or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › The PS3 is good for Blu-Ray, but, is Blu-Ray good for the PS3?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The PS3 is good for Blu-Ray, but, is Blu-Ray good for the PS3? - Page 6  

post #151 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFriar
Everything you've stated -- with the sole exception of a single opinionated comment (ie. "ugly textures") -- is comprehensively wrong.

Something to contemplate is that when you work with uncompressed data, the systems relative bandwidth shrinks by the reciprocal of the compression ratio. Just because you have the room to store data uncompressed (a comment, which, in itself, is wrong) doesn't imply that you would, could, or should. In reality, the PlayStation3 is quite balanced and inline with PS2’s ratios; it's the competition which is so unbalanced by its use of DVD that the comparison makes it look relatively skewed.



Several problems here:

(1) There is

no global downside to compression on PS3. The RSX has hardwired functionality to decompress S3TC|DXTx at a speed which can saturate the cache; to not use it is unheard of.

(2) RSX has hardwired logic, to not use it is wasting gates. Cell rips threw compressed data; the types of decompression that are applicable here constitute a fraction of a frame's processing time.

(3) PlayStation 3's memory architecture is NUMA-like, from the perspective of each processor; there is 512MB of RAM. It appears as a logically unified 512MB, but with a preformance differential between each pool's access speeds. The RSX can store and fetch textures from all available RAM pools. Just to demonstrate how off-base your comment was, there are cases in which frame buffer access saturates the GDDR bandwidth and textures are stored and streamed from the XDR over FlexIO.
Ok there sure was alot of spin in your post without any backing up. I do realize the system bandwidth shrinks but you do realize the 360's code is so compressed one core is dedicated to de-coding this info at all times, more than makes up for the shrinking bandwidht when the bandwidht off of the bd drive is superior to dvd-9. PS3's ram is segated into 2 256mb sections and whether you like it or not thats the facts. Sure it can move stuff in between 256mb sections but the bandwidth in between these sections makes this un-economical and will cause bottle necks, fetching hi-res textures into the cells portion which is already devided among 6 spe's is a recipe for disaster. I like how you use terms like rips through and appears without commenting on all the downsides of utlizing the hardware like you claim can be done. If what you say is true the performance of ps3 should be markedly over 360 yet the exact opposite has been shown to be true. The consoles are about even, with 360 2nd gen software looking markedly better than ps3 launch stuff. Well except one costs 200 more.
post #152 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFriar
Current games, due to storage constraints (both RAM and Disc), utilize the same models and textures to exploit the periodicity, the repetition, as a form of data compression. So current games use the same models over and over, the same textures are repeated thought every level, etc.

The new trend is toward unique game entities and variation in the game world. Ken Perlin was a significant early figure in this (Perlin Noise, Hypertextures), and more recently John Carmack has been vocal with his Megatexture technology. Perlin's work is great at what it does and quite space efficient, but function derived randomness - while good for organic entities - is horrendous for creating the man-made entities that compose most of the game world. These things need to be defined in a set-piece manner and require explicit space, and BD gives developers the space they need. 20GB is not going to be near the upperbound of what a developer can do.

I wouldn't criticize Resistance: FoM untill you play it or see it on HDTV first hand. Oblivion and it's cookie-cutter, repetitious, environments don't hold a candle to what I've seen.
All spin and smoke aside go to playsyde and make up your own mind. The textures are bland and flat. Characters suffer from block fingers. Color palletes are drap. Textures ARE repeated and hi-res textures are non-existant besides on characters. Oblivion looks far superior given the type of game it had to be and this type of game.
On the plus side the character design looks fresh although doom esque.
post #153 of 225
ok
post #154 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
Ok there sure was alot of spin in your post without any backing up.
Please don't make comments like this. It accomplished nothing as as many would see by reading your post, you are not very familiar with the topic you are discussing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
I do realize the system bandwidth shrinks but you do realize the 360's code is so compressed one core is dedicated to de-coding this info at all times, more than makes up for the shrinking bandwidht when the bandwidht off of the bd drive is superior to dvd-9.
This is utter BS There is no other way to phrase it. I am sorry, but this is so misinformed that it shouldn't be allowed to be posted.

Data compression works by taking advantage of data redundancy and the periodicities which occur in information streams. Lossless schemes utilize these periodicities to various degrees to allow for the encoding of data with less bits than a literal description. There are fundamental limits to the entropy, amount of data, that can be culled and still allows for the reconstruction of the initial information.

