Is the PS3 on track to deliver full specs?

[London Geezer]

You presented the (mis-)info in what looked like a malicious way, like you usually do when talking about Sony. That's why you got what you got. You didn't post it "to gather opinions", you posted it as if it was real just because "the guy came out with that other 96MB rumour".

It's not about "our favourite piece of kit". Heck, if you read some of my latest posts, with the delay and everything, i've said many times that i probably won't get a PS3 and if only MS could get certain games, i'd run to get a 360! Really, get your info right and stop accusing people of having preferences based on the brand name, it's an insult to our intelligence and only shows how you have preferences based on the name of the company you buy into.

I'm studying marketing and i've been the first from day 1 who has accused Sony of taking advantage of their position, now risking to price themselves out of the market!


Anyway, has the 96MB RAM rumour actually been confirmed?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also I'm from America and "Hmmmmm" to me means "what do you think"?

Hmmmm doesn't really mean anything. It's a noise that's interpretted in context. I honestly couldn't tell whether that was a 'Hmmmmmm, is this to be believed?' noise or a 'Hmmmmm, sounds like Sony have been holding out on us' noise. Relying on an ambiguous sub-title to convey intentions, rather than making it clear in the bulk of the text, isn't the best way to avoid misunderstandings

 

[Hardknock]

You presented the (mis-)info in what looked like a malicious way, like you usually do when talking about Sony. That's why you got what you got. You didn't post it "to gather opinions", you posted it as if it was real just because "the guy came out with that other 96MB rumour".

It's not about "our favourite piece of kit". Heck, if you read some of my latest posts, with the delay and everything, i've said many times that i probably won't get a PS3 and if only MS could get certain games, i'd run to get a 360! Really, get your info right and stop accusing people of having preferences based on the brand name, it's an insult to our intelligence and only shows how you have preferences based on the name of the company you buy into.

I'm studying marketing and i've been the first from day 1 who has accused Sony of taking advantage of their position, now risking to price themselves out of the market!


Anyway, has the 96MB RAM rumour actually been confirmed?

You're such a walking contradiction and I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks for the input Shifty you're right maybe I could have been more clear.

 

[Arwin]

The quality of this thread is going down the drain.

Let's focus on something more tangible, shall we? For many, I think this is the first time we see a final PS3 in action. Taken from the Virtua Fighter 5 thread, here we have a couple of PS3s lined up and running, even with the announced special VF5 Arcade sticks connected through USB ...

 

[Arwin]

And we have confirmation of the Cell @ 3.2Ghz now as well:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33702

 

[scooby_dooby]

Where's the 'Any chance this is real?' comment that shows your not presenting this as new info, but are asking for verification?

You mean other than the fact he clearly said it was hearsay?

 

[liverkick]

Good god some of you people are sensitive when it comes to your favorite piece of electronics. I posted a rumor in a thread I didn't create in-order to get feedback from people who might actualy know what they're talking about to respond. A lot of these comments are unnecessary.

You're trying to deflect this into something its not. The issue was your claim it came from a reliable source (and without telling who or where the info came from). There was nothing "unnecessary" about addressing the credibility of this "source" whatsoever. FUD doesn't belong here.

 

[scooby_dooby]

You're trying to deflect this into something its not. The issue was your claim it came from a reliable source (and without telling who or where the info came from). There was nothing "unnecessary" about addressing the credibility of this "source" whatsoever. FUD doesn't belong here.

Is there any reason to believe Hardknock is lying? As far as I know he's always been a solid poster who does not spread FUD whatsoever.

How come we didn't crucify XBD when his 'sources' indicated a GPU drop? Double standard? Yes I think so.

All I'm saying it, take it for what it is, he's a good poster and a reputable member, he clearly stated it was hearsay from what was IHO a good source. Now, believe it or not, that's your call, but to accuse him of FUD and malicious posting is ridiculous.

 

[liverkick]

Is there any reason to believe Hardknock is lying? As far as I know he's always been a solid poster who does not spread FUD whatsoever.

How come we didn't crucify XBD when his 'sources' indicated a GPU drop? Double standard? Yes I think so.

All I'm saying it, take it for what it is, he's a good poster and a reputable member, he clearly stated it was hearsay from what was IHO a good source. Now, believe it or not, that's your call, but to accuse him of FUD and malicious posting is ridiculous.

I think you're misunderstanding me scooby. Read my posts in this thread again, and let me know where I accused Hardknock of lying and/or being the source of FUD. Here, I'll quote my post for your convenience.

The issue was your claim it came from a reliable source (and without telling who or where the info came from).

The "source" in question is DopeyFish from Opa-Ages. When I said "FUD doesn't belong here" I meant the source of it, as in don't link info from a forum and poster with a track record of questionable bullshit without clarifying who and where it came from.

 

[ROG27]

DopeyFish...

When I hear that name...other things come to mind, like:

Fishie
Deadmeat
Opa Age
Rei-rom Age
Kotaku
The Inquirer
And everything else that has no credibility what-so-ever (but not-so-surprisingly has an agenda)

 

[kimg]

Thank you for responding Vysez. The whole point of me posting this was to get it clarified. It's already running it's course at other sites.

Well, its not just run its course at sites and forums, but the confirmation Cell in PS3 was downgraded to 2.8 was mentioned on one of the largest newspapers in norway's internet sites.

