[QUOTE="wis3boi"].. Yet it lacks ram to nto even be able to do basic functions like a cross game chat, or party system.. What he's referring to is the fact the PS3 had marketed the Cell alot, when in reality it had not much of an effect on games. Remember all teh "Cell is teh winz!!!" threads?GPU > CPU. Refer to PS3 for example.
sSubZerOo
Xbox 720 to ship with "insanely powerful CPU"
This topic is locked from further discussion.
There was a rumor about the 16 core CPU already. It's still a rumor.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="wis3boi"].. Yet it lacks ram to nto even be able to do basic functions like a cross game chat, or party system.. What he's referring to is the fact the PS3 had marketed the Cell alot, when in reality it had not much of an effect on games. Remember all teh "Cell is teh winz!!!" threads?GPU > CPU. Refer to PS3 for example.
lordreaven
Yep. Doesnt matter if you had some magical CPU running 128 cores and powered by nuclear fission, if you have a weak GPU and/or not enough RAM...you're out of luck.
lol, nextboxes "insanely powerful cpu" = something you could buy on newegg last year. :lol:
Probably outdated PowerPC CPUs, die-shrinked to save cash. More cores =/= high performance.
who cares what cpu it has, its a console the only thing that really matters at this point is how much ram it has and what gpu
In reality, the ps3's processor is more powerful than the 360's but it's extremely difficult to develop for so it never really gets used, which is why ports are almost always better on 360. Not trying to start a war with this comment, but it is well known that the 360 ports are slightly better than ps3 ports. Basically this means that if the nextbox has a super strong cpu, it will simply make the console extremely expensive and not worth it. No not in reality, just in your head :P[QUOTE="Blaz3_fox"][QUOTE="godzillavskong"] True. IBM developed both Microsofts and Sony's chips. It was thought that Sony's cpu was more capable then Microsoft's , but I'm not so sure of that anymore. Dave Shippy from IBM said they were pretty much the same. Then again I think he has to say that. Don't want to give the nod to either party, seeing as how you may lose a future business partner. It will be very interesting to see what route these two companies take with their new hardware. I hope they do make them extremely powerful. Just not extremely expensive. 04dcarraher
The Cell is slower then the 360 CPU in normal cpu jobs and in MIPS performance the 360 can do 19000, while PS3 can only do 10,000. However for parallel processing then yes the Cell kills the 360's cpu. However cpu's are not designed to singular based jobs which means all that is pointless. The Cell was originally design to be a general purpose cpu where it did everything however sony realize when testing that the Cell wasn't enough to achieve what was needed for performance and graphically. So they added the RSX to be the primary GPU, and because they spent so much on the Cell they weren't going to scrap the whole thing which is why dev's like naughty dog were able to take the time to create coding which used the unused SPE's to supplement the RSX.
Now if and I mean "if" the next xbox will have an IBM 16 core cpu it will not be the same as the Cell was. They will be 16 normal cores not a single core with multi co processors that are meant for gpu workloads. But chances are that MS and AMD are using an APU design because of the trustworthy reports made since 2010 onward have been about them.
NO is actually in yours dude,Cell is more powerful that the 360 CPU by a long shot,so powerful it actually make up for all the power advantage the xbox 360 has on the GPU side. If the Cell is equal to the 360 CPU in power,and the 360 has 10MB of ram more,+ a smaller foot print OS + a more powerful GPU and is easier to code for,how in hell games like Uncharted actually beat the xbox 360 best games.? People should apply logic were is do,the PS3 CPU was design with graphics in mind,the 360 CPU wasn't and it easy to see.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]No not in reality, just in your head :P[QUOTE="Blaz3_fox"] In reality, the ps3's processor is more powerful than the 360's but it's extremely difficult to develop for so it never really gets used, which is why ports are almost always better on 360. Not trying to start a war with this comment, but it is well known that the 360 ports are slightly better than ps3 ports. Basically this means that if the nextbox has a super strong cpu, it will simply make the console extremely expensive and not worth it. tormentos
The Cell is slower then the 360 CPU in normal cpu jobs and in MIPS performance the 360 can do 19000, while PS3 can only do 10,000. However for parallel processing then yes the Cell kills the 360's cpu. However cpu's are not designed to singular based jobs which means all that is pointless. The Cell was originally design to be a general purpose cpu where it did everything however sony realize when testing that the Cell wasn't enough to achieve what was needed for performance and graphically. So they added the RSX to be the primary GPU, and because they spent so much on the Cell they weren't going to scrap the whole thing which is why dev's like naughty dog were able to take the time to create coding which used the unused SPE's to supplement the RSX.