Somone who is versed or even has an understanding of mathematics or information theory would know of Claude Shannon's work (eg. rate distortion theory, et al.) and not make comments like the above proposition that Xbox360 code "is so compressed" it allows a developer to fit 25GB of data in the 7GB that XBox360 can actually utilize (ie. copy protection). Summed over the entire range of information which is stored in those 21GB, there is not enough redundancy in the code to allow for such lossless compression ratios no matter how much computation you throw at the problem, never mind the IBM Power core.

To further elaborate on how bad this comment was, we are discussing this in a "Blu-Ray Forum." HD-DVD and Blu-Ray's physical medium is devoting, at the minimum bounds, over 15GB towards the lossy compression of video data. Unlike in a program/game, in video (like audio) you're dealing with the perceptual limitations of a human and you can adopt lossy algorithms (such as MPEG-4 AVC, VC-1, MPEG-2, MP4, MP3) which achieve higher compression ratios by - intelligently - throwing out data. You can't do this in a program! There is an enormous difference between DCT or wavelet schemes and a Wheeler transform or a flavor of entropy encoding.

Put simply, the low hanging fruit, the things which can be compressed lossily (eg. textures with S3TC|DXTx) are compressed. Everything else is compressed on both systems and to move to a higher level of lossless compression is not only uneconomical in terms of the computation trade-off, the gains scale sub-linearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
PS3's ram is segated into 2 256mb sections and whether you like it or not thats the facts. Sure it can move stuff in between 256mb sections but the bandwidth in between these sections makes this un-economical and will cause bottle necks, fetching hi-res textures into the cells portion which is already devided among 6 spe's is a recipe for disaster.
You have yet to even address a point I made in a substantive manner. Again:

(I) PlayStation3's architecture

is NUMA. Each processor can utilize all of the 512MB of RAM. This is not up for debate.
(II) PlayStation3 games already store and stream textures from XDR via FlexIO. (IIb) SCE designed the system for this to occur, you could see this if you looked at the directional bandwidth bias.
(III) There are 8 SPEs, 7 of which have active MIC's that communicate via the EIB, along with the PPE.
(IIIb) it's not a "recipe for disaster, it is being done and was designed for such coherent accesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
I like how you use terms like rips through and appears without commenting on all the downsides of utlizing the hardware like you claim can be done. If what you say is true the performance of ps3 should be markedly over 360 yet the exact opposite has been shown to be true.
Look at the published performance number yourself:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...y/pa-cellperf/
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/...henberger.html

Also of note to academic and HPC, Stanford and SCE just announced/demonstrated Cure@PS3 in Leipzig, their distributed computing project for protein folding, Folding@Home, running on PlayStation3's Cell processor.

http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html
post #155 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark0
This is only one gamers perspective, but I wonder if this more common in other parts of the country?
Check any number of gaming site message boards, especially independent sites like the blog joystiq.com, IGN.com, gamespot.com, 1up.com, and the general feeling towards the PS3 is lukewarm at best if not downright scorn and hatred of $ony.

A lot of attention is on Nintendo's Wii.

Grant it, it's from a gamers perspective and not neccesarily from a BluRay player perspective.
post #156 of 225
On top of the price, we're now hearing only 1/2 the number of units will ship. So if it takes 6 weeks to ship to warehouse (from what I've read on another thread), I wonder if there will be any available in the US come Christmas? We could be talking only 333,000 based on an even distribution.
I hate to say it, but Sony's Trojan horse is sounding more like a Trojan mouse.
post #157 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
Ok there sure was alot of spin in your post without any backing up.

You made the statement "That 22GB is uncompressed." You said that statement as a fact and we are still waiting for YOU to back that up.
post #158 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark0
On top of the price, we're now hearing only 1/2 the number of units will ship. So if it takes 6 weeks to ship to warehouse (from what I've read on another thread), I wonder if there will be any available in the US come Christmas. At most (assuming even distribution) it may be only 333,000 or so.
I hate to say it, but Sony's Trojan horse is sounding more like a Trojan mouse.

Pardon me for asking, but from the sound of it you, PhdWho, gatti-man, and a few other people just come on to the Blu-Ray boards to constantly bash and bring down Sony and Blu-Ray every day? I'm trying to get a feel for the place. I've only been on here for a few days but not a day has gone by without some good news for Blu-Ray or Sony being brought down and negated by people who obviously seem to hate both. What's the point? It really brings down the forum and makes it look like nothing more than something like TeamXbox or something. I thought this was AVSForum... I've heard great things about this place but so far none of them are turning out to be true because of the trolling.
post #159 of 225
Bash?

