By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ruler on 27 December 2017
Edit Thread

 

Pemalite said: 
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.

Yes you can have as good of a GPU you want, it wont archive 60fps if still using the same Jaguar CPU cloacked @1.6-2.2 Ghz. The XBox One X is the definitive prove for that, Microsoft had all the time in the world to fix it, they went that way because 4k 30fps was the goal from the beginning. 

Pemalite said: 
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.

So now i have to philosophy about the numbers 4 and 18? I can tell you what i know about this topic, that 4 is almost a fourth of the number 18 thats all you need to know about.

I mean if this is all too complicated for you and me, I can also express it visually by showing some pictures of the Last of Us on PS3  and ask you if it can hold a candle against Uncharted 4?

Pemalite said: 
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.

So are you, because you never provide any evidence for anything

Pemalite said: 
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 Cell is ancient, outdated and downright archaic today.

So what, it is using PowerPC? Just like Macs did or the Wii U. Doesnt mean its bad, just look at Wii U games like Bayonetta 2 or the latest Zelda, all praised for their graphics and scale and that wasnt even a Cell. 

There are various benchmark showcasing how the Cell can render a lot of stuff without the GPU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFOM4CBKA

Pemalite said: 
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.

Yeah an integer calculation designed for x86. Sure the Jaguar is great but any processor would be with 8 Gigs of Ram and a powerful GPU, put that into the Cell and you would see the same performance for many games, if not even better in some games. Like in PUBG as an example, it would probably run better on the Cell than on a Jaguar processor, simple because its designed for dual or quad processor on PC, not 8th cores.

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.

And that was my main point that Cell wouldnt supposed to be used to render the entire game if it is just a co-processor

Pemalite said: 
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.

A source is better than no source, you dont provide anything.

It doesnt matter what is better than XDR2, XDR2 is better than GDDR5 and is needed for the Cell. All the other types of RAM arent out there in any relevant form and probably ultra expensive too.

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.)

Yes it has everything to do with Developers and also gamers cheerleading for their favorite hardware monopolies. Look at PS4s Exclusive Uncharted 4, Driveclub, Bloodborne, they look beyond anything that runs on any Nvidia hardware, and that despite of the weak Jaguar CPUs. Software optimisation is all what matters, consoles arent effected by that because its only 1 or 2 pieces of hardware of the same brand, in this case on ''Weak'' AMD architecture.

Without outsourcing the process for their CPUs, AMD would have been bankrupt in the first place.

Pemalite said: 

We are not in 2005 anymore. x86 is extremely efficient, Intel even managed to get it's x86 processors to be competitive with ARM.

Citation Needed.

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-cellperf/

Pemalite said: 

$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.

The Cell wasnt cheap at all, in order to make it affordable for consoles Sony had a dedicated CPU plant in order to produce them in massive quantities. The only used 7 SPUs instead of 8, in oder to save money too. The PS3 was an entire battle to cut production costs, no other console had so many hardware revisions.

Last edited by Ruler - on 27 December 2017

Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread