PS3, dissecting the fail cake.

[pezz]

REndered? what u talking bout pezz?

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventur...videos;title;4

that is not gameplay.......show me gameplay

[Nestersan]

Again, I never claimed cell to be a graphics processor. I was think more in the line of high floating point, vector computing which has a lot of use in gaming, simulation, and a few others aereas.

Cell is well designed for floating point and interger calculations*, yet it has some general purpose charateristics....clipped for brevity.

For gaming you need 1) and 3) or 2) and 3)

Regular multithreaded cpus 1) would slow down if they attempted this fine level of granularity, which limits them by design. Meaning a limit to the level of threading current apps can have, bearing in mind one wants to achieve optimal performance

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.

[pezz]

lol more joke.....nesta mi rate yuh

[pezz]

I posted the same thing on guru forum and I thought intelligent people where there...jesus christ

[crosswire]

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.

[pezz]

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


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.

your points are not pointing towards gaming...ps3 and 360 are console a geforcs 7 gpu is nothing close to bleeding edge

[chig]

The graphics card was also bleeding edge at the time, just like the xbox360's......

u miss that part dere pezz u should probly take some comprehension classes

[crosswire]

your points are not pointing towards gaming...ps3 and 360 are console a geforcs 7 gpu is nothing close to bleeding edge

well the actual gforce 8 would have cost too much.

I reaserched on wiki and the geforce 7 in ps3 had more shader than the one used in the XBOx and same 8 pipelines. At the time that was gfx

PS I found the link I was looking for. Til tommorrow or then time

[semitop]

your points are not pointing towards gaming...ps3 and 360 are console a geforcs 7 gpu is nothing close to bleeding edge

ute... the gpu in the xbox is a pre HD2000 series Chip. It not bleeding edge either and last i checked the 7 series would be in the same class, i.e pre dx10 introduction. I have to rate the ati chip tho... specs look ... advanced. Even has a tesselator

[Nestersan]

Tessalation is a big part of the Dx planning pipeline. Unified Shaders are a Directx10 Spec. The Ati GPU in the Xbox is quite unified, so come off that argument.

I said it years ago. ATI and M$ Sit down and properly plan out DX for consoles and PC. Notice Nvidia stop innovate and start brute force.

The Radeons are using half or a third less transistors and are fully to Spec, they even supercede the specs. Nvidia gave up that ring side seat when they fought M$ over GPU design for the Xbox.

You see the problem, pure processing power with nowhere to put the results....

The Cell is a great success in the areas where it is used by EVERYONE but $ony...

Can't you see the point..as a console GPU/CPU it is not worth the time nor the money at present. Since we dealing with both time and money, it is a money pit. $ony losing money like is burn them burning it.

Geforce would have cost too much ?
Like how the Blu-ray cost too much ?
Even when $ony admit the Hardware was botched unnu a try defend them....

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

Ok boyz, gather round, lots of fail cake for you all. GPU beat CPU for gaming 10 times out of 10.