When talking news and events regarding the PS3???

Put me on ignore if that will make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
post #160 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MylovelyPQ
Pardon me for asking, but from the sound of it you, PhdWho, gatti-man, and a few other people just come on to the Blu-Ray boards to constantly bash and bring down Sony and Blu-Ray every day? I'm trying to get a feel for the place. I've only been on here for a few days but not a day has gone by without some good news for Blu-Ray or Sony being brought down and negated by people who obviously seem to hate both. What's the point? It really brings down the forum and makes it look like nothing more than something like TeamXbox or something. I thought this was AVSForum... I've heard great things about this place but so far none of them are turning out to be true because of the trolling.
Welcome to the club Bri,

If you read the title of the thread, it warrants discussion regarding the PS3 and blu-ray. Some believe part of Sony's marketing plan was to market the PS3 as a universal home media device. Some think it's a good idea, some do not.
Obviously, I think it was a bad idea. The information I post backs up my stance. I think Sony would have been better off keeping the 2 separate.

But let me be quite honest with you. I was a big supporter of Blu-ray. But it's price and performance to date has forced me to the other side. It's truly unfortunate, and I am not to blame. If/when blu-ray camp can turn things around, I WILL support Blu-ray, but until that day, I will continue to ask for more. I don't see the harm in that.
post #161 of 225
So why don't you just chill out rather than trolling these forums? I have seen you post no information to back up anything, just useless speculation and constant bashing of Sony and Blu-Ray. You have more posts than me in here since I joined and I actually *like* Blu-Ray. Doesn't that tell you that you should maybe chill out a bit? I mean how long will this forum continue to have to deal with your bashing Sony? Next year if I log on here, will you still be coming on here to bash Sony everyday? Don't you have a job or a life or something?

And stop calling me "Brian." It's really weird.

Welcome to my ignore list. At least I know how I can solve this problem for myself.
post #162 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhdWho
Put me on ignore if that will make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Done.

It still doesn't change the fact that maybe you and the other trolls maybe need to get a job or something and maybe give this board apparently some relief from the looks of your post history. It's like any thread here with good news is a magnet for you guys just to come in and publically roll your eyes again. I'm not sure what the purpose or fun of this is for you guys but it certainly hurts the credibility of what I thought was a "technical forum."
post #163 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MylovelyPQ
Done.

It still doesn't change the fact that maybe you and the other trolls maybe need to g"

Fanboys...... :rolleyes:
post #164 of 225
I don't tink PS3 would be good for BD format as a whole. Sure PS3 is going to be a hit, and it will fly off the shelf faster than Sony can produce them.

But how's that going to help people interested in buying a BD player for BD movies. Most of the PS3 would be snapped by gamers and indication is the PS3 will be in short supply for quite some time. For BD movie buyer, the prospect of buying a $1k to 1.5k standalone BD player from Sony, Pioneer or Panasonic doesn't really make $ sense seeing how PS3 is so full spec and cheap.
post #165 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MylovelyPQ
So why don't you just chill out rather than trolling these forums? I have seen you post no information to back up anything, just useless speculation and constant bashing of Sony and Blu-Ray. You have more posts than me in here since I joined and I actually *like* Blu-Ray. Doesn't that tell you that you should maybe chill out a bit? I mean how long will this forum continue to have to deal with your bashing Sony? Next year if I log on here, will you still be coming on here to bash Sony everyday? Don't you have a job or a life or something?

And stop calling me "Brian." It's really weird.

Welcome to my ignore list. At least I know how I can solve this problem for myself.
Opps, that was a typo, I meant to call you Bro ;)
Since you are such a stickler for supporting evidence, here is where I read about the PS3 reduction:
http://japan.seekingalpha.com/article/15865
And the shipping schedule (6weeks):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...01#post8276101

If you actually "like" Blu-ray, then GO BUY ONE instead of whining here on the sidelines.

Also, your LACK of meaningful discussion results in most of your posts resulting in closed threads. So please think before you post. :)
post #166 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckong
But how's that going to help people interested in buying a BD player for BD movies. Most of the PS3 would be snapped by gamers and indication is the PS3 will be in short supply for quite some time. For BD movie buyer, the prospect of buying a $1k to 1.5k standalone BD player from Sony, Pioneer or Panasonic doesn't really make $ sense seeing how PS3 is so full spec and cheap.
Your contradicting yourself there.

Sony needs to fix their BD Software problems before they get their hopes up. When the PS3 does sell like crazy, many gamers will buy a couple Blu-Ray movies or so, just like it happened with DVD when the PS2 released. That WONT happen if everyone is still being informed that the PQ of Blu-Ray movies is still horrible. In fact, more than likely, if the PQ is still horrible, many studios would be jumping ship at that point in time (the right moment to jump ship if you ask me).
post #167 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MylovelyPQ
Pardon me for asking, but from the sound of it you, PhdWho, gatti-man, and a few other people just come on to the Blu-Ray boards to constantly bash and bring down Sony and Blu-Ray every day? I'm trying to get a feel for the place. I've only been on here for a few days but not a day has gone by without some good news for Blu-Ray or Sony being brought down and negated by people who obviously seem to hate both. What's the point? It really brings down the forum and makes it look like nothing more than something like TeamXbox or something. I thought this was AVSForum... I've heard great things about this place but so far none of them are turning out to be true because of the trolling.
As a new user, I have to agree in full with the above. And on multiple threads in multiple forums, I've seen the same guys doing it. Why the agenda? If you're convinced it's going to be crap, shouldn't you be ignoring it?


But then, I'm sure you'll call me a fanboy too. That is the way to dismiss someone's opinion, right? :rolleyes:
post #168 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFriar

(I) PlayStation3's architecture

is NUMA. Each processor can utilize all of the 512MB of RAM. This is not up for debate.
(II) PlayStation3 games already store and stream textures from XDR via FlexIO. (IIb) SCE designed the system for this to occur, you could see this if you looked at the directional bandwidth bias.
(III) There are 8 SPEs, 7 of which have active MIC's that communicate via the EIB, along with the PPE.
(IIIb) it's not a "recipe for disaster, it is being done and was designed for such coherent accesses.
[/url]
your specs are outdated. the cell processor in teh ps3 does not have 8 spe's. Im done arguing with you since you seem to be reading off a sony pr sheet and wont discuss real world setbacks of their design.
http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.p...&#entry2714830
post #169 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by qzak
But then, I'm sure you'll call me a fanboy too. That is the way to dismiss someone's opinion, right?
You are complaining about some posters not being 100% bluray fanboys.
Oh lord, how terrible.

If you need to be all warm and fuzzy, please, put me on ignore, your life will be much simpler that way. :rolleyes:
post #170 of 225
more info for those that care to know facts in laymans terms:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461



In our last article we had a fairly open-ended discussion about many of the challenges facing both of the recently announced next-generation game consoles. We discussed misconceptions about the Cell processor and its ability to accelerate physics calculations, as well as touched on the GPUs of both platforms. In the end, both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are much closer competitors than you would think based on first impressions.

The Xbox 360’s Xenon CPU features more general purpose cores than the PlayStation 3 (3 vs. 1), however game developers will most likely only be using one of those cores for the majority of their calculations, leveling the playing field considerably.

The Cell processor derives much of its power from its array of 7 SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements), however as we discovered in our last article, their purpose is far more specialized than we had thought. Speaking with Epic Games’ head developer, Tim Sweeney, he provided a much more balanced view of what sorts of tasks could take advantage of the Cell’s SPE array.

The GPUs of the next-generation platforms also proved to be quite interesting. In Part I we speculated as to the true nature of NVIDIA’s RSX in the PS3, concluding that it’s quite likely little more than a higher clocked G70 GPU. We will expand on that discussion a bit more in this article. We also looked at Xenos, the Xbox 360’s GPU and characterized it as equivalent to a very flexible 24-pipe R420. Despite the inclusion of the 10MB of embedded DRAM, Xenos and RSX ended up being quite similar in our expectations for performance; and that pretty much summarized all of our findings - the two consoles, although implementing very different architectures, ended up being so very similar.

So we’ve concluded that the two platforms will probably end up performing very similarly, but there was one very important element excluded from the first article: a comparison to present-day PC architectures. The reason a comparison to PC architectures is important is because it provides an evaluation point to gauge the expected performance of these next-generation consoles. We’ve heard countless times that these new consoles would offer better gaming performance than anything we’ve had on the PC, or anything we would have for a matter of years. Now it’s time to actually put those claims to the test, and that’s exactly what we did.

