| Slarvax said: So uh, did you learn anything from the PS3? |
I assume you refer about the Cell being hard to program for. I dissagree, because it would be just a bonus for devolopers for rendering certain graphics and processing to offload the CPU, sure you would have some developers not utilizing it (probably Bethesda and the likes) but others like Naughty Dog they could make miracles with with it again especially for times to come. 50$ is really not a lot of money in the end of the day, and outweighs the worries.
Pemalite said:
It can. Developers just choose not to.
Where is the poll? Put your money where your mouth is.
RSX doesn't hold a candle to a more compute-centric GPU architecture like GCN.
No.
No.
No.
I would say I expect better of this forum after all this time of tech-orientated based threads/posts dating back years... But then a poster comes along and destroys that fantasy.
Jaguar is superior to Cell. Especially in Integers... Jaguar was AMD's worst CPU during a time when they had the industries worst CPU lineup. |
1. That true but you have to ask yourself why the Developer do that, they see these consoles they know the CPU is weak and they rather use the GPU power to deliver 1080p and better graphics than running the game in 720p with lower settings. These consoles were pretty much designed that way.
2. I put my money where my mouth is, i own all PS consoles including PS3 and continue to play older games for them
3. Yes it is the RSX has 400 Gflops, the Jaguar GPU has 1840 Gflops, its pretty much as simple as that. Does that sound like RSX cant hold a candle?
4. Dont know where you quoted me, but yeah the Cell trumps the Jaguar if you remove GPUs. The PS3 was even originally designed to run without a GPU, they planed to use two 2 Cells originally without any GPU. It is a known fact that the Cell was designed like a GPU rather than a CPU, hence why without a GPU the Jaguar would lose against the Cell running in benchmarks like the ones i have posted in my opening post.
5. Yes XDR2 even the original XDR1 inside the PS3 are faster than GDDR5 Ram
6. Yes the Cell was impressive for its time, the reason why it failed is not because it was a bad piece of hardware but because developers didnt want to programm for, you know they love their monopolies just like AMD hardware isnt running great on PC either over Nvidia and Intel despite having same hardware specs.
Its design is even superior to x86 in power savings, x86 CPUs are wasting 30% of energy while the Cell only does 5-10%, hence it was used for servers a lot. How is that not a High End CPU? And The Cell wasnt cheap at all, it costed Sony 800$ to produce one PS3 and they sold it for 600$. Does that sound a low end cost CPU? that was the whole problem with the PS3 to begin with, but now prices are down
Last edited by Ruler - on 26 December 2017
