How would you react when the PSX3 spec reads 240~480 GFLOPS?
- Thread starter DeadmeatGA
- Start date
randycat99
Veteran
My guess for DMGA is that he would suddenly quiet down about the 1 TFLOP debacle and then concentrate on the "well it will be impossible to program by mere mortals" debacle.
that's not what I meant really. what I was trying to convey is that this post is effectively asking if avocates of this overspeculation on PS3 will eat humble pie where wrong.
my question was since DA's deductions are (for the most part) reasonable if it is the case that Sony deleviers (to an extent) a TFLOP chip. Will he reexamine his reasoning or just shrug it off?
my question was since DA's deductions are (for the most part) reasonable if it is the case that Sony deleviers (to an extent) a TFLOP chip. Will he reexamine his reasoning or just shrug it off?
randycat99
Veteran
notAFanB said:
I believe my comment was addressing just that. My "inner profiler" tells me he will simply adapt to another conundrum to harp upon. The larger agenda isn't that Sony might miss the 1 TFLOP target. It is that the PS3 will fail on any and all levels... Maybe the real question DMGA could answer for us is if the PS3 turns out to be a success on a technical and functional level, how will he respond?
Test your FLOPs rating of your current PC CPU!
http://passmark.swmirror.com/petst.exe
flops slops hops, give me good graphics are the importance rather than some PR crap.
http://passmark.swmirror.com/petst.exe
flops slops hops, give me good graphics are the importance rather than some PR crap.
<laughs> That's the one!
But on a sad note, my computer isn't that floppy...
But wait, I still have fun with it! How can that BE?
But on a sad note, my computer isn't that floppy...
But wait, I still have fun with it! How can that BE?
Megadrive1988
Veteran
N64: 200 MFLOPs (CPU+GPU)
NGC: 10.5 GFLOPs (CPU+GPU)
N5: 500 GFLOPs (CPU+GPU) ????
NGC: 10.5 GFLOPs (CPU+GPU)
N5: 500 GFLOPs (CPU+GPU) ????
Oh, all this while I was asleep? Good job on your trolling, Deadmeat!
What I'd say if PS3 has "only" 480Gflops? "Kick Arse!, that's at least 10x more than any pentium CPU M$ decides to stick in XB2!" Hell, even half of that will still be a massive amount of programmable computing power, but I severely doubt it will be as little as that. PS2 has 6.2 programmabe Gflops which was unheard-of levels of computing power for a cheap consumer device. The step up from that to 240GF isn't quite as impressive for a 2005 device, I truly expect more than that.
What I really wanna know though, is what YOU will say if PS3 really does have a Cell with 1Tflop performance - or near enough anyway.
Will you like eat poison and die, or commit harakiri or something? (Appealing as the thought would seem, I don't think you have the guts for it...figuratively speaking of course.)
These are more like nvflops you know. They count literally everything on the chip that can be considered a floating-point operation, including completely hardcoded stuff like texture lookups and texel filtering that cannot be used for anything else. A rather insignificant portion of that number is actually programmable flops such as seen in a regular processor.
*G*
What I'd say if PS3 has "only" 480Gflops? "Kick Arse!, that's at least 10x more than any pentium CPU M$ decides to stick in XB2!" Hell, even half of that will still be a massive amount of programmable computing power, but I severely doubt it will be as little as that. PS2 has 6.2 programmabe Gflops which was unheard-of levels of computing power for a cheap consumer device. The step up from that to 240GF isn't quite as impressive for a 2005 device, I truly expect more than that.
What I really wanna know though, is what YOU will say if PS3 really does have a Cell with 1Tflop performance - or near enough anyway.
Will you like eat poison and die, or commit harakiri or something? (Appealing as the thought would seem, I don't think you have the guts for it...figuratively speaking of course.
)Geeforcer said:
These are more like nvflops you know. They count literally everything on the chip that can be considered a floating-point operation, including completely hardcoded stuff like texture lookups and texel filtering that cannot be used for anything else. A rather insignificant portion of that number is actually programmable flops such as seen in a regular processor.
*G*
BigGamer X
Newcomer
What do you know, the other troll showed up
Who cares about flops, give me RAM and a good storage medium.
Who cares about flops, give me RAM and a good storage medium.
zidane1strife
Banned
Indeed.
For comparison purposes
IIRC, the xgpu was capable of 80Gflops... strangely it doesn't even double the vert perf of vu1 with approx.. 3Gflops involved in achieving that vertex perf(IIRC, faf said vu1 was used for the 66m vert numbers.)
We see how ridiculously inflated those numbers... 80Gflops gpu not even doubling the vertex perf. of a 3Gflops vu1...
The radeon 9800 does only about 5x the vertex perf of that 3Gflops vu1...
ed