am I a programmer. No. I hate it. I should have gone for IS or Marketing or something lol. I'm better at the design of systems than I am at coding for them. So two different pov's. I'm not that big on details like coding but I do understand the bigger picture I think. Am I always right? no. I could be wrong but when I look at the design of the ps3 logically it makes sense to me. It's designed to excel at certain tasks and those tasks happen to be what it's designed for.

No probably because I'm just lazy and was out drinking too much the night before lol.

I work as a network admin. I'm not a dummy here. I'm a jack of all trades sort of guy. There isn't much I can't understand. It's more a matter of do I care and where does this fit in in the real world.

If the crap hits the fan and everything goes to crap I'm the guy who usually fixes it though.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I've basically proven it and everyone here thinks I'm jelly lol.

Celtic_34

I have a CS degree btw. Am I a programmer. No. I hate it. I should have gone for IS or Marketing or something lol. I'm better at the design and troubleshooting of systems than I am at coding for them. So two different pov's. I'm not that big on details like coding but I do understand the bigger picture I think. Am I always right? no. I could be wrong but when I look at the design of the ps3 logically it makes sense to me. It's designed to excel at certain tasks and those tasks happen to be what it's designed for.

I have a CS degree too, but it doesn't mean squat if you don't really understand what you are talking about it. In one post you mention who the PC couldn't handle X game, then in another state how the PC is superior to the PS3 graphically. You completely contradict yourself and then ignore the posts around you showing that. There is reason why the PS3 is in third place, Sony made too many promises that it couldn't keep and it was unable to deliver on the greatness that they were bragging about. They invested a large amount of money on a losing horse hoping that they could just follow the success of the PS2. Which of course didn't happen.

If you enjoy PS3 games that's great, but you need a serious reality check if you think that a PC can't do those things. No one would expect a PC from 2005 to do something from 2011, why would you think that a console could do any better? Hopefully you own some stock in Sony the way you are cheerleading for them (or maybe you work for Sony who knows).

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] What have you proven? Your scalar vs vector indicates issues with the basic CPU computer science. PS; I mostly program in native C++ as my day job.

menes777

I have a CS degree btw. Am I a programmer. No. I hate it. I should have gone for IS or Marketing or something lol. I'm better at the design and troubleshooting of systems than I am at coding for them. So two different pov's. I'm not that big on details like coding but I do understand the bigger picture I think. Am I always right? no. I could be wrong but when I look at the design of the ps3 logically it makes sense to me. It's designed to excel at certain tasks and those tasks happen to be what it's designed for.

I have a CS degree too, but it doesn't mean squat if you don't really understand what you are talking about it. In one post you mention who the PC couldn't handle X game, then in another state how the PC is superior to the PS3 graphically. You completely contradict yourself and then ignore the posts around you showing that. There is reason why the PS3 is in third place, Sony made too many promises that it couldn't keep and it was unable to deliver on the greatness that they were bragging about. They invested a large amount of money on a losing horse hoping that they could just follow the success of the PS2. Which of course didn't happen.

If you enjoy PS3 games that's great, but you need a serious reality check if you think that a PC can't do those things. No one would expect a PC from 2005 to do something from 2011, why would you think that a console could do any better? Hopefully you own some stock in Sony the way you are cheerleading for them (or maybe you work for Sony who knows).

I never said the PC can't. I more said the ps3 and those games are specifically designed for the ps3. ARe the architectures that different? Yes and no. But I think if you are porting games specifically designed to optimize the ps3, you are going to run into issues on the PC. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a general purpose cpu is better at everything and there is no need for specialized hardware. But if that is the case, then why are they designed that way? And like I said I don't think it's cost. PC hardware is a lot cheaper than designing a custom built game machine. The 360 is a much cheaper piece of hardware.

Nowadays there are cpu's with 7+ multiple general purpose cores. Do I think they are better for general purpose computing? Absolutely. But for specialized coding and gaming where is the benefit from a real world perspective?

I still believe the tc is jelly.

