By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ZenfoldorVGI on 03 November 2008
bouzane said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
NNN2004 said:
for all sony fans .. even when the ps3 is the lead platform for some games its still work better on the 360 .. why we still didnt see the power of the cell ur talking about until now ?? is it myth ?

 

Yes, it's obviously a marketing gimmick. Sony wants its fans to spout the "cell is awesome" propoganda, because it's a selling point, and it reduces cognitive dissonance. The cell is like any other CPU, it's just needlessly complex and inefficient, which was done in order to give it "edge."

That's my opinion, anyway.

Sony, Toshiba, and IBM spent billions of dollars developing the Cell processor and as a result it is being used to do such things as medical imaging, aerospace and defense, and seismic processing. The PS3 has clearly proved its computational power through Folding@Home in which the PS3 excells. Calling the Cell inefficient is just plain ludicrous, the SPE's are arranged in an extremely efficient manner which is why the Cell is such an advanced CPU. I fault the PS3 for its GPU, RAM, and low Blu-ray read speed, but to fault the Cell which is proven technology is just silly. Levy criticism where it is due, the Cell is not worthy of such criticism.

Didn't Sony drop support of the Cell as a future technology?

Perhaps your right. It's a generalization to blame any particular part of the PS3 for its general poor performance with multiplats.

It's just ironic to me that when, rarely, a game plays slightly better on the PS3, it's because of the 360's inferior technology, and when it plays poorly on the 360, it's because of lazy developers.

The PS3's processor doesn't matter. The GPU and ram does. If its limited by them, the the Cell doesn't matter.

As for the generalization of the Cell sucking, well in a way, it does suck. It's hard to use, for gaming at least. Anything that's hard to use, and doesn't give an advantage, when become compared to something very easy to use, sucks, in a way. Many, many games have paid the price because the developers couldn't figure out how to use the Cell.

In the end, the Cell is just a CPU. It might be slightly, technically better than some of its traditional cousins, but it's not innovation, or leap, like you're claiming. This technology isn't the future. It's probably destined to end in its current form. There probably won't be a Cell 2. It's simply a very complicated, but capable sidegrade in technology, with less room for expansion.

...and for gamers, it's nothing more than a talking point.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
bouzane on 03 November 2008

@ZenfoldorVGI

You are correct about the GPU and RAM being of vital importance to gaming while the Cell is not. The PS3's hardware architecture is clearly inferior to that of the 360 in its approach to gaming. At best, the PS3 should be remembered in a similar fashion to the Sega Saturn in that it is technically a capable system but too expensive for its manufacturer and too complicated for third party developers. All of this for theoretical superiority that will likely be realized by 1st / 2nd party but few 3rd party developers.



The Anarchyz on 03 November 2008
MikeB said:

@ The Anarchyz

(dimensions, weight, power consumption, etc.)


People like you will have to wait for a slimline version, for me the PS3 fits my media cabinet easily and looks pretty slick in there, I don't carry around a console with me as I imagine most people won't. I use it a lot instead of my power hungry PC nowadays and my HDTV draws more power as well, which would still be the case if I would be using a Wii or Slimline PS2 instead.

 

And when did i say that the PS3 is too big or too heavy or absorbs way too much power???? I was comparing the limitations of the consoles vs the liberties of the PC, while a console like the PS3 has console characteristics, the PC can go as heavy as we want, as big as we want, and with a big ass power source if we want to... I don't care about a slim version, i have a PS3, my PS2 is the original and my PS1 is the Playstation, not the PSOne...

My point is that making a console is usually more expensive that making a PC with the same power because of the process involved...