There was another recent thread here on the raytracing.  It's fun, but I think it's like the old voxel engines.  If you tried to actually do a realtime application, it would look a lot worse than what you can do on the GPU.

I did read the matrix multiply report, but it wasn't terribly helpful.  They basically just wrote a very long asm function to do a 64x64 matrix.  8000 lines of loads, shuffles, fmadds, and stores.  Not very readable.  :)  I like the intrinsics; you can keep your code in logical blocks, and the compiler does a very good job of optimizing to keep the load/store and arithmetic pipelines both filled.  Lines 367-431 of this file shows what the compiler did with the innermost loop of my SPE code.  I love the profiling tool that IBM created for this.

This may merely be because Wii or XBox 360 fans seeing no chance to refute the results. On one hand we have university research data, expert PS3 games developers, a security researcher, program developers and a scientific researcher all sharing amazing results and on the other hand we have people like you making comparisons with 386 CPUs, I think the know-how and expertise isn't evenly matched. In terms of reads this thread is read well enough, based its reads/comments ratio.

Funny you should mention the 386 misunderstanding which was due to you forgetting to put quote marks around a sentence... How honest and upright of you ;)

You've basically spammed the whole thread with the same propaganda that you always seem to bring to every thread you "contribute" to. If you're going to make huge copy pasting of your snippets, why don't you at least edit your posts instead of polluting the thread with 2, 3, 4 posts in a row, some of which quote yourself? This is a forum, not a "dump your crap" blog.

Regarding your attempts at taking jabs at my background, which you have absolutely no knowledge about, let's just say that I'm not interested in disproving you about that.

@ NJ5

I don't see any quote tags here.

Considering that I've been seeing you doing these moves in basically every thread you post at, I think it explains my replies. Let's say that I can perfectly tell that your backgroung in the things you talk about is mostly second hand information. You have often misinterpreted what people say about technical stuff, and the other day you didn't even understand what "optimizing for space" precisely means in a software development context.

PS: I only bought my Wii a few days ago. I used to work for Microsoft and I don't have an Xbox 360 (not planning on buying one) so that should tell you how much of a fanboy I am.

Seriously, MikeB. You have a massive pile of documents on your computer that you just copy-paste this stuff out of. Why not make a thread to put all of it down in? Every single piece of information you have can go into it. You can have FAQs of all the anti-PS3 claims you've encountered and your rebuttals to them. And when you actually have something new to say, you can say it there. I'd actually like to see that.

And when you want to spread the Good Word about how awesome the PS3 is, you can just post a link to that thread instead of blasting dozens of threads like this one with pages and pages of you talking, LITERALLY sometimes, to yourself.

It's not like anyone was spreading misinformation of FUD about the PS3 on this thread. They weren't. I just doublechecked. There were 5 posts, consisting entirely of people complimenting the PS3 or joking around, then you came in, and then 3 more posts of lighthearted innocence before you started carpet bombing PS3 info.

Right now, MikeB, you're the telemarketer. You're the "V!@GRA" email. Any one convert to the glory of PS3 you create is at the expense of a dozen who hate your guts. Stop it.

@ NJ5

Now all I have to do is use the power of t3h c3ll to travel back in time, so that I can be the one who cracks the Japanese code and be famous for winning WW2. Thank you PS3.

I didn't remember at that time that the Cell is 3.2 GHz, I just saw the "CPU", "millions" and "billions" of cycles per second and assumed he was comparing clock speed. In any case, the 386 comment wasn't mine, I merely followed up on it. "Cycles" is a weird word to use in this context, as it can be easily confused with clock cycles. "Iterations" or "trials" would have been much better, but that's a problem with who wrote the article. MikeB's problem was simply that he didn't put quote tags on that, so I thought he was spewing crap about technical stuff again.

In any case, this is a minor argument which was solved long ago, the only reason we're discussing it is that MikeB brought it up again, without any honest reason for it. Let's carry on.