alephnull said:
Deneidez said:
Kynes said:
CGI-Quality said:
I'm baffled by the some of the negative reception to this. Why is this news so bothersome to some? |
Not cheerleading the Cell is not saying that the processor is bad. What we need is some perspective, and realize the highs and lows of the chip. It's not the second coming, only that. Having a good FOH performance is not what we, as gamers, need. FOH doesn't translate directly to performance in games, that's all.
|
Well, I am not saying either that CELL is bad. Its excellent when it comes to heavily parallel FP operating. Thats why they are using CELL for scientific stuff etc. Unfortunately games aren't that simple and actually CELL is more encumbrance than useful in games.
(To be honest XENON isn't either that good for games. Its in order like CELL and that can actually nearly halve its efficiency in games. Both of them encourage to make simple games, because they can't really handle anything complex.)
|
To design a chip with OOE you must necessarily reduce the amount of cache chip has as it becomes dedicated to your instruction pool. Really you only want it for badly optimized applications.
|
Yes, you are right. OoOE make chips bigger and more expensive. Anyway, it haven't been invented for nothing. Also are you implying that most advanced AIs are badly optimized, because they might have too many branches (and way too big reserved memory block) Cell to handle? :)
(And before MikeB is going to dump some stupid crap about Cell simulating human brains. I know how neural networks work and what they are good for. You really can't use them for AI. Teaching would take forever and it would still be very simple vs traditional methods.)
MikeB:
I don't lack talent to use CELL. Unfortunately many others do and I can understand why.
