What exactly is the cell?

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"][QUOTE="BrutalAdonis"] Yeah like Crysis, and um er...AppleBlade

[QUOTE="ZackerThe3rd"]

[QUOTE="Frank2368"]

PS3s' 7 core processor running at 3.2GHZ opposed to X360s' less-powerful-but-still-better-than-Wii's-CPU 3 core running at 3.2GHz

X360s' CPU works more easily than PS3s' though

Brownesque

He said it was working, is that the impression people get when the see the word work and XBox together

Well, Uncharted 2 does have great draw distances and complex geometry. No question.

organic_machine

Good.

But this is not a discussion on Uncharted 2, but the cell. How much of that geometry is physically manipulatable? Is any of it? For that kind of quality, sacrifices need to be made. The PS3 desperately needs more RAM and a better GPU. And no matter how nice the cell is, with more RAM and a better GPU I really think you'd have not only graphically better games, but more interactive enviornments as well. Uncharted 2's enviornemtns aren't very interactive. And you ask for that game, and I give you Crysis. Now before you troll, let me say that it renders hudreds of trees on screen at once, and each tree (minus a few big ones) and all physcial objects can be interacted with, whether up close or from the farthest point on the map. That may be possible to do with the cell, but it most certainly impossible to do with even 516 mb of RAM.

organic_machine

Obviously Crysis is graphically superior to Uncharted 2, I wouldn't troll that for a second.

Obviously it is impossible to render on the Playstation 3 due to a GPU limitation and a RAM limitation. The Crysis developers have actually given us insight into that with Crysis 2 which is a multiplatform game in development for Xbox 360, PC, and Playstation 3. The console versions of the game each have substantially reduced level of detail and texture quality. The game is approximately on par with Crysis on medium settings. The Playstation 3 quite obviously is not the most powerful system on the market, the most powerful system on the market is a good PC.

PC's have Physx support on Nvidia GPUs, massive pools of RAM, out-of-order CPUs, and enormous memory bandwidth and huge shader quantities.

The issue is not so much that the Playstation 3 is not the optimal design, however, it's that it was first released in 2006 and first designed well before that. This is long before Physx became the standard and before DirectX10 was released. Well before Crysis 1 was ever released to the public and before Vista. At the time, the X1900 was the top videocard on the market and the 7900 GT was the best Nvidia videocard. Neither of those cards can satisfactorily run Crysis at maximum settings.

Another thing is that a console has to be a low-cost solution, this is why the consoles have such little RAM and why the Xbox 360 and the PS3 both have in-order CPUs. It was cost-prohibitive to increase their performance to that degree. Keep in mind that a Playstation 3 costs a consumer today $300, close to what a videocard in 2007 capable of running Crysis at high/very high settings would have cost. The 8800 GTS 320MB cost around that much money when Crysis released. My brother has one of those cards along with a quad-core CPU, very, very high overclocks on all his system components and 2 gigs of fast RAM, but he still refuses to buy Crysis because the performance he gets is not good enough in his opinion. Obviously, lol, when you compare Bioshock on his rig to anything on PS3, or UT3 for that matter, the PS3 just gets flat out dominated.

Christ, dude. What's your problem? My whole point is that the cell is a watse of investment because developers usually WON'T take advantage of a good CPU. And guess what? They don't. Sure, we've got the gorgeous, cramped, and static Uncharted 2. Whooptie-****ing-do. That's one game. What about the multiplats? No. A majority of the exclusives? Well, they've got some great looking ones, but again, no huge leap in terms of technical prowess than other games.

organic_machine

Uncharted isn't cramped and it isn't static. Did you even watch the footage I gave you for five seconds?

Playstation 3 games look just fine and the exclusives look mindblowing on the console market. The fact that developers are releasing multiplatform games on the Playstation 3, even porting them from Xbox 360 despite the PS3 having a lower installed base should testify that the system isn't impenetrable. It's perfectly capable of running your average game on par with an Xbox 360 with some facemelting exclusives to boot, all for the EXACT same price as an Xbox 360 with a better feature set, too (Blu-Ray, built-in wi-fi, etc).

