I loved ps3, had a 360 as well because it was out first and i never understood the hype about it. I completely disagree that graphics were better on 360 the colours look ed like cartoons in my opinion when campared to the same game on ps3. I honestly dont know a single person other than people on the internet who think 360 had better graphics. Even my friends who had a 360 and not a ps3 thought ps3 looked better when they were playing on mine.
Also i recently got an xbox one and like it way more than i liked my 360. I still like ps4 better but there is less of a difference between the two now compared to last gen.
Seems many people on here have a twisted memory of what really happened. Sure PS3 was a LITTLE slow out of the gate. The Cell was tremendously powerful and tapping into its power wasn't easy, so games at first struggled due to lazy/incompetent developers, but once The Cell's power became less of a mystery, AAAE games were raining on PS3 owners like mana from heaven. What kept PS3 afloat for so long (even to this day) is the power of The Cell. The fact developers never had to compromise, and they always had more power to tap into is what made PS3 the GOAT...Sony made a mistake not including Cell 2.0 in the PS4.
Seems many people on here have a twisted memory of what really happened. Sure PS3 was a LITTLE slow out of the gate. The Cell was tremendously powerful and tapping into its power wasn't easy, so games at first struggled due to lazy/incompetent developers, but once The Cell's power became less of a mystery, AAAE games were raining on PS3 owners like mana from heaven. What kept PS3 afloat for so long (even to this day) is the power of The Cell. The fact developers never had to compromise, and they always had more power to tap into is what made PS3 the GOAT...Sony made a mistake not including Cell 2.0 in the PS4.
Seems many people on here have a twisted memory of what really happened. Sure PS3 was a LITTLE slow out of the gate. The Cell was tremendously powerful and tapping into its power wasn't easy, so games at first struggled due to lazy/incompetent developers, but once The Cell's power became less of a mystery, AAAE games were raining on PS3 owners like mana from heaven. What kept PS3 afloat for so long (even to this day) is the power of The Cell. The fact developers never had to compromise, and they always had more power to tap into is what made PS3 the GOAT...Sony made a mistake not including Cell 2.0 in the PS4.
The PS3's weak GPU and the complicated architecture of the Cell was a huge mistake by Sony. Also, Sony should've given the console more VRAM and eDRAM, because let's face it, the Xbox 360 was just a better console from a processing perspective.
Seems many people on here have a twisted memory of what really happened. Sure PS3 was a LITTLE slow out of the gate. The Cell was tremendously powerful and tapping into its power wasn't easy, so games at first struggled due to lazy/incompetent developers, but once The Cell's power became less of a mystery, AAAE games were raining on PS3 owners like mana from heaven. What kept PS3 afloat for so long (even to this day) is the power of The Cell. The fact developers never had to compromise, and they always had more power to tap into is what made PS3 the GOAT...Sony made a mistake not including Cell 2.0 in the PS4.
PS3 didn't deliver 8800 GTX level preform for it's combine RSX+6 SPE chip budget, while ATI Xenos has 180 mm^2 GPU budget (minus EDRAM) with comparable results.
There was a design separation for XBO 360's SIMD based GPU and PC's VLIW based Radeon HD GPUs, and likewise for NVIDIA RSX/G7X vs CUDA G8X.
For XBO and PS4, AMD has common designs for both consoles and PC SKUs i.e. SIMD based GPU. AMD ditched VLIW based GPUs and removing the separation between consoles and PCs.
Only Wii U has AMD's VLIW based GPU design.
NEO's upgrade is the benefits from AMD's PC GPU design upgrades. AMD's GPU upgrades doesn't stop Sony to config PS4 Slim with 1.84 TFLOPS target with down clocked Polaris 11.
Xbox One contains Xbox 360 BC, hence Xbox 360 ecosystem install base could be larger.
It's not. PS3 came in 1st place last gen, with Xbox 360 in 3rd. PS2 also came in 1st.
Xbox One can be treated like Xbox 360 since it's backwards compatible feature blurs generation divide. Later PS3 builds doesn't have PS2 backwards compatible, hence the break between the run-time software ecosystem.
Xbox One S and Xbox Scorpio's higher CPU power can enhance Xbox 360 backwards compatible.
SONY has had the world's most powerful console chip and now most powerful hardware period...amazing.
Sony didn't spend the largest game console system-on-chip(SOC). Microsoft's mistake is spending large chunks of 363 mm^2 into ESRAM. Without ESRAM, Xbox One could have two 14 CU GPUs i.e. that's 28 CU.
PS4's SoC size is 348 mm^2.
For Scorpio, Microsoft is not making the same mistakes as the original Xbox One.
PS3 as a console is pretty awesome, plays Bluray really well, sounds like a jet engine in the summer and looks like a George foreman grille, it's a serious bit of hardware folks!
PS3 as a console is pretty awesome, plays Bluray really well, sounds like a jet engine in the summer and looks like a George foreman grille, it's a serious bit of hardware folks!
But serious, the CPU is slower than a Core 2 Duo.
Lol it only does everything and in duel 1080P 120fps in 4D no less....
PS3 as a console is pretty awesome, plays Bluray really well, sounds like a jet engine in the summer and looks like a George foreman grille, it's a serious bit of hardware folks!
But serious, the CPU is slower than a Core 2 Duo.
Lol it only does everything and in duel 1080P 120fps in 4D no less....
It would have been much better for Sony to use an AMD dual core, 1gb memory and an improved ati Xenos gpu, for less money at that. The Cell was more powerful than other cpu's at the time, but it wasn't worth it at all. Esp. since they just bottlenecked it with a weaker gpu and not enough memory.
It would have been much better for Sony to use an AMD dual core, 1gb memory and an improved ati Xenos gpu, for less money at that. The Cell was more powerful than other cpu's at the time, but it wasn't worth it at all. Esp. since they just bottlenecked it with a weaker gpu and not enough memory.
@rekonmeister: For games it was more powerful than the early amd dual cores, and could be used for graphics just as well as a gpu. Though sure the best of the best core 2's were better from a general computing standpoint.
It clearly says the rating for the Cell is just the PPE, without the spe's
It would have been much better for Sony to use an AMD dual core, 1gb memory and an improved ati Xenos gpu, for less money at that. The Cell was more powerful than other cpu's at the time, but it wasn't worth it at all. Esp. since they just bottlenecked it with a weaker gpu and not enough memory.
Linpack doesn't reflect complex instruction advantage i.e. instruction compression.
AMD Jaguar delivers superior IPC over IBM PPE and SPE.
@osan0: sales and money made....sony made good money on the ps3 run....mircosoft lost a 1 billion dollars.before that the ps2 was massive.....these are facts....infact xbox has never made Microsoft any money ever......that's a fact....the division has allways been a funded pet project that is allways looking forward to the day it can......the day it can...just like any thing ms has done other then software....no division has ever made ms money ever other then software......that is a fact and why they willing to take a loss...because there all a loss....other then windows and office.
@osan0: sales and money made....sony made good money on the ps3 run....mircosoft lost a 1 billion dollars.before that the ps2 was massive.....these are facts....infact xbox has never made Microsoft any money ever......that's a fact....the division has allways been a funded pet project that is allways looking forward to the day it can......the day it can...just like any thing ms has done other then software....no division has ever made ms money ever other then software......that is a fact and why they willing to take a loss...because there all a loss....other then windows and office.
Please just shush, you are an embarrassment to SONY fans.
@osan0: sales and money made....sony made good money on the ps3 run....mircosoft lost a 1 billion dollars.before that the ps2 was massive.....these are facts....infact xbox has never made Microsoft any money ever......that's a fact....the division has allways been a funded pet project that is allways looking forward to the day it can......the day it can...just like any thing ms has done other then software....no division has ever made ms money ever other then software......that is a fact and why they willing to take a loss...because there all a loss....other then windows and office.
@osan0: sales and money made....sony made good money on the ps3 run....mircosoft lost a 1 billion dollars.before that the ps2 was massive.....these are facts....infact xbox has never made Microsoft any money ever......that's a fact....the division has allways been a funded pet project that is allways looking forward to the day it can......the day it can...just like any thing ms has done other then software....no division has ever made ms money ever other then software......that is a fact and why they willing to take a loss...because there all a loss....other then windows and office.
