chubz256's forum posts

Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
[QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="emotions"][QUOTE="vaderhater"][QUOTE="emotions"]lol to the topic creater dont listen to these lemming

GPU 360 and PS3 have more or less the same power; once devs will start to use SPUs to speed up RSX things will start to be even more interesting (and a few titles are already doing that.."

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37033&page=3

from the Heavenly sword devs

oh and dont even bother arguing that " Bu bu they work for sony!! " because they worked on heavenly sword for the xbox360 for atleast a year before realising the 360 just didnt have the graphical power like the ps3..hence why they moved production to ps3 ;)

/ thread



Me-Ur-Daddy
But why does the RSX need help to begin with??



Its not helping it, its speeding it up..think of a turbo in a car and you get the idea

...what ever way you people try to spin it at the end of the day the RSX is superior

tho the 360 is alot easy to develop for

Wow, you are just a fanboy to the max, obviously u didn't read that 11 page article, did you? Xenos is superior against RSX in every way, I'm not bsing, allow me to explain. RSX is equal to the geforce 7800, downgraded to 500 MHZ, 32 pixel pipelines, 8 vertex pipelines, and 256 mb VRAM downgraded to 650 MHZ. Xenos is almost(but not all) equal to the ATI R600 coming next month, 500 MHZ, 48 shader pipelines, unified shader architecture, and 10 mb eDRAM, plus it can access total 480 mb RAM from the unified RAM. First, Xenos, being almost equal to the R600 because of the unified shader architecture and stream out capability, is soo much more superior to the RSX being only a 7800. Xenos even has DX10 features because it has that unified shader architecture and the stream out capability thx to the memexport allowing it to be mostly qualified as a dx10 chip, RSX, being equal to the 7800, doesn't have the unified shaders nor does it have stream out. RSX can't do dx10 at all. BTW, the 7800 was released last year before the ps3, while the R600 will arrive next month while the 360 was released 2005, pretty impressive on the 360's part. Secondly, 48 shader pipelines(xenos)>32 shader pipelines(rsx), not only does it have 16 more pipes but they're all unified making each pipe support both pixels and vertex's while the RSX pipes are only 24 pixel pipes and 8 vertex pipes, that's it, xenos has more and can have max performance because of the unified pipes unlike RSX. Lastly, xenos has the 10 megs of eDRAM for frame buffer. This eDRAM can handle 4xAA with no cost for the main GPU. It also has an internal bandwith of 256 GB/s. RSX doesn't have this eDRAM, with that said xenos can do 4xAA and HDR at the same time while RSX can't, also xenos, having the way higher bandwith, can output 1080p better than RSX. This is why games like motorstorm was downgraded to 720p because of RSX. The 360 can output 1080p way better thx to Xenos. So, in conclusion, RSX is inferior in everyway. This can be proven by 8 games that all look better on the 360, plus FEAR looks better on the 360 as well. About oblivion, they had a year to make it for the ps3 and even then it won't look better because the makers are releasing a graphics patch for the 360 version via xbox live. Don't be soo fanboyish and let it make you foolish. Xenos is next gen, RSX isn't.

that was so much bs i almost threw up, xenos is nowhere close to dx10 just because it has a couple of the features, you completely omitted the fact that cell works in conjunction with rsx, 360 CANNOT do better 1080p theres not even any games in native 1080p except what a tennis game LOL, the 360 was never intended to run 1080p and worse yet it has an anolog scaler :lol:i dont see forza 2 in 1080p or i for that matter ;) the cell is so much more advanced than the xenon its sad, and it works in conjunction with rsx unlike 360 gpu and cpu fighting for bandwith. multiplat games look better cus they were deved on 360 of course they will run better DURRRRRR and 360 gpu was outdone lasty year buddy stop spewing lies through ur teeth

