3DFX SAGE compared to CELL?
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
I think, as long as TNL is done properly, who cares if it's on the CPU or on the GPU?
Personally, if there is enough bandwidth between the CPU and the GPU, i kinda like the idea of having a whole GPU taking care of pixel shading and a much faster CPU taking care of geometry
Personally, if there is enough bandwidth between the CPU and the GPU, i kinda like the idea of having a whole GPU taking care of pixel shading and a much faster CPU taking care of geometry
Sage + Rampage,how much time has passed
Back in 2000 Sage was supposed to be an Emotion Engine killer in flops count.A few sites were speculating about a 100 million polygons/s figure.
While Ramapage would have been VSA 200.
It's a shame we have never known its specifics It would have been a GF3 killer.
Back in 2000 Sage was supposed to be an Emotion Engine killer in flops count.A few sites were speculating about a 100 million polygons/s figure.
While Ramapage would have been VSA 200.
It's a shame we have never known its specifics
It would have been a GF3 killer.LOL I can't believe people are still talking about that machine.
In 5 years the next next generation is going to come out, and people will be like 'omg its going to be just as powerful as Rampage was'
We never knew anything except PR on that vaporware machine, we had no idea how it was going to compare to GF3, much less things years ahead of it in technology.
Rule of thumb. Don't get caught up in the hype. PS2 was not a supercomputer, despite the immense pr effort that fooled so many people. PS3 won't be a supercomputer either, nor will Xbox2 or <insert next-next generation speculative hardware>
In 5 years the next next generation is going to come out, and people will be like 'omg its going to be just as powerful as Rampage was'
We never knew anything except PR on that vaporware machine, we had no idea how it was going to compare to GF3, much less things years ahead of it in technology.
Rule of thumb. Don't get caught up in the hype. PS2 was not a supercomputer, despite the immense pr effort that fooled so many people. PS3 won't be a supercomputer either, nor will Xbox2 or <insert next-next generation speculative hardware>
Vis-a-vis Rampage:
The proposed fragment combiner mechanism ("ps1.0") for Rampage wasn't that great, it was even more limited than that of the NV2X's. Example: you could only write an intermediate result to one of two temporaries; in contrast NV hardware has for a while allowed output to at least six registers as did of course the Radeon 8500. Apparently (from what I've been told) it also could not access two different texture color or interpolated color registers in one instruction.
How well Rampage would have performed next to GF4 and R8500, its erstwhile comtemporaries, is anyone's guess. However the fact that it was limited to only one texture unit and one raster operator per fragment pipeline, while not being dispositive proof of anything substantial, doesn't bode well.
The proposed fragment combiner mechanism ("ps1.0") for Rampage wasn't that great, it was even more limited than that of the NV2X's. Example: you could only write an intermediate result to one of two temporaries; in contrast NV hardware has for a while allowed output to at least six registers as did of course the Radeon 8500. Apparently (from what I've been told) it also could not access two different texture color or interpolated color registers in one instruction.
How well Rampage would have performed next to GF4 and R8500, its erstwhile comtemporaries, is anyone's guess. However the fact that it was limited to only one texture unit and one raster operator per fragment pipeline, while not being dispositive proof of anything substantial, doesn't bode well.
Anyone who believes a PS2 or PS3 for that matter to be a supercomputer is smoking something hallucinogenic. Hundreds or thousands of them linked together could be considered a supercomputer though....just like hundreds or thousands of PCs.
What is the *cough* DP GFLOPS rating for a PS2 or PS3?
What is the *cough* DP GFLOPS rating for a PS2 or PS3?
Deepak said:Simon F said:
PS3/XB2/GC2 could fit that description (in future), except that "largest".
No they won't, because they won't achieve the performance of what is considered a Supercomputer.
For example, these are the top 5 from Nov 2004: http://www.top500.org/lists/2004/11/. The quoted figures are, presumably, produced by running the LinPack code so I would assume are not theoretical numbers.
Simon F said:Deepak said:Simon F said:
PS3/XB2/GC2 could fit that description (in future), except that "largest".
No they won't, because they won't achieve the performance of what is considered a Supercomputer.
For example, these are the top 5 from Nov 2004: http://www.top500.org/lists/2004/11/. The quoted figures are, presumably, produced by running the LinPack code so I would assume are not theoretical numbers.
I am confused.
So, anything outside of that top 500 list is not a "supercomputer"? Is there a cutoff line that anything above that can be a "supercomputer"? Like 1 TFlops? Is Linpack or any similar package a must before a machine could be considered a "supercomputer"?
Deepak said:Simon F said:Deepak said:Simon F said:
PS3/XB2/GC2 could fit that description (in future), except that "largest".
No they won't, because they won't achieve the performance of what is considered a Supercomputer.
For example, these are the top 5 from Nov 2004: http://www.top500.org/lists/2004/11/. The quoted figures are, presumably, produced by running the LinPack code so I would assume are not theoretical numbers.
I am confused.
So, anything outside of that top 500 list is not a "supercomputer"? Is there a cutoff line that anything above that can be a "supercomputer"? Like 1 TFlops? Is Linpack or any similar package a must before a machine could be considered a "supercomputer"?
Give it up dude. PS3 ain't no friggen supercomputer no matter how much you WANT it to be. TFLOPS??? LMAO....if you still believe PS3 will have 1 TFLOPS of DOUBLE PRECISION performance then you'd better lay down that crack pipe....
Let me lay down the cold hard facts for you. The CELL that was described at ISSCC can only do 25-30 GFLOPS of DP computing PEAK. Time to wake up from that crack pipe dream...
PS the slowest supercomputer in the top500 does 1500 GFLOPS or 1.5 TFLOPS PEAK!!!
PC-Engine said:Give it up dude. PS3 ain't no friggen supercomputer no matter how much you WANT it to be. TFLOPS??? LMAO....if you still believe PS3 will have 1 TFLOPS of DOUBLE PRECISION performance then you'd better lay down that crack pipe....
Let me lay down the cold hard facts for you. The CELL that was described at ISSCC can only do 25-30 GFLOPS of DP computing PEAK. Time to wake up from that crack pipe dream...
PS the slowest supercomputer in the top500 does 1500 GFLOPS or 1.5 TFLOPS PEAK!!!
The guy only made a simple question PCE, no need to troll for that. :|
Deepak said:
What about it?
If you want to feel better about your choice of console, then yes your PS2 could be considered a supercomputer....back in the early 70s.
Isn't this a bit old already.
There's should already be plenty of reasons to "feel good" about your console of choice, even if you are able to guide missiles with it.
There's should already be plenty of reasons to "feel good" about your console of choice, even if you are able to guide missiles with it.
