What went wrong/right?

What went wrong/right?

Attached: PlayStation-3-Cell-BE-CPU.jpg (1920x1080, 459.94K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1B1SSdSAhqY
youtube.com/watch?v=HgZEPPuG4Rc
youtube.com/watch?v=97qCFh77Ldk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

lol i thought it was some indie shit from the thumbnail

Basically everything. Xenon was a better CPU except for extremely rare corner cases.

Nothing went wrong.
Now that ibm went to shit we can use x86/x64 across all systems.

it's a stream processor not a general purpose processor. they also had production problems that plagued the device for ages.

Is it true that its more powerful than most intel CPUs?

>What went wrong
programming for it is obtuse as hell

>rare corner cases
i.e. the best games of the generation

It was designed to be used in large scale parallel for the purpose of supercomputing, not for just one of them to sit in a video game console alone. Sony's delusion that the Cell would be so ubiquitous and in every home appliance and electronic that everyone would have a "Cell supercomputer" in their home was utter insanity.

The strongest individual processor to exist.

Some games look extremely good for that hardware, most multiplatform are really bad

also it nicely forced devs to program games for more than 4 threads

reason multiplats look bad is because the nvidia gpu is worse than the amd one in the xbox360 and the cpu is not good at multithreading

no games for the ps3 or xbox360 had support for more than 3 threads as we understand them, stop posting dumb stuff. The PS3 also didn't force devs to multithread the games because they gave up and it came as a secondary release. Thus the best version was the xbox360 one

All those extra threads were doing was graphics processing because devs had to use the Cell to make up for the underpowered GPU in the console in order to maintain some semblance of parity with the 360. Besides, contrary to popular belief, you can't just slice up a video game into as many threads as you want and have them all execute simultaneously in order to get games to run faster.

PS3 exclusives don't look better than 360 multiplats.

Too expensive.
It was capable, but a better GPU would have been a superior investment.
Imagine if the PS3 had a G80.

Oh sorry didn't know I was certain I read somewhere that some games used all cored on Cell to fully utilize it

You have to have a high IQ to code for it and most devs are mentally ill trannies and Indians so there's a struggle

Get your eyes checked niggerfaggot

Attached: 1351812926613.jpg (1280x1440, 226.29K)

Owning both consoles and having played the supposed best of the PS3 exclusives, e.g. Naughty Dog's trash, he's right. Multiplats from the major publishers like Rockstar and Ubisoft pretty much always looks as good and often better than the PS3 exclusives.

Bullshit. Multiplats looked better on the Xbox because
1. the Cell was too hard to program for
2. the Xbox' GPU was miles better

Attached: 1354454754300.jpg (1280x1440, 1.67M)

Naughty Dog's famous games from that gen had such terrible framerates that it wasn't worth it desu

Itself was good, but development was hell, and if you mean the PS3 in general, I'd say the low memory capacity is what bottlenecked the CPU since it threaded well, but needed bandwidth to do it, which 256MB+256MB.

That's what I just said. Xenon was a better CPU than Cell and Xenos was a better GPU than RSX.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Xenon is based on Cell though. If MS would've had to use the cores from a PowerMac as the basis, the 360 would've been complete garbage.

>Xenos was better than RSX
Sure.
>Xenon was better than Cell
No way.
Maybe in practice, but multiplats started equalizing once developers learned to make better use of it. The fact that the PS3 could compete at all in spite of its inferior GPU and memory architecture is a testament to this.

>so tedious/complex to program for that devs just gave up and coded games as if it only had 1 thread

Yeah, Xenon is the good parts of Cell with the stupid shit stripped out. More PPC cores + VMX128 >>>>> gay SPUs.

The PS3 couldn't compete, games nearly universally ran worse on that platform. Look at any R* game. Look at Bayonetta.

>1. the Cell was too hard to program for
I keep hearing this, same as was always claimed about the PS2, but as far as I know it's not really true. It wasn't that it was too hard to program for, it's that it had design flaws. If a chainsaw has blunt teeth and can't cut wood the problem is not that it's too hard for the operator to use and requires great skill, the problem is the chainsaw sucks.

