ElectronicRocker said: im speechless the ps3 is more powerful than a pc with a 1000$+ cpu, isnt that amazing?

Why do you think I am so fond of the PS3 as a technology enthusiast?

If only Linux could be made to make much better use of the SPEs at its core, proper adaptation seems too much work. A past OS like BeOS or something like QNX had/has the potential to be well adapted due to clever, modern and efficient design.

Regardless the potential regarding gaming and multi-media uses are enormous, this while the PS3 is dirt cheap (from a technology perspective) and already in the homes of tens of millions people. Who here has the latest and greatest super expensive Intel chip in his PC?

The thing is three years old, people. It was old in hardware terms when it launched, after all that took at least a year, if not longer. That's what they call spin or Sony bullshit.

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

The R&D costed a lot of money, manhours and required a lot of talent expertise. It wasn't fully Sony's burden though, IBM is pretty much leading the effort.

Currently the PS3 Cell is rather cheap to make. Newer faster and smaller Cell chips are and will become available. Regarding the PS3, it paves the way regarding proper adaptation of legacy game engines and other multi-media uses. The Cell is also rather excellent for cluster computing.

Utter bollocks. I'm not even going to get into why this is shite. Sony fanboys holding the last finger of a guy hanging off the cliff and slippping

@ BMaker11

Correct, the Cell is a flexible CPU. Any tech enthusiast or specialist who looked at the Cell should easily realize that how this performance can be harvested and utilized is far more flexible. You can have the Cell accelerate any type of software use.

The RSX can actually generate more GFlops than the Cell, but why am I so fond of the Cell and not per se the RSX (which is a good fit for what the Cell does technically speaking). Well, that power can't really be used in a flexible manner (just like is the case regarding all othe current GPUs).

Cell like a GPU likes to have very strictly formatted data thrown at it.

Cell cannot do out of order execution; strictly in-order

Cell would crawl up and die if it had to multitask in windows

CommunistHater said: Cell like a GPU likes to have very strictly formatted data thrown at it. Cell cannot do out of order execution; strictly in-order Cell would crawl up and die if it had to multitask in windows

Writing software for the Cell is very similar to writing software for other CPUs, it requires a bit more clever planning and requires efficiency. The measures needed to write truly efficiently on other CPUs are nearly the same.

Windows and Linux Desktops were not designed efficiently at all, Linux has the excuse that it's free and was for a large part developed by non-commercial hobby engineers at its core. QNX for example is on the outside similar, but on the inside its far more modern and efficient. If only IBM would have picked QNX instead of MSDOS, the most limited and handicapped OS I've ever used and a straight CP/M rip-off down to the source...

In the past OSes were designed to become ever more efficient and optimised, the Wintel monopoly pretty much changed that. Selling ever more inefficient OS revisions pushed people to upgrade and upgrade their hardware, which was very profitable to Microsoft's hardware partners.

In typical fashion MikeB you answered none of his valid points and went straight pushing your marketing agenda. If you quote somebody, at least have the common decency to discuss what they said, you didn't.

CommunistHater said: Cell like a GPU likes to have very strictly formatted data thrown at it. Cell cannot do out of order execution; strictly in-order Cell would crawl up and die if it had to multitask in windows

Bingo! Cell is a great processor to do some tasks, but not the ones people do everyday with their computers. Is much more oriented to number crunching, not multitasking.

@mikeb pretty much, I hate windows but I have to use it, it's a bullshit cycle that nobody can break free at the moment., it's pretty much monopoly on Microsoft's part when you are talking about the PC market no matter how valid you think other OSes are, it really is retarded.

the problem with the Cell is that it was never meant for general use, while future CPU might improve based on a lot of the concept of the Cell, it will never become the standard with the way it is right now, but I don't think IBM gives a shit since they make a lot of money anyways.