Squilliam said: Hows that?

 

 

Thanks Squilliam!

Squilliam said: Hows that?

GPU are optimized for folding@home though, especially since its rendering protein etc etc.

and the i7 / 360 its under CPU =P.

@ u don't have to damage control every ps3 thread!, its not a CPU info.

and gpu have nothing to do with it.

no wonder why it is so freaking expensive. like 50% of ps3 manufacture cost.

So can I just like shove the Cell in my PC considering it's faster than pretty much everything on the market?

uhhh oh..this can't possible end well. Too many people here will want to come in here and say "Pfft...that's just BS from another person or organization that knows more about the topic than I do. We all know the latest Pentium Quad Core Xeon Xtreme 2000 i7 Turbo 8 processor is better than the Cell"

lol

told ya,hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Jo21 said: Squilliam said: Hows that? GPU are optimized for folding@home though, especially since its rendering protein etc etc. and the i7 / 360 its under CPU =P. @ u don't have to damage control every ps3 thread!, its not a CPU info. and gpu have nothing to do with it.

"According to the announcement of Fixstars reached the Cell processor of the Playstation a performance of 29 FPS, that is 1.2 times real-time conversion - the cell has a similar performance as the CUDA Badaboom encoder in combination with an Nvidia Geforce GTX-285. By comparison, Intel's current top-CPU, the Core i7 965 XE, does it still at 18 FPS - normal desktop CPUs even create only about 5 FPS."

According to the OP.

 

Squilliam said: Jo21 said: Squilliam said: Hows that? GPU are optimized for folding@home though, especially since its rendering protein etc etc. and the i7 / 360 its under CPU =P. @ u don't have to damage control every ps3 thread!, its not a CPU info. and gpu have nothing to do with it. "According to the announcement of Fixstars reached the Cell processor of the Playstation a performance of 29 FPS, that is 1.2 times real-time conversion - the cell has a similar performance as the CUDA Badaboom encoder in combination with an Nvidia Geforce GTX-285. By comparison, Intel's current top-CPU, the Core i7 965 XE, does it still at 18 FPS - normal desktop CPUs even create only about 5 FPS." According to the OP.

So....the Cell has similar performance to both a GPU and CPU together? Doesn't change the fact that the Cell is still a processor only

Squilliam said: Hows that?

Really this can't be compared using F@H. F@H uses a different code that utilizes all "processors" available. The CELL can handle 3 threads per SPE so 6 times 3 + 1 for the PPU = 19 threads. This is still more threads then Intel's i7 series which can do a max of 8 threads. A GPU is very special in this case because there are literally hundreds of stream processors to take advantage of which is why the F@H numbers are higher for the GPU client's folding. What the OP's link is showing performance under different circumstances then F@H displays.

Apples and Oranges, how many times must things like this be brought up? i7 has many instructions and tweaks that the Cell doesn't have, but the Cell has more calculation power, that's a known fact already.

 

edit: also, that's linux lol, wtf.