Ruler said:
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. |
Your agreement isn't necessary.
The Cell is "hard to program for". - And there are a multitude of reasons for that relating to it's architectural hindrances. (Such as it's cache setup.)
| Ruler said: 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. |
No.
| Ruler said:
2. I put my money where my mouth is, i own all PS consoles including PS3 and continue to play older games for them |
This has no relevance to the statement in my post. Try again.
| Ruler said:
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? |
Go do some basic research, gain an understanding of what flops is and how it relates to gaming and how irrelevant it is to the total performance of a system.
Then come back and try and have an intellectual debate about this particular topic.
| Ruler said: 4. Dont know where you quoted me, but yeah the Cell trumps the Jaguar if you remove GPUs. |
No.
Go look up integer performance comparisons.
Again, you lack a basic fundamental understanding of how microprocessors work and their performance.
| Ruler said: The PS3 was even originally designed to run without a GPU, they planed to use two 2 Cells originally without any GPU. |
No.
The Cell lacks a ton of the basic functional components to perform GPU-type duties efficiently.
The Cell was designed to be a CPU first and foremost, the fact it is using the PowerPC ISA is a testament to that very basic fundamental fact... It sounds like you have been drinking some fake news over the years. - Of course they did take a VLIW-like approach to it's core layout with Cell. But ultimately... Who cares?
Do you know how rapidly GPU's and CPU's double their performance? Cell is ancient, outdated and downright archaic today.
| Ruler said: 4. Dont know where you quoted me, but yeah the Cell trumps the Jaguar if you remove GPUs. 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. |
If you think cherry picked benchmarks designed to conform to your own confirmation bias is somehow an accurate representation of Cell's capabilities... Then you are highly mistaken and you should again... Go do some basic research.
The Cell is great when doing Iterative refinement floating point, but you throw a ton of integer calculations at the chip and the Cell will fold.
To dumb it down for you (as it seems you need it) the Jaguar core is a more well-rounded balanced architecture that is essentially great at all sorts of calculations, where the Cell is only great at one thing and terrible at everything else.
Which is fine if you only intend to do a single type of calculation... But guess what? That isn't how game engines work, they use all sorts of calculations.
Besides.... The games speak for themselves... And the games have told us that Jaguar beats Cell. It really is that simple.
Playstation 4 games not only have more advanced A.I characters, but have more of them on screen.
Allot of multiplayer games (battlefield for example) have more players in a multiplayer match.
Also tend to have more impressive CPU based Physics, Particles and Smoke effects.
| Ruler said: 5. Yes XDR2 even the original XDR1 inside the PS3 are faster than GDDR5 Ram
|
Clearly your knowledge on Ram is lacking. That is bandwidth per pin.
DDR2 can technically be faster than XDR2 if you take it wide enough.
However... You have conveniently omitted HBM, HBM2, GDDR6, GDDR5X as well in your comparisons. - So try again and try using sources that don't conform to your own confirmation bias.
XDR2 has been beaten soundly by other technologies.
| Ruler said: 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. |
Impressive for a console maybe.
But it paled in comparison to what Intel was offering.
AMD's GPU hardware isn't great compared to nVidia because AMD's GPU architecture is shit. - It's more compute focused whilst nVidia's is a little more well-rounded and gaming-orientated.
In short, AMD GPU's can have tons and tons of Gflops... But games tend to need more than that, so AMD GPU's perform terrible, that's got nothing to do with developers or whatever other nVidia-having-a-monopoly conspiracy theory you have conjured up, that is strictly AMD's own fault.
It does mean that AMD's GPU's are great in tasks that can make use of all that compute like Bitcoin Mining, but not much outside of that.
Ryzen is actually a great CPU core, but it is limited by it's manufacturing, being stuck at an inferior 14nm Finfet Samsung-20nm-based Global Foundries process didn't really do it in any favors, especially when it comes to pushing up clock rates. (There may also be a bottleneck in say... The pipeline, not sure.)
| Ruler said: Its design is even superior to x86 in power savings |
We are not in 2005 anymore. x86 is extremely efficient, Intel even managed to get it's x86 processors to be competitive with ARM.
| Ruler said: x86 CPUs are wasting 30% of energy while the Cell only does 5-10% |
Citation Needed.
| Ruler said: 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 |
$800 was for the entire machine.
Throw in some overpriced Rambus DRAM, expensive Blu-Ray player, heck include a free PS2 inside every console, Hard Drive, memory card reader, graphics card, power supply, controller. HMMMM. I wonder how much is left for that CPU?
It certainly ain't approaching a several thousand dollar x86 chip that's for sure, let alone a first-gen i7 hex.
The Cell was cheap, it had to be, it had to go into a console.
| DialgaMarine said: No. They’ll face the same high costs that they faced with the original PS3, and it would basically mean no PS4 BC if they decide not to try and fit a PS4 inside of it. I like the idea of building around x86 because developers love it and it means all the games we play right can continue to be relevant as newer hardware offers boosts to performance. |
The Cell's transistor counts are actually fairly low by modern standards and thus wouldn't be expensive to manufacture.
The real issue is that by opting for Cell you would need to take a multi-chip approach, which means implementing additional buses, controllers, caches and so on, which drives up costs... And if you drive up costs, that means you need to make a sacrifice somewhere else. - Hows about a cutback to the GPU?
Sony chose the right hardware at the right time for the right price for the Playstation 4 and they were rewarded that with sales.
| KBG29 said: Cell in this case is basically being used as a sub processor to handle things like physics, sound, and other CPU heavy effects. The O.P. is saying games would be built around the X86 Ryzen CPU, while Cell would work as a specialty processor to handle addtional tasks that would burden the main CPU. |
What would be the point? Just add a couple x86 or ARM cores onto the SoC.
Cell isn't that powerful.
Besides, Physics and Sound can be done on the GPU anyway... And more efficiently than a CPU to boot.
| NATO said: Neither one of you seem to understand that the Cell processor is Power architecture and thus, is inherently incompatible with x86 |
Binary Translation.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