What they prints lately, has been depressing copies of the Inquier mostly. I HAVE seen the rumors of 3 SPU's being available for the OS too, but the FULL info who got "leaked" is, the OS use 1 SPU, and can request 2 more. Games is free to USE those 2 SPU's, but need to free them up, if the OS requests them for own use.
That info originated from ps3portal.com, who was supposed to get it directly from a game devloper.

 

[Hardknock]

Well, its not just run its course at sites and forums, but the confirmation Cell in PS3 was downgraded to 2.8 was mentioned on one of the largest newspapers in norway's internet sites.

What they prints lately, has been depressing copies of the Inquier mostly. I HAVE seen the rumors of 3 SPU's being available for the OS too, but the FULL info who got "leaked" is, the OS use 1 SPU, and can request 2 more. Games is free to USE those 2 SPU's, but need to free them up, if the OS requests them for own use.
That info originated from ps3portal.com, who was supposed to get it directly from a game devloper.

So there was some truth to this afterall. Thank you good sir! :smile: I think I deserve an apology from a few folks, but of course I won't get one

 

[Carl B]

Kimg is just giving us what the 'full' rumor is, not affirming it's the truth.

Frankly if that *is* the rumor, isn't that just a play on a rumor we already heard once long ago? That the OS has priority to grab 'on call' SPEs to do it's dirty work? Of course back then I think the talk was for only one SPE to be 'on call' in such a way, but whatever...

Essentially what this means for available game resources though then, even if true, is no effect whatsoever.

 

[Carl B]

Ok I'm going to double post to get peoples attention...

Not only is it similar to the prior rumor, but if it truly is from PS3Portal as kimg says - then it's the *same* rumor as from April! And that rumor was debunked as a rumor, and shown to have it's origins in people browsing these very forums and pulling their info from a conversation they did not understand here.

Here's the last page of that thread of yore: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29818&page=14&highlight=Cell

Reading from post #336 on down gives the flavor of the dispute and it's resolution.

So whether the origin is a DopeyFish original, a new take on a past rumor from elsewhere, or truly just another round around the block for the PS3Portal interpretation, we're still left with the same conclusion: bogus.

 

[Mmmkay]

Ok I'm going to double post to get peoples attention...

Not only is it similar to the prior rumor, but if it truly is from PS3Portal as kimg says - then it's the *same* rumor as from April! And that rumor was debunked as a rumor, and shown to have it's origins in people browsing these very forums and pulling their info from a conversation they did not understand here.

Here's the last page of that thread of yore: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29818&page=14&highlight=Cell

Reading from post #336 on down gives the flavor of the dispute and it's resolution.

So whether the origin is a DopeyFish original, a new take on a past rumor from elsewhere, or truly just another round around the block for the PS3Portal interpretation, we're still left with the same conclusion: bogus.

I knew my alarm bells were ringing on all this... Just to give you an eyebrow raising moment:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=735898&postcount=89

Lookie who the source was back then.

 

[Carl B]

Well well well well well....

And I'm going to quote him on this, lest there be the 'lighning' edit.

afaik

X360 uses 30% of core 2 (the third core). CELL has 1 SPE for redundancy, 1 SPE for dedicated OS use and 1 SPE for on-demand OS use (which means it can take priority over software running and use it)

Basically that leaves 5 SPEs +1 unreliable SPE since you can't count on it being there because it could break a game

10-Apr-2006, 17:48

 

[Hardknock]

Well well well well well....

And I'm going to quote him on this, lest there be the 'lighning' edit.



10-Apr-2006, 17:48

Just curious, but when was this proven incorrect?

 

[Carl B]

Just curious, but when was this proven incorrect?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=737728&postcount=280

Linked to from the same page I linked above, pointing to posts #336 and below.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

On top of that, I find it rather absurd to think that grabbing an extra SPE on demand and taking over an existing thread is feasible. I mean, the contents of the LS is part of the state, which means that if you interrupt a working thread, you have to back all of that up somewhere, and then restore it when you're done. Which could easily take hundreds of thousands of cycles. While there's no physical barrier preventing you from doing this, it doesn't exactly fit with the idea of taking up an SPE's execution resources "on demand." Of course, the alternative is to just kill the previous execution context and report back to the app that the job failed and needs to be re-executed -- which is utterly unacceptable. That goes beyond shooting yourself in the foot and into building your own gallows before hanging yourself.

Secondly, where the hell does that 30% figure for 360's OS come from? What the hell is driving that metric? Did he see that some team managed to get 2 peer threads going on that core and thereby assumed that having 2 threads plus the OS means the OS must be using about 1/3rd of the core's computing power?

 

[Fafalada]

While there's no physical barrier preventing you from doing this, it doesn't exactly fit with the idea of taking up an SPE's execution resources "on demand."

Ok this has nothing to do with the rumour mongering discussion here - but "on demand" is a relative term.
Eg. on that, er... "handheld game thingie" - we can use volatile memory but under restriction that it hast to be 'freed' - "on demand" sometimes. The thing being that 'demand' time delta is like 15 seconds or so, in other words, plenty of time to do a large "context switch" (volatile memory is many times bigger then SPEs contexts).

Secondly, where the hell does that 30% figure for 360's OS come from? What the hell is driving that metric? Did he see that some team managed to get 2 peer threads going on that core and thereby assumed that having 2 threads plus the OS means the OS must be using about 1/3rd of the core's computing power?

Actually shouldn't the 360 be specified more like "xxx% of CPU + on demand GPU" after all every game I tried FPS dives into toilet when you bring dashboard up.