Now if and I mean "if" the next xbox will have an IBM 16 core cpu it will not be the same as the Cell was. They will be 16 normal cores not a single core with multi co processors that are meant for gpu workloads. But chances are that MS and AMD are using an APU design because of the trustworthy reports made since 2010 onward have been about them.
NO is actually in yours dude,Cell is more powerful that the 360 CPU by a long shot,so powerful it actually make up for all the power advantage the xbox 360 has on the GPU side. If the Cell is equal to the 360 CPU in power,and the 360 has 10MB of ram more,+ a smaller foot print OS + a more powerful GPU and is easier to code for,how in hell games like Uncharted actually beat the xbox 360 best games.? People should apply logic were is do,the PS3 CPU was design with graphics in mind,the 360 CPU wasn't and it easy to see.Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
NO is actually in yours dude,Cell is more powerful that the 360 CPU by a long shot,so powerful it actually make up for all the power advantage the xbox 360 has on the GPU side. If the Cell is equal to the 360 CPU in power,and the 360 has 10MB of ram more,+ a smaller foot print OS + a more powerful GPU and is easier to code for,how in hell games like Uncharted actually beat the xbox 360 best games.? People should apply logic were is do,the PS3 CPU was design with graphics in mind,the 360 CPU wasn't and it easy to see.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] No not in reality, just in your head :P
The Cell is slower then the 360 CPU in normal cpu jobs and in MIPS performance the 360 can do 19000, while PS3 can only do 10,000. However for parallel processing then yes the Cell kills the 360's cpu. However cpu's are not designed to singular based jobs which means all that is pointless. The Cell was originally design to be a general purpose cpu where it did everything however sony realize when testing that the Cell wasn't enough to achieve what was needed for performance and graphically. So they added the RSX to be the primary GPU, and because they spent so much on the Cell they weren't going to scrap the whole thing which is why dev's like naughty dog were able to take the time to create coding which used the unused SPE's to supplement the RSX.
Now if and I mean "if" the next xbox will have an IBM 16 core cpu it will not be the same as the Cell was. They will be 16 normal cores not a single core with multi co processors that are meant for gpu workloads. But chances are that MS and AMD are using an APU design because of the trustworthy reports made since 2010 onward have been about them.
topgunmv
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.
[QUOTE="topgunmv"][QUOTE="tormentos"] NO is actually in yours dude,Cell is more powerful that the 360 CPU by a long shot,so powerful it actually make up for all the power advantage the xbox 360 has on the GPU side. If the Cell is equal to the 360 CPU in power,and the 360 has 10MB of ram more,+ a smaller foot print OS + a more powerful GPU and is easier to code for,how in hell games like Uncharted actually beat the xbox 360 best games.? People should apply logic were is do,the PS3 CPU was design with graphics in mind,the 360 CPU wasn't and it easy to see.PC_Otter
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.Problem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
04dcarraher
Problem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
So basically, In your "mind"....and sorry, but you really do seem off your rocker, like most lems are lol...so then again, I'm not really shocked (sad to say) What you are trying to say, is that the 360 cpu is better, then the PS3 cpu, at doing things unrelated to gaming(like being able to download a demo while listening to music or doing party chat ect (which is just unecessary and excessive IMO) While the cpu in the PS3 is far superior to the cpu in the 360 at doing what actually matters (actual game graphics and physics) I agree 100% with Tormentos, especially when he told you to start using logic yourself. I mean, everybody says the GPU in the 360 is far superior to the RSX. So then how is it that a majority of the best looking games this gen are PS3 exclusives, and remain PS3 exclusives? There's an obvious reason. The Cell MORE then makes up for the other disadvantages the PS3 might have else where, AND THEN SOME. Despite a weaker GPU, and split ram, the PS3 is capable of churning out - just flat out- better graphics then anything the 360 is capable of. And the top dog PS3 exclusives(graphically) definitively prove this without a doubt i.e that the PS3 is capable of better graphics, better physics , MUCH better animations when utilized properly. The problem is multi-plat developers don't take the time to learn the PS3 hardware, like Sony's amazing first parties do. And what a lot of people don't realise either is that the cell can and will take work loads off from the RSX, so that allows the RSX to be more effective, and hit more of its benchmarks