Epically long post

Brownesque

Consoles get optimized, and do PCs? That's what causes a 7900 GT even better than a PC's 8800GT

[QUOTE="AppleBlade"][QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"] I'll help you out: Stalker, Stalker: Clear Sky, ARMA 2, Empire: Total War, World in Conflict, Cryostasis, numerous multiplats, etc. etc.vaderhater

his assertion that the PC games he listed looked better then Uncharted 2.AppleBlade

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

Epically long post

Frank2368

Consoles get optimized, and do PCs? That's what causes a 7900 GT even better than a PC's 8800GT

To be honest, a large amount of potential is wasted on graphic cards. If PC games are optimized for all graphic cards and computer systems, then there would be alot of very graphical games out now.

[QUOTE="Frank2368"]

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

Epically long post

Brownesque

Consoles get optimized, and do PCs? That's what causes a 7900 GT even better than a PC's 8800GT

Hmmmmmmm... I'm on your side dude

Another thing is that a console has to be a low-cost solution, this is why the consoles have such little RAM and why the Xbox 360 and the PS3 both have in-order CPUs. It was cost-prohibitive to increase their performance to that degree. Keep in mind that a Playstation 3 costs a consumer today $300, close to what a videocard in 2007 capable of running Crysis at high/very high settings would have cost. The 8800 GTS 320MB cost around that much money when Crysis released. My brother has one of those cards along with a quad-core CPU, very, very high overclocks on all his system components and 2 gigs of fast RAM, but he still refuses to buy Crysis because the performance he gets is not good enough in his opinion. Obviously, lol, when you compare Bioshock on his rig to anything on PS3, or UT3 for that matter, the PS3 just gets flat out dominated.

Brownesque

Let me first admit that my first two posts I was mostly trolling. The cell is an increidble processor. But Sony invested so so much money into it that they had to cut back the rest of the hardware because the console has to be a low cost solution. The PS3 selling at $599 absolutely killed the PS3 in terms of overall sales. But their priority was investing in Blu-ray and the cell. While they are two great things, the PS3 would be nothing without the processor. I can't help but wish they could have invested in having more ram and a better GPU than the xbox 360. Even though the cell is powerful, I think Sony would have been much better off.

However, the PS3 with the cell does have it's advantages. Geometry rendering, physics, AI, etc. And I am extremely pissed that I have yet to see a PS3 game with next-gen AI :P (perhaps I am asking devs too much). And the problem with physics is that for physical objects you need RAM. That's why Crysis will never be ported to this gen consoles, because Crytek cannot cram all of Crysis' physical data into just 512 mb of RAM. If the PS3 had a quad core instead of a 7 core and 1 gb of RAM, we'd see some really impressive physics that would blow even the best 360 games out of the water graphically.

all for the EXACT same price as an Xbox 360 with a better feature set, too (Blu-Ray, built-in wi-fi, etc).

Brownesque

That's why I chose to buy a PS3 instead of a 360! :P

[QUOTE="Canindian_Boy"]

I do and I understand its a processor but I'm not so sure whats so special about it.

Brownesque

The cell processor is the most powerful force in the universe. It will completely reinvent processing and destroy all other cpu makers. When that baby hits the market, look out! It will likely be more powerful than the next 16 generations of cpus from intel and amd.

LOL at some of the stuff in this thread! TC please look it up before the cell becomes some sort of positronic Star Trek device as these guys go along. Holy cow guys really!

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

LOL at some of the stuff in this thread! TC please look it up before the cell becomes some sort of positronic Star Trek device as these guys go along. Holy cow guys really!

BrutalAdonis

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.MEH:)

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

Do you have a game with the level of detail of Uncharted 2 and the draw distances and geometry complexity? If so, show me. If not, stop blowing smoke up my ass.

organic_machine

Well, Uncharted 2 does have great draw distances and complex geometry. No question. But this is not a discussion on Uncharted 2, but the cell. How much of that geometry is physically manipulatable? Is any of it? For that kind of quality, sacrifices need to be made. The PS3 desperately needs more RAM and a better GPU. And no matter how nice the cell is, with more RAM and a better GPU I really think you'd have not only graphically better games, but more interactive enviornments as well. Uncharted 2's enviornemtns aren't very interactive. And you ask for that game, and I give you Crysis. Now before you troll, let me say that it renders hudreds of trees on screen at once, and each tree (minus a few big ones) and all physcial objects can be interacted with, whether up close or from the farthest point on the map. That may be possible to do with the cell, but it most certainly impossible to do with even 516 mb of RAM.