Don't forget that the ps3 doesn't have alot of games in 1080p neither. Both consoles will probably stick with 1080i or 720p just like I stated with motorstorm being downgraded to 720p. But it's a fact that xenos can output 1080p better. This is because of the eDRAM that is used for framebuffer alone and extremely high bandwith that doesn't stress the main GPU at all. As for you cpu statement, cell has twice the amount of floating point performance, xenon has 3 times the amount of general purpose power. Which one is more important? Games require 90% general purpose power and 10% floating point performance. Xenon wins, although cell is faster ;) . You also pulled this out of your ass right here- "and it works in conjunction with rsx unlike 360 gpu and cpu fighting for bandwith" quoted by you. That is bs in a nutshell! Xenos has that framebuffer eDRAM with an internal bandwith of 256 GB/s which means the GPU doesn't need alot of RAM to do it's work, also, xenon and xenos work together way better than cell and rsx working together. This is because xenon and xenos share the same memory pool so it can change info. in the same memory pool which doesn't hurt bandwith, unlike cell having it's own RAM and RSX having it's own VRAM. If RSX needs more RAM, which it probably will because it only has 192 free VRAM it has to borrow RAM from Cell which will choke Cell soo much. Xenos is better, stop denying this fact.
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
[QUOTE="shishkabob_6"]HS uses fake HDRtegovoltio
Like the 360's fake 1080p?

Actually, 360 gpu outputs 1080p alot better than ps3's. But the ps3 gpu is trying to emulate HDR while 360's can do both 4xAA and HDR. Your comment phailed.
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
Wasn't it actually 96 ops instead of 48 ops for xenos, which by the way is higher than RSX's ops. Even if xenos was lower there was a good point on how it could outperform RSX because of the architecture efficiency. Just like it outperforming an x1950 because of the unified shaders. Which pretty much puts it between the x1950 and R600.
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
Oh, I 4got to add that Xenos can access twice the amount of RAM over RSX. Xenos can access total 480 megs, RSX only has 192 megs VRAM.
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
[QUOTE="vaderhater"][QUOTE="emotions"]lol to the topic creater dont listen to these lemming

GPU 360 and PS3 have more or less the same power; once devs will start to use SPUs to speed up RSX things will start to be even more interesting (and a few titles are already doing that.."

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37033&page=3

from the Heavenly sword devs

oh and dont even bother arguing that " Bu bu they work for sony!! " because they worked on heavenly sword for the xbox360 for atleast a year before realising the 360 just didnt have the graphical power like the ps3..hence why they moved production to ps3 ;)

/ thread



emotions
But why does the RSX need help to begin with??



Its not helping it, its speeding it up..think of a turbo in a car and you get the idea

...what ever way you people try to spin it at the end of the day the RSX is superior

tho the 360 is alot easy to develop for

Wow, you are just a fanboy to the max, obviously u didn't read that 11 page article, did you? Xenos is superior against RSX in every way, I'm not bsing, allow me to explain. RSX is equal to the geforce 7800, downgraded to 500 MHZ, 32 pixel pipelines, 8 vertex pipelines, and 256 mb VRAM downgraded to 650 MHZ. Xenos is almost(but not all) equal to the ATI R600 coming next month, 500 MHZ, 48 shader pipelines, unified shader architecture, and 10 mb eDRAM, plus it can access total 480 mb RAM from the unified RAM. First, Xenos, being almost equal to the R600 because of the unified shader architecture and stream out capability, is soo much more superior to the RSX being only a 7800. Xenos even has DX10 features because it has that unified shader architecture and the stream out capability thx to the memexport allowing it to be mostly qualified as a dx10 chip, RSX, being equal to the 7800, doesn't have the unified shaders nor does it have stream out. RSX can't do dx10 at all. BTW, the 7800 was released last year before the ps3, while the R600 will arrive next month while the 360 was released 2005, pretty impressive on the 360's part. Secondly, 48 shader pipelines(xenos)>32 shader pipelines(rsx), not only does it have 16 more pipes but they're all unified making each pipe support both pixels and vertex's while the RSX pipes are only 24 pixel pipes and 8 vertex pipes, that's it, xenos has more and can have max performance because of the unified pipes unlike RSX. Lastly, xenos has the 10 megs of eDRAM for frame buffer. This eDRAM can handle 4xAA with no cost for the main GPU. It also has an internal bandwith of 256 GB/s. RSX doesn't have this eDRAM, with that said xenos can do 4xAA and HDR at the same time while RSX can't, also xenos, having the way higher bandwith, can output 1080p better than RSX. This is why games like motorstorm was downgraded to 720p because of RSX. The 360 can output 1080p way better thx to Xenos. So, in conclusion, RSX is inferior in everyway. This can be proven by 8 games that all look better on the 360, plus FEAR looks better on the 360 as well. About oblivion, they had a year to make it for the ps3 and even then it won't look better because the makers are releasing a graphics patch for the 360 version via xbox live. Don't be soo fanboyish and let it make you foolish. Xenos is next gen, RSX isn't.
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
[QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"]

This is getting....boring.  You 1st claim (very arrogantly) that Alan Wake was impossible for PS3 to run. You later post that it could run (somewhat slowly) on a HT-P4 (a single core processor.)  Since you also admit that PS3 does offload physics + gfx stuff to SPEs (something it excells at) it plainly stands to reason that any developer worth his salt could not only port Alan Wake to PS3, but Alan Wake would run pretty well---at least as well on the CPU end of things as 360.