and peaks. Where as the GPU in the 360 is having to do more to churn out graphocs, is being strained more, and is not hitting its theoretical peak , like the RSX is, because of the fact that the cell helps RSX with with the workload too. Just imagine HOW MUCH more powerful the PS3 could've been if there were more ram, and an up to date GPU added along side the cell? I mean, despite everything, the PS3 is already a more powerful capable machine then the 360 is. IF it had the ram and gpu to match cell, then damn....it would be humiliating the 360 even more so. The PS3 is an awesome core gaming console...one of the best core consoles of all time....one of my all time fav consoles ever(because of the diverse and plentiful amount of awesome PS exclusives, all the muli-plats, FREE online, blue ray) But i hope that with the PS4, Sony can fix what was wrong with the PS3, and just make an all around powerful machine, that is efficient, and runs well together between all parts[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.dudegamer23
Problem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
So basically, In your "mind"....and sorry but you really do seem off your rocker, like most lems are lol. What you are trying to say, is that the 360 cpu is better, then the PS3 cpu, at doing things unrelated to gaming(like being able to download a demo while listening to music or doing party chat ect (which is just unecessary and excessive IMO) While the cpu in the PS3 is far superior to the cpu in the 360 at doing what actually matters (actual game graphics and physics) I agree 100% with Tormentos, especially when he told you to start using logic yourself. I mean, everybody says the GPU in the 360 is far superior to the RSX. So then how is it that a majority of the best looking games this gen are PS3 exclusives, and remain PS3 exclusives? There's an obvious reason. The Cell MORE then makes up for the other disadvantages the PS3 might have else where, AND THEN SOME. Despite a weaker GPU, and split ram, the PS3 is capable of churning out - just flat out- better graphics then anything the 360 is capable of. And the top dog PS3 exclusives(graphically) definitively prove this without a doubt i.e that the PS3 is capable of better graphics, better physics , MUCH better animations when utilized properly The problem is multi-plat developers don't take the time to learn the PS3 hardware, like Sony's amazing first parties do. And what a lot of people don't realise either is that the cell can and will take work loads off from the RSX, so that allows the RSX to be more effective, and it more of its benchmarks. Where as the GPU in the 360 is being strained more, and is not hitting its theoretical peak like the RSX is, because of the fact that the cell helps with the GPU workload too. Just imagine HOW MUCH more powerful the PS3 could've been if there were more ram, and an up to date GPU added along side the cell? I mean, despite everything, the PS3 is already a more powerful capable machine then the 360 is. IF it had the ram and gpu to match cell, then damn....it would be humiliating the 360 even more so. The PS3 is an awesome core gaming console...one of the best core consoles of all time....one of my all time fav consoles ever(because of the diverse and plentiful amount of awesome PS exclusives, all the muli-plats, FREE online, blue ray) But hope that with the PS4, Sony can fix what was wrong with the PS3, and just make an all around powerful machine, that is efficient, and runs well together between all parts Sure...wanna buy a fridge Nanuk[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.dudegamer23
Problem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
So basically, In your "mind"....and sorry but you really do seem off your rocker, like most lems are lol. What you are trying to say, is that the 360 cpu is better, then the PS3 cpu, at doing things unrelated to gaming(like being able to download a demo while listening to music or doing party chat ect (which is just unecessary and excessive IMO) While the cpu in the PS3 is far superior to the cpu in the 360 at doing what actually matters (actual game graphics and physics) I agree 100% with Tormentos, especially when he told you to start using logic yourself. I mean, everybody says the GPU in the 360 is far superior to the RSX. So then how is it that a majority of the best looking games this gen are PS3 exclusives, and remain PS3 exclusives? There's an obvious reason. The Cell MORE then makes up for the other disadvantages the PS3 might have else where, AND THEN SOME. Despite a weaker GPU, and split ram, the PS3 is capable of churning out - just flat out- better graphics then anything the 360 is capable of. And the top dog PS3 exclusives(graphically) definitively prove this without a doubt i.e that the PS3 is capable of better graphics, better physics , MUCH better animations when utilized properly The problem is multi-plat developers don't take the time to learn the PS3 hardware, like Sony's amazing first parties do. And what a lot of people don't realise either is that the cell can and will take work loads off from the RSX, so that allows the RSX to be more effective, and it more of its benchmarks. Where as the GPU in the 360 is being strained more, and is not hitting its theoretical peak like the RSX is, because of the fact that the cell helps with the GPU workload too. Just imagine HOW MUCH more powerful the PS3 could've been if there were more ram, and an up to date GPU added along side the cell? I mean, despite everything, the PS3 is already a more powerful capable machine then the 360 is. IF it had the ram and gpu to match cell, then damn....it would be humiliating the 360 even more so. The PS3 is an awesome core gaming console...one of the best core consoles of all time....one of my all time fav consoles ever(because of the diverse and plentiful amount of awesome PS exclusives, all the muli-plats, FREE online, blue ray) But hope that with the PS4, Sony can fix what was wrong with the PS3, and just make an all around powerful machine, that is efficient, and runs well together between all parts Mad lemming watch out![QUOTE="dudegamer23"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]So basically, In your "mind"....and sorry but you really do seem off your rocker, like most lems are lol. What you are trying to say, is that the 360 cpu is better, then the PS3 cpu, at doing things unrelated to gaming(like being able to download a demo while listening to music or doing party chat ect (which is just unecessary and excessive IMO) While the cpu in the PS3 is far superior to the cpu in the 360 at doing what actually matters (actual game graphics and physics) I agree 100% with Tormentos, especially when he told you to start using logic yourself. I mean, everybody says the GPU in the 360 is far superior to the RSX. So then how is it that a majority of the best looking games this gen are PS3 exclusives, and remain PS3 exclusives? There's an obvious reason. The Cell MORE then makes up for the other disadvantages the PS3 might have else where, AND THEN SOME. Despite a weaker GPU, and split ram, the PS3 is capable of churning out - just flat out- better graphics then anything the 360 is capable of. And the top dog PS3 exclusives(graphically) definitively prove this without a doubt i.e that the PS3 is capable of better graphics, better physics , MUCH better animations when utilized properly The problem is multi-plat developers don't take the time to learn the PS3 hardware, like Sony's amazing first parties do. And what a lot of people don't realise either is that the cell can and will take work loads off from the RSX, so that allows the RSX to be more effective, and it more of its benchmarks. Where as the GPU in the 360 is being strained more, and is not hitting its theoretical peak like the RSX is, because of the fact that the cell helps with the GPU workload too. Just imagine HOW MUCH more powerful the PS3 could've been if there were more ram, and an up to date GPU added along side the cell? I mean, despite everything, the PS3 is already a more powerful capable machine then the 360 is. IF it had the ram and gpu to match cell, then damn....it would be humiliating the 360 even more so. The PS3 is an awesome core gaming console...one of the best core consoles of all time....one of my all time fav consoles ever(because of the diverse and plentiful amount of awesome PS exclusives, all the muli-plats, FREE online, blue ray) But hope that with the PS4, Sony can fix what was wrong with the PS3, and just make an all around powerful machine, that is efficient, and runs well together between all parts Mad lemming watch out! LOL you obviously didn't read my post! And in fact, I was hinting at you being a lem my good sir hahahaProblem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
04dcarraher
[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] No not in reality, just in your head :P
The Cell is slower then the 360 CPU in normal cpu jobs and in MIPS performance the 360 can do 19000, while PS3 can only do 10,000. However for parallel processing then yes the Cell kills the 360's cpu. However cpu's are not designed to singular based jobs which means all that is pointless. The Cell was originally design to be a general purpose cpu where it did everything however sony realize when testing that the Cell wasn't enough to achieve what was needed for performance and graphically. So they added the RSX to be the primary GPU, and because they spent so much on the Cell they weren't going to scrap the whole thing which is why dev's like naughty dog were able to take the time to create coding which used the unused SPE's to supplement the RSX.
Now if and I mean "if" the next xbox will have an IBM 16 core cpu it will not be the same as the Cell was. They will be 16 normal cores not a single core with multi co processors that are meant for gpu workloads. But chances are that MS and AMD are using an APU design because of the trustworthy reports made since 2010 onward have been about them.