That's an issue with the developers and the things they're seeking to maximize. Why don't you take that up with them? I can't go grab them by the throat and say "organic machine on system wars says you should maximize the processor load allocation with AI and physics in your game engines."

Brownesque

Christ, dude. What's your problem? My whole point is that the cell is a watse of investment because developers usually WON'T take advantage of a good CPU. And guess what? They don't. Sure, we've got the gorgeous, cramped, and static Uncharted 2. Whooptie-****ing-do. That's one game. What about the multiplats? No. A majority of the exclusives? Well, they've got some great looking ones, but again, no huge leap in terms of technical prowess than other games.

how is it a waste? considering PS3 got Killzone2 and Uncharted 2 which look amazing for a console? and whats stopping them from making more?

i would say its far from a waste

It made Uncharted 2TintedEyes

no im pretty sure naughty dog made uncharted 2 :P

Its like a big duck.

A really big duck that kills people with its QUAK!

A really big QUAK ranked at 8.0 in the Quakscale.

The PS3's GPU is inferior to the 360's correct? And PS3 games often make up for this by employing the cell correct? Then it does have a lot of potential. Imagine if the PS3 had a GPU equal to the 360.

FACT: 99% of the people in this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

It lets the PS3 have 4D graphics! Which is why the PS3 is the highest selling console to 4th dimension entities, unfortunatly 4th dimension money can't be converted to dollars without a large hadron collider, which is broken at the moment.

With our limited perception of dimensions the Cell processor allows for lots of effcient number crunching but with anely retentive design. Meaning it has potential for doing more than a comparable processor of standard design but it takes more time and effort to produce something than it would have taken to produce the same result on the regualr processor. In other words it's great for mainframe R&D work but bad for game developers.

FACT: 99% of the people in this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Blue-Sky

FACT: 99% of the people in this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Blue-Sky

Only 99?

:o you DONT know about the CELL?

The CELL is ALL. It is god and is the most powerful creation in all the universe.

Without the CELL nothing can exist, and everything is meaningless.

Bow down to the CELL in all its power.

It's Pandora's box in a chip.

What is the cell?

What's so speical about it?

Without the cell we wouldn't be alive, all living things are here because of the cell.

Yandere

Y'know the best part about the cell? Evolutionists claim that picture happened by chance/accident. Just let that little comment sink into you for a bit.

OH!!! Sorry folks, my off-topic argumentative side just reared it's head there for a sec.

A horrible movie starring JLO

An infinite source of performance that let's you exceed memory limitations and emulate DX10, apparently...

You don't define the Cell. The Cell defines you.

What exactly is it and whats so special about it? I always hear people talking about it.

Canindian_Boy

7 cores, 4D, 120fps the untapped potential!

It lets the PS3 have 4D graphics! Which is why the PS3 is the highest selling console to 4th dimension entities, unfortunatly 4th dimension money can't be converted to dollars without a large hadron collider, which is broken at the moment.

With our limited perception of dimensions the Cell processor allows for lots of effcient number crunching but with anely retentive design. Meaning it has potential for doing more than a comparable processor of standard design but it takes more time and effort to produce something than it would have taken to produce the same result on the regualr processor. In other words it's great for mainframe R&D work but bad for game developers.

Flanker15

I thought you were better then this. Come back to gamespot Au before you catch a cold!!

[QUOTE="Yandere"]

What is the cell?

What's so speical about it?

Without the cell we wouldn't be alive, all living things are here because of the cell.

KH-mixerX

Y'know the best part about the cell? Evolutionists claim that picture happened by chance/accident. Just let that little comment sink into you for a bit.

OH!!! Sorry folks, my off-topic argumentative side just reared it's head there for a sec.

I'm not sure if you're new to English or not, but we don't really use "evolutionist." We tend to use "scientist."

I'm not sure if you're new to English or not, but we don't really use "evolutionist." We tend to use "scientist."

hakanakumono

People like them tend to have a conspiracy theory were science is out to specifically attack their religion, hence people who accept the scientific evidence behind evolution are labeled "darwinists" or "evolutionist" in this case. It makes it easier for them in their mind to drag scientific knowledge down to the level of dogma; and hence in their mind make it easier to criticise.

I think the fact there's maybe 5 on-topic posts in this thread is a good sign that it should be locked.