Was I right or what

[10k fists]

All well and good, I can respect the attitude, but why give what appears to be factual data without properly backing it with some sort of resource? Been taught that since day one in english classes. Providing proper support for my arguments, that sort of thing. Then again, I obviously never learned that lesson all that well myself.

 

Yes it does matter whether or not you're a highschool janitor or the head of some PC engineering design...thing. I'd think the reason why would be obvious too. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think it does, when I'm offering people the opportunity to debunk what I've said. If someone really doesn't believe me, then I welcome them to provide something that says the opposite. In regards to Cell/Xenon, those that have tried to provide a counter argument have only provided articles that pretty much back what I've said...

 

It's not like I make a claim and then disappear, or make a claim and then continually ignore someone while I go about posting more information all crazy-like. I try to explain myself and help, or offer a different approach to those that ask.

 

So, instead of linking to some random article or whatever else people are asking for, my support is the fact that I continue to discuss the subject, and post everything I can post on the topic.

[LoneWolf16]

That's true, you haven't left the debate and continue to provide information...and you're even being helpful now.

 

All I'm really saying is that things like this tend to be easier to swallow when they're backed by something of sufficient substance. I know you don't really mind whether you're believed or not here, but some of us are genuinely interested in knowing what's really going on with these things, and there are enough conflicting opinions, "facts", and rumors out there already.

 

It's just nice to have some actual proof once in a while.

 

You get technical specs thrown at you all the time and it can be difficult to separate the useful from the absolutely inane. Ya have to remember that most of us aren't educated in this area. We get what can be interpreted through basic logic, but there's potentially valuable information that gets bogged down in jargon. Add to that the fact that a lot of those with the education necessary to understand it all tend to use their knowledge to sway others with much less experience a certain way.

 

You do have a point though. You haven't left and haven't committed some of the "crimes" other membersEpiphanytend to commit. So, fine. I guess I can take your word for what it is, your word, until I see something that debunks it.

Edited June 16, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[angshuman]

10K, question for you: You say Cell can push graphics more than anything else. Why did IBM design the Cell with Graphics in mind? Isn't that RSX's job? Actually, I can think of two reasons:

• Vertex processing is going to be done on the SPEs, with RSX being used only for pixel and texture operations. Now, if RSX were a unified architecture (a la Xenos) this would have been a far more valid argument. However, it is a glorified G70 so it has hard-wired Vertex units. Can the SPEs process vertex transforms faster than these units?
   
   
  
• Conspiracy Theory: The PS3 was never meant to have a dedicated GPU. The Cell(s) was/were supposed to be everything, with the PPE being used for control-intensive tasks and the SPEs for data-intensive jobs (graphics). My guess is that the original idea was to have not one but an entire network of Cells as the processing core. However, during the later stages of design, IBM figured out it was consuming too much power and not performing as well. A network of Cells was out of the question. Trouble is, a single Cell couldn't do graphics as fast as a dedicated GPU. In panic, Sony rushed to Nvidia. This also explains why Nvidia couldn't design a dedicated Xenos-like GPU for them: they just didn't have the time.
  

Comments?

[10k fists]

10K, question for you: You say Cell can push graphics more than anything else. Why did IBM design the Cell with Graphics in mind? Isn't that RSX's job? Actually, I can think of two reasons:

• Vertex processing is going to be done on the SPEs, with RSX being used only for pixel and texture operations. Now, if RSX were a unified architecture (a la Xenos) this would have been a far more valid argument. However, it is a glorified G70 so it has hard-wired Vertex units. Can the SPEs process vertex transforms faster than these units?
   
   
   
  
• Conspiracy Theory: The PS3 was never meant to have a dedicated GPU. The Cell(s) was/were supposed to be everything, with the PPE being used for control-intensive tasks and the SPEs for data-intensive jobs (graphics). My guess is that the original idea was to have not one but an entire network of Cells as the processing core. However, during the later stages of design, IBM figured out it was consuming too much power and not performing as well. A network of Cells was out of the question. Trouble is, a single Cell couldn't do graphics as fast as a dedicated GPU. In panic, Sony rushed to Nvidia. This also explains why Nvidia couldn't design a dedicated Xenos-like GPU for them: they just didn't have the time.
  

Comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know enough about the hardware of RSX to answer your first question. But the SPEs should be more flexible than a shader unit on a GPU. So while it may or may not have been faster, the flexibility would have made it a better alternative, in my opinion.