NO is actually in yours dude,Cell is more powerful that the 360 CPU by a long shot,so powerful it actually make up for all the power advantage the xbox 360 has on the GPU side. If the Cell is equal to the 360 CPU in power,and the 360 has 10MB of ram more,+ a smaller foot print OS + a more powerful GPU and is easier to code for,how in hell games like Uncharted actually beat the xbox 360 best games.? People should apply logic were is do,the PS3 CPU was design with graphics in mind,the 360 CPU wasn't and it easy to see.Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
CELL's SPE is closer to PowerPC's VMX/Altivec compared to ATI's Xenos GPU. SPEs doesn't even have un-core parts of a GPU.
It's insanely powerful...for a console
RROD 2.0. confirmed
True. IBM developed both Microsofts and Sony's chips. It was thought that Sony's cpu was more capable then Microsoft's , but I'm not so sure of that anymore. Dave Shippy from IBM said they were pretty much the same. Then again I think he has to say that. Don't want to give the nod to either party, seeing as how you may lose a future business partner. It will be very interesting to see what route these two companies take with their new hardware. I hope they do make them extremely powerful. Just not extremely expensive.[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] CELL's SPE instruction set is based on PowerPC's VMX while ATI Xenos is not based on any known CPU instruction set.ronvalencia
Dave Shippy made a comment on ATI's Xenos GPU.
link
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores? it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
Correct. That's the same article I read in one of my Game Informers.[QUOTE="topgunmv"][QUOTE="tormentos"] NO is actually in yours dude,Cell is more powerful that the 360 CPU by a long shot,so powerful it actually make up for all the power advantage the xbox 360 has on the GPU side. If the Cell is equal to the 360 CPU in power,and the 360 has 10MB of ram more,+ a smaller foot print OS + a more powerful GPU and is easier to code for,how in hell games like Uncharted actually beat the xbox 360 best games.? People should apply logic were is do,the PS3 CPU was design with graphics in mind,the 360 CPU wasn't and it easy to see.PC_Otter
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.Sony spent billions on developing the Cell and the end result was a overtly complex CPU design that was used to compensate for RSX's shortcommings. I think that is a clear proof that designing a "own" chip is not always the best option, neither guarantees the wanted results.
Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
nameless12345
Sony spent billions on developing the Cell and the end result was a overtly complex CPU design that was used to compensate for RSX's shortcommings. I think that is a clear proof that designing a "own" chip is not always the best option, neither guarantess the wanted results.
not to mention they made the chip a number cruncher....not something that's good for gaming. Give it spreadsheets to maintain and it would have a field day
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]
[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]
You should really visit specsavers think you could be doin with an eye test matey.
razgriz_101
Well, tell that Digital Foundry that said Witcher 2 has better lighting on 360, why bother with me ?
Graphically its nowhere near the PC on ultra.....and the lighting is being patched in with the EE patch aswell if im not mistaken.
Lol now u can buy it againVery much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
nameless12345
Sony spent billions on developing the Cell and the end result was a overtly complex CPU design that was used to compensate for RSX's shortcommings. I think that is a clear proof that designing a "own" chip is not always the best option, neither guarantees the wanted results.
Actually the Cell was designed to a general purpose cpu handling all jobs including rendering, but they realized that it couldnt do the job so that is when they added the RSX to save the console they didnt want to scrap the Cell because of their investment into it. Also they had no plans to have the SPE's to supplement the RSX. until years after release.Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
nameless12345
Sony spent billions on developing the Cell and the end result was a overtly complex CPU design that was used to compensate for RSX's shortcommings. I think that is a clear proof that designing a "own" chip is not always the best option, neither guarantees the wanted results.
Sony didn't design CELL by itself i.e. CELL's SPU instruction set was based on existing PowerPC's VMX/Altivec instruction set.
IBM's fusion method is different from AMD GCN's fusion method i.e. GPU first then tacked on some X86-64 CPU features.
[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.wis3boi
Sony spent billions on developing the Cell and the end result was a overtly complex CPU design that was used to compensate for RSX's shortcommings. I think that is a clear proof that designing a "own" chip is not always the best option, neither guarantess the wanted results.
not to mention they made the chip a number cruncher....not something that's good for gaming. Give it spreadsheets to maintain and it would have a field dayAs an example, non-graphics WinZIP 16.5 (OpenCL**) app says Hi on PC's number cruncher.
As for spreadsheets, note that PS3 CELL's SPU floating point hardware has issues with full IEEE 754-2008 floating point standards. AMD GCN has full IEEE 754-2008 handling i.e. "with all round modes, proper handling of Nan/Inf/Zero and full de-normal support in hardware for SP and DP".