I still believe the tc is jelly.

malebog123

I'm really not that's the thing. I paid $140 for the ps3. An argument can be made it's doing more than PC's are as far as gaming. I'm not even a console fan that's the thing. I grew up on PC games. I think consoles are bad for gaming in ways because I never was an arcade style of gamer. That's what consoles are basically for. RTS's are dying a slow death because a majority of gamers are on consoles these days. It's a double edged sword because the benefit really isn't there. Sorry to say. I'm all for PC gaming, but the benefit isn't there like it used to be.

PC's have always gotten the short end of the stick as far as certain kinds of games anyways. I remember back in the day playing ports of fighting games on the PC and they were terrible.

I never said the PC can't. I more said the ps3 and those games are specifically designed for the ps3. ARe the architectures that different? Yes and no. But I think if you are porting games specifically designed to optimize the ps3, you are going to run into issues on the PC. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a general purpose cpu is better at everything and there is no need for specialized hardware. But if that is the case, then why are they designed that way? And like I said I don't think it's cost. PC hardware is a lot cheaper than designing a custom built game machine. The 360 is a much cheaper piece of hardware.

Celtic_34

Transistor count per FLOPs(without PC's economic of scale) and IP core license model. Intel will not let Sony or Microsoft kitbash thier CPU core designs.

With enough $$, IBM would be happy to kitbash thier PPE core designs for large OEMs.

The ps3 is basically a scalar core with 8 vector processing units attached. As far as efficiency for certain applications it is more than powerful enough. It has a weak gpu by todays standards. It has blu-ray. But even still the 360 which has 3 scalar cpu's and a better gpu wouldnt be as efficient doing certain things.. It doesn't mean it's as efficent for certain tasks. It's a completely different design. The vector processors in the cell coupled with blu-ray excel at certain functions particularly video encoding and I gave examples.

Celtic_34

And doing normal CPU work it still lags behind Pc CPU's and even the 360 CPU in MIPS. Having 8 slow processors doesnot mean it can out do a dual or triple or even a quad core at the game they were designed to do. The Cell isnt as efficent as you say it is, they have to code every SPE a specific job all the time or they do nothing which was a major problem with the PS3 for years. If the Cell was so powerful then why a port from the PS3 to Pc akaTurok only needed a single core cpu to run but to run it fliud you needed a Dual Core cpu.. wait isnt 8 cores faster then 2? It all comes down to architecture the Cell is failure as a CPU and as a GPU. So why do you think that the Cell can even compete the Processing power from Pc's?

The Cell isnt great at anything besides picking up the peices from the RSX and just barely getting by with normalcpu workloads. the Cell isnt better at video encoding nor parallel processing for that matter....

Question: While it was working, however, it worked great thanks to the power of the Cell and proved to be faster than a core i7 920)

Answer (from x264 dev): No, it wasn't. It was way, way, way slower than x264 on a core i7 with similar settings. Sure, if you put x264 on slow settings and it on fast settings, it was faster -- but that's hardly a surprise.

The Cell is a pretty slow CPU. It takes roughly 2.5 cores (out of 8 ) to do realtime 1080p H.264 decoding with a highly optimized decoder. A fast i7 can do that with about ~0.4 cores (out of 4 or 6).

[QUOTE="TruthBToldShow"]

Not all PC's have a processor equal to the cell.KiZZo1

That would be correct. Most gaming PCs today have somewhat faster processors and MUCH MUCH faster GPUs.

I still think I'm right when I say as far as the games that are being designed for the ps3 it's as good as anything.

There are processors now with 7+ cores. They are better for general purpose computing. But as far as specialized hardware and gaming where is the benefit? Yeah if you are trying to make a huge open world or an RTS it would kick the ps3's ass. But for games that are being designed for the ps3 where is the benefit?

We are talking about gaming afterall.

Where in the real world does your argument hold water? It doesn't.

Maybe I should have gone for law, because I sound like my cousin vinny lol. How many fingers am I holding up? Have you checked the prescription on your glasses lately?