Speaking under conditions of anonymity with real world game developers who have had first hand experience writing code for both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 hardware (and dev kits where applicable), we asked them for nothing more than their brutal honesty. What did they think of these new consoles? Are they really outfitted with the PC-eclipsing performance we’ve been lead to believe they have? The answer is actually quite frequently found in history; as with anything, you get what you pay for.
post #171 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFriar
Look at the published performance number yourself:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...y/pa-cellperf/
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/...henberger.html

Also of note to academic and HPC, Stanford and SCE just announced/demonstrated Cure@PS3 in Leipzig, their distributed computing project for protein folding, Folding@Home, running on PlayStation3's Cell processor.

http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html
Just so anyone knows these numbers are big time FUD. There are many types of cell processors. The one int eh ps3 is not the same as something in a server or hi-end application like blackfriar would have you believe. Also never believe performance specs from a company that creates the product look for independent data. Also T-flops arent gaming code (it mkes up about 20% of total code) therefore many of those numbers dont even apply to games.
post #172 of 225
Interesting read

http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html

Quote:
Since 2000, Folding@Home (FAH) has led to a major jump in the capabilities of molecular simulation. By joining together hundreds of thousands of PCs throughout the world, calculations which were previously considered impossible have now become routine. FAH has targeted the study of of protein folding and protein folding disease, and numerous scientific advances have come from the project.

Now in 2006, we are looking forward to another major advance in capabilities. This advance utilizes the new Cell processor in Sony’s PLAYSTATION 3 (PS3) to achieve performance previously only possible on supercomputers. With this new technology (as well as new advances with GPUs), we will likely be able to attain performance on the 100 gigaflop scale per computer. With about 10,000 such machines, we would be able to achieve performance on the petaflop scale. With software from Sony, the PlayStation 3 will now be able to contribute to the Folding@Home project, pushing Folding@Home a major step forward.

Our goal is to apply this new technology to push Folding@Home into a new level of capabilities, applying our simulations to further study of protein folding and related diseases, including Alzheimer’s Disease, Huntington's Disease, and certain forms of cancer. With these computational advances, coupled with new simulation methodologies to harness the new techniques, we will be able to address questions previously considered impossible to tackle computationally, and make even greater impacts on our knowledge of folding and folding related diseases.



ADVANCED FEATURES FOR THE PS3

The PS3 client will also support some advanced visualization features. While the Cell microprocessor does most of the calculation processing of the simulation, the graphic chip of the PLAYSTATION 3 system (the RSX) displays the actual folding process in real-time using new technologies such as HDR and ISO surface rendering. It is possible to navigate the 3D space of the molecule using the interactive controller of the PS3, allowing us to look at the protein from different angles in real-time. For a preview of a prototype of the GUI for the PS3 client, check out a screenshot or one of these videos ( 355K avi, 866K avi , 6MB avi , 6MB avi-- more videos and formats to come).
post #173 of 225
"Cell processor in Sony’s PLAYSTATION 3 (PS3) to achieve performance previously only possible on supercomputers."

LOL!!!!!! stopped there :D ....FUD

the ps3 is vaporware...so http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-PS3.html can be ignored

it sounds too much like the PS2 pre-launch hype.... :rolleyes:
post #174 of 225
Gatti-Man, your responces are entirely incorrect. I would go as far as to say you don't deserve to post here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
your specs are outdated. the cell processor in teh ps3 does not have 8 spe's. Im done arguing with you since you seem to be reading off a sony pr sheet and wont discuss real world setbacks of their design.
http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.p...&#entry2714830
This is impressive! It's like you just make up facts as you see fit! I've seen a DD1 Cell die, they have 8 SPE's and a Power core. This is beyond dispute. It has one SPE electronically disabled to increase yeilds, a practice that is quite common in highly parallel processor architectures such as GPUs. It's also seen in most CPU caches.

I know 8 is a large number to count to, but I'm convinced you can count the cache blockss for yourself:

http://www.maxps3.com/wp-content/upl...sor-Issues.jpg
post #175 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
Just so anyone knows these numbers are big time FUD.
So quoting published performance numbers from IBM Research and IBM developer relations is "FUD," yet you quote a forum thread from "XBox-Scene.com?

Is this a bad, bad joke? What next, are you going to argue against peer-review in favor of forum posts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
There are many types of cell processors.
No, there are not! All announced CBEA products are based on the first generation Cell Architecture presented at ISSCC 2005 and found in the PlayStation3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
The one int eh ps3 is not the same as something in a server or hi-end application like blackfriar would have you believe.
There are currently no other CBEA products other than the IC found in the PlayStation3. PlayStation3's Cell Processor is also clocked higher than many systems which are intended for HPSC, industrial design or server applications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
Also never believe performance specs from a company that creates the product look for independent data. Also T-flops arent gaming code (it mkes up about 20% of total code) therefore many of those numbers dont even apply to games.
This is just a plethora of incorrectness:

IBM's published findings have been confirmed by work on HPSC done by the Computational Research Division of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This was under contract to the Department of Energy. They presented their work at the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers.

