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

[bdbdbd]

Pemalite said:

bdbdbd said:

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

Clockspeed is a balancing act.
We *could* have GPU's operating at 3Ghz today, but that wouldn't be ideal... It does actually cost transistors to ensure a processing architecture can hit high clockrates... (Need to minimize leakage and such)
And you do reach a point where you are better off just using a lower clockrate and taking the GPU wider to provide a better performance/power ratio.

I know. What you'd in practice need for a 3,2GHz GPU, would be a whole lot different design from today's GPU's (on a practical level at least, as a 3,2 GHz GPU with todays tech/design would produce enormous amount of heat).

Conina said:

Ruler said:

Yeah but the PS3 launch model also had PS2 hardware inside, 2 GPS and 2 CPUS and it was possible

Yeah, of course it is possible. It was also one of the reasons why the PS3 Fat launch models were that expensive although it was heavily subsidized.

They fixed these unnecessary extra costs with ditching the "Emotion engine" CPU in the European PS3 version by software emulating that chip... almost all PS2 games still worked.

And some of you think Sony will go down that road again with adding an outdated chip with very limited purpose?

Actually, even the early PS2 had PSX hardware inside, and only later in it's life the extra hardware was dropped. But, this was at a time when the PSX hardware cost next to nothing, as it was still mass-produced. This situation would be different from adding Cell for BC, as it is not manufactured anywhere, making it a very expensive processor.

But the problems with PS2 BC on PS3 had nothing to do with the CPU (that could be emulated rather easilly), but actually with the GPU memory bandwidth (all BC PS3's have at least the PS2 GPU inside), that was much higher than that of PS3's. PS4 should not have problems emulating PS2, because the GPU memory bandwidth is higher than that of PS2's.

Ruler said:

By who? Third parties who want to save money where ever they can? And yet they are still so greedy and put microtransactions into their latest games for this generation. Moral of the story give them Cell processor so they can think about that.instead lootboxes

Yeah because the optimisation is bad, AMD has the most powerful hardware right now with vega 64 performing @12 teraflops, but its still struggling to outperform a GTX 1080 ti with 10 teraflops

Third parties did not like the Cell because how expensive it was to optimise, and without optimising, you could not get decent performance out of the chip - the Cell is highly powerful WHEN you can optimise it and know when a single SPE is idling (in your code), but if you're not able to do that, you're ending up with a shitty performance. If you complain about microtransactions and shitty games, consider how much worse it would be if they'd need to spend even more money for the same game. You're going to buy the "greedy third parties'" game anyway, so it's only a matter of how much you'll end up paying for it.

 

The Vega/GTX is because floating point operations per second is only a one measure of a processor's performance. It's only a metric for specific type of arithmetic. Then again, also just because theoretical performance is high, does not mean real world performance would follow, if there's a bottleneck somewhere that's limiting the performace (ie, a less powerful chip without the bottleneck could outperform the more powerful one with the bottleneck).