This thread is a joke. Nothing about the PS3 was better than PC in 2006/2007. The cell is not special. It is weaker than a core 2 duo. Just give up. No PS3 game couldn't be done better on PC, every piece of hardware in a modern mid range PC is stronger than the consoles - they're 6 years old for pete's sake.

Angry hermits getting trolled. Beautiful.

The thing is I'm not even trying to troll that's the thing. I'm just giving my opinion. There is basis to it. I always get these threads where people think I'm some idiot and I get called this and that, when in reality I'm actually a really nice guy. I'm not stupid either. Yay the internet though. I'm kind of glad the mods let me go this thread. It's usually me getting attacked that's the thing. I see their point. I don't disagree really. I do think graphs and charts are fairly limited. Thy basically show what a cpu can do when running a certain program. But design isn't just that. Graphs don't delve into the total design of the chip. Most of this software that excels on the ps3 is specifically designed for it and is optimized to run on it. Not that the PC doesn't do that too. But it's still different. There are some super powerful PC's out there but I'm more debating design and what the ps3 is designed for. It's a nice little console for certain things. Nothing wrong with that.

All I said here is the ps3 has it's advantages and it does. I'm not knocking the PC. PC owners decided to take it that way. I love the PC.

Sorry but you did say PC can't. These are your words verbatim.

"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."

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]I more said the ps3 and those games are specifically designed for the ps3.Celtic_34

Great, thanks for pointing that out. PS3 games are designed to run on the PS3. What else would they be designed for?

ARe the architectures that different? Yes and no. But I think if you are porting games specifically designed to optimize the ps3, you are going to run into issues on the PC. Celtic_34

That makes absolutely no sense at all, of course you can't run PS3 games directly on PC hardware. No one is claiming that is the case. However, if you port it over to a compatible PC format then yes it would run just fine and look even better. If this has been your argument the whole time you have not only been dishonest with everyone on this board but with yourself.

Let me reiterate this point just to be sure. NO ONE IS CLAIMING YOU CAN RUN PS3 GAMES DIRECTLY ON PC HARDWARE. What they are claiming is what PS3 can do the PC can also do as well or even better. If a game publisher could pull it of legally to put Killzone or Uncharted or whatever on PC it would look just as good as PS3 or better.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a general purpose cpu is better at everything and there is no need for specialized hardware. But if that is the case, then why are they designed that way? And like I said I don't think it's cost. PC hardware is a lot cheaper than designing a custom built game machine. The 360 is a much cheaper piece of hardware.Celtic_34

What does this even mean? Do you mean that buying PC hardware is cheaper than a console? If so you just invalidated all those consolites claiming how "expensive" PC gaming is. If custom built gaming machine means a custom built PC you are making no sense whatsoever.

Lets see the PS3 running Crysis 1 in it's full glory...oh wait.

The thing is I'm not even trying to troll that's the thing. I'm just giving my opinion. There is basis to it. I always get these threads where people think I'm some idiot and I get called this and that, when in reality I'm actually a really nice guy. I'm not stupid either. Yay the internet though. I'm kind of glad the mods let me go this thread. It's usually me getting attacked that's the thing. I see their point. I don't disagree really. I do think graphs and charts are fairly limited. Thy basically show what a cpu can do when running a certain program. But design isn't just that. Most of this software that excels on the ps3 is specifically designed for it and is optimized to run on it. Not that the PC doesn't do that too. But it's still different. There are some super powerful PC's out there but I'm more debating design and what the ps3 is designed for. It's a nice little console for certain things. Nothing wrong with that.

All I said here is the ps3 has it's advantages and it does.

Celtic_34

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

The thing is I'm not even trying to troll that's the thing. I'm just giving my opinion. There is basis to it. I always get these threads where people think I'm some idiot and I get called this and that, when in reality I'm actually a really nice guy. I'm not stupid either. Yay the internet though. I'm kind of glad the mods let me go this thread. It's usually me getting attacked that's the thing. I see their point. I don't disagree really. I do think graphs and charts are fairly limited. Thy basically show what a cpu can do when running a certain program. But design isn't just that. Most of this software that excels on the ps3 is specifically designed for it and is optimized to run on it. Not that the PC doesn't do that too. But it's still different. There are some super powerful PC's out there but I'm more debating design and what the ps3 is designed for. It's a nice little console for certain things. Nothing wrong with that.