For the link-impaired:

"On average, Cell is eight times faster and at least eight times more power efficient than current Opteron and Itanium processors, despite the fact that Cell's peak double precision performance is fourteen times slower than its peak single precision performance."

http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/671376.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
Also T-flops arent gaming code (it mkes up about 20% of total code) therefore many of those numbers dont even apply to games.
A "T-Flops" (sic) means a teraflop/sec, or trillion floating point operations per second. It, obviously, has ramifications upon performance as all documented tests demonstrate. Cell also has equivalent levels of integer operations per second, as well as huge internal bandwidth both to it's deterministic LS's as well as I/O.
post #176 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFriar
Gatti-Man, your responces are entirely incorrect. I would go as far as to say you don't deserve to post here.



This is impressive! It's like you just make up facts as you see fit! I've seen a DD1 Cell die, they have 8 SPE's and a Power core. This is beyond dispute. It has one SPE electronically disabled to increase yeilds, a practice that is quite common in highly parallel processor architectures such as GPUs. It's also seen in most CPU caches.

I know 8 is a large number to count to, but I'm convinced you can count the cache blockss for yourself:

http://www.maxps3.com/wp-content/upl...sor-Issues.jpg
I said im not going to argue with you and thats that. I posted plenty of objective data for people to make up their own minds.
post #177 of 225
Interesting read

http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/671376.html

Quote:
Researchers Analyze HPC Potential of Cell Processor

Though it was designed as the heart of the upcoming Sony PlayStation3 game console, the STI Cell processor has created quite a stir in the computational science community, where the processor's potential as a building block for high performance computers has been widely discussed and speculated upon.

To evaluate Cell's potential, computer scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory evaluated the processor's performance in running several scientific application kernels, then compared this performance against other processor architectures. The results of the group's evaluation were presented in a paper at the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, held May 2-6, 2006, in Ischia, Italy.

"Overall results demonstrate the tremendous potential of the Cell architecture for scientific computations in terms of both raw performance and power efficiency," the authors wrote in their paper. "We also conclude that Cell's heterogeneous multi-core implementation is inherently better suited to the HPC environment than homogeneous commodity multi-core processors."

.... On average, Cell is eight times faster and at least eight times more power efficient than current Opteron and Itanium processors, despite the fact that Cell's peak double precision performance is fourteen times slower than its peak single precision performance. If Cell were to include at least one fully utilizable pipelined double precision floating point unit, as proposed in their Cell+ implementation, these speedups would easily double.
post #178 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatti-man
I said im not going to argue with you and thats that. I posted plenty of objective data for people to make up their own minds.
Where? I must have missed it, could you link me over? Thanks in advance.

And if you couldn't discern the 8 SPE's from the raw die:

http://www.itmweb.com/bimages/ibmcellchips.jpg
post #179 of 225
anyone looking to see who is right just read this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

Once you read the whole thing it really does break down the cell poiece by piece in laymans terms so you can avoid all the hype. The cell is a great cpu but misused for gaming since sony wants a 1 solution for all type processor which doesnt exist (for example intelk makes great media encoding cpu's yet amd has had the edge on gaming architecture until just recently with the core duo).

Im not interested in befuddling people with overcomplicated specs. Im trying to get at real world performance which comes to 360=ps3 at the very best. 360>ps3 at the worst if programmers can learn to utilize the unified shader and ati releases the software update for dx10 compatibility for the 360.

http://www.news4gamers.com/xbox360/NewsCom-6925.aspx
http://www.xbox360only.nl/nieuwsitem.php?nid=2069

Also the PS3 has 7 spe's, one is redundant and therefore useless. 8-1=7
post #180 of 225
You're quoting "XBox360only.nl" and "Anandtech" while I'm quoting UC Berkeley, Dept of Energy and IBM Research. I'm posting actual preformance numbers a developer would find from his code, you're posting the "laymen" dumbed-down version. I think we're on different levels.

Oh well, I hear AVSForum has a good audio forum.

PS. Welcome to 6 posts back on the SPE topic...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › The PS3 is good for Blu-Ray, but, is Blu-Ray good for the PS3?