Tony_aaaa

Yes, I posted at the end that that was exageration about the whole impossible thing(but it would still be tooned down alot). You read my PS, right? Hmmm... Anyways I never said that SPEs prepare graphics for the GPU(as you clamied that I first said the CPU core did, then I apparently later said the SPEs can too), why are you putting words in my mouth? About the whole 6 SPEs being faster than the pipes on RSX/Xenos(which you claim make it way better than actual pipes on a GPU), obviously a pc with a geforce 8800 500 MHZ(compared to 3.2 GHZ clock of SPEs) with weak CPU would be alot better than the ps3 with it's cell and rsx. Lastly, we all know that 8 launch ps3 games look inferior to the 360 plus FEAR looking worst on the ps3 with way more dev time. And the whole "they still need to get use to it" won't work because the FEAR devs been developing this game on the ps3 with plenty of time and the 360 ver. still looks better. And the ps3 ver. is a year newer. WTH is up with that, lol?

You said:

 "Then why can't Alan Wake run on the ps3? Oh ya, that's right, Cell only has one core dedicated to the SPEs while Alan Wake requires multiple cores in order to prepare graphics information for the GPU. You can find these CPUs in the 360 and Quad core CPUs in the PC. Cell fails just like it's father, Emotion Engine."   (exact cut + paste from you)

You are wrong, plain and simple.

All the digression in the world won't change that.

Your "explaination" posts just dig you in deeper. Trying to bait me with "PS3 late to launch", and "FEAR" stuff won't work. I'm not a "cow," and never made those claims.

 Perhaps you should re-read my (and Geordi's) posts on this thread.

I said I exaggerated, I did admit I went over the edge saying that it was impossible. Remember my last post, I said that. I'm not in denial. I'm not the type where if I'm wrong, I deny it. I admit that and I'm fully sorry for the exaggeration. And no, I never saw you as a cow, you're to smart to be a cow. So, anyway, lets end this and just talk about how freakin awesome AW will be!!(even though this thread doesn't cover that subject lol)
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts

This is getting....boring.  You 1st claim (very arrogantly) that Alan Wake was impossible for PS3 to run. You later post that it could run (somewhat slowly) on a HT-P4 (a single core processor.)  Since you also admit that PS3 does offload physics + gfx stuff to SPEs (something it excells at) it plainly stands to reason that any developer worth his salt could not only port Alan Wake to PS3, but Alan Wake would run pretty well---at least as well on the CPU end of things as 360.

Tony_aaaa

Yes, I posted at the end that that was exageration about the whole impossible thing(but it would still be tooned down alot). You read my PS, right? Hmmm... Anyways I never said that SPEs prepare graphics for the GPU(as you clamied that I first said the CPU core did, then I apparently later said the SPEs can too), why are you putting words in my mouth? About the whole 6 SPEs being faster than the pipes on RSX/Xenos(which you claim make it way better than actual pipes on a GPU), obviously a pc with a geforce 8800 500 MHZ(compared to 3.2 GHZ clock of SPEs) with weak CPU would be alot better than the ps3 with it's cell and rsx. Lastly, we all know that 8 launch ps3 games look inferior to the 360 plus FEAR looking worst on the ps3 with way more dev time. And the whole "they still need to get use to it" won't work because the FEAR devs been developing this game on the ps3 with plenty of time and the 360 ver. still looks better. And the ps3 ver. is a year newer. WTH is up with that, lol?
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts

[QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="DaddyDC650"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"]Finally, someone gets it! Reserving SPEs is not the way to go. Having many more SPE capable tasks then actual SPEs is the right way. Hopefully it shapes up to be an incredible game. Comparing this to a RECENT 1st or 2nd party 360 racer will be very revealing.Tony_aaaa
Maybe I should explain. Most prior PS3 titles "reserved" SPEs for 1 function only. The problem is that if you have devoted an SPE to say, raindrops, or realistic clothing movements on the pit-crew, then that SPE (and 1/8 of your total processing power) is unused if it's not raining, or if you're not in pit-row. By dynamically allocating SPEs, you get MUCH closer to utilizing 100% of the total power of your cpu (Cell, in this case.) Comparing this game to a 1st or 2nd party 360 racing game (that is written specifically for 360) will be far more revealing as to which system is "more powerful" than comparing a port will ever be.