All I said here is the ps3 has it's advantages and it does.

kraken2109

You don't know what I'm acting like that's the issue lol. I'm not acting like that. You guys are to me. I think I clearly said I could be wrong but yet people keep telling me I'm talking about the cell like it's this super uber chip and what I'm saying is fact. I said it has advantages and I explained why I think that.. You can't even hear me or my tone.

I've had a 360 this entire gen. I've also had PC's and been mainly a PC gamer. I really don't think about systems like that. I just from my experience with the PS3 so far I think it has advantages. I explained why I think that.

I made a thread the other day saying is sony going to scrap the ps3 altogether and was told I was a MS fanboy. I gave reasons why I thought that too and why I though the ps3 is at a disadvantage this gen. People need to check themselves and look at who is really spouting stuff as fact. Then I get infractions for this stuff, when I didn't report anyone because I'm just a nice guy who isn't totally in biased land. It sucks after a while. IT really does.

I never report people because I try to see other peoples pov's. Yet after aw hile of me getting infractions it's annoying when people can't see me and have no clue what I'm saying and jump to conclusions and spout off stuff as fact themselves.

I've had a 360 this entire gen. I've also had PC's and been mainly a PC gamer. I really don't think about systems like that. I just from my experience with the PS3 so far I think it has advantages. I explained why I think that.

Celtic_34

And what are the specs of your PC?

The thing is I'm not even trying to troll that's the thing. I'm just giving my opinion. There is basis to it. I always get these threads where people think I'm some idiot and I get called this and that, when in reality I'm actually a really nice guy. I'm not stupid either. Yay the internet though. I'm kind of glad the mods let me go this thread. It's usually me getting attacked that's the thing. I see their point. I don't disagree really. I do think graphs and charts are fairly limited. Thy basically show what a cpu can do when running a certain program. But design isn't just that. Graphs don't delve into the total design of the chip. Most of this software that excels on the ps3 is specifically designed for it and is optimized to run on it. Not that the PC doesn't do that too. But it's still different. There are some super powerful PC's out there but I'm more debating design and what the ps3 is designed for. It's a nice little console for certain things. Nothing wrong with that.

All I said here is the ps3 has it's advantages and it does. I'm not knocking the PC. PC owners decided to take it that way. I love the PC.

Celtic_34

What you did was make a statement with little backing. Then made baseless claims (such as what you think a PC can or cannot do) and then shifted the goal posts to make your arguments sound. Then when you are pounded with rebuttal after rebuttal (most of which you completely ignored) you try to come off as the victim of attacks. Poor old me was just saying how much I enjoyed the "Cell", all those mean PC people were attacking me for no reason! Yeah right, it's one thing to say "but it's my opinion" and it's another to use it as a shield when you have been beaten up because your initial argument was unsound.

Just a reminder, I also replied to your other post too. Just in case you missed it.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

The thing is I'm not even trying to troll that's the thing. I'm just giving my opinion. There is basis to it. I always get these threads where people think I'm some idiot and I get called this and that, when in reality I'm actually a really nice guy. I'm not stupid either. Yay the internet though. I'm kind of glad the mods let me go this thread. It's usually me getting attacked that's the thing. I see their point. I don't disagree really. I do think graphs and charts are fairly limited. Thy basically show what a cpu can do when running a certain program. But design isn't just that. Graphs don't delve into the total design of the chip. Most of this software that excels on the ps3 is specifically designed for it and is optimized to run on it. Not that the PC doesn't do that too. But it's still different. There are some super powerful PC's out there but I'm more debating design and what the ps3 is designed for. It's a nice little console for certain things. Nothing wrong with that.