Guess you have numbers to back those claims up?
lol good money huh?
at 2006 its the year the PS3 released, Sony didn't make any profit until 2010, and 2011 nearly broke even.
@osan0: sales and money made....sony made good money on the ps3 run....mircosoft lost a 1 billion dollars.before that the ps2 was massive.....these are facts....infact xbox has never made Microsoft any money ever......that's a fact....the division has allways been a funded pet project that is allways looking forward to the day it can......the day it can...just like any thing ms has done other then software....no division has ever made ms money ever other then software......that is a fact and why they willing to take a loss...because there all a loss....other then windows and office.
Guess you have numbers to back those claims up?
lol good money huh?
at 2006 its the year the PS3 released, Sony didn't make any profit until 2010, and 2011 nearly broke even.
Please don't provide proof of the almighty CELLULOID!
It's faster than the i7 980X and XEON intel CPU's!
Nope. It was a stupid idea that increased the debt this company faces. In a way it's like Kinect. Great technology, not applicable to gaming and definitely unneeded.
Seems many people on here have a twisted memory of what really happened. Sure PS3 was a LITTLE slow out of the gate. The Cell was tremendously powerful and tapping into its power wasn't easy, so games at first struggled due to lazy/incompetent developers, but once The Cell's power became less of a mystery, AAAE games were raining on PS3 owners like mana from heaven. What kept PS3 afloat for so long (even to this day) is the power of The Cell. The fact developers never had to compromise, and they always had more power to tap into is what made PS3 the GOAT...Sony made a mistake not including Cell 2.0 in the PS4.
@osan0: sales and money made....sony made good money on the ps3 run....mircosoft lost a 1 billion dollars.before that the ps2 was massive.....these are facts....infact xbox has never made Microsoft any money ever......that's a fact....the division has allways been a funded pet project that is allways looking forward to the day it can......the day it can...just like any thing ms has done other then software....no division has ever made ms money ever other then software......that is a fact and why they willing to take a loss...because there all a loss....other then windows and office.
@ronvalencia: lol operating income is a companys cash flow....not a model you only look at...i wont get into complex issues like this is a very complex topic,net,gross,cashfox,market cap,etc.......it really complex to explaine how a company can make no money on new products but income from patents and licensures can mask poor sales.
going forward sonys biggest challenge is the yen and currency issues....infact it a huge issue with many investors why the yen is so strong and who is really behind it.
the years 2006- 2009 might had sony taking a hard hit on the cost of the ps3 but at that time there was the ps2 HUGE epic sales and low costs half life run.....so one could say cash flow was low but that has to do with reinvestment too,,,,,how much money sony was investing in servers in game design houses in r and d on next platform some of that investment pays off in things we see now like ps now or entertainment portions on a platform.....sony is a media company today really and part of that has it plus and minuses .....the movie studios tend to take down this company when there an epic bomb.that said it hard to see the big picture for many investors of sony when the movie division drags everything down but what they fail to see is the licensures to come....if you look only at the game division,how it has done the costs in r and d there pay offs you see that sony did well.
I know many say it was the cell broadband engine and the blueray that cost sony huge money vs the simple xbox 360.....that is silly talk .....the cell is really the same as the ms tri core power pc chip....it was funded by sony partly yes but it was the RAMBUS sony used that was the real hardware haircut on the ps3,,,,rambus was a nitemare for the industry.on the other hand blueray was a huge risk for sony that paid off well in the end because today we have blueray everywhere with sony this would died long ago.it took years for this market to mature...a decade really and that normal when you bring to market something very new....a lot of xboxs fans trash the ps3 but had it not been for the ps3 we not see the investment in memory or media we have today.
every xbox fan and pc gamer really owes sony a great debt in how sony pushed the furture of not only games but HD media we have today and hd sales in tv....the push to 4K...all this was driven in a large part by the cell and blueray....the cell came in many high end tv to do streaming...it pushed the envelope far infact if you look back at Microsoft E3 what did they push? it was TV...
sony did all this while making money.....a very hard thing to do.....on the other hand Microsoft had no cash flow issues because it has a 50 billion dollar war chest it can tap into at any time....so one can say cash flow here but infact that really telling you not much because a company sets that at what it wants sometimes....cash on hand ...cash to buyback stock or use to prevent a hostile takeover or pay out treats to a company or quick sales....it a very complex issue because without cash flow then you need to borrow....