**OpenCL code path targets AMD Radeon HD IGP/GPUs, but should work on other OpenCL solutions.
I'm not buying into any rumors yet, I'll wait until we actually SEE the system and some games demo'd on it first. All I can say is if you want the next Xbox to be able to compete in power next gen it will have make some serious improvments and borrow some pages from the PS3.
Like having Blu Ray ect...you Lems are going to eat your words next gen, that's for sure! Bashing the PS3 for Blu Ray but yet it's the industry standard now lol.
[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
[QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.ronvalencia
Sony spent billions on developing the Cell and the end result was a overtly complex CPU design that was used to compensate for RSX's shortcommings. I think that is a clear proof that designing a "own" chip is not always the best option, neither guarantees the wanted results.
Sony didn't design CELL by itself i.e. CELL's SPU instruction set was based on existing PowerPC's VMX/Altivec instruction set.
IBM's fusion method is different from AMD GCN's fusion method i.e. GPU first then tacked on some X86-64 CPU features.
Sounds confusing. I wonder who is gonna get the contract to work on the cpu of each of the next wave of systems from Microsoft and Sony?Rumors of AMD on the GPU for both camps, but I havent heard anything in regards to the cpu. I wonder if IBM will be a key player again, or if they will go with a competitor? I think IBM did the Gamecube processor also if I'm not mistaken. ATI graphics and IBM chip in my old gray Cube. Still performs like a champ.
ok blu-ray is one? you don't "etc" after one word... "Compete in power next gen" Now you just sound silly when both the 360/ps3 are alike in power with various strengths in different areas.I'm not buying into any rumors yet, I'll wait until we actually SEE the system and some games demo'd on it first. All I can say is if you want the next Xbox to be able to compete in power next gen it will have make some serious improvments and borrow some pages from the PS3.
Like having Blu Ray ect...you Lems are going to eat your words next gen, that's for sure! Bashing the PS3 for Blu Ray but yet it's the industry standard now lol.
ShadowMoses900
Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]
Because the cell is pretty much a vector processor, aka it has a lot more in common with a gpu than it does a regular cpu.
04dcarraher
Problem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
Stop believing everything you hear from MS ,even if their system was wii like they would still claim superiority,Cell destroy the xbox 360 CPU no matter how you slice it,is 2012 i can't believe people actually think that the xbox 360 has a better CPU than the PS3,no just no you can't look at Cell in benchmark numbers,because Cell can handle tons of task which up until Cell were been handle by the GPU. Again logic here. The xbox 360 is.. Easier to code. Has 10 extra MB of ram. Has a smaller footprint OS which mean more free ram for resources. Stronger GPU. Has been 1 year longer on developers hands than the PS3. And by your argument has an equal CPU. Whit this ^^ it would be impossible that any PS3 game look better than a 360 game,impossible period the PS3 doesn't ave this hide power that helped over come the 360 advantages,the difference is Cell a CPU that can handle tons of GPU task,unlike the 360 CPU,no speed test can change that.I only plan to buy a xbox 720 next gen, since other systems have zero games i care about
Having the best graphics will not hurt either, cool news
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Sony spent billions on developing the Cell and the end result was a overtly complex CPU design that was used to compensate for RSX's shortcommings. I think that is a clear proof that designing a "own" chip is not always the best option, neither guarantees the wanted results.
godzillavskong
Sony didn't design CELL by itself i.e. CELL's SPU instruction set was based on existing PowerPC's VMX/Altivec instruction set.
IBM's fusion method is different from AMD GCN's fusion method i.e. GPU first then tacked on some X86-64 CPU features.
Sounds confusing. I wonder who is gonna get the contract to work on the cpu of each of the next wave of systems from Microsoft and Sony?Rumors of AMD on the GPU for both camps, but I havent heard anything in regards to the cpu. I wonder if IBM will be a key player again, or if they will go with a competitor? I think IBM did the Gamecube processor also if I'm not mistaken. ATI graphics and IBM chip in my old gray Cube. Still performs like a champ.IBM designed CELL's SPE from PPC's VMX instruction set. SPE is like a cutdown PPC VMX with 128 registers. Intel Itanium (CPU) also has 128 registers.