Thanks for explaining your post but I'm not touching the whole "which console is more powerful" subject tonight. I simply wanted to post a thread regarding the Cell CPU and what it's capable of. Got that 360 fanboys?

Then why can't Alan Wake run on the ps3? Oh ya, that's right, Cell only has one core dedicated to the SPEs while Alan Wake requires multiple cores in order to prepare graphics information for the GPU. You can find these CPUs in the 360 and Quad core CPUs in the PC. Cell fails just like it's father, Emotion Engine.

Alan Wake can't run on PS3 due to an exclusive (To MS) contract Remedy signed. Doing physics calculations on the CPU/SPEs is something PS3 does better than 360. FYI it is a DX10 game that will have to be slightly downgraded to fit on 360. Chances are, if Alan Wake were released fully multiplat, Vista would be best (assuming a dual or quad core DX10 PC.) 360 would look better than PS3, PS3 would have better physics than 360. Things like the tornado in the demo are more suited to PS3's SPEs than devoting an entire core on 360. Again, both consoles have different advantages. Neither console version would be superior unless it was a "port" from the other console.

Actually, you're right about physics calculations running faster on Cell, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Here, let me fully explain why Xenon would have a huge advantage over Cell on a game like this, I used this in another forum... "OMG. How many times do we need to say this. Cell has one core and 8 SPEs(threads). Cores are made to decode info. while SPEs(threads) are made to execute that decoded info. Every core in computers has atleast one thread to execute that prgram, without threads, that program can't be executed. Cell, having one core, can only decode info. on that single core, then that info. is directed to one of the 8 SPEs to be executed(just like any other CPU, except Cell has the most SPEs or threads if you will). Now, Cell only has one advantage, with all those SPEs it can execute programs almost twice as fast over the 360 CPU(xenon). However, Xenon also has a huge advantage over Cell. It has 3 cores. Which means, it can decode 3 times the amount of info. Cell can only decode a limited amount because of it having only 1 core. Alan Wake is the first game that requires more than one core. Although Cell can execute programs really fast, it can only decode on 1 core. The reason why a game like this requires more the one core is because while one core must do the main work, it still needs other cores to do something else. Another core needs to decode info. for the GPU, this is a new way of thinking outside the box because while the GPU is working hard, way more info. is also being decoded on one of the cores on the CPU at an extremely high freq.(3.2 GHZ) and then that info., after being decoded, leaves the CPU and heads to the GPU to be executed. This is a huge graphics boost. Also a third core can be used to handle physics as shown on the Alan Wake tech demo. Now, Cell fails at this because it only has one core to do everything so graphics CANNOT be decoded for the GPU. The 360 has 3 cores(each with 2 threads so it's still extremely fast) so the 360 can have one core do the main stuff, one core can prepare graphics for the GPU, and the other core can handle physics(or something else). PCs also because we already have Quad CPUs. This is why ps3 can't handle this game and the 360 and pc can. Cell was completely uneccessary on Sony's part. PS: An analogy would be a core is a factory while a thread is a store. First, products must be produced at the factory, then that product is sent to the store to be sold. Hope this helps :)"

Everything I've read on Alan Wake says that on a multicore system (Like say a core 2 duo) 1 of the 2 cores will be used for physics calculations. The SPEs on Cell are practically desinged specifically for this. Alan Wake could definetly be done on PS3. As good as on Vista quad-core + DX10 card?? no way, but it could be done. Also some of your above post is.....abstract, to put it mildly.

Well, sorry for not being as clear as I should, but I'm mainly saying that those SPEs are threads, not cores. You can't get a thread to decode physics code, only the core itself can decode all information. Yes, those SPEs, or threads, can execute(key word execute, which means it ONLY activates the application) the info. really fast because there's 8 SPEs(most threads ever seen in a processor). But since there's only 1 core to decode all game code, it wouldn't beable to handle anymore then it's restricted clock freq. of 3.2 GHZ. And in the tech demo it said that it simply couldn't be done on a single core processor and needed more cores(doesn't matter how many threads there are) to prepare graphics for the GPU and a 3rd core to decode physics code. Since there's more cores there's more to handle on other CPUs such as Xenon and quad cores.

