The Playstation 3's Cell processor is compared to nVidia's flagship beast the Geforce 8800. Check out the article to see the results, which might surprise you.
HA! Nice find. http://www.ps3fanboy.com/20... "MotorStorm only uses between 15 and 20 percent of available SPU resource, so we're aiming to achieve a 5 fold increase in SPU performance, which should allow us to do some awesome stuff!" If this is true, can't they use the other 75-80 percent of power for more graphical awesomeness? Man, the future of ps3 graphics is going to be AWESOME!!!!
Agree, cant wait to see what the next generation of games for the ps3 are gonna look like. Hopefully some mad awesomeness.
so they can put this into lamens terms, lol not as computer literate as I would like to be.
Theres a lot of info missing. Specifically what computer the GPU was in. If the cell was running a tiny linux operating system and the GPU was on windows vista...then the GPU wouldnt perform as well as it could have. But this is ray tracing, which isnt used at all in games. Id prefer an actual 3d scene that we can use right now.
If you read the comments made by the author, he points out that OS and native CPU have no effect on the test being run on the G80. So no, Linux had nothing to do with the results of the test. I can't say I'm all that surprised that the Cell-based processors are performing better for ray math, but it's hardly indicative of the overall strength of the chip. As a programmer, I was pretty surprised when Sony decided to add a chip designed largely for servers into the PS3, and I still think IBM and Sony are just testing the water... perhaps we'll finally see that last major push away from linear programming and start using parallel designs more often.
im confident in the idea that the cell kicks ass. so does this prove it or simply say that its possble for it to kick ass
well the 8800GTX is more powerful then the 2900HD which is pretty much built on the unified shader architecture that was used by ATi to make the xenox gpu for the xbox360. but this is not a normal benchmark they are using "Ray-tracing" its a new type of rendering mechanism that increases realism you can say, but its very hard to render atm because we dont have sufficient clock speeds, nor enough ammount of cores. to learn more about ray tracing go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
So, why exactly are we comparing the cell, a CPU, (or whatever you want to call it) with a GPU?
Because it can do both. It can do behind the scenes calculating such as A.I. and render graphics at the same time.
well you just said your answer. the GPU is a processing unit, just like a CPU which is another processing unit. the GPU is more concerned with SPECIFIC tasks like drawing images and loading up textures with information from the drivers. the CPU is another peice of hardware, ever heard of integrated video cards in the mother board? they pretty much depend on the CPU to draw the images, and store the textures in the normal memory you have in your computer. the reason this was used is because ray-tracing is VERY processor dependant. but the GPU can be done aswell. (look at the comparison between teh opteron and the G80 look at how much faster the G80 is, yet it still gets destroyed by the cell/B.E) but dont think this test is biased towards teh Cell/B.E most modern video cards have MORE bandwith available to them and more Processing power then a normal CPU, its because they have a 16x PCIexpress lane for their data transfer. they have their OWN memory (more info on the 8800GTX can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ) its very interesting to read this and see how much bandwith is really available. for example 2 8800GTX's in SLI mode are limited by an Intell X6700 QUAD CORE overclocked to nearly 4GHz http://www.tomshardware.com... "Wow! Using SLI really reduces the video card bottleneck, as impressive gains are seen well into the highest resolutions. This is the opposite of what usually happens with a single video card, where higher resolutions will usually diminish overclocking returns"
in two three years we will see some crazy stuff on a PS3. Till then we will just have to do with normal games like MGS KZ2 and so on
After buying Halo I would consider Killzone anything but normal lol. Killzone is deginately taking a HUGE step in the right direction.
that was a good one! q:
If we only had a big selection of games to play on it . They say the ps3 is for the long haul but im sure xbox will have the 720 out by then.Give us some damn games to play instead of using it mostly for blue ray.
PS3 will be a cheaper option than the Xbox 720. And when everything is unlocked in the PS3 then why would I spend $400 for Xbox 720 when PS3 is under $300.
Because you did the exact same thing when you bought a PS3? When the 720/PS4 comes out it will make both systems seem like a joke, just like the 360./PS3 makes the xbox/PS2 look like one. Oh and don't think for one second that as soon as the next Xbox comes out Sony will not have the next PS ready/ almost ready. I would guess that is in about 5 or 6 years from now. OR 2011 as most people say.
rolls out the xbox ULTRA SUPER MONDO TERMINATOR EDITION, they DON'T KNOW how to design consoles. they proven that much already with the revelation that the 360 is really a 480p machine with a scaler built in to fool dumbass xbots.
so i guess that's why virtual tennis is native 1080p on both consoles. You my friend don't make any sense with that comment. When you find concrete evidence that the 360 is actually a 480p machine, you present it. Instead of barking out unfounded claims to try and make one console look inferior to the other. The original Xbox did 720p off the bat. I swear fanboys are getting dumber by the second. Back up your claims next time with proof, not word of fanboy mouth and speculation. I've said it before, the PS3 does not need so much defending. It's the only console screaming about its hardware prowess, yet the evidence is very thin. Not making excuses for the 360 or Wii, but they haven't used their hardware as much as a pick me ploy than Sony has. They have used their games, time and time again. And if you want to scream about the 360s headstart, then look at the Wii, that would make the PS3 look worse off.
In laymans terms, it means that the ps3 will generate some EXTREMELY awesome graphics once people figure the hardware out a bit more. One of the most powerful graphics cards for your personal computer on the market isn't as powerful as the brain in the ps3. Not even close. Bear in mind that the card they are talking about costs as much as a ps3.
This is dumb .. "Oh, Cell beats a GPU on a rendering type GPUS aren't made for!!!!!! and nobody is going to use EVER in games." :/
sure about that? intel thinks otherwise. http://www.pcper.com/articl...
Lol, it is like comparing a Ford F-150 truck against a Ferrari in towing power. Of course the truck is going to win, it is MADE for towing.
Gran Turismo 5 already uses these techniques to some extents. This is why it looks too good to be true. PD performs partial ray tracing in pit-stop and replay to achieve CG- quality. And this is why it runs 30 fps in those sections. And PS3 has not passed the first year of it's life-cycle yet. it should tell you something. Motorstorm 2 and Resistance 2 will also sport some crazy things(Insomniac already announced that all their future games will be in 60 fps ).
microsoft and kidtendo wish they could add something as powerfull as this into their tweaked PCs and game cubes.
Both consoles could have ramped up their technology; however, MS and Nintendo thought they would be able to win the NextGen War by keeping the price down and using "cheaper" technology. While I think Sony will eventually get the costs down, I don't want them to do it by taking out the essential technology that was in the original SKU. I was going to buy another PS3 for my kid, but now they have gotten rid of the Emotion chip that was in the original and rumor has it that they are not as concerned with backwards compatibility as they once were. Even though I love the new games... I also love the old ones..
Could do magic tricks for all I care; we need Sony to drop the price of the machine because it doesn't matter if it had 100 Cell chips - it will not sell well at this current price because figures of CPU performance are not as impressive as potential sale figures IMO
agreed, but cult classics dont come overnight...OR DO THEY!
I have a 360 and a Wii, and I would buy the PS3 if it had a better selection of games. Hopefully the developers will learn how to better utilize the power soon and produce some good addictive games, else this fine ship may sink soon
Everyone always trying to make it sound as if the PS3 is going the way of the DoDo bird. Sony will be back on top eventually... and the games are coming... but I can't wait till the second generation of games to start. But in the meantime... we have plenty of games to keep us busy. Xbox didn't have anything super out when they first came out either.
Your point is redundant. It wasn't just g80 vs cell. It was with opteron as well. And look how poorly that did, and as said alot of ppl using those processors for that type of work. Even the much loved core duo 2 would have been crushed by cell, shame they didn't include it, but i know y:) I also put a few things into perspective the other day in a thread, the ps3 using 3spu's and cell can be as good as a g80. U don't need 6spu's to do so. SO yes in 2008 and much further, you'l be seeing many graphical and exciting games using cell.
You are wrong. If the CELL was such a graphics powerhouse - they would not need to be paying Nvidia for every 7900GTX they put into the PS3. They would have only needed the CELL. And you can have as many SPUs as you can put onto a chip, but the fact remains the PS3 is starved for on die CACHE. Once again, the fact that the PS3 has an Nvidia video card in it should be enough to let people know that the CELL is not the end all/be all as a graphics card.
put the RSX into the PS3 so that retards like EA can at least get games up and running on it cheaply and quickly. They didn't want a repeat of the trouble some devs had with the PS2's emotion engine which had no graphics card.