7 SPEs has a total of 14 Kilobytes register data storage space. In contrast, AMD Radeon HD 4870 has 2.5 Megabytes of register data storage space. Register data storage is the fastest known data storage design and AMD/NV GpGPU has more of it i.e. the GPU is specifically designed for fast matrix math processing.
This is one of many examples why the AMD** GpGPU differs to IBM's SPEs.
**One can replace AMD with NVIDIA and my comments remains the same.
It's a mass produced consumer electronics product. Don't ever hold your breath.skrat_01
It is not unlike xbox 360 that runs Withcer 2 with better graphics than PC though
So, will probably deliver
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Very much so a vector processor, but IIRC it's much more flexible. Not sure where the latest CUDA and AMD GCN architectures sit in terms of flexibility in comparison to Cell. However, Cell is still a terrible CPU for actually managing a system or server, hence why Cell based servers and supercomputers always had a general processor paired with it. The single PPE really was never enough for anything beyond a gaming console.tormentos
Problem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
Stop believing everything you hear from MS ,even if their system was wii like they would still claim superiority,Cell destroy the xbox 360 CPU no matter how you slice it,is 2012 i can't believe people actually think that the xbox 360 has a better CPU than the PS3,no just no you can't look at Cell in benchmark numbers,because Cell can handle tons of task which up until Cell were been handle by the GPU. Again logic here. The xbox 360 is.. Easier to code. Has 10 extra MB of ram. Has a smaller footprint OS which mean more free ram for resources. Stronger GPU. Has been 1 year longer on developers hands than the PS3. And by your argument has an equal CPU. Whit this ^^ it would be impossible that any PS3 game look better than a 360 game,impossible period the PS3 doesn't ave this hide power that helped over come the 360 advantages,the difference is Cell a CPU that can handle tons of GPU task,unlike the 360 CPU,no speed test can change that.CELL doesn't handle "tons" of GPU task i.e. it doesn't even include GPU's fix functions that RSX provides. CELL's 1X PPE and 2X SPEs covers Xbox 360's PPE X3 while 4 SPEs "patches" RSX's aging design.
XBox 360 and PS3 is about the same in power.
Stop believing everything you hear from MS ,even if their system was wii like they would still claim superiority,Cell destroy the xbox 360 CPU no matter how you slice it,is 2012 i can't believe people actually think that the xbox 360 has a better CPU than the PS3,no just no you can't look at Cell in benchmark numbers,because Cell can handle tons of task which up until Cell were been handle by the GPU. Again logic here. The xbox 360 is.. Easier to code. Has 10 extra MB of ram. Has a smaller footprint OS which mean more free ram for resources. Stronger GPU. Has been 1 year longer on developers hands than the PS3. And by your argument has an equal CPU. Whit this ^^ it would be impossible that any PS3 game look better than a 360 game,impossible period the PS3 doesn't ave this hide power that helped over come the 360 advantages,the difference is Cell a CPU that can handle tons of GPU task,unlike the 360 CPU,no speed test can change that.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
Problem is that also you can not gauge a CPU with GFLOPS performance charts because that performance is for singular/parallel workloads, and that a processing unit never reach's its theoretical peak. Like the PS3's Cell has a theoretical peak of 230 GFLOPS but in reality its only about 180 GFLOPS. the correct form to gauge a cpu's performance is instructions per seconds. And again the 360's cpu is nearly 2x faster then PS3's Cell which is why the PS3 has less multitasking abilites like being able to download a demo and still be able to play a game while playing music.
ronvalencia
CELL doesn't handle "tons" of GPU task i.e. it doesn't even include GPU's fix functions that RSX provides. CELL's 1X PPE and 2X SPEs covers Xbox 360's PPE X3 while 4 SPEs "patches" RSX's aging design.
XBox 360 and PS3 is about the same in power.
They really are similar, Sony I must credit just has an awesome amount of dedication and tools for it's first party games.
The next 360 will have bluray. And no one will be eating their words. Settle down. Its an industry standard now, but the financial books show which company has made the right decisions.I'm not buying into any rumors yet, I'll wait until we actually SEE the system and some games demo'd on it first. All I can say is if you want the next Xbox to be able to compete in power next gen it will have make some serious improvments and borrow some pages from the PS3.
Like having Blu Ray ect...you Lems are going to eat your words next gen, that's for sure! Bashing the PS3 for Blu Ray but yet it's the industry standard now lol.
ShadowMoses900
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment