Remember when Sony said the PS3 would render at 120 fps? Forget it, 240fps

[selnor]

Groucho said:

selnor said:

Groucho said:

NJ5 said:

@Groucho: Are you seriously telling us that PS3's OS/API doesn't take up any RAM?

 

Of course it takes up RAM.  Don't be so literal.  Do you believe that the flavor of Linux that the PS3 uses, eats up 25% of the PS3's RAM (and VRAM, or whatever that wacky article claimed)?  Or that Windows can be streamlined tighter than Linux can?

 

Heres an update for you.

http://www.deeko.com/news/?p=1316

I'm not just pulling figures out my arse you know. And if you want to argue with IBM be my guest. I'll find the link from IBM that show the 115 GFLOPS of Xennon is actual.

 

Sony has been improving it by leaps and bounds.  I don't think its much bigger than 32MB anymore.  It never really comes into the picture, performance-wise, in my experience.

I'd be surprised if 3 CPUs with altivec co-processors could outperform 6 vector processors and another CPU with an Altivec.  I sincerely doubt its possible.  Each SPU is much speedier than the PPU's Altivec (identical to the Xenon core's Altivecs), when it comes to vector work.  The Xenon cores can't do out-of-order processing, just like the PPU and the SPUs, and its branch predictor is practically worthless, just like the PPU's (they are basically the same core, with some interesting threading differences).

The X360 CPU is, in essense, a PS3 CPU, with 3 PPUs, and no SPUs.

 

Well you can argue all you want with IBM. They are the figures and in real world terms the Cell as a whole gets nowhere near 200GFLOPS inside a PS3 for game usage. Although the Ram side can be improved (HOME will likely take that figure back up) The CPU usage cant be changed as much.