That's all techo garbage to me but as a layman I do know that a cell is a normal general purpose cpu while a Nvidia chip is a graphics processor, as they are obviously very different things, does this not make the comparison moot? Wouldn't it be much fairer to compare a cell to the Intel Quad core CPU and the Nvidia 8800 hip with the RSX in the PS3? What do I know, I just like to play games, who really gives a crap about clock speeds, if a fun game comes from the hardware then why should anyone care?
...not really. A CPU and a GPU are exactly the same thing, except one is assigned solely to rendering graphics, and one does pretty much everything. One way to make computers more efficient would be to recombine the CPU and GPU, and ditch most of the RAM. That's kind of where Intel is trying to go with the cell, and you can see that with the development of multi-core processors.
I dont know where you get this, but GPU and CPU are NOT the same thing. CPU's are more general purpose, GPU's have set functions they can do.
again,and again we see comparison between oranage and apples on this forum, What does this have to do with anything?? are these articles intended to prove the developers stupid as they have this heavenly Cell that sony created from souls of angels and they cant take advantage of it?? get over it, overhyped (way overhyped) and underperfoms
"again,and again we see comparison between oranage and apples on this forum, What does this have to do with anything??" First, at least it's better than the constant fanboy crap. Second, it's more like comparing yellow apples to red apples. "are these articles intended to prove the developers stupid as they have this heavenly Cell that sony created from souls of angels and they cant take advantage of it??" Maybe that's what the poster wanted to say, but maybe the person just wanted to show an interesting piece about computer hardware. Take off the blinders, and the article is pretty interesting. It talks about the future of computing, not just the future of the PS3.
this article is under the Tech section, dont like it? don't read it! simple as that. It's not directly about gaming. My suggestion, read the NAME of the article, if it interest you, read it, OK. It's not as hard as you think.
@16.1 and 16.2 it's all wasted breath. you can't convince a fool he's dieing until he is already dead.
i compeltely agree with ur points but as wel all know these topics usually end up in a 100 vs 100 brawl and i dont like taking sides but serisouyl, its been 100s of articles about the mighty power of cell and stuff and i ahve not seen any evidance of that present to consumers and public. who know, maybe they are using it in the most sophisticated milittary hardware but its use for gamers remains to be seen. sorry if i sounded fanboyish, i dont inted to, its just a bit of annoyance.
Sony is well known for other top of the line products, it seems that a lot of studies and tests are being made to see just what the capabilities of the cell truly are. Remember IBM is also involved. When it needs to prove how powerful it is when it comes to gaming, only can be seen later with time. Sorry to sound mean but it just isnt a gaming topic, it is a harmless story about something interesting that is being done with the cell. It is new technology.
*Waits for a game to use the power* anything good on tv today ?_?
Since its games used up all its power already, so you wont have to wait for that anymore. LOL. How many games are really worth anything on the XBox? Halo 3, Oblivion, Gears. Bioshock. Hmm... And you paid how much for your XBOX? Plus Xbox live too huh.. Haha I dont mind waiting, as long as a game like Halo 3 isnt the PEAK of what my console can do. Like old people say, the early bird gets a RRoD, fees for online, and more shooters than they can even keep up with. I guess its fun to collect them and know you COULD play them if you wanted to. If im going to spend over 300 for a console, I would rather it be a little more innovative, not just upgraded version of old games. Thats worth $100 more to me Haha oh yeah, and if theres nothing on tv, I can just watch my blu-ray movies...
I don't know about you, but when I buy a gaming console, I want games to play with it; today, not a year from now. And if the PS3 finally comes out with a game I want to play, then I'll buy it, and for probably less than half the cost of what you paid. And while you're waiting for 4D graphics, I'll be having fun playing games like Halo3, which is what a GAMING console is for.
