|
Home > Archive > Xbox forum > August 2006 > CELL in PS3 will push NO MORE THAN 148 GFLOPS, peak, for GAMES (long post)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
CELL in PS3 will push NO MORE THAN 148 GFLOPS, peak, for GAMES (long post)
|
|
| AirRaid 2006-08-07, 7:46 pm |
| ok lets go back to CELL announcement in March 2001, as well as PR
through out 2001-2002: Sony talks about TeraFlops of processing power
for CELL. then backs off to just 1 TeraFLOP during 2002 and part of
2003.
then at the annual semiconductor chip conference (ISSCC) in 2005, it
is revealed that there will be no single CELL processor that's capable
of 1 TeraFLOP, but only 1/4th of that: 256 GFLOPs - from the 8 SPEs
alone (not counting the PowerPC / PPE core), when clocked @ 4.6 GHz.
there is no longer any hope of a 4-CELL Processor on one chip (4
PowerPCs + 32 SPEs)
it is understood that PS3 will only be using a single CELL
Processor/Processing Element, not 4 CELLs.
then at E3 2005, Sony announces that the PS3 version of CELL will run
@ 3.2 GHz, that the whole thing pushes a TOTAL of 218 GFLOPs when
adding up what 7 active SPEs (not 8) can do PLUS the PowerPC / PPE core
as well.
now it is just beyond the middle of 2006 with PS3 coming out in a few
months. there are NO CELL processors running @ 3.2 GHz. the fastest
that any developer had ever worked on was UNDER 3.0 GHz. it seems
that the final CELL procesor for PS3 will be running at somewhere
between 2.4 and 2.8 GHz.
a 7 SPE CELL @ 2.8 GHz produces around 148.4 GFLOPs
quote from DeadmeatGA:
__________________________________________________________________________
"CELL vs XCPU2 revisted, a stunning CELL downgrade found., Went from
215 GFLOPS down to 148.4 GFLOPS
CELL : 2.8 Ghz x ( 6 game usable APUs + 50% of CPU(50% consumed by the
OS for APU scheduling ) ) = 148.4 GFLOPS peak
XCPU2 3.2 Ghz x ( 3 Cores - 5% of single core for the OS) = 113.28
GFLOPS peak
148.4 GFLOPS Vs 113.28 GFLOPS"
____________________________________________________________________________
XCPU2 obviously means the 3-core Xenon CPU in Xbox360. so what he is
saying here is
the CELL processor for PS3 (@ 2.8 GHz) gets ~148 GFLOPs peak to run
game code, while the Xenon CPU in Xbox360 gets ~113 GFLOPs to run game
code. Now, PS3 was supposed to have a MASSIVE advantage over Xbox360
in CPU-based floating point performance. that has all but vanished.
PS3 CELL is now only marginally more powerful in peak FP performance.
PS3's biggest advantage has almost been wiped out by the yearly
downgrades to PS3 CPU, going all the way back to 1999, before CELL was
announced, when Emotion Engine 3 (yeah EE3 not EE2) was announced as
PS3's CPU with what they boasted would have 1000 times the performance
of PS2's Emotion Engine.
PS3's CELL current advantage over PS2 Emotion Engine? ~148 GFLOPs vs
~6.2 GFLOPs
that is 23.9 times, call it 24x ....a massive, massive downgrade from
1000x that Sony wanted, or even the 100x that IBM said would be a
reasonable target, or the 50x that was announced at ISSCC 2005, or the
35x that was announced at E3 2005.
keep in mind that PS2's CPU was a much larger leap over PS1's CPU than
PS3's CELL CPU is over PS2 CPU.
the graphics side of PS3 is an even SMALLER leap over PS2's Graphics
Synthesizer.
the main memory bandwidth of PS3, 25.6 GB/sec, is also a smaller leap
(8.25x) over
PS2, 3.2 GB/sec, than PS2 was over PS1: 132 MB/sec (24x)
on top of that, you will have to pay twice the price for PS3 if you
want the better model with larger HDD, WiFi, HDMI and a few other
things.
| |
| Zackman 2006-08-07, 7:46 pm |
| AirRaid <AirRaidJet@gmail.com> spake thusly:
quote:
> ok lets go back to CELL announcement in March 2001
Or, how about this: Let's just wait until the thing comes out and see what
the games look and play like, instead of ranting about theoretical peak
performances.
Who cares if the PS3 doesn't have enough computing power to predict gloabal
weather patterns? True, some of the stuff that's been shown so far hasn't
been all that impressive, but if games like Heavenly Sword and MotorStorm
look as good as they do now, then the PS3 will be a perfectly solid (if
expensive) next-gen game machine. It won't destroy the Xbox 360 like the
trolls hope, but it will certainly hold its own and produce many, many
excellent games.
You're starting to get as tiresome as Bligmerk with this stuff. Theoretical
computing/bandwidth/rendering numbers have much less to do with how games
look and play than developer skill does anyway.
-Z-
| |
| David Parkes 2006-08-08, 7:45 pm |
| I really couldn't give monkey what the flops are like. Personally I would
rather flop mine in a tank of hungry phiranas than read any more of that. Oh
no I have gone cross eyed.
"Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
news:n-ednZNzxboAOErZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
quote:
> AirRaid <AirRaidJet@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> Or, how about this: Let's just wait until the thing comes out and see what
> the games look and play like, instead of ranting about theoretical peak
> performances.
>
> Who cares if the PS3 doesn't have enough computing power to predict
> gloabal weather patterns? True, some of the stuff that's been shown so far
> hasn't been all that impressive, but if games like Heavenly Sword and
> MotorStorm look as good as they do now, then the PS3 will be a perfectly
> solid (if expensive) next-gen game machine. It won't destroy the Xbox 360
> like the trolls hope, but it will certainly hold its own and produce many,
> many excellent games.
>
> You're starting to get as tiresome as Bligmerk with this stuff.
> Theoretical computing/bandwidth/rendering numbers have much less to do
> with how games look and play than developer skill does anyway.
>
> -Z-
>
| |
|
| I have this image now of these game developers programming in the nude while
their dingaling "FLOPS" around.
"David Parkes" <wibble@wobble.com> wrote in message
news:uvx4HGwuGHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
quote:
>I really couldn't give monkey what the flops are like. Personally I would
>rather flop mine in a tank of hungry phiranas than read any more of that.
>Oh no I have gone cross eyed.
>
>
> "Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
> news:n-ednZNzxboAOErZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
| |
| David Parkes 2006-08-09, 5:47 am |
| Hell yeh!! They all gather around the drawing boards with their FLOPS out!
"Yoshi" <y@home.com> wrote in message
news:%p5Cg.56146$rp4.53204@tornado.texas.rr.com...
quote:
>I have this image now of these game developers programming in the nude
>while their dingaling "FLOPS" around.
>
>
> "David Parkes" <wibble@wobble.com> wrote in message
> news:uvx4HGwuGHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>
| |
| Mattinglyfan 2006-08-09, 8:10 pm |
|
"timeOday" <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote in message
news:44idnUf3476dyUTZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
quote:
> Zackman wrote:
>
> If developer skill and game design are all that matter, why buy a PS3 when
> skilled developers can and do make great-playing games for the PS2 I
> already own? I don't think we can write off hardware capabilities when,
> after all, the new model is just a hardware upgrade over the old one.
"have much less" and "all" are two different things. That may have been
your interpretation but that is not what was stated.
|
| |
|
|