SPEs are threads? Sorry, I don't get it (NOT trying to be sarcastic) How does that correlate to the link in this post that states different physics calculations performed on different SPE's Also..."prepare graphics for the GPU"?? SPEs most certainly do vertex calcs----better than the dedicated RSX can. Lastly---Alan Wake will run on a 2 core PC with 1 core for physics. Considering THAT, how is it impossible to run/port AW on PS3 as you claim??

There's four stages to a complete CPU operation...

Fetch Decode Execute Writeback. Decode=CORE, Execute=SPE.

Yes, physics are calculated on these SPEs, since when did I say they're not? But I did say that they were not "decoded" on the SPEs, they are excuted, not decoded(there is a difference between the two, that's what your'e not seeing). Decoding involves the information arriving at the core, then it gets read to be translated into the computer language. Executing involves the SPEs taking that already decoded info. that was decoded by the core, and vectoring it(creating a logical path alot like pipelines in a GPU). No, it is certainly not 9 cores total like someone said earlier. Anyway, the devs specificially said that the game simply couldn't be ran on a single core cpu, that single core in Cell serves as a bottle neck. Yes, everything is calculated on the SPEs, but they have to wait for the core to decode the game code in order to do their job. And I also didn't deny the fact that those SPEs do vertex calculations, but there's only 8, while GPUs today have 50 more or less. So this means that no, it does nowhere near what RSX can do considering RSX has about 32 pipes. So this means that it must be decoded on a dedicated CPU core to prepare graphics and then be sent to the GPU to be executed on the pipes. If one core is dedicated for decoding of graphics code then that means you need more the one core. Cell fails at that with only 1 core. One core isn't enough like I said, bottleneck. To prove the fact that SPEs are alot like threads...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor And here is a quote...

"In one typical usage scenario, the system will load the SPEs with small programs (similar to threads), chaining the SPEs together to handle each step in a complex operation. For instance, a set-top box might load programs for reading a DVD, video and audio decoding, and display, and the data would be passed off from SPE to SPE until finally ending up on the TV. Another possibility is to partition the input data set and have several SPEs performing the same kind of operation in parallel. At 3.2 GHz, each SPU gives a theoretical 25.6 GFLOPS of single precision performance. Compared to a modern personal computer, the relatively high overall floating point performance of a Cell processor seemingly dwarfs the abilities of the SIMD unit in desktop CPUs like the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64. However, comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike a Cell processor, such desktop CPUs are more suited to the general purpose software usually run on personal computers. In addition to executing multiple instructions per clock, processors from Intel and AMD feature branch predictors. The Cell is designed to compensate for this with compiler assistance, in which prepare-to-branch instructions are created. For double-precision, as used in personal computers, Cell performance drops by an order of magnitude, but still reaches 14 GFLOPS."

And here is an explination of Alan Wake...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_wake And a quote...

"Alan Wake was demonstrated at the Intel Developer Forum in September 2006, running on an Intel Core 2 Quad processor clocked at 3.73GHz. The demonstration took the form of a tech demo, showcasing engine features such as day/night cycle, volumetric light, weather and physics. It was revealed that the game engine is multi-threaded and able to make full use of all four cores, with separate threads for physics, graphics & sound processing and seamless streaming of world data. It is therefore likely that the Xbox 360 version will also be able to take advantage of the Xenon CPU's three cores which have a total of 6 threads. It was also claimed that the game is unlikely to run on single-core systems, but hyper-threading enabled Pentium 4 CPUs may be able to run it with significantly reduced detail."

Notice that even if it were only single core, but hyper-threaded(Cell and it's SPEs), it would be downtooned significanlty in detail.

PS: I apalogize for saying it wasn't possible, that was exaggeration, but I made my point on how it wouldn't be nearly as good as the pc or 360.

Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
[QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="DaddyDC650"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"]Finally, someone gets it! Reserving SPEs is not the way to go. Having many more SPE capable tasks then actual SPEs is the right way. Hopefully it shapes up to be an incredible game. Comparing this to a RECENT 1st or 2nd party 360 racer will be very revealing.Tony_aaaa
Maybe I should explain. Most prior PS3 titles "reserved" SPEs for 1 function only. The problem is that if you have devoted an SPE to say, raindrops, or realistic clothing movements on the pit-crew, then that SPE (and 1/8 of your total processing power) is unused if it's not raining, or if you're not in pit-row. By dynamically allocating SPEs, you get MUCH closer to utilizing 100% of the total power of your cpu (Cell, in this case.) Comparing this game to a 1st or 2nd party 360 racing game (that is written specifically for 360) will be far more revealing as to which system is "more powerful" than comparing a port will ever be.

Thanks for explaining your post but I'm not touching the whole "which console is more powerful" subject tonight. I simply wanted to post a thread regarding the Cell CPU and what it's capable of. Got that 360 fanboys?

Then why can't Alan Wake run on the ps3? Oh ya, that's right, Cell only has one core dedicated to the SPEs while Alan Wake requires multiple cores in order to prepare graphics information for the GPU. You can find these CPUs in the 360 and Quad core CPUs in the PC. Cell fails just like it's father, Emotion Engine.

Alan Wake can't run on PS3 due to an exclusive (To MS) contract Remedy signed. Doing physics calculations on the CPU/SPEs is something PS3 does better than 360. FYI it is a DX10 game that will have to be slightly downgraded to fit on 360. Chances are, if Alan Wake were released fully multiplat, Vista would be best (assuming a dual or quad core DX10 PC.) 360 would look better than PS3, PS3 would have better physics than 360. Things like the tornado in the demo are more suited to PS3's SPEs than devoting an entire core on 360. Again, both consoles have different advantages. Neither console version would be superior unless it was a "port" from the other console.

Actually, you're right about physics calculations running faster on Cell, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Here, let me fully explain why Xenon would have a huge advantage over Cell on a game like this, I used this in another forum... "OMG. How many times do we need to say this. Cell has one core and 8 SPEs(threads). Cores are made to decode info. while SPEs(threads) are made to execute that decoded info. Every core in computers has atleast one thread to execute that prgram, without threads, that program can't be executed. Cell, having one core, can only decode info. on that single core, then that info. is directed to one of the 8 SPEs to be executed(just like any other CPU, except Cell has the most SPEs or threads if you will). Now, Cell only has one advantage, with all those SPEs it can execute programs almost twice as fast over the 360 CPU(xenon). However, Xenon also has a huge advantage over Cell. It has 3 cores. Which means, it can decode 3 times the amount of info. Cell can only decode a limited amount because of it having only 1 core. Alan Wake is the first game that requires more than one core. Although Cell can execute programs really fast, it can only decode on 1 core. The reason why a game like this requires more the one core is because while one core must do the main work, it still needs other cores to do something else. Another core needs to decode info. for the GPU, this is a new way of thinking outside the box because while the GPU is working hard, way more info. is also being decoded on one of the cores on the CPU at an extremely high freq.(3.2 GHZ) and then that info., after being decoded, leaves the CPU and heads to the GPU to be executed. This is a huge graphics boost. Also a third core can be used to handle physics as shown on the Alan Wake tech demo. Now, Cell fails at this because it only has one core to do everything so graphics CANNOT be decoded for the GPU. The 360 has 3 cores(each with 2 threads so it's still extremely fast) so the 360 can have one core do the main stuff, one core can prepare graphics for the GPU, and the other core can handle physics(or something else). PCs also because we already have Quad CPUs. This is why ps3 can't handle this game and the 360 and pc can. Cell was completely uneccessary on Sony's part. PS: An analogy would be a core is a factory while a thread is a store. First, products must be produced at the factory, then that product is sent to the store to be sold. Hope this helps :)"

Everything I've read on Alan Wake says that on a multicore system (Like say a core 2 duo) 1 of the 2 cores will be used for physics calculations. The SPEs on Cell are practically desinged specifically for this. Alan Wake could definetly be done on PS3. As good as on Vista quad-core + DX10 card?? no way, but it could be done. Also some of your above post is.....abstract, to put it mildly.

