Originally Posted by
Nestersan
You are simply repeating what we have been saying. The Cell is not enough to stand alone. All that power is like a Turbo charged semi-truck with no wheels.
The Cell is meant for what everyone else but $ony using it for. Riding co-pilot while general purpose CPU's do the other work. You realise for all you saying the Cell is like I SAID ten posts ago, just an optimised PowerPC CPU with enhanced co-processing capabilities.
The fact that the Xbox360 is going to to toe with it means that for all it's paper potential, like the trailer head with no wheels, it is made of fail.
This is a business world, not a lab. Spending more money on Cell and the PS3, which has so far drained more money from $ony than the PS2 made for them in profit is utter failure.
You can get as excited about it as you want, it could be next-gen five times over. The PS3 is a game console not a weather and nuclear simulator. If it cannot function as that to it's fullest potential then it is totally flawed.
The Servers that IBM uses the Cell for still using Opteron Processors to do the actual work, while the Cell functions like a co-processor. It obviosly cannot stand on it's own at present, so pairing it with a last minute GPU was stupid.
What $ony should have done, was stop take drugs, admit internally that they needed more, and work with Nvidia from jump.
IBM = Opteron (Wheels, Suspension, Chassis) + Cell (Turbo + Nitrous+ Engine) = WIN.
$ony at first = Cell (Turbo + Nitrous+ Engine) = FAIL
$ony 2nd attempt = Cell (Turbo + Nitrous+ Engine) + RSX (Flat Tire, Bend Chassis)= 3rd place.
Let me ask you this: If over the lifespan of the Xbox360 they get 99% of theorical performance, and over the lifetime of the PS3 they get 55%, are you still going to claim that the PS3 was sound engineering ?
As a coder, you want to feel like you getting the best, not like Kojima-san who bawling that the PS3 failed him utterly.
This argument is on the same line I proposed.
Now I see your point
-PS3's Nvidia graphics fell short to the Xbox graphics
-The original cell is a failure because it does not reach 99% of its potential during the life of the PS3?
-XBox is better than PS3 because games are prettier, whether or whether not the potential of PS3 superceeds the XBox?
My view is
-An additional graphics card was part of the ps3 spec when I was researching its developement, and I researched it more than the "last minute". The ps3 was delayed for some time after that due to lack of dev tools and blu ray. The graphics card was also bleeding edge at the time, just like the xbox360's. Which one is better? I am not getting into but I am happy with the specs of the PS3's one.
-The original cell still is in development and unfortunately may not reach full potential before PS4. Its really a software problem and not hardware, and as I said before, the processor is a step forward. Conventional multicore processors are steps sideways no matter how many cores they have. Better performance can be acheived when software is custom written in fine grain for cell rather than just multithreaded. Well that is my view maybe I am wrong. In that view it cannot be a failure, supercomputing is one use of it. (I have a plan to get a PS3 and write a simulation for it. 1. do it on windows to get the maths correct. 2. Port it to cell to get the speed and scalability. 3...nuff choices).
-Xbox has the advantage because it is easier to code. PS3 is however more pumped with potental
Kojima say that the Cell DONE OUT and he is unsatisfied with MGS4 becasue the PS3 could not do what he wanted
Could I get a link to this article, por favor
I wonder if he is saying the PS3 was wicked but not as wicked as him did expect. I also wonder how difficult he found it.
nzxt 210 elite 2x2TB, 2X3TB, Dirt2
Reply With Quote
