Why Sony should also use a Cell Processor for PS5 (x86+Cell coprocessor)

[bdbdbd]

shikamaru317 said:

Cell was hard to develop for, while x86 is easy to develop for, adding in cell would only complicate matters and make it harder to develop for PS5. The last console to try a dual CPU solution similar to what you're suggesting was Sega Saturn, and it was a beast to develop for from what I've heard, most developers ended up just using 1 of the 2 CPU's since it was easier. I just don't see what you're describing happening.

Also, Sony doesn't care about BC, they've said multiple times that when they've implemented it in the past, PS2 BC on launch model PS3's for instance, that not enough people used BC to warrant the increased cost (regardless of rather you use hardware BC or emulation BC it costs money).

Ryzen will be plenty powerful for PS5 and they'll get a good deal on a Ryzen/Navi APU because AMD is always looking for console deals since they can't compete against Intel or Nvidia in PC marketshare.

Saturn was a bitch to develop for, for the same reasons PS3 was bitch to develop for; the developer had to know every precise moment when a certain processor (core, unit, or whatever you want to call them) was available.

klogg4 said:

But it is better than a Jaguar. A single GPU at 3.2Ghz will run better in a lot of situations than an 8 core CPU running at 1.6Ghz.

You clearly don't have a clue how central processor unit works...

3,2 gigahertz GPU would be a beast today, as the high end GPU's run somewhere around 1,5 GHz ATM.

Ruler said:

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.

Why are we even having this discussion? It's almost 2018. The Playstation 3 is dead, the Cell is dead. They are old, slow, outdated.

The Cell was never a high-end CPU to begin with, sure once you delved into iterative refinement it could come into it's own... But outside of that, the Cell was nothing impressive, even 10 years ago.
The Cell was designed to provide adequate performance for a low cost, perfect for a console.

 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.
So it goes without saying that any successor to Jaguar is going to be a rather large increase... And by default is what we will have in next-gen anyway.

So I concur. I would rather an SSD Cache... A nice big chunk of SLC NAND please.

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

Edit: damn, I accidentally skipped this quote. Obviously RSX can't hold a candle for a system that's 4,5 times as powerful.

To be fair, IF you consider Jaguar as CGPU and Cell as CGPU, a fair comparison would be Cell without the SPE's and Jaguar without GPU. I take that as you apparently don't understand what you're talking about.

Ruler said:

caffeinade said:

You don't just buy a CPU and RAM, slam it in a box and be done with it.
That isn't how it works.

If Sony did put a Cell in the PS5 they would have to live with that for the entire life-cycle of that console, meaning:
They would have to supply / develop an OS that is capable of running in such a system.
They would have to write an API, or extend an existing one to support the exotic hardware configuration.
They would have to teach developers how to get the maximum performance out of the Cell.
They would have to learn how to develop games that can leverage all of the Cell, to stay competitive with Microsoft and everyone else.
They would have to give up the performance of adding an SSD cache or another x86 core, or some more GPU core, or an FPGA or whatever.

All of that would cost more than $50 per unit.
And even at $50 per unit (or even one dollar) they could do so much more.

+ a Cell proving BC, is not necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goSgzyxwxVA
A Ryzen 1200 running Demon Souls just fine for a young emulator.
Given a first party developed emulator, and the CPU you define in your PS5 and PS3 games will run perfectly and beyond.
Without a Cell.

Thats not running fine to be honest. 

Yeah all these stuff you have listed is true but its also true for X86 hardware especially limited to 400$-500$, and i think it still better and easier to just have an extra processor than some Mhz more. Sony knows both architectures now , X86 and Cell, it shouldnt be that hard to make that work together. And as i have mentioned before it should be Reserved for certain things not the whole game. And you forget the XDR2 Ram.

It would be a HELL to make both of them work together, well maybe not for the hardware engineers, but every programmer would face a nearly impossible task optimising the system. The idea of having a multi-general purpose core processor is a dynamic system, unlike that a special purpose core that would be running idle when it's task isn't needed. A system that would have two processors with different instruction sets, would mean that one of the two could only be used as a co-processor for additional tasks, and idle the rest of the time. However. IF you wanted a co-processor, it would make more sense to put additional X86 core as co-processor, or if you need DSP-like performance it would make more sense to put a GPU as the co-processor, or an SPE from Cell, as every other option you have, would make more sense for everyone than putting the fucking Cell (and it's nine extra threads) on the motherboard.

If Sony knows X86 architecture and Cell arhitecture well, it shouldn't be a problem for Sony to create a compiler for the PS3 BC, if they wanted to.

Last edited by bdbdbd - on 28 December 2017