I know ms has never made any money on anything it bought.....yet somehow they kinda fudge the numbers to make it look like it doing good in a certin area......a lot of this has to do with how they move around money within the company....Microsoft could loose money on the next os for a decade and at the end of the day be still the most funded company ever just because it has such a cash cow in the older os and office products....think what i said here.....and go look at microsofts stock price history and then look at apples....look at when the share price moved up and it will surprise you....when Microsoft was doing good the stock price did not really move but when Microsoft too big risks it moved up.....if you look at apple you see it was not until the iphone 3-4 came out around did it move too long after the ipod and first iphones around the time of the ipad....
it hard to grasp complex things like cash flow or stock value...a simple chart wont explaine how a company like HP survives when they have poor pc sales......but they do don't they.....simple charts don't reflect division costs,research,value ,cash on hand,debt, and so on.
I know for a fact sales might been close on ps3 and xbox but if you factor in the billion dollar loss ms took on the xbox then and the cost of the red ring and other issues like the power pin you see what I mean where a company can move money around a fund a division like xbox.it was halo that sold the xbox really and halo made huge sales for xbox ...Microsoft had some great games in it game studio such as the age series and flight sims that a lot of people loved but in the end that was stuttered because it never made money.....a loss I think many regret.
I look at Microsoft from a investers point of view.......same as I look at sony.....because to me at the end of the day that's what will keep the company moving forward and putting money in my pocket......I look at exchange rates because this is very important too.
sony going forward will have a huge headwind ....Microsoft somewhat with the dollar but it main market is in the usa and it can well weather this and in some cases it can shift funds to avoid tax....if you look at the yens value you start to see a ugly picture form in the last decade for sony...or japan as a whole...there profits get eroded when sales in Europe or America come back to japan.i know for a fact sony close all the sony stores over this issue...and moved the usa to a tier 2 level...it stop shipping a lot of items to the us market over this one issue....
the bottom line one could say every ps3 unit was funed by the mighty ps2 sales and profit until media took over such as movies etc the same way halo funded the xbox 360....it one looks at sonys investment durning this time into servers that is now what we see in sony's now we could say the ps3 funded the ps4 future and one would be right again.
no one graph is going to show complex changes in a companys structure or how it doing as a whole.
there just too many moving parts here.
do we start to cut up the cost of Skype and then bill it too xbox?
see where i am going with this....very complex math here.....very easy to get lost or find what you want in data.
@cainetao11: one developer said the cost of the Kinect was equal to the cost of the console....I heard others wisper 1 billion...we never know at the end of the day anyway....ms can move that around inside of ms .....if we price out things like Skype and where to break it up and bill it out to xbox the console would look mighty expensive.
the cell was funded in part by sony but it also came in servers and even high end TV as nothing streamed like the cell back then.
the ps3 was named the best streaming device and best home media device even when a lot of people in the HD area used xbox media software something ms abandoned....that became a huge part of HTPC....back then really pc and htpc had such issues with driver conflicts and streaming that the tech in the pc was the weak area...the cell made a vast difference in the high end TV market when it came in some TV.....but every ps3 was not just a game system ..it was also a great home media server and also a great streaming device....I know what issues where in pc because they test laptops with a program to find issues ......repectable latop revies should allways incude this as there a media device.
ms just copy the cell and threw money at there platform...
sonys downfall was rambus really the cost of XDR was way to high at a time when memory makers gaffed the market...price fixing and govt action and class action really made rambus a very bad investment in the end.....every cell made moved HD tv forward in a way few grasp....the same way blueray moved an indrustry forward....we not had 4K now had HD not took off....all of this has it roots in the cell.
the cell made streaming enjoyable.....look back at all the issues on laptops with you tube and even pc....look at why Netflix used Silverlight.....there was huge issues in the HTPC market.....the cell made that go away and the PS3 moved a market forward helping sell every HDTV at a time when there was so little blueray media out there..
without the cell we might never had HDTV funded the way it is now.....it might stayed with EDTV 550 lines DVD with tubes and projection for a lot longer.....infact most home theather guys where on PAL forien tv standard then as a way to get better experience on home theather....even wonder why the Spanish channel looked so good .....it was PAL....in the us market we where a whole generation behind the world stuck back in the early days of tv for decades....decades mind you .....we owe a huge thanks to the cell for had it not been for it we might very well not have 4K tv right now pushing the bounds of HD.
and you can thank sony for all of this.....every xbox fan owes playsyation a a great debt.
Ronvalencia just claim that because the xbox one has backward compatibility,some how that make the xbox 360 ecosystem install base large...Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You just re write history with this post.
So since the PS2 can play PS1 games that mean the PS1 install base is 260 million units,you know since the PS1 sold 104 million + the 156 million the PS2 sold that total 260 million damn the PS1 is the highest selling console ever...
But wait the PS3 can also play PS1 games,oh that means the PS1 is even higher adding 86 or more million PS3 that total 346 million units or more damn the PS1 is histories best selling console..
Now this is because the PS2 and PS3 are backward compatible with PS1 games ecosystem..lol
This post alone prove how biased for MS and the xbox you are,remember when i told you that you argue things you should not and that you try to win them even when you don't have a chance.? Yeah this proves my point any coherent lemming would not even dare pull this shitty argument you just did.
The xbox 360 was outsold by the PS3 and backward compatibility doesn't account as a xbox 360 sold,no matter how you spin it,this thread is getting saved...lol
@applebeatspc said:
It's not. PS3 came in 1st place last gen, with Xbox 360 in 3rd. PS2 also came in 1st.
No it didn't it came in second after the wii who won.
@ronvalencia said:
Xbox One can be treated like Xbox 360 since it's backwards compatible feature blurs generation divide.
Bullshit and this is an argument you will not win,period the 360 is the 360 is dead and ended last,no amount of backward compatibility will increase xbox 360 sales.
Again if that was the case then the PS1 sold 346 million units,as you know the PS2 and PS3 both can play PS1 games,so that mean the PS1 sold 346 million consoles..lol
You are so invested in defending the freaking xbox brand that you down right say the most stupid and moronic arguments ever created in this place.
In fact the xbox one backward compatibility is a broken ass shit,were the majority of games don't even work so how is backward compatible for the majority of people who can't play their games on it because only small selection work.?
@rekonmeister said:
People used to say a CELL is faster than an i7 980X, well my CPU is the same silicon as it, but better with 2 cores less.
Play the music, mute my video's, enjoy.
No that wasn't what it was say,what was say is that Cell was faster encoding than a i7 965 XE which was true,but that was because encoding movies is a process that is more suited for GPU parallel processing,and since Cell was a hybrid CPU GPU like it beat it encoding,any one who has encoded movies knows that encoding was tedious and slow process on CPU back then,with the arrival of GPU acceleration those task were speeding up allot.
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.
This say nothing bad about the i7,in fact it just prove Cell was better at some things than CPU's because of it hybrid form,Cell for CPU task could not compete with that i7 at all,but task that were worked better on GPU Cell would beat that i7.
@rekonmeister said:
Oh look the Xenon can do double the mips of Cell now how does that translate into games.?
lol...
The compute power of Cell walked over the 3 core CPU of the xbox 360,is the reason the PS3 was able to beat the xbox 360 graphics wise,because of how Cell could offload GPU task,The xenos could had being better running an OS gaming wise Cell chew and spit it,hell with 5 SPE has more compute power than the Jaguar inside the PS4 and with 6 more than the xbox one as well.lol
if sont lost this amount of money for 5 years why would the company keep selling the ps3......you case in not valid at all when we know durning these years even if ps3 sales where weak the ps2 sales and profits where massive....an industry epic....if your case was valid why where total units of ps3 so high in the end sony sold more ps3 and part of xbox units where replacement under the ring of death....
sony lost billions o the ps3 yet sony would fund the ps4 .....come on you think that investors in japan are that dumb.....
sony had yen issues and invested in servers a huge leap forward in there media game....
you think sony made nothing on movies on the ps3 or music......or anything durning these 4-5 years.....or made nothing with the ps2 .....
we know for a fact sony invested heavy durning this time in media .....we know now what sonys vision was now was.....we know this because we have PS NOW.
we also know that durning those years tech sales where poor,we know trouble was brewing in china long before the crash,we all saw issues in a lot of market in 04 and after ......so your case is that it was not usa that drive sonys profits up but small tigers like the phlippines that did well after the crash....
I see a lot of bs here.....and I expect that from closed minded xboners who never been outside the usa ever....they want to think ms is somehow going to rule the world with xbox at the helm......
they make there case all based on halo because ms promised them a halo tv show....no matter how much you beg.....phil is phil...he not a game guy....he a corp tool who moved around inside ms.....
if ps3 sales where so bad why did it sell 80 million then by 2013...why where it sales higher the xbox.....you think the Japanese love America that much they had out ps3 to guys so they can watch Netflix on just to make an American company look bad.....you think they fund all that at a huge expensive?
sounds very silly.....sounds like sour grape guys who got sucked in by xbone one buying 150 dollar controllers who end up told there system is 1080 and games run at 720.....
Nice so how does an OS run on those GPU.? YOU know Cell is a CPU Hybrid not a GPU per say so comparing it with GPU at task that GPU are great for isn't really a fair comparison,now compare CPU in Folding home vs Cell and see what you get,just like Cell Chew and spit an i7 965XE Intel flagship CPU back in 2009 encoding movies so would chew and spit CPU of that era,hell 2009 was 3 years after the PS3 launch and 4 years since Cell was complete in computers world 4 years is a ton of time and improvements,yet Cell was encoding better than an 2009 i7..lol
That was thanks to its GPU side.
Cell was good for what it was,a CPU than can handle some GPU task,it wasn't a great CPU to compete with great CPU or even medium ones,it wasn't a great GPU to compete with great GPU or even weak ones,but running task which both could not do on its one cell was great.
It was enough of a GPU to beat an i7 in encoding thanks to its GPU like side,and had enough of a CPU to beat GPU at more intelligent task like running an OS and other CPU oriented jobs.
But didn't have enough to beat a good or medium CPU or even a weak GPU on GPU task.
@cainetao11 said:
Nope. It was a stupid idea that increased the debt this company faces. In a way it's like Kinect. Great technology, not applicable to gaming and definitely unneeded.
Cell wasn't the reason sony loss so much money,Blu-ray was which was $1,000 in fact the PS3 didn't make it early than it did thanks to a shortage of Blu-ray diodes,as cell was already finish by 2005.
Cell was expensive but not that expensive compare to Intel CPU or what sony would have to pay Intel to get a decent one,Blu-ray caused most of the damage.
Then we don't need anything because always there will be something better down road,is pathetic you people always with the same crap Cell wasn't need it blu-ray wasn't need it,all we need it was MS..lol
if the ps3 was so weak vs the xbox....why did the navy buy so many of them?
why...why why....you think the navy don't know what they where doing?
yea the cell and ps3 was so dam weak the navy wanted the weakest console to make a supercomputer cluster ever.........lol you think them navy guys don't know tech?
the navy invented computers to solve a very complex problem.....how to fire shells at objects you cant see that are lower then the earths curve....it like shooting over mountians at objects that can move.....
I love how all the xboners hate on sony because they played a lame ass game like halo as kids.....a crappy space war game that Microsoft promise them a tv series about....
where is your show now?
sony don't make promises then take them back......the Japanese cultue is about ones word.....xbox is about flip flopping.
flip flop on backward compatable.
flip flop on 1080 p on games when we know it was 720.
flip flop coming soon to xbox on 4K.
we know for dam certin to do 4K on pc at 60fps on most titles on high settings not ultra mind you with AA off requires dual 980ti or dual fury x....and that's with toned settings....how many TFLOPS we talking here hugh.....double 8 lol even the 9 plus 1080 cant promise 4K 60 fps in most games high settings ......
