Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26



  1. #21
    Registered User red8316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    205
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo Cyrus View Post
    Intel announced that over 9000 years ago, it's old news and the rumours made it sound like it was sub-par so Intel probably has constantly been redesigning it in hopes of making it marketable.
    That would be Larrabee: [Register or Login to view links]

    "Larrabee's hybrid of CPU and GPU features should be suitable for general purpose GPU (GPGPU) or stream processing tasks."

    "Larrabee was cancelled "as a standalone discrete graphics product" on December 4, 2009."

  2. #22
    Contributor D3M0N2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    233
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    You have to remember that a console will never be fitted with the latest and greatest hardware since it wouldn't be cost effective and the end result would be a overly priced machine which not many people will buy (the PS3) and your competitor will release something something with a lower price and presenting the same, slightly worse or slightly better graphics (the Xbox 360), than lastly you have the company that could sell pretty much anything just by putting their logo on it (the Wii).

    Funnily enough the Wii has the worst hardware in this generation and still sells massively well, showing that hardware isn't everything, you need something to back it up for the Wii it was the implementation of a motion controller and a catalogue of games that used the motion controller completely removing the gimmick part of it. Unlike the PS3 motion controller which is completely terrible.

    But if we return to the topic at hand about hardware of course hardware exists that is better than the PS3's current hardware the PS3 has been outdated for a long time and whoever thought of implementing the Cell processor should have been fired, that was clearly a stupid idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by inginear View Post
    as it has been stated, the ps3 doesn't need a dedicated gpu. the cell is more than capable enough to do all the graphic processing as well as the collision detection and core mechanic processing. the gpu was added to make it easier for developers to "migrate" to the new cpu architecture as programming for the cell is a lot different than programming for the "standard" x86 architecture chips that are in most computers. hell, even uncharted 2 only uses the rsx for physics calculations, all the graphic processing is done on/by the cell.
    Clearly you have no idea what your talking about so lets put it this way the Cell is not nearly as powerful as you think, CPU's do not come close to the power of a GPU, even in the current generation i7 chips are not as powerful as a current generation or last generation graphics card.

    Quote Originally Posted by inginear View Post
    i am all for pushing the technology envelope and seeing how far we can go. however, bumping up the picture quality with a geforce gtx 999 with 4tb of ram (fictitious obviously) is not really pushing the envelope. all that does is make things look "prettier." the cell was ahead of it's time when it was released, and using the same processor in the ps4 would not push any envelopes. i for one would like to see real life physics applied to every single object in a game.
    Ok lets look at physics from a hardware point of view at the moment Nvidia PhysX is the hardware solution available for PC and yet not many game developers implement it since they can recreate similar physics using software, the only recent game I can think of that implemented Nvidia PhysX was Batman Arkham Asylum.

    In short real life physics in every game will never happen at least not without a dedicated physics processor, what you saw in uncharted was software physics handled by the CPU and it was more than realistic enough in my eyes.
    Last edited by D3M0N2009; 02-27-2010 at 07:28 PM Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  3. #23
    Registered User foresttree1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    46
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    i suppose what D3MON2009 said is true. Console will never be the latest and greatest be cause it was not suppose to be that. I suppose the purpose of the console is more to provide a cheaper method of enjoy games for a longer period. (ps3 sorta fail the first part). If you want the latest and greatest then there is always the pc but it gonna cost you arm and a leg to keep up with the rate technology is advancing.

  4. #24
    Contributor dante489's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    90
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    Quote Originally Posted by D3M0N2009 View Post
    Clearly you have no idea what your talking about so lets put it this way the Cell is not nearly as powerful as you think, CPU's do not come close to the power of a GPU, even in the current generation i7 chips are not as powerful as a current generation or last generation graphics card.
    you sir are wrong and i quote from an article;The STI Cell Processor found in the PlayStation 3 operates in a manner similar to the Ageia PhysX hardware; its design was driven by similar considerations. Unlike ATI/NVidia's GPGPU solutions, and like the PhysX, this design is more about providing each parallel thread with a large working set and more of the inter-thread communication and control found in a general purpose processor. As such it is very well-suited to physics calculations

    notice that u used i7 as a better cpu just because it's newer which is completely wrong i7 is better in some areas but the cell outperform i7 in other areas including physics
    Quote Originally Posted by D3M0N2009 View Post
    Ok lets look at physics from a hardware point of view at the moment Nvidia PhysX is the hardware solution available for PC and yet not many game developers implement it since they can recreate similar physics using software, the only recent game I can think of that implemented Nvidia PhysX was Batman Arkham Asylum.
    GPUs are know from being able to handle physics better than the CPUs it was proven that PhysX apps ran around three times faster on the GPU in comparison to the CPU, although the exact amount varied depending on the game being tested – some cases were up to four times faster.
    Quote Originally Posted by D3M0N2009 View Post
    In short real life physics in every game will never happen at least not without a dedicated physics processor, what you saw in uncharted was software physics handled by the CPU and it was more than realistic enough in my eyes.
    yeah that's why the cell processor is unique and powerful in handling physics, so they accomplished that realism using that wonderful chip don't make it sound like they built an engine for a typical cpu.

  5. #25
    Contributor D3M0N2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by dante489 View Post
    you sir are wrong and i quote from an article;The STI Cell Processor found in the PlayStation 3 operates in a manner similar to the Ageia PhysX hardware; its design was driven by similar considerations. Unlike ATI/NVidia's GPGPU solutions, and like the PhysX, this design is more about providing each parallel thread with a large working set and more of the inter-thread communication and control found in a general purpose processor. As such it is very well-suited to physics calculations
    Yes it is true that the Cell processor is suited to physics calculations since they are just that calculations which is what any CPU can do, the degree to how well they do it depends on the way the physics is implemented and whether or not it is tailor made fit that CPU, in the case of the Cell obviously since games are designed to run on the PS3 and the PS3 only developers will make adjustments to tailor make physics instructions to fully utilize the power of the CPU.

    Quote Originally Posted by dante489 View Post
    notice that u used i7 as a better cpu just because it's newer which is completely wrong i7 is better in some areas but the cell outperform i7 in other areas including physics
    Please go back and reread what I wrote, I never said the i7 family were a better CPU to the Cell I only referred to it since it is a current generation CPU and how CPU's lack behind GPU's.

    Quote Originally Posted by dante489 View Post
    GPUs are know from being able to handle physics better than the CPUs it was proven that PhysX apps ran around three times faster on the GPU in comparison to the CPU, although the exact amount varied depending on the game being tested some cases were up to four times faster.
    As above I'm agreeing that a GPU will run physics and other tasks better than the CPU, the post I was replying to was stating that the GPU is not needed in the PS3.

    Quote Originally Posted by dante489 View Post
    yeah that's why the cell processor is unique and powerful in handling physics, so they accomplished that realism using that wonderful chip don't make it sound like they built an engine for a typical cpu.
    The Cell processor is unique just not for the right reasons coding for it is a pain and the only reason it can deliver is because some developers (Naughty Dog) will spend a lot of time perfecting the way everything is implemented to use the Cell to the best of its ability, but the Cell is in no way a cut above the rest of the current generation CPU's, had Sony implemented something more conventional like an i7 the same Physics computation (seen in Uncharted 2) still would have been possible.

  6. #26
    Registered User ganeshggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9

    Smile

    Cool to hear we have 5 years!! i'm not yet ready to buy a ps4!!

 

Sponsored Links

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Affiliates - Contact Us - PS3 Downloads - Privacy Statement - Site Rules - Top - © 2014 PlayStation 3 News