everyone is right! Intel has done this study, written a 40 page white paper, and developed in depth data for some sony fanboys! Because the cell is [email protected] and doesnt work like a gpu and will fail the nails in the coffin call the grave digger /sarcasm I could write here all day about people commenting without proper knowledge in a subject, but it doesnt matter, it wont ever stop. A hand full of trolls, a bus full of idiots, what's the difference. Sad thing is, it gives a spin on truth, but as I say to myself every night before i fall asleep, welcome to the real world
hope to see a day without STUPID intel CPU structure that is a STUPID bottleneck for other part of the system.. cant wait to see better physics and lighting in Console games than PC ones.. to show you EVEN without several GIGA BYTES of memory u can have a better quality picture.. may be some of You are noob in PC tech or MORE professional than me.. but Im sure PS3 is one STEP forward for new type of CPU-GPU optimized unit. AMD want to make this thing after 2010 but RIGHT now SONY-toshiba and IBM made it ... it is CELL , all we need for really NEXT GEN graphics.. BTW : its a graphic Threat , Im so happy they used Opteron to show us it is NOT A general task . and may be u say its a task only good for Cell.. so the only chip in this world that can render a 1024x1024 (including secondary rays) BUNNY ABOVE 30 FPS is F***ing CELL .
Like Ken Kutaragi said in his awful E3 speech, the PS3 owners are investing in "potential". Their games could (if the devs are able to succesfully squeeze the power out of it) be incredible. In the mean time the system is underperforming. But who knows what stands in the way of progress. It's not unknown for a Playstation console to be hard to program for. It's reknowned for such. Whether people will be able to draw good power from the machine until years down the line is unknown. Fingers crossed it won't be that long.
Rotfl i have both i think the ps3 is way better even with no games i have no problem waiting for games FLOKLORE SOON wooo O_O. no really whats on tv whats G4 doing?
it wont last long enough. poor planning.
If you even tried to push the 360 like this, it would explode in your face. The 360 is actually dangerous to your health.
All that shows that the CELL (actually the SPUs) are a well suitable hybrid, which lays right between a general purpose CPU and a specialized SIMD core. It is a beast in heavy data driven applications and can outperform both, traditional cpus and vector processors (which I would classify a GpGPU here). Its still a long way to go, but despite one destination (or two - that is heavy multicore CPU on one end and hi performance vector/pixel processing on the other) there is a way in the middle. The question will be, can the SPU ever exists without either one (cpu or gpu ?), if so, I'd guess id might be able to replace gpus some times. At the end, I think the whole discussion is pure academic. The good thing is, it opens up ideas and new fields of research and will push technologies forward. And that is a good thing. There will never be a 100% raytraced game on the PS3, though :) - but hey, that reminds me of a discussion I had once, where I had to convince someone to implement damage region rendering just because someone thought, we don't need that, because we gotta redraw every pixel anyway. BS. Same thing will happen with raytracing. Nobody will ever render a whole scene with raytracing, if you can increase the performance by using selective shader models.
thanks for ur comprehensive and clear description for the CELL as hybrid processor GCPU and GpGPU. I hope everyone got the idea, Sony used the RSX as GPU with the cell, so that the cell can be used as GpGPU to backup the RSX in any complex graphical operation.
With the amount of processing power that is required to do true RT it will not become 'real' in gaming for quite some time. Developers just don't have THAT much horsepower to spare. So you can throw out facts that the CELL can do weather simulation on a flies rear faster than any other CPU and that would have more meaning in the near future than this. If you think the PS3's CELL is going to do RT anytime soon then watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watc... So when developers have roughly the power of 3 PS3's to dedicate to lighting, then we get true RT. I am not bashing the CELL. I am happy as can be if the Cell is the real deal. I think it is from a computing standpoint. We should all hope that is the case. It's good for everyone. But even if the Cell is the real deal computing wise, I don't feel as if that means the PS3 will end up with earth shattering graphics and especially games.
PS3 SUCKS BALLS G80 RUNS AT 600 MHZ CORE COMPARED TO 3.2 GHZ WOW AND ITS ONLY 5 TIMES MORE HOW PATHETIC, ID LIKE TO SEE SOME BENCHMARKS OF HOW CRYSIS RUNS ON BOTH.
You seem to forget, that even at 600MHz a G80 (and others) have a a massive parallel architecture. We are talking about 100s or even 1000s of cores here, which these GpGPUs use as their core for their "shader" pipeline. Compared to that, you achieve the same (or higher) result with just 8 (or 6 or 7) SPU units. That's quiet a significant performance indicator, IMO.
STFU and go play your scratch3 at 640/resolution>lmao M$ got u playin crappy last gen hw overrated/overhyped games>your pwnd who's suckin balls now biatch!! PLAY~B3YOND
if any one need a bubble and loves sony then just reply to my comment!! have u heard that halo 3 disks get scratched and cause the x360 to have the ring of dead or fire i dont know what its called? have u heard that halo 3 have sold money worth of 170M$ in USA only first day and probably they lost around 100M$ because of the problem i mentioned before? admit it 360 fans u have a crap hardware that cant run ur software!!
Yeah people keep acting like the console war is over or something, when really... it's just starting to take off. Can't wait until games start to implement this technology. Crysis on ps3? That would be gangster. Oh and that sucks that people's xbox's are messin' up because of Halo 3. That game is pretty fun, but nothing remarkable. I'm waiting for UT3 to blow it away. I don't think it'll sell as good, but honestly... I don't care how good a game sells as long as I'm having fun playing it.
I've seen your posts before, and I'm well aware you are not a PS3 fan. Regardless of this article, you should at least give the CELL credit for being a magnificent processor. All the studies done on it by countless companies yielding significantly dramatic results weren't all done by fanboys in disguise.
Comapring a CPU to a GPU?
How dare they are, right?! Hey, even Toshiba is so stubborn and wants to make a graphic chips for Notebooks out of it! http://www.ps3fanboy.com/20... These guys must be idiots. Indeed.
That PS3 is not as powerful as 360?? Why isn't 360 up there with them? Oh well.
has started doing tasks that were normally reserved for the GPU. The PS3s architecture is a hybrid in the console industry.
sorry to say,but most of you guys are brainwashed ..do you really think the ps3 is that powerful? in a side by side comparison,the 360 is the slightly more powerful system overall,when it comes to raw processing power...sure the ps3 does some things better,but it has bottlenecked architecture,cant render true shaders and has a significantly weaker graphics card..you guys that still think games are going to look like that killzone cgi are way,way off...ps3 and 360 games well continue to look better and better,but you WELL NOT be able to the difference between ps3 games and 360 games...there well be no game that looks better than gears on the ps3,and that same can be said for the 360 as well...those that dream that the ps3 is this amazing machine that can crush the 360 graphically,need to wake up,and wake up fast..sony spent the money on blue ray,which has NOTHING to with how games look.....THIS IS THE TRUTH,TIME TO FACE IT..
Yeah, right. Sony is the king of hype. Halo? Can you hear me ? Halo!? Halo!? (oh pardon my english, was that misspelled? Hello!?)
u damn right!!looool bubble for u!! ps3 cpu's is much more powerful then the one's in 360 but we wont start to see that till end of this year and next year end of story and arguments! graphics: 369 has more powerful gpu then the rsx but the ps3 gpu is not doing the work alone!! it can even do half of the work because of the help it gets from the cpu(cell) so its almost twice more powerful then by it self so thats make 360 gpu weaker!! thats the sad truth for MS fans and the happy truth for us playstation fans!
Some one please call this kids mom, and tell her he is up past his bedtime. Also, I think he needs his diper changed.
I hope you play jazz better than you write comments. "the 360 is the slightly more powerful system overall" "ps3 and 360 games well continue to look better and better,but you WELL NOT be able to the difference between ps3 games and 360 games" ---but didn't you just say the 360 was the more powerful console?? "sony spent the money on blue ray, which has NOTHING to with how games look." "there well be no game that looks better than gears on the ps3,and that same can be said for the 360 as well." Just come out and say it. You think the PS3 is a pile of garbage. At least be honest, instead of beating around the bush. Even though it's not out, from all the real-time videos, what game looks as good as killzone 2 right now? COD4 definitely seems to come close, but that game is almost out. Even the magazines said killzone 2 came close to the trailer, but now your saying (months after E3 07) that killzone 2 won't even come close? I don't think it matched the trailer, but I would be lying to say it didn't come close in many respects. Look at ratchet and clank graphics? Here was the kicker for me man: "there well be no game that looks better than gears on the ps3,and that same can be said for the 360 as well." Didn't you read what EPIC has been saying about the unreal engine on the PS3? They said they have it working better now than they did for gears on the 360. I think both consoles have their benefits (I honestly do), but don't be so close-minded about the PS3s (and eve