we gonna laugh hard when phil eats them 4K words and you all choke hard on it here....
we be waiting in dec 2017 for the choke king to say I never said that...and walk back E3 2016.
if the ps3 was so weak vs the xbox....why did the navy buy so many of them?
why...why why....you think the navy don't know what they where doing?
yea the cell and ps3 was so dam weak the navy wanted the weakest console to make a supercomputer cluster ever.........lol you think them navy guys don't know tech?
the navy invented computers to solve a very complex problem.....how to fire shells at objects you cant see that are lower then the earths curve....it like shooting over mountians at objects that can move.....
I love how all the xboners hate on sony because they played a lame ass game like halo as kids.....a crappy space war game that Microsoft promise them a tv series about....
where is your show now?
sony don't make promises then take them back......the Japanese cultue is about ones word.....xbox is about flip flopping.
flip flop on backward compatable.
flip flop on 1080 p on games when we know it was 720.
flip flop coming soon to xbox on 4K.
we know for dam certin to do 4K on pc at 60fps on most titles on high settings not ultra mind you with AA off requires dual 980ti or dual fury x....and that's with toned settings....how many TFLOPS we talking here hugh.....double 8 lol even the 9 plus 1080 cant promise 4K 60 fps in most games high settings ......
we gonna laugh hard when phil eats them 4K words and you all choke hard on it here....
we be waiting in dec 2017 for the choke king to say I never said that...and walk back E3 2016.
It would be rather saddening if you actually believe in the nonsense you just wrote.
Yes I know the PS3 Cell was an hybrid processor originally designed to do both cpu and gpu work, the PS3 Folding at home results are from using SPE's "the number cruncher's" not the PPE(CPU core). This is why its able to supply 3/4th's the compute power of 8600 . Q6600 using symmetric multiprocessing allows it to process like a gpu.
The Cell PPE was slower than a Pentium 3 and all working on gpu work SPE's allowed the Cell to have low end geforce 7800/8600 type processing power. But the fact that PPE couldnt handle more than one thread, made devs to set SPE's to do cpu tasks and a few gpu tasks to augment the RSX.
The Cell was a failure for Sony as a whole . Sony's intentions were to have the Cell to have a wide usage for applications on everything from bluray players, TVs etc and scaled down based on what was needed.
It was very smart idea.... On paper. It could have saved Sony lots of money from having to design new processors for every new device by scaling the amount of cores needed.
The Cell had too many compromises making it not a very good CPU for any one specific task , but not very good general CPU either.
Its was disastrous failure since it didnt go into every device and them having to build the facilities to build the Cell ended up being a waste of money.
@cainetao11: one developer said the cost of the Kinect was equal to the cost of the console....I heard others wisper 1 billion...we never know at the end of the day anyway....ms can move that around inside of ms .....if we price out things like Skype and where to break it up and bill it out to xbox the console would look mighty expensive.
the cell was funded in part by sony but it also came in servers and even high end TV as nothing streamed like the cell back then.
the ps3 was named the best streaming device and best home media device even when a lot of people in the HD area used xbox media software something ms abandoned....that became a huge part of HTPC....back then really pc and htpc had such issues with driver conflicts and streaming that the tech in the pc was the weak area...the cell made a vast difference in the high end TV market when it came in some TV.....but every ps3 was not just a game system ..it was also a great home media server and also a great streaming device....I know what issues where in pc because they test laptops with a program to find issues ......repectable latop revies should allways incude this as there a media device.
ms just copy the cell and threw money at there platform...
sonys downfall was rambus really the cost of XDR was way to high at a time when memory makers gaffed the market...price fixing and govt action and class action really made rambus a very bad investment in the end.....every cell made moved HD tv forward in a way few grasp....the same way blueray moved an indrustry forward....we not had 4K now had HD not took off....all of this has it roots in the cell.
the cell made streaming enjoyable.....look back at all the issues on laptops with you tube and even pc....look at why Netflix used Silverlight.....there was huge issues in the HTPC market.....the cell made that go away and the PS3 moved a market forward helping sell every HDTV at a time when there was so little blueray media out there..
without the cell we might never had HDTV funded the way it is now.....it might stayed with EDTV 550 lines DVD with tubes and projection for a lot longer.....infact most home theather guys where on PAL forien tv standard then as a way to get better experience on home theather....even wonder why the Spanish channel looked so good .....it was PAL....in the us market we where a whole generation behind the world stuck back in the early days of tv for decades....decades mind you .....we owe a huge thanks to the cell for had it not been for it we might very well not have 4K tv right now pushing the bounds of HD.
and you can thank sony for all of this.....every xbox fan owes playsyation a a great debt.