Well, sorry for not being as clear as I should, but I'm mainly saying that those SPEs are threads, not cores. You can't get a thread to decode physics code, only the core itself can decode all information. Yes, those SPEs, or threads, can execute(key word execute, which means it ONLY activates the application) the info. really fast because there's 8 SPEs(most threads ever seen in a processor). But since there's only 1 core to decode all game code, it wouldn't beable to handle anymore then it's restricted clock freq. of 3.2 GHZ. And in the tech demo it said that it simply couldn't be done on a single core processor and needed more cores(doesn't matter how many threads there are) to prepare graphics for the GPU and a 3rd core to decode physics code. Since there's more cores there's more to handle on other CPUs such as Xenon and quad cores.
Avatar image for chubz256
chubz256

171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 chubz256
Member since 2005 • 171 Posts
[QUOTE="chubz256"][QUOTE="DaddyDC650"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"]Finally, someone gets it! Reserving SPEs is not the way to go. Having many more SPE capable tasks then actual SPEs is the right way. Hopefully it shapes up to be an incredible game. Comparing this to a RECENT 1st or 2nd party 360 racer will be very revealing.Tony_aaaa
Maybe I should explain. Most prior PS3 titles "reserved" SPEs for 1 function only. The problem is that if you have devoted an SPE to say, raindrops, or realistic clothing movements on the pit-crew, then that SPE (and 1/8 of your total processing power) is unused if it's not raining, or if you're not in pit-row. By dynamically allocating SPEs, you get MUCH closer to utilizing 100% of the total power of your cpu (Cell, in this case.) Comparing this game to a 1st or 2nd party 360 racing game (that is written specifically for 360) will be far more revealing as to which system is "more powerful" than comparing a port will ever be.

Thanks for explaining your post but I'm not touching the whole "which console is more powerful" subject tonight. I simply wanted to post a thread regarding the Cell CPU and what it's capable of. Got that 360 fanboys?

Then why can't Alan Wake run on the ps3? Oh ya, that's right, Cell only has one core dedicated to the SPEs while Alan Wake requires multiple cores in order to prepare graphics information for the GPU. You can find these CPUs in the 360 and Quad core CPUs in the PC. Cell fails just like it's father, Emotion Engine.

Alan Wake can't run on PS3 due to an exclusive (To MS) contract Remedy signed. Doing physics calculations on the CPU/SPEs is something PS3 does better than 360. FYI it is a DX10 game that will have to be slightly downgraded to fit on 360. Chances are, if Alan Wake were released fully multiplat, Vista would be best (assuming a dual or quad core DX10 PC.) 360 would look better than PS3, PS3 would have better physics than 360. Things like the tornado in the demo are more suited to PS3's SPEs than devoting an entire core on 360. Again, both consoles have different advantages. Neither console version would be superior unless it was a "port" from the other console.

Actually, you're right about physics calculations running faster on Cell, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Here, let me fully explain why Xenon would have a huge advantage over Cell on a game like this, I used this in another forum... "OMG. How many times do we need to say this. Cell has one core and 8 SPEs(threads). Cores are made to decode info. while SPEs(threads) are made to execute that decoded info. Every core in computers has atleast one thread to execute that prgram, without threads, that program can't be executed. Cell, having one core, can only decode info. on that single core, then that info. is directed to one of the 8 SPEs to be executed(just like any other CPU, except Cell has the most SPEs or threads if you will). Now, Cell only has one advantage, with all those SPEs it can execute programs almost twice as fast over the 360 CPU(xenon). However, Xenon also has a huge advantage over Cell. It has 3 cores. Which means, it can decode 3 times the amount of info. Cell can only decode a limited amount because of it having only 1 core. Alan Wake is the first game that requires more than one core. Although Cell can execute programs really fast, it can only decode on 1 core. The reason why a game like this requires more the one core is because while one core must do the main work, it still needs other cores to do something else. Another core needs to decode info. for the GPU, this is a new way of thinking outside the box because while the GPU is working hard, way more info. is also being decoded on one of the cores on the CPU at an extremely high freq.(3.2 GHZ) and then that info., after being decoded, leaves the CPU and heads to the GPU to be executed. This is a huge graphics boost. Also a third core can be used to handle physics as shown on the Alan Wake tech demo. Now, Cell fails at this because it only has one core to do everything so graphics CANNOT be decoded for the GPU. The 360 has 3 cores(each with 2 threads so it's still extremely fast) so the 360 can have one core do the main stuff, one core can prepare graphics for the GPU, and the other core can handle physics(or something else). PCs also because we already have Quad CPUs. This is why ps3 can't handle this game and the 360 and pc can. Cell was completely uneccessary on Sony's part. PS: An analogy would be a core is a factory while a thread is a store. First, products must be produced at the factory, then that product is sent to the store to be sold. Hope this helps :)"