Ruler on 26 December 2017
| caffeinade said: The money spent on putting a cell in a PS5 would be better spent on a HBM die, or some small SSD to cache textures, or something. You did see that even the example you presented shows this, right? You expect a PS5 to have ~6 times the GPU compute of a PS4, and the PS4 can do ~16 times better in the example... All on the GPU. The task you gave is well suited to a GPU, and the cell does well in that kind of workload, but the PS4's GPU mops the floor with the Cell. Even if it only costed a dollar to put a cell in the PS5, per unit. That money would be better spent on almost anything else. The money spent on R&D to make such a configuration possible and feasible (both hardware and software wise), would be better spent on Anything else. The PS5 should be able to handle PS3 emulation just fine without a Cell. |
If the PS4 GPU is so strong why cant it give me 60fps?
And i am pretty sure people would rather have Cell processor that also gives full BC than some SSD cache. The example was also a GPU task, so of course PS4s GPU is doing it better regardless, just like the PS3s RSX GPU would have done better than the Cell too. But remove the GPU and let just the CPUs handle the task which is what you always do if you benchmark a CPU on PC, Cell pretty much would trump the Jaguar. XDR2 is the fastest Ram available that would be another plus and also necessary in order to even run the Cell processor.