I still have nightmares of playing GTA IV on release in like 15-20 fps I wonder if they ever fixed that

>Look at any R* game
GTA 5 is almost completely identical on both platforms. Even with a marginally lower performance, it shows some benefits in texture LOD.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, at least for the PS2. That console's dev tools were painfully unfriendly on top of the architecture being completely baroque. Most devs didn't even bother using the VU0 coprocessor according to a Sony conference. But if you can manage the crazy balancing act of keeping every subsystem active in parallel, then you get relatively good performance.
On PS3 it counted for less because even theoretical peak performance sucked compared to 360.

Except it leaked out that Sony began getting devs of high profile releases to maintain parity between platforms because after all their talk about how mindblowingly powerful the PS3 was they were a little embarrassed the cheaper 360 consistently had better graphics.

It's only truly flawed it is of a theoretical nature.
The Cell was theoretically powerful, packing a lot of operations per second.
A more accurate analogy would be a small manual screwdriver VS a bulky electronic one that is incredibly fast, but is hard to carry around and use in tight spots. In the end, the small handy tool gets the job done faster most of the time.

Attached: goalposts.jpg (300x240, 27.44K)

I do believe it a lot more about the PS2 than the PS3 because even Sony's inhouse devs had issues with the PS2 and had to build elaborate optimization kits for development which Sony kept for themselves. It did allow them to do some magic though, like having Gran Turismo running at 1080i on the PS2.

GTA V is the only one. RDR runs at a significantly lower resolution and still has a significantly worse framerate.

The Gran Turismo thing is kinda bullshit, IIRC it was upscaled from ~540p, even so it's impressive considering the console's VRAM limitations.
PS2 devkits were famously shit, according to some devs the early ones only had a debugger for the main CPU leaving you flying blind for the two coprocessors.
PS3 is in some ways an evolution of the PS2's design from an architectural perspective but with 360 cherrypicking its best aspects and adding its own improvements it left the PS3 sorely lacking.

If it makes you feel better both Microsoft and Sony are guilty of this. Microsoft just happened to have the better hardware last gen but jump to current gen and there were instances of PS4 releases being downgraded to maintain parity with the xbox one. The console gaming industry is very dirty.

It had insane potential for that gen

MGS 5, 2015
And I doubt that in 1999 those hi-res textures could be displayed above 5 fps.

Attached: ms5 ps3 textures.jpg (1280x720, 225.62K)

Too based for its own good, for every Uncharted 2 and 3 we had a dozen drecks like the Bayonetta port

The real win of the Cell was animation, which Naughty Dog leveraged well.

>What went wrong
Going full retard betting on the cell to be the next revolutionary piece of technology
>What went right
Going full retard betting on blu ray to be the next revolutionary piece of technology, only it paid off.

Blu-ray did not pay off, user. It never even got close to the success of DVD and it's never going to because streaming has killed it. Sony made the mistake of being greedy and having a premium on bluray assuming people cared enough about HD to pay it. Most people did not.

Nobody cares about blu ray videos. Blu rays are only useful for physical games.

>And I doubt that in 1999 those hi-res textures could be displayed above 5 fps.
youtube.com/watch?v=1B1SSdSAhqY

Definitely could. I think that user posted textures from the special S3 MeTaL version. UT ran pretty decently on a Savage4.

more like 65fps at 1024x768 in 2000 when the ps2 ran games at 480i years later
youtube.com/watch?v=HgZEPPuG4Rc

Name one (1) PS3 game that can compete with this.
youtube.com/watch?v=97qCFh77Ldk

The PS3 was a pretty cheap Blu-ray player. Even if people didn't care about it as much, there is no denying that it impacted sales positively.

Attached: cell.png (793x740, 532.04K)

CPUs and GPUs do very different things. The fact that the Cell was like a modern GPU does not mean it was ahead of its time, it means it wasn't fit for purpose as a CPU. It was designed to be a massive number cruncher in supercomputing applications. GPUs are basically just massive number crunchers too. A CPU is not that and never will be. It's not the nature of its role. That's why Nvidia isn't selling their GPUs as CPUs.

>That's why Nvidia isn't selling their GPUs as CPUs.

Attached: tesla.png (869x327, 41.73K)

This. GPGPUs are what Cell wishes it could be.

That's just validating exactly what I said. These chips are great as number crunchers in server and supercomputing applications but not as general computing CPUs.

Attached: 700.jpg (208x326, 14.74K)