FrostyTop said:
haxxiy said:
FrostyTop said:
The_vagabond7 said:
And just to quote a small bit of Rocketpig's post
Flat out untrue. If you spent $800 on a PC when the PS3 released, you'd still be able to play almost any game released (Mass Effect, CoD4, etc) on high settings and you'd probably be able to squeak out low/mid on Crysis, which still looks better than anything found on either HD console.
I spent about 700 on a PC christmas 2006, and I can play mass effect COD4, and bioshock fine and dandy, and they definitely have the graphical edge over their console counterparts on my PC which isn't very good at all by today's standards.
|
I'd also like to comment on that in a similar line of thought.
When the Playstation 1 and the Sega Saturn, heck even the MegadriveSnes was released...
They WERE a good couple of years ahead of the latest PC hardware.
The PS3Xbox 360 were NEVER ahead of the latest PC hardware, they were based on the current latest PC hardware but using stripped down versions of it.
Xbox 360 = ATI X1800 graphics card with tosh CPU
PS3 = 7800GTX (this had been out well over a year on the PC) + over complex CPU that still couldn't stand up to a Quad Core Q6600 in real terms and still can't.
Any RTS will show the CPUs on the consoles aren't up to much and Crysis, although running like a dog even on the latest hardware this is only relative to other PC gamers games who EXPECT 60FPS+.
Compared to how a lot of games run on consoles, Crysis ran like a DREAM even on medium hardware.
So....In summary, the op doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't like reading people making sweeping statements that haven't been thought through properly.
|
The Cell is 218 GFLOPS single precision and 25 GFLOPS double precision counting all 7 SPE + PPU.
Q6600 is 96 GFLOPS single precision and 48 GFLOPS double precision.
For games AI, physics, etc. the Q6600 runs rings around the Cell by a factor of several numbers. In media encoding and graphic rendering the Cell wins by a lot more.
Cell works like halfway between a GPGPU and a common CPU just like the Emotion Engine, Xenos or the PS1/Dreamcast processor. Console producers seems to have got a taste for such.
|
When games start doing media encoding(???!!!), and the PS3 games start using the Cell genuinely for graphics rendering give me a call.
I'll be waiting, for a long time!
You're looking at it far too theoretically. The Q6600 is an allrounder beast. The Cell doesn't even belong in a games console as weak as the PS3, it's potential is completely unharessed and mosty unuseable without cost prohibiting optimisation.
In any case, its not as powerful as a Q6600 in the real world I don't care what numbers you have, I can show you some numbers for how fast a Q6600 can encode using x264, what real world numbers can you show me?
|
Get your facts straight. The Cell isn't used only in PS3s. Among its uses are video processing card, blade servers, home cinema, supercomputing, cluster and distributed computing, mainframes etc.
It has been proven that using parallel matrix multiplication the Cell reaches 98% of its peak theoretical performance. Plus, here is demostrated how a 3.2 GHz Cell with 8 SPEs delivering a performance equal to 100 GFLOPS on an average double precision Linpack 4096x4096 matrix.
There is simply no way the millenium-old x86 architecture delivers more than an Cell equivalent. For instance, Fixstars Corporation released some months ago in Japan a PCI-E board using a 2.8 GHz cell with 180 GFLOPS single precision and 90 GFLOPS double precision.
