By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
captain carot on 28 December 2017
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:


captain carot said:

Thing is, everything where really CELL exceeded falls under those parallel processes. Cloth simulation, you wouldn't actually do that on a CPU today. In other cases CELL was kind of a nightmare for programmers.

Many things CELL was intended for are simply done GPGPU-wise today, for the other stuff there are way more efficient ways.

Not really. Because modern CPU's not only have superior serialized performance to Cell, but they have significantly superior parallel capabilities as well... Hyper-Threading has been a massive boon for parallel processing capability. - In-fact right now the PC seems to be experiencing the "Core Wars". - Thanks in part to AMD of course.

However, both pale in comparison to a modern GPU's capabilities on that front.

 

 
Ruler said:
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.

I have PUBG on PC. I have 12 threads. I can assure you, PUBG utilizes them all.



 

First, we're in the same boat about multiple cores, for games as well as apps. I was refering to the stuff where CELL actually seems to shine. Like cloth simulation and other stuff that can be parallelized that good. If not neccessary you wouldn't do that on the CPU.

In other cases, as far as i've always understood CELL, the architecture can be a massive hindrance. Even IBM's improved PowerXCell didn't work out as planned in the end.

But PS3's CELL actually depends on dividing the workload on as much SPE's as good as possible, which wasn't that easy and sometimes did not work at all. So leading to games with good multithreading, they should definitely benefit from multicore CPU's if they are to use all SPE's. That doesn't give CELL any advantage over 'real' multicore CPU's htough, at least in my understanding.