News has just surfaced stating that the PlayStation 3 has passed FCC approval tests and that the final clock speed of the Cell processor is 3.2GHz.
I didn't know that stuff gets leaked. That's a good find Phoenix. Good news story those scans look authentic. People will try to call you on if this was a model that was tested before they downgraded the chip.
Good points. And the article is from PS3Land and hasn't been confirmed by Sony yet. Not to say its not true. Just pointing out some small tidbits for those who may not read the entire article. It seems this test would have been done a long time ago. Why wait till the last minute to find out if you are FCC compliant?
well i'm not sure if this goes according to your own special criteria for when things should be done, but if you look at the scans you'll notice that testing actually began on Aug 9th of this year, about round the time all those rumors started creeping up saying that the PS3 would be downgraded.
I do believe that Sony would have had to have undergone another FCC test with their downgraded version, since it's not the same set of components that were tested by the FCC. Being that there are no other confirmation reports that people are aware of, I think the 3.2Ghz PS3 is the PS3 that we'll all be seeing on November 17th (in th U.S. at least, sorry Europe, I feel for you.).
Where does it say 3.2ghz for the cell, can't find it.
Look where it says scan2.
The entire report can be found here: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/p... enjoy
Nice, thanks for posting the full report. 3.2 is good news. I looked all through the report to see how much power it used, 100 watts, 200 watts, etc. but couldn't find it anywhere. Oh well. Confirmed at 3.2 Ghz is good news.
I looked over the paper just to find the wattage to post here, and I forgot. Ah-well. Wasn't PS3 initially supposed to be running at 3.5 GHZ instead of 3.2? If I'm not mistaken, this news is already a downgrade anyway. And yes, this testing essentially began before the downgrade rumors started (they had to ship the unit), so that doesn't help either. Regardless, just look at the games in development. It's virutally impossible to tell 360 apart from PS3. Total wash.
3.2? That's not bad, right? I think my computer goes fater though... man, I am brain dead today.
To put in scope, the new Core 2 Duo chips by Intel are between 1.6 Ghz and 2.4 I believe, they may go slightly higher, but at most they are 2.8. I can't go to PS3land links here at work so I can't see the scans, but if it's true it's not surprising, but good nonetheless for putting rumors to rest.
You can't actually use GHz as a trustworthy guidance of CPU performance. The megahertz race stopped three-four years ago. I think it is safe to say that the Core Duo 2 chips are a lot faster at general purpose computing than Cell... But at the other hand Cell is probably a lot faster at specific vector-intensive calculations than the Core Duo 2 chips. 3.2GHz is good news though... Or actually a slight GHz downgrade would have been slightly bad news.
I know there's a lot more involved in it than Ghz, I was just answering the question since Sphinx mentioned "3.2? That's not bad, right? I think my computer goes fater though..." I was just responding that 3.2 is very fast when you consider it's a Power PC core, and 8 SPE's (7 are functional). The new Core 2 Duo chips are great by the way, I was just mentioning the Ghz thing because that's what Sphinx mentioned. But yeah, multicore is the way of the future. Clock speeds are so last gen... :)
Now lets get those sweet games coming. Killzone PS3 baby (e3 05 version).
In the Second Scan and also the the final clock speed is 3.2GHz which is fantastic and totally factual, we just need to wait for sony to verbalize this fact and they are probably going to do that next week at the TGS... also if you look on the first scan it gives the fact that retale PS3s have been manufactured already with it's model Number CECHA01 and it also said manufactured in CHina and Japan... so at that time we can all conclude that Final PS3's were already being manufactured but not being Mass produced... these ones i think were just to see if the cell would pass it's test.. and in all three the scans show that it did... so i'm now having the feeling that retale ps3s will be seen at TGS this year.. and then i think sony will also launch there marketing push for the PS3's Japanese and NA markets this at or days after TGS06 has ended, because the mass public began becoming aware of the 360 just after TGS was finished i remeber seeing Billboards about the 360 last year in october so we'll see Nintendo and Sony doing something like that... very intresting and good find
And the 360 has 3 CPU's running at 3.2 ghz each. Interesting. "Xbox 360 has three general purpose CPU cores. The Cell processor has only one." "Xbox 360's CPUs has vector processing power on each CPU core. Each Xbox 360 core has 128 vector registers per hardware thread, with a dot product instruction, and a shared 1-MB L2 cache. The Cell processor's vector processing power is mostly on the seven DSPs." http://xbox360.ign.com/arti...
The X360 has one CPU just as the PS3. You are mixing cores up with CPUs. The Cell has one PPU core which the X360 has three of... BUT the Cell has 8 (of which 7 are active -- one is disabled) SPU cores... Each running at 3.2 GHz. And the SPUs are not DSPs as MS would like you to believe. Each PPU core in both the X360 and PS3 has a VMX unit. You are correct in that the VMX-128 unit in the X360 cores are more advanced than the VMX unit in the Cell.... BUT each SPU core can do a lot more vectorprocessing than each of the VMX-128 units in the X360 CPU, and not only that, they are more versatile as well for a lot of different purposes. So to sum it up. X360: 3 cores (3xPPU), 3xVMX-128 (1 per PPU), 6 threads (2 per PPU). PS3: 8 cores (1xPPU, 7xSPU), 1xVMX (1 per PPU), 9 threads (2 per PPU, 1 per SPU). And still you can't definitely say which one is the fastest -- it depends on the job at hand and the programmers skills and mindset.
Out of everyone here LALALAND was the only one to get the information about the CPU's right. Nice job! Glad to see the Cell didnt get dropped to 2.8ghz like some horrible websites reported.
im sorry to bust your bubble but his info is realy off because if the cell did have 3.2ghz for each SPU then they would say "Cell processor,7 SPU's each at 3.2GHz" wich they dont and that just defines logic right there.
Thats interesting that you would know more than Microsofts "Official" statement about the 360 having 3 CPU's. Thats straight from MS's mouth...So who are you to know more about the 360 than Microsoft themselves? You are misinformed about the whole cpu/ppu/spu thng buddy. The 360 has 3 CPU's and the ps3 has ONE. PERIOD. Here is the link that "SONY" never rebutted when asked about it. http://xbox360.ign.com/arti... And Of course "DJ" will give you a link to PS3Land fan rantings. The link I gave is an OFFICIAL comparisson from Microsoft themselves. MS says 3 cpu's... The 7 spe's that the cell has all work off of the ONE CPU. So it just sounds big...9 cores. Lots and Lots of Laughs on that one. All running off of one CPU. Thank You Microsoft for clearing that up. Sony fanboys tend to look at the 9 core number and don't realize that the 360 has 3 times the general purpose processing power of the ps3. Read the link and get informed.
Wow! how ignorant are you Topgamer. You obviously know nothing about what you are talking about. The 360 has 3 "CORES" not CPUs. Dude learn a little technology and get your facts straight. And then for you to sit here and say "that microsoft said", like MS has no agenda, or bias or like companies, like governments dont put out propaganda. Wow! you got alot of learning to do
3.2 is good. the 360 does that as well. you guys mention that this will put rumors to rest about the downgrade...but wasn't the PS3 suppose to be faster than that?
No, it wasnt, it was suppose to be 3.2GHz and then came out rumors that it would be 2.8GHz because of low yields (which is actually very common with new chip architectures). But now they are trying to say that its not (running at 2.8) but rather at its original speed of 3.2GHz. But if you's ask me, this is still a mooth point as in fact both the 360 & PS3 but are in-order execution CPU's which are inferior to modern processors from AMD & Intel, which are "Out of Order" (OoOE)
Thanks for the full report THE TRUTH i couldnt see the pics that were posted :)
It's nice to see on the diagram, that the powersupply is indeed internal as well... No need for a big brick on the floor. I can't believe I'm apparently the first to notice...
Besides of course that no separate socket or die is used. It seems like you are making a big deal out of a meaningless distinction. Especially meaningless since dual processor systems, which you call dual cpu systems seem to be slower than dual core systems, which have 2 cores (or CPUs you could say)on the same die. I think a better way of looking at these two systems is that the x360 has 3 general purpose CPUs (call them what you will) While the PS3 has one with 7 SPUs.
This is some much needed news if you're an PS3 fan. Hope it's true I still think the next-gen will be an repeat of last generation true power wise. WATCH!
It's sad that he thinks we're dumb enough to fall for it. Nice find Lalaland; i didn't notice the internal power supply until you said so. -thumbs up- I'm glad the scans put the 'downgrade' rumors to rest. To GreatMe: The terms are interchangeable, and I see both terms used. It's easier to just say that both Xenon and Cell are single chips with multiple cores. Xenon has 3 cores, and Cell has 9 cores (8 cores used in the PS3). If you're wondering what the hell Vector Processing is good for, the rain/water effects in MGS2 are a good place to start. If you want more information on Cell and the benefits of vector processing just go here: http://www.ps3forums.com/sh...
but you got things mixed up bad because the 360 dose have 3 cpus also known as a core each runing at 3.2ghz and 2 threads per core,another thing you got mixed up bad with is that the cell dose not have 3.2ghz of speed for each SPU's in the cell it has to share the 3.2ghz of speed to all 7 SPU's in wich the 360 has 3 core that have 3.2ghz for each cpu witch you can say 3.2ghz x 3.
So, you're saying that each core in Cell is running at 400 Mhz? Where did you go to school? o_o Each core in the Cell processor is independent and runs at 3.2 Ghz each. That's absolute fact. There's no such thing as 'sharing speed'. It's not even a computer term. Official info on the Cell processor: http://domino.research.ibm....
"the cell dose not have 3.2ghz of speed for each SPU's in the cell it has to share the 3.2ghz of speed to all 7 SPU's in wich the 360 has 3 core that have 3.2ghz for each cpu witch you can say 3.2ghz x 3" so THAT'S how it works eh? Seems to make sense to me seeing as how the SPU's are NOT cores and do not do wat cores do. Is there any tech page or anything to make that more official? cus if it's true, I'd like to be able t use an official source to back that. Please lmk, thank you!
im just going to end this right now because the cell spu's dose not run at 3.2ghz each and heres my proff http://xbox360.ign.com/arti... see were it says the Xbox 360's CPU has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, and Cell has just one.so shhhhhhhhhhh
omg, the cell is the only core the ps3 has, SPU's are just for floating point processing, not general purpose, every1 knows that, Einstein.
i see that you updated your post but the last time i checked the cell in the PS3 is 3.2ghz not 4ghz so i think that info is out dated or its a different chip. umm but synlamont you are so blind can you read your self it even says in your link that you gave us " 1 Power Processor Element (PPE). 8 Synergistic Processor Elements (SPEs). Element Interconnect Bus (EIB). Direct Memory Access Controller (DMAC). 2 Rambus XDR memory controllers. Rambus FlexIO (Input / Output) interface. and all it says in the paragraphs is that the cell can do gflop and wich i just got done showing you that the cell is all floating points thats all and it dont run at 3.2ghz each so shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I am sorry my friend but you are mistaken. Each SPE is a core itself and each can run independantly at 3.2ghz Each Cell contains 8 SPEs. An SPE is a self contained vector processor which acts as an independent processor. They each contain 128 x 128 bit registers, there are also 4 (single precision) floating point units capable of 32 GigaFLOPS* and 4 Integer units capable of 32 GOPS (Billions of integer Operations per Second) at 4GHz. The SPEs also include a small 256 Kilobyte local store instead of a cache. According to IBM a single SPE (which is just 15 square millimetres and consumes less than 5 Watts at 4GHz) can perform as well as a top end (single core) desktop CPU given the right task. *This is counting Multiply-Adds which count as 2 instructions, hence 4GHz x 4 x 2 = 32 GFLOPS. 32 X 8 SPEs = 256 GFLOPS http://www.blachford.info/c... I know this is from the the cell being 4ghz but the idea of each core running at the same speed sitll stands
SPE's are NOT cores. there are 7 SPE's, not 8 they do not carry out the task of general purpose processing.
Dude the facts are in your face if you choose not to read them Sir Nathaniel then i guess in your mind you will be right. *7 SPE* i know what the cell will have in the PS3 but i am talking about the cell it self and where does it say that something has to do general processing to be considered a core before you get back to me come with fact pls. SPE=core
SPU's are NOT cores, because they don't run independently of the PPU. However, to say that the "speed is being shared" or something to that effect is pure ignorance. The SPU's are part of the Cell processor just the same as the PPU is. The Cell processor's global clock operates at 3.2 GHz. This in turn means that each SPU runs at 3.2 GHz. They DO NOT have an independent clock from the PPU. If they did, it would be impossible for any of the instructions to be performed syncronously with the PPU. Since this is required for the Cell to work at all, it has to be abundantly obvious that the SPU's run at the same EXACT clock speed as the PPU...
What do you think of the PS3's Cell architecture? How much harder is it for developers to write asymmetric multiprocessing code that will run on the PPE and the SPE's? How difficult will it be to port code that is tuned for the Cell over to the 360 while maintaining good performance? Do you think Sony made the architecture complex deliberately to make porting that way harder, or were they just trying to get maximum performance out of their system? I don't think the Cell is as well designed for game development as Sony would have you believe. Some aspects of the SPEs, such as the lack of branch prediction, make them particularly unsuited to running most game code, which contains a lot of branches. They appear to be designed more for serialized streaming math code, more common in video codecs and audio processing, the traditional domain of digital signal processing chips. The memory architecture of the SPEs, specifically their lack of automatic cache coherency in favor of DMA transactions, seems like a lot of overhead is needed to feed work units to the SPEs and copy the results back to system memory. The PPE appears to be essentially identical to one of the Xbox 360 cores, except without the VMX128 enhancements and with half the cache. However, a much greater assortment of work has to be crammed into this single core—all of the game loop, all of the rendering commands, and the system allegedly takes over some time as well. Only the second and third cores on Xbox 360 use a small timeslice to provide cool stuff like the Guide, music playback, Dolby Digital encoding, and more things that we can add in the future to all games, past and present. I think porting from Xbox 360 to PS3 will be reasonably difficult, since the Xbox 360 has a lot more general purpose processing power that can be flexibly reallocated, and all of the Xbox 360 CPU cores have equal access to all memory. The asymmetric nature of the Cell could easily lead to situations where the game has too little of one type of processing power and too much of another. And the content might suffer as well, since you'll never see a PS3 title with more than 256MB of textures at any given time, due to the split graphics and system memory banks. When we announced 512MB of unified memory on Xbox 360, I think all of our game developers (and the artists too) did a little happy dance. It's easier to use and gives developers much more flexibility in how they allocate memory for various resources. In terms of performance, I think that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 will essentially be a wash. We ran the numbers a while back and the two systems come up surprisingly close in theoretical peak performance, despite the one year difference in release dates. However, I know for a fact that we have a great advantage in software and services—our development environment and tools are years ahead of the competition, and this will ensure that Xbox 360 game developers can easily realize all of this performance and make superior games. Xbox 360 is a great system to develop on, a real pleasure—and I believe our developers agree. http://arstechnica.com/arti...
even this is out dated because last time i checked is that the ps3 graphics card is only 500mhz now.
Who cares, just show me the games. I want power to be measured in fun-o-hertz and giga-frags. Getting tired of all the nerd-bots talking specs. so I PPonU and your thread counts. Im gonna go play a game on a real life working console that i got a year ago.
There both the same system powerwise but one is a little harder to get the power. The games would look pretty much identical. This gen it's all about the exclusive games, if you want RPGs like Final Fantasy then go with PS3, if you want shooting games like Halo 3/GOW and sports games go with the xbox 360. If your not a serious gamer and don't have a care for big budget games then go with the wii.
Each machine is actually vastly different. As I've mentioned before, the Cell easilly trumps the 360 in terms of parallel processing, while the 360 trumps the PS3 in terms of general processing. Depending on which a game is more optimized for, one platform could be vastly superior to the other. In general, I tend to feel that there is more parallel processing in media applications than general processing, but some games are designed exactly the opposite to that.
This is great news for The PLAYSTATION 3! X Box 360 maybe a pleasure to develope games for. But it does'nt come close to developing it for the one and only The PLAYSTATION 3! And what makes The PLAYSTATION 3 a much better platform to develop the games for is the Blu Ray discs! More capacity so developers can fit MORE of their imaginations in there!
I like my 360, but I would have much rather invested another $100 to have a HD-DVD or blu-ray player in the machine from the beginning. MS in their quest for world domination however rushed the console to try to one up Sony. I know what version of The Darkness I'll be buying,hing it won't be the xbox360 version. Which is sad for xbox360 only owners, because they made the kickass Riddick on the xbox. I really wish MS wasn't so short-sided. Which is odd, because last gen they didn't seem to be at all, but I guess that was just to get a foot-hold in the market. Xbox was a good system. HDD, standard, 5.1, HD graphics on some games.
The cell has 1 general purpose core running at 3.2 ghz! The rest of the spe`s are not running at 3.2 ghz each! Furthermore, the XBOX 360 has 3 general purpose cores running at 3.2 ghz per core with 2 threads per core(like having six processors)! Also, DJ doesn`t have the correct ammount of cores either! The cell has 8 cores! NOT 9! 8 cores being 1 general purpose Power Pc core identical to the XBOX 360, then 7 spe`s! Which in all reality it has only 6 spe`s because 1 spe is held over for redundancy!(Meaning It Doesn`t Work!) So Mr. DJ, if you`re gonna state something, STATE YOUR FACTS CORRECTLY!
As i stated earlier its idiotic to think that the SPU's aren't running at the same clock speed as the PPU. Simply put, if they didn't have the exact same clock speed, the entire architecture would failure spectacularly as nothing would be syncronous within the chip. Since all processors rely on this, this line of thinking is pure idiocy. In addition, having 3 cores running 2 threads each is not at all like having 6 processors. For all practical purposes, all this allows you to do is run parallel applications at the same time as long as they aren't using the same components. At any given moment you can only have one instruction being run on any given component within each core. A quick example, if each thread simultaneously has demand for the ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit in case you were wondering) only one can actually access it at a given time. According to what you are saying jiggajayp both would be able to...that simply is not the case.
if you talking about XBOX 360 having 2 hardware threads per core it means that 2 threads are sharing full speed of core which is 3.2Ghz so if 1 thread is running at 2.0 then 2nd is running at 1.2 . Total must be 3.2
Developers have long talked about the 'stupid bottlenecks' in the 360 architecture, of which there are many, but I'll tell you the most important one today. Get out a diagram of the Xenon processor and you'll see that it's just 3 G5 processors, stripped of out-of-order functionality, on one chip. The only way these cores/processors can communicate with each other is through the L2 cache, of which there's not actually that much. With 6 threads in the CPU, that leaves 133 Kb of working memory per thread. Tiny, compared to the 256 Kb of working memory for the 8 SPE processors in Cell. (and half a megabyte dedicated to its single G5 processor). Something that Microsoft doesn't like to tell anyone is that while the 3 cores in Xenon run at 3.2 Ghz, its L2 cache only runs at 1.6 Ghz. YEAH! The only form of communication between the cores runs at half the speed they do. Worse yet, it's also the CPU's working memory. If you're wondering why 360 titles don't look 3 times more powerful than your high-end PC games (despite having 3 cores instead of just one), this is the main reason why. Microsoft wanted to emphasize multi-threading, but it came at a price. Yes, 360 titles will show superiority over current PC games, but that superiority won't last very long, especially with dual-core processors readily available on the market and Intel quad-cores not very far off. SIMD power is going to make all the difference; it's literally the reason why Sony had the balls to say that PS3 is twice as powerful as the 360. What's worse is that they may have been a little too conservative with their estimates. The 360 is a good piece of hardware and a great improvement over the original Xbox, but unfortunately the PS3 just walks all over it in terms of power. Doesn't mean that it's bad, it's just not the most powerful system. And while superior power doesn't guarentee success, it does allow for technologically superior games. And in the end, games are what matters most.
xbox/MS rabid fannatics who had the most powerful console last gen (they damn well should have, it came out 2 years later) and now they are bitter that their system is the mid tier system..? True gamers are happy that the PS3 is more powerful. It's not like it makes the xbox360 any less good.. Only if your a fanbody I guess. Solution, if you want the latest and greatest just buy a PS3. Nothing wrong with owning both ;) I had both last gen, it was great :)
Also, if you look at the scan correctly, you`ll see that the power supply isn`t inside the ps3! It`s a square box calledAC adapter!
Actually AC adopter (F) is connected to (E) which is IBM ThinkPad X40 notebook (most likely used to record measurements) with Logitech Mouse (G). And ThinkPad X40 is connected directly to (H) which is Mitsubishi LCD Monitor
plz stop posting idiotic comments. and that ign microsoft analysis, it is complete bs. ps3 is more powerful than 360. but powerful means nothing without great games and good services. and for atleast 1-2 years from now you would not see any consistent difference in graphics between the two systems. --ps3 more powerful.. -- 360 better online (as of now).. in the end it would be about games (and not the launch games) but games coming 1-2 years from now on both systems.... posting microsoft "analysis" of ps3 vs 360 hardware is like asking Sony about ps2 online vs xbox live.... both are extremely biased and incorrect...
Ps3 has a more powerful cpu! NOT GPU! NEXT?!
i think ps3 gpu vs 360 gpu are incomparble just based on the specs, there is no clear cut winner among them as of now, but it would become clear in 1-2 years which one does have an edge if any, i think they would be quite close... but remember what you see on the screen does not entirely depend on gpu it is dependent heavily on cpu as well so as an overall hardware package ps3 is better than 360 (and not talking about blue-ray, hdmi and blabla)
it being about gamers. I'd hate to live in the cave those types live in. I get to experience the hole world of gaming not just some small sector of it due to my close-minded fanboyism. keep disagreeing, but it is truly sad and you are the ones who lose in the end.
Official PS3 Specs Here are the official technical specifications for the PS3, taken directly from Sony: CPU Cell Processor PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz 1 VMX vector unit per core 512KB L2 cache 7 x SPE @3.2GHz 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS GPU RSX @550MHz 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines Sound Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell- base processing) Memory 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz System Bandwidth Main RAM 25.6GB/s VRAM 22.4GB/s RSX 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read) SB< 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read) System Floating Point Performance 2 TFLOPS Storage Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1 I/O USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0) Memory Stick standard/Duo, PRO x 1 SD standard/mini x 1 CompactFlash (Type I, II) x 1 Communication Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2) Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 b/g Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR) Controller Bluetooth (up to 7) USB 2.0 (wired) Wi-Fi (PSP) Network (over IP) AV Output Screen size: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p HDMI: HDMI out x 2 Analog: AV MULTI OUT x 1 Digital audio: DIGITAL OUT (OPTICAL) x 1 Disc Media CD PlayStation CD-ROM, PlayStation 2 CD-ROM, CD-DA, CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW, SACD, SACD Hybrid (CD layer), SACD HD, DualDisc, DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side) DVD: PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM, PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW Blu-ray Disc: PlayStation 3 BD-ROM, BD-Video, BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE
What was the point of doing that?
29 - lame.
You can't compare the Cell agaist the Xbox360 procesors they use different architecture. The Xbox360 cores are General Pourpose (similar to a PC) thath can run windows word, etc. And the cell use 1 PPE an 7 SPE (Cores for more coplicated codes and task than a Geneneral Pourpose)
Synergistic Processing Elements (SPE) - Each SPE is composed of a "Synergistic Processing Unit" ("SPU"), and an SMF unit (DMA, MMU, and bus interface).  An SPE is a RISC processor with 128-bit SIMD organization  for single and double precision instructions. Each SPE contains a 256 KiB instruction and data local memory area (called "local store") which is visible to the PPE and can be addressed directly by software. The local store does not operate like a conventional CPU cache since it is neither transparent to software nor does it contain hardware structures that predict what data to load. The SPEs contain a 128 × 128 register file and measure 14.5 mm² on a 90 nm process. An SPE can operate on 16 8-bit integers, 8 16-bit integers, 4 32-bit integers, or 4 single precision floating-point numbers in a single clock cycle. 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 SPE gives a theoretical 25.6 GFLOPS of performance. Performance of the PPE's VMX unit is unclear, but should be around 12 GFLOPS in addition to the SPEs. In comparison to a modern personal computer, the comparatively high overall floating point performance of the Cell processor seemingly dwarfs the capabilities of the SIMD unit in desktop CPUs like the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64. However, it should be noted that comparing only the floating point capabilities of the system is a single-dimensional and application-specific metric. Unlike the Cell processor, the aforementioned desktop CPUs are more suited to the general purpose software one might run on a personal computer. Furthermore, Cell is optimized for single-precision calculations; for double-precision, as used on personal computers, the performance drops by an order of magnitude to levels similar to desktops. According to recent testing by IBM , SPEs can be expected to reach 75.9% of their theoretical performance.
The same raving fanboys who laid siege on Sony/Ps3 after hearing "rumors" of PS3 downgrade are the same ones saying that the FACT it isn't downgraded doesn't matter now!!! You hypocrites need to OWN UP to what you said!! Be accountable for the things you had said because of a SIMPLE "RUMOR" and console/company alligence. I dont need some site to tell me exactly how powerful the cell is. Why dont you do the research and find out exactly what other technology the cell is being used in!! Any fanboy that tells me the 360 Cpu is more powerful, faster or has a higher potential in terms of given developers the tools to make great games is just plain ignorant. It doesn't matter what "FACTS", "LINKS", "EXPERT ANALYST VEIWS" ECT. ECT. ECT. that are given to you!! You will always "think" the way you do. Which is fine but really the loss is all yours because of your hate for Sony YOU WILL MISS OUT ON GREAT GAMES not me. Some of you need to open your eyes and GROW UP!! Stop bashing everything about the PS3 just because you hate Sony!! These developers who are making great games don't deserve to be unfairly bashed just because you hate Sony!! When will gamers stop being biased and just give honest opinions of games without being swayed by "console/company alligence". It's sad that you will miss out in the end while some of us reap the benifits of what all 3 consoles/companies have to offer us!!
While for the most part I agree with you statement here, you need to recognize and admit that there are some things the 360 can simply do better than the PS3 can. In terms of general processing power, every 360 fan that has told you the 360 is better than the PS3, was right. And for a company that optimizes their games for this, they can achieve amazing results. At the same time you are right about the PS3 being more powerful...but only when it comes to parallel processing. The fact of the matter is that a clever developer can pull amazing material out of each console because they both have very specific strengths and weaknesses versus the other. While I tend to believe that the PS3 has more stengths than the 360 does for multimedia applications, I can't claim to know this for a fact (Neither can anyone else, whether a developer for Sony or Microsoft)
I agree with every word you have stated thus far throughout this entire forum man. (I also vote on your let him speak bubble) You get big respect from me because you are being fair an honest which is something that is rare on this site as of late! This statement by you is absolute gold!! The fact of the matter is that a clever developer can pull amazing material out of each console because they both have very specific strengths and weaknesses versus the other" I think that is what will determine who wins this Generation of consoles!! I do own a 360 and I expect/expected great things from it, but I think the fact that it was the only Next Gen console avalible made developers somewhat lazy in thier approach to make AAA titles in the year 360 had to itself. Hopefully the PS3 and Wii launches will push these developers to make epic games that really live up to the "sky high" hype this Generation of console is getting! It's a great time to be a gamer, on the same note it's just sad that some fanboys will miss out due to thier immature and ignorant fanboy views/opinions!!
IBM to build fastest supercomputer using PS3 chips By Stan Beer Thursday, 07 September 2006 Computing giant IBM plans to build the most powerful supercomputer to date using a combination of AMD Opteron processors and Sony's new Cell chip to be used in PlayStation 3 games consoles. The new supercomputer, codenamed Roadrunner, is expected to be able to execute at four times the speed of the no.1 supercomputer listed in the Top 500, the IBM BlueGene/L at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which has been clocked at more than 280 teraflops (280 trillion floating point operations per second). If it achieves its expected performance, Roadrunner will be the first computer in history to enter the petaflop (quadrillion operations per second) class. IBM is crediting the performance boost of Roadrunner to the new Cell chip, of which there will be more than 16,000 running alongside 16000 Opteron processors. The new supercomputer will be housed at Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory and used in simulations concerning the aging of nuclear materials. The power of the eight processor cell chip, which was jointly designed by IBM, Toshiba and Sony, has been recognized by researchers as a potential aid in solving high performance computing applications. Last month a project started by US biological scientists, called [email protected], announced its intention to enlist at least 10,000 PS3 consoles owned by gamers in a network to achieve supercomputing performance in determining how protein performance can cause diseases such as Alzheimer's and Cancer. According to the researchers a network of 10,000 PS3 consoles can also achieve petaflop performance and they eventually want to be the network to 100,000 consoles or more.
While, yes, you are right that that is a statement made by Microsoft's PR group, that doesn't make the information reliable. Companies routinely attack competitor's in such a way. Unfortunately, I know that no matter what anyone here says, you aren't going to believe it. LALALAND told you the truth, the 360 has 3 CORES, NOT 3 CPU's. Just a cursory examination of the definition of a CPU will show you that. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to find a single website that confirms what was posted at IGN two years ago without referencing the same exact information distributed then. The SPU's on the PS3 are not DSP's take it from someone that codes for and works with DSP's on a regular basis. In addition, they are part of the Cell CPU. Comparing the Cell with the CPU inside the 360 is pointless, they were each designed to target different computations, its a typical apples to oranges comparison. When it comes to general purpose processing power, the 360 beats the PS3 hands down. But at the same time, when it comes to any type of parallel processing, the PS3 wallops the 360. There's trade off's and benefits with each design, but PLEASE don't be naive enough to bring up that same tired old IGN post again. IGN even goes through the trouble of stating that the aren't endorsing this information because of its heavy slant. If you still insist on supporting this information, look at the fact that it was compiled by the PR department at Microsoft, typically a PR department really has little practical knowledge of how the inner workings of a complex piece of hardware could ever stack up against competition. They don't have the technical experience, knowledge, or training to understand it. Trust me, what they said is full of lies and half-truths. Just because Sony didn't respond does not mean that what Microsoft's PR department spat out is true.