@ WoW

I didn't claim all games, I just stated current PCs will never be pushed as much as consoles will be (and have been) pushed. Yes, there will be console games which will be optimised far more for the used specific hardware setup and I am not talking about Pacman. Going back in history this is nothing surprising. C64 and Amiga 500 games were much better optimised (and thus the hardware far more efficiently pushed) as well.



I stated specifically x86 Windows PC. The Cell provides a PPC /PPC-like architecture.



I stated PC with default Blu-Ray drive at console pricing.



Many of the reasons why the PS2 is a success already apply or will apply to the PS3 as well. The points I mentioned earlier (bigger software library, better value for money, etc).

@ RocketPig 

The Cell is an excellent general purpose processor, at nearly any kind of code it can be an order of magnitude faster. It does require a different approach to coding than is usually applied to legacy coding tactics. Extensive testing and research already demonstrated this, the Cell is good at facilitatiing just about any type of code, usually multiple times faster.

Words Of Wisdom said: MikeB said: selnor said: MikeB said: PDF said: I only see that Sony mangaed to pull out of the same track the DC was in and is now doing better And there are more than enough anticipated PS3 games lined-up for Japan. MGS4 will help considerably in the short term. Once Final Fantasy and a slimline PS3 launches I predict Japan will go PS3 crazy. The PS3 is a 10 year product strategy, for Japan it was a 1st round knockout against the 360, first punch knock out actually. 10 year product that is obselete in 2009. AMD and Intel release amzingly fast CPU and GPU combined processors which more than double dot productions in gaming. PS3 or 360 will not last till 2017. Both are equal in graphical capabilities. And niether will be able to run the new UE4 which is being developed for the new PC processors. Question is where does this leave ATI and NVIDIA? The PS3 already has some of the technically most impressive games such as Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction Opinion, yet such games only scratch the surface of what can be achieved through PS3 specific game engine enhancements. Opinion Consoles are easier to use, no fuss strainght forward and more seamless in usage for many things. Half-truth It's not only about raw power, but Windows by itself drains a lot potential PC perfomance Half-truthFact and games are never optimised to the extend console games are being optimised for the remaining power. LieFactNote A Consoles are also about value for money Fact, currently there is even no expensive x86 Windows PC available which provides the equivalent performance potential that the PS3 Cell processor can provide Lie nor do PCs offer a Blu-Ray drive by default Fact at console price points. LieFactNote B The PS3 will get cheaper Fact and slimmer in course of time Opinion, the games library will rapidly expand Fact and improve in quality OpinionNote C, the Blu-Ray movie library will expand Fact, new services like Home and PlayTV will be launched Fact, this all considerably enhancing the value for money ratio for the PS3 Opinion. If you understand this then you can understand why the PS2 is still selling pretty well Lie, but the PS3 is now much better specced than the PS2 was for the time the PS2 console launched Fact, much better! Opinion I've provided a helpful legend with which to read MikeB's post. Also - $130 BluRay PC drive

Note A:  (this also draws on the later exchange between MikeB and yourself) 
How exactly is optimizing different from utilizing the hardware at closer to its limit?  Isn't the entire purpose of optimization gettig the most use out of the hardware?  Isn't that exactly what you said you were talking about instead of optimization?  Tell me the difference.  "Never", in this case, is also a generalization.  Though there may be exceptions, the nature of console vs. PC hardware guarantees that it is true so much that "always" is a very small exaggeration indeed AFAIK.  A steel rod being driven entirely through the skull and brain doesn't ALWAYS kill the victim (ask Phineas Gage), but close enough. 

Note B:  You incorrectly separated "PC with Blu-ray" from "at console prices".  You can get a decent PC for console prices but a Blu-ray drive (even your $130 one) drives the price beyond that range. 

Note C:  This is correct only if you are saying that the "quality-to-crap" ratio will not improve.  The NUMBER of quality games will most definitely improve, making his assertion a "Fact" for the discerning customer. 

MikeB said: @ RocketPig That's just it: The Cell is not a good general purpose processor. It does some things amazingly well while it's not so great at others. For scientific research where pure number-crunching is the goal, it excels. The Cell is an excellent general purpose processor, at nearly any kind of code it can be an order of magnitude faster. It does require a different approach to coding than is usually applied to legacy coding tactics. Extensive testing and research already demonstrated this, the Cell is good at facilitatiing just about any type of code, usually multiple times faster.

Code has to be specifically written for the Cell processor. That, in itself, makes it a poor general processor.
Good general processors take non-specific code and run it reasonably fast. All you have to do is look at a current AMD or Intel processor to see a machine that will run most any code and in some cases, run it faster than code specifically written for the Cell.

BTW, I would love to see an example of the Cell facilitating just about any type of code multiple times faster than a current AMD or Intel chip. 

rocketpig said: MikeB said: @ RocketPig That's just it: The Cell is not a good general purpose processor. It does some things amazingly well while it's not so great at others. For scientific research where pure number-crunching is the goal, it excels. The Cell is an excellent general purpose processor, at nearly any kind of code it can be an order of magnitude faster. It does require a different approach to coding than is usually applied to legacy coding tactics. Extensive testing and research already demonstrated this, the Cell is good at facilitatiing just about any type of code, usually multiple times faster. Code has to be specifically written for the Cell processor. That, in itself, makes it a poor general processor. Good general processors take non-specific code and run it reasonably fast. All you have to do is look at a current AMD or Intel processor to see a machine that will run most any code and in some cases, run it faster than code specifically written for the Cell. BTW, I would love to see an example of the Cell facilitating just about any type of code multiple times faster than a current AMD or Intel chip.

You seem to have changed you definition of "general purpose" from "will do any sort of tasks" to "will run nonspecific code". Is that correct and, if so, why?

Final-Fan said: rocketpig said: MikeB said: @ RocketPig That's just it: The Cell is not a good general purpose processor. It does some things amazingly well while it's not so great at others. For scientific research where pure number-crunching is the goal, it excels. The Cell is an excellent general purpose processor, at nearly any kind of code it can be an order of magnitude faster. It does require a different approach to coding than is usually applied to legacy coding tactics. Extensive testing and research already demonstrated this, the Cell is good at facilitatiing just about any type of code, usually multiple times faster. Code has to be specifically written for the Cell processor. That, in itself, makes it a poor general processor. Good general processors take non-specific code and run it reasonably fast. All you have to do is look at a current AMD or Intel processor to see a machine that will run most any code and in some cases, run it faster than code specifically written for the Cell. BTW, I would love to see an example of the Cell facilitating just about any type of code multiple times faster than a current AMD or Intel chip. You seem to have changed you definition of "general purpose" from "will do any sort of tasks" to "will run nonspecific code". Is that correct and, if so, why?

A general purpose CPU not only does all tasks reasonably fast, but it also shouldn't require specific code to make things run well.

In any case, the Cell isn't a good general use processor in either definition. It is, after all, a server chip. Good at multi-tasking and raw data processing but not necessarily good for running Microsoft Office or other generic applications.

RocketPig, the same coding tactics and approaches apply to PC CPU optimisations. The only differences are that for the Cell this is crucial and the performance gains are bigger, but PC/360 game engines will benefit as well from redesigning and optimising legacy game engines and software in general.

MikeB said: RocketPig, the same coding tactics and approaches apply to PC CPU optimisations. The only differences are that for the Cell this is crucial and the performance gains are bigger, but PC/360 game engines will benefit as well from redesigning and optimising legacy game engines and software in general.

I'm not arguing that it's not a good processor that can't do some tasks exceedingly fast. I'm arguing that it doesn't do everything well and that code needs to be specially written to take advantage of it. Therefore, it's not a good "general purpose" CPU.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The Cell is not what holds back the PS3 compared to a PC; it's the RAM and GPU.

MikeB said: Words Of Wisdom said: MikeB said: selnor said: MikeB said: PDF said: I only see that Sony mangaed to pull out of the same track the DC was in and is now doing better And there are more than enough anticipated PS3 games lined-up for Japan. MGS4 will help considerably in the short term. Once Final Fantasy and a slimline PS3 launches I predict Japan will go PS3 crazy. The PS3 is a 10 year product strategy, for Japan it was a 1st round knockout against the 360, first punch knock out actually. 10 year product that is obselete in 2009. AMD and Intel release amzingly fast CPU and GPU combined processors which more than double dot productions in gaming. PS3 or 360 will not last till 2017. Both are equal in graphical capabilities. And niether will be able to run the new UE4 which is being developed for the new PC processors. Question is where does this leave ATI and NVIDIA?   The PS3 already has some of the technically most impressive games such as Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction Opinion, yet such games only scratch the surface of what can be achieved through PS3 specific game engine enhancements. Opinion Consoles are easier to use, no fuss strainght forward and more seamless in usage for many things. Half-truth It's not only about raw power, but Windows by itself drains a lot potential PC perfomance Half-truth and games are never optimised to the extend console games are being optimised for the remaining power. Lie Consoles are also about value for money Fact, currently there is even no expensive x86 Windows PC available which provides the equivalent performance potential that the PS3 Cell processor can provide Lie nor do PCs offer a Blu-Ray drive by default Fact at console price points. Lie The PS3 will get cheaper Fact and slimmer in course of time Opinion, the games library will rapidly expand Fact and improve in quality Opinion, the Blu-Ray movie library will expand Fact, new services like Home and PlayTV will be launched Fact, this all considerably enhancing the value for money ratio for the PS3 Opinion . If you understand this then you can understand why the PS2 is still selling pretty well Lie, but the PS3 is now much better specced than the PS2 was for the time the PS2 console launched Fact, much better! Opinion I've provided a helpful legend with which to read MikeB's post. Also - $130 BluRay PC drive Heh Mr Troll, to address the alledged "lies". - Nearly everyone knows in course of time consoles are being pushed better to their limits than PCs will, the reasons are actually quite simple, PC owners have a great diversity of differently specced hardware, different CPUs (also differently clocked), different RAM speeds, different GPUs, different motherboard settings and chips, etc. Thus games aren't being optimised as well for PC hardware as sofware will be optimised during a console lifecycle. - The Cell processor and PS3 is being bought by scientists to mimic the human brain or research blackholes. The Cell is a pretty special very powerful general purpose processor. - A 130 dollar PC Blu-Ray drive without a PC is pretty useless. You also need a casing, motherboard, RAM, CPU, graphics card, harddrive, likely Windows, mouse, keyboard, etc and probably a monitor and speakers. It will be more expensive and will not be a real PS3 replacement at all, something you comfortably use to watch movies and play games on the couch in the living room. - The over 8 year old PS2 outsold the XBox 360 in January and February in the 360's strongest market according to NPD tracking. I think the PS2 still performs honorable.

 Oh dear mikeB is back. Dude seriously it's technically proven that the chips from Intel and AMD are absolute monsters.The numbers are rediculous. When they launch, wimdows or no window, PS3 and 360's top potential will be along way of the PC markets. My point is Niether PS3 or 360 will be around till 2017 as Sony claim. You must be a Sony PR. Not just this reason but also that with the latest tech talk amongst tech websites, Disc format may all but disappear by then. That includes BLU RAY. Hence MS decision not to make a BLU RAY player for 360. The future is far better and cheaper for the consumer than spinning discs of plastic.  

Final-Fan said: Note A: (this also draws on the later exchange between MikeB and yourself) How exactly is optimizing different from utilizing the hardware at closer to its limit? Isn't the entire purpose of optimization gettig the most use out of the hardware? Isn't that exactly what you said you were talking about instead of optimization? Tell me the difference. "Never", in this case, is also a generalization. Though there may be exceptions, the nature of console vs. PC hardware guarantees that it is true so much that "always" is a very small exaggeration indeed AFAIK. A steel rod being driven entirely through the skull and brain doesn't ALWAYS kill the victim (ask Phineas Gage), but close enough. Note B: You incorrectly separated "PC with Blu-ray" from "at console prices". You can get a decent PC for console prices but a Blu-ray drive (even your $130 one) drives the price beyond that range. Note C: This is correct only if you are saying that the "quality-to-crap" ratio will not improve. The NUMBER of quality games will most definitely improve, making his assertion a "Fact" for the discerning customer.

A)  "Optimization" can mean many things as can "pushing toward its limits."  Firefox 2 has a memory leak which can push a system's RAM usage to its limits but I would hardly classify that as optimization.  I tend to interpret the former as getting more for less and the latter as the maximum of whatever you get at all points of efficiency (most of which are irrelevant I would imagine).

The nature of PC vs console optimization does not guarantee that one will always be more so than the other.  A PC developer must "optimize" for several different architectures, CPU/GPU drivers...etc.  A console developer need only focus on one.  Does that mean that a PC developer has somehow done less optimization because their load is much larger than a console developer?

B)  Rocketpig already did the breakout for the other way.  Nothing more to say here.

C)  Unfortunately for your argument, it is not provable at this point in time  After the generation is over and we can look back on the libraries of all the systems, it may be a fact.  However, until then, it is solely opinion.  And even worse, it's subjective opinion.