games use just 10% of ps3's power + CELL benchmarks

[staticneuron]

baka said: washimul said: what a F***** trash can??? i poted 1000 articles on CELL and ps3 and an illeterate comes up with bizarre info. You posted a lot of articles that you didn't understand, let me try to explain it in easier terms. The Cell architecture by itself doesn't produce a magically high performance processor, unless you use the SPUs. It can happily run as a plain vanilla PowerPC chip. The SPUs are where it gets interesting because they execute separately from the main processor core, and are quite fast - if a bit limited. You have to send the SPU a small program to perform a small task along with some input. The main program runs on the primary core and sends these jobs off to each of the SPUs to offload the computation. The main program accepts the SPU's results, which might be a physics calculation or the like. It then incorporates these results into its own calculations. The aggregate performance of the SPUs, combined with the performance of the primary core, is where the performance figures come from. 100% utilization is not a simple task, especially in a video game where many different things are happening at once and can change quickly. It needs to be handled either by the programmer or the compiler, and the last I'd heard IBM wasn't finished with their compiler. parallelliaaaaaaaaaaaa .................what the F***** is this guy saying..................................have been reading any of those links i posted from IBM, MC, UC, MIT The word you're looking for is parallelization. In this context, it means doing more than one thing at a time.

Your a little off on what the SPE's can do. It is a misconception that the PPE has to schedule tasks for the SPE instructions can be sent to the SPE's as a whole without talking to the PPE. Any complaints you hear about the cell was normally made by PC based defs who have difficulty thinking out side the box. Seriously... why is that you do not hear any japanese devs complain? Do you think its loyalty? Or the sheer fact that they do not see an issue because the older GC and PS2 did not rely on general purpose coding........ oh noes!!!!! "3D graphics are also a huge application for SIMD processing. A vertex/vector(term used interchangeably in 3D graphics) is a 3D position, usually stored with 4 elements. X, Y, Z, and W. I won’t explain the W because I don’t even remember exactly how it’s used, but it is there in 3D graphics. Processing many vertices would be relatively slow on a traditional CPU which would have to individually process each element of the vector instead of processing the whole thing simultaneously. This is why MMX, SSE, and 3DNow! were created for x86 architectures to improve 3D acceleration. Needless to say, GPUs most definitely have many SIMD units (possibly even MIMD), and is why they vastly out perform CPUs in this respect. Operations done on the individual components of a 3D vector are independent which makes the SIMD paradigm an optimal solution to operate on them. To put this in context, remembering 3D computer gaming between low end and high end computers between 1995 and 2000 might bring up some memories of an issue that existed around then. Although graphics accelerators were out in that time period, some of them didn’t have “Hardware T&L”(transform and lighting). If you recall games that had the option to turn this on or off (assuming you had it in hardware), you would see a huge speed difference if it was done in hardware versus in software. The software version still looked worse after they generally tried to hide the speed difference by using less accurate algorithms/models. If a scaled down equivalent of the Cell existed back then, the software emulation would not have been as slow compared to a GPU."

mrstickball said: If the PS3 was so much more powerful than the 360, why is it that so many PS2 exclusives have gone to 360 as well, and not the other way around? The 360 has lost very little if any exclusives, whereas Sony has lost Guitar Hero, Resident Evil 5, Assassains Creed, Mercenaries 2, Virtua Fighter 5 among other games, and the only one that the 360 lost was Full Auto 2?

With the exception of VF5, when were these considered exclusive? RE4 showed up on GC first and..... Better yet I will take the bait If that is how you see it what happened to enchant arms, splinter cell double agent, wardevil, saints row, and Graw. Multiplatform games are not just born they are planned for. So for every lost "exclusive" that both the 360 and PS3 suffer you have to keep in mind it was most likely planned that way. So announced exlusive are becoming suspect especially when it is shown on another system. Projects assins was shown on a 360 before they tried to say it was a PS3 exclusive and bioshock has been shown running on PS3 hardware. Expect an announcement.

mrstickball said: Also, a quick note on Oblivion on PS3: Many might say "OMG, it's going to be better on PS3, devs say that the load times, textures, ect are better, showing that the PS3 is a better machine". Wrong. A patch is coming out shortly for the 360 to increase the draw distances and load times to make it equivilent with the 360. Why? Optimization. Bethsada has had a year to work on the PS3 version + learn from the PC and 360 versions. They've now gone back to the 360 and made it better. Not because the 360 is better, or the PS3 version is better, but because there was more time to optimize the 360. However, according to bethsada, quite a few people worked on porting Oblivion to PS3. When it came to updating the graphics on the 360 to match the PS3 version....It took 1 programmer a few weeks :)

"SPOnG: Okay, back to the game! Some of the optimisations you've made on the PS3 version, you've said, are going to make their way over to the Xbox 360 and PC versions [via updates] at some point in the future. Pete Hines: Yeah, there's a few things we've done that are non-platform specific that may be applicable to the PC or the 360. SPOnG: But some at the same time will be PS3-specific? Pete Hines: Yeah, quite a few of the optimisations done for this version are specific to the way the PlayStation 3 is designed, in the way it processes information… so those optimisations wouldn't be applicable to the other versions." I get that you are trying to downplay the announcements but it is a perfectly understandable knee jerk reaction. More people are trying to learn the hardware and simply put there are things that the PS3 can do that the 360 cannot, It is a vertex beast and no the 360 does not keep up.