 

Your conspiracy theory isn't actually a theory. That was, I believe the initial goal of the PS3 - to not have a true dedicated GPU. If they had more time and better yields, it probably would have happened. A larger Cell would have be more than sufficient to double as its own GPU. My own personal bias towards Nvidia will probably shine here, but I don't think they would have put the time and energy into a GPU for Sony like ATi did for Microsoft. Nvidia seems to prefer to hash out cards now, adding clock speeds and pushing the paper specs, over trying to push the industry foward.

[mkreku]

Two interesting articles:

 

"Take a look at the following results for single-precision dense matrix multiplication, or GEMM (all numbers are Gflop/s):

• Cell pm: 204.7
  
• Cray X1E: 29.5
  
• AMD64 7.8:
  
• Itanium2: 3.0
  

The "pm" above means "performance model." Because Cell hardware isn't generally available for tests like this, the paper's authors used a combination of performance projections and benchmarks on a cycle-accurate simulation of Cell that IBM has released. Real-world results should be very comparable to those in the paper, if not even better.

 

So now that we've seen that Cell blows away the competition for these HPC kernels, that means that it's going to completely dominate the next-gen console market and kill Itanium, right? Not exactly.

 

First, single-precision (SP) is the place where Cell really blows the doors off the barn, because SP is what game developers need. IBM made some compromises on double-precision (DP) performance, with the result that such performance is a fraction of what it is for SP. On DP code, Cell merely leads the pack for most of the tests."

 

Source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060615-7071.html

 

And then this:

 

"I don't think the Cell is as well designed for game development as Sony would have you believe."

 

"In terms of performance, I think that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 will essentially be a wash. "

 

Source: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/mattlee.ars

 

 

 

Now, the above article was written by independent programmers, while the second article is actually an interview with a Microsoft employee. Still, who to believe.. who to believe..

 

I wish the Obsidian dev. team had the balls to express an opinion, but that would probably become worldwide news, so I guess it's better to keep those balls in their pants.

[kirottu]

On a not really related, yet humorous note:

 

http://www.winterwind-productions.com/foru...opic.php?t=4297

 

No idea about the authenticity of it.

 

Them Japanese and their English translations 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Could be true since japanese language doesn

Edited June 19, 2006 by kirottu

[LostStraw]

Could be true since japanese language doesn

[kirottu]

But words with L in them are replaced with R. There is no similar replacement for CT.

[Llyranor]

BREAKING NEWS: PS2 NOT A COMPUTER

 

Sony has lost its five year legal battle to have the PlayStation 2 classified as a computer rather than a games console after the Court of Appeal ruled against the company.

 

As a result, Sony will not be entitled to the estimated GBP 34.2 million (50 million Euro) rebate for import duties that would have been payable had the court determined that the PS2 is a "digital processing unit". Although games consoles are no longer subject to EU import charges, they were between 2001 and 2004 - while computers have always been exempt.

 

The appeal was dismissed by Lord Justice Chadwick, who denied Sony the right to take the case to the European Court of Justice.

 

In his ruling, the judge also took the opportunity to criticise Sony's lawyers for producing a skeleton argument which "goes beyond what can be regarded as acceptable written advocacy" and "exceeds the bounds of propriety."

 

"I am not here protesting about its inordinate length, nor about its discursive quality, nor about its frequent and unnecessary resort to hyperbole; although all those unappealing features are present," the judge continued.

 

"My concern is with the repeated aspersions that are cast in that document on the intellectual honesty of the High Court Judge from whose decision this appeal is brought... Fearless advocacy is one thing; intemperate advocacy is another."

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/772.html

 

[alanschu]

Shocking.

[Cantousent]

"[m]y concern is with the repeated aspersions that are cast in that document on the intellectual honesty of the High Court Judge from whose decision this appeal is brought... Fearless advocacy is one thing; intemperate advocacy is another."

 

Hahahahaha

 

several minutes later

 

hahahahaha

 

Some time after that

 

hahahahaha

 

Eventually

 

hahahahahaha whew

 

a minute later

 

hahahahaha

 

Seriously, though, that was funny. These guys are all the same. Don't make the mistake of thinking Microsoft wouldn't sell Gate's mother if it thought it could get 34.2 billion.

 

Well, maybe not. I'm sure there are bounds of decency beyond which even Microsoft and Sony would not pass. Still, MS would do a lot to get that kind of scratch.

[Deraldin]

Seriously, though, that was funny.  These guys are all the same.  Don't make the mistake of thinking Microsoft wouldn't sell Gate's mother if it thought it could get 34.2 billion.

 

Well, maybe not.  I'm sure there are bounds of decency beyond which even Microsoft and Sony would not pass.  Still, MS would do a lot to get that kind of scratch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure that they would for 34.2 billion, but the article said 34.2 million.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, it did. I was imbibing a bit while I was working last night.