All I said here is the ps3 has it's advantages and it does. I'm not knocking the PC. PC owners decided to take it that way. I love the PC.

menes777

What you did was make a statement with little backing. Then made baseless claims (such as what you think a PC can or cannot do) and then shifted the goal posts to make your arguments sound. Then when you are pounded with rebuttal after rebuttal (most of which you completely ignored) you try to come off as the victim of attacks. Poor old me was just saying how much I enjoyed the "Cell", all those mean PC people were attacking me for no reason! Yeah right, it's one thing to say "but it's my opinion" and it's another to use it as a shield when you have been beaten up because your initial argument was unsound.

Again you are assuming things. I don't think that at all.

You guys haven't proven anything. My argument is completely sound. I explained why. I'm not claiming to be a victim. You are. I didn't report anyone. Like I said. You are saying I'm this person claiming to be a victim and talking like the ps3 is some uber chip when that's not what I'm saying at all. Am I a victim? Probably. I don't think anything you think I do man. If this discussion was in person that would be clear. I'm just a nice guy and totally laid back and am laughing because this is silly.

I told you why I think what I do. you chose to ignore it. I read what you said. I responded. I understood it.

you can't even hear my tone here. You guys are crazy and don't even realize it. That's not attacking you either. It's just reality. I could prove it too. The internet leads to misunderstandings. I don't think anything you think I do. I'm actually a smart down to earth nice guy.

Read what I'm actually saying. I heard what you said. I responded to it.

If i was sitting here thinking i'm victim why wasn't i reporting anyone. I'm sitting here reading your posts and respecting them and listening to them and responding. I think you made some points and this was a good discussion. That's all I think.

You guys think I'm talking like what I'm saying is fact and the ps3 is some uber chip when I'm actually just discussing and listening to what people are saying and think this was a good discussion.

I think I responded to everything anyone said. Do I agree? Not entirely no.

My opinion is also people who report people are the people who really can't respect peoples differences and the internet is inherently flawed as well. Maybe i should start a thread for that too.

I think I responded to everything anyone said. Do I agree? Not entirely no.

Celtic_34

then why you didn't responded to my post?

A high-end PC from 2006 (QX6700, 4GB, 8800GTX) that PC play any maltiplat better than the ps3, and what i mean better is higher resolution, more fps, better settings etc. if you think that ps3 is more power full then why is not play the same exact games better than this pc from 2006? the answers is simple... a PC from 2006 is more power full than the ps3.

Also the 8800GTXalone is more power full than the cell and RSX combined. and the funny part is that this GPU is older than the ps3.

MK-Professor

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I think I responded to everything anyone said. Do I agree? Not entirely no.

MK-Professor

then why you didn't responded to my post?

A high-end PC from 2006 (QX6700, 4GB, 8800GTX) that PC play any maltiplat better than the ps3, and what i mean better is higher resolution, more fps, better settings etc. if you think that ps3 is more power full then why is not play the same exact games better than this pc from 2006? the answers is simple... a PC from 2006 is more power full than the ps3.

Also the 8800GTXalone is more power full than the cell and RSX combined. and the funny part is that this GPU is older than the ps3.

MK-Professor

I will try to. I'm running late for an appointment as is because i've been sitting here respecting you guys. I'll be back later and will try to respond as best I can.

[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.

I think I responded to everything anyone said. Do I agree? Not entirely no.

Celtic_34

Are you wrong in most of your statements? yes, A hybrid processor designed in 2003-2004 cannot out perform a processor designed in 2005-2006 or later. Moore's law states that every 18 months computer processing power nearly doubles. So lets see 2003 to 2005 2x, from 2007 another 2x, then 2009 2x and 2011 another 2x the processing power. So we are talking about at least 4x to 6x the processing power from modern PC cpu's compared to the Cell. Let alone Graphics processing which is miles ahead of the PS3. The RSX is a gimped Geforce 7800, and in the same time frame the PS3 was released so was the 8800GTX and GTS series which are 3-4x more powerful then the RSX. And even if you could combine the Cell and RSX just to do Graphics processing they would still be short to a 8800GTX let alone to todays medium ranged GPU's.