Well I'll begin with the end. I don't owe Sony a f**king thing. I pay for what I wish from them. That was the stupidest statement I ever read. By that logic every Sony fan owes Microsoft a debt because the PS3 used Microsoft drivers. How well would it have worked without them?
Kinect has been utilized and benefited other areas:http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/innovative-uses-kinect/
I always own both consoles and no. The PS3 did not stream better than the 360. Who in their right mind said said PS3 was a better streaming device than a PC? I don't care what you've read, who "wispered" what. They both streamed and both had hiccups. I have owned SNE for years and my stock took a beating under the PS3 and cell era more than any other. It sucked.
Nope. It was a stupid idea that increased the debt this company faces. In a way it's like Kinect. Great technology, not applicable to gaming and definitely unneeded.
Stupid idea? No.
Poorly executed? Definitely (Although it could could have been worse. The original plans for the PS3 called for 3 Cells and no dedicated GPU).
Not applicable? You obviously don't appreciate the complexity of computing. The kind of operations that a game is performing for audio, video, and physics are all floating point intensive. This is exactly what the Cell was designed for (also parallelism). The problem wasn't the hardware, the hardware was exquisite, the problem was that there were virtually no tools to develop for the Cell BE (relative to other established platforms). Making a modern game is already a herculean task as the technology outpaces the tools and this problem is exacerbated on the PS3 by the fact that developers had to start from the bare metal with assembly languages.
Nope. It was a stupid idea that increased the debt this company faces. In a way it's like Kinect. Great technology, not applicable to gaming and definitely unneeded.
Stupid idea? No.
Poorly executed? Definitely (Although it could could have been worse. The original plans for the PS3 called for 3 Cells and no dedicated GPU).
Not applicable? You obviously don't appreciate the complexity of computing. The kind of operations that a game is performing for audio, video, and physics are all floating point intensive. This is exactly what the Cell was designed for (also parallelism). The problem wasn't the hardware, the hardware was exquisite, the problem was that there were virtually no tools to develop for the Cell BE (relative to other established platforms). Making a modern game is already a herculean task as the technology outpaces the tools and this problem is exacerbated on the PS3 by the fact that developers had to start from the bare metal with assembly languages.
You're absolutely correct. I don't give a rat's ass about the complexity of computing. I have no interest in it. I'm sure there are many on here that would find my area, HVAC engineering boring.
As a stock holder of the company in question, Sony, I stand by it being a stupid decision to go with the Cell rather than something that would have been easier for all devs to use. And since they have gone that route in their follow up console seems there is some validity to the point.
I think every developer got used to working on the cell processor the main problems were that the ps3 had 512 shared video and ram and the gfx card was shit
Just reminiscing today, thinking back to the days when The Cell, PS3 and Sony were all under heavy scrutiny as to why they would include a processor with so much power that the game developers couldn't harness it for years. Eventually the developers would harness the power, hence today we still get some fantastic looking games on PS3 (better than XBONE I would argue!), and the PS3 ended up completely dominating last gen.
Fast forward to today, and it's interesting because now Sony and Microsoft are being forced to release 2.0 versions of their console in order to keep up with the latest games. Looks like the decision to include the world's most powerful processor (at the time) was the right decision for Sony and the PS3.
Sony made a HUGE mistake by not including The Cell 2 in their PS4, which is why I have yet to purchase one.
cell is a joke, its like old imac crappy ibm cpus, its done this way to hide how weak it is and lie telling its strong, all x360 games looked better after hundreds of framarate / visuals comparisons
Log in to comment