.... There's a wall between the two universes that is only crossed on gaming forums and websites and by some who frequent them.
Or by Steam.
News and Rumours: PS4
- Thread starter dobwal
- Start date
Or by Steam.
When you make statements like this you really need to define "better".
IMO most people vastly overrate cell as a processor based on it's esoteric architecture and the peak flop number.
You just proved my example of the mystifying effect of exotic hardware.
I personally would rate an original Athlon 64 X2 at the same 3.2GHz clock speed to be a better CPU than Cell when both in the same closed system. An A8 at 2.9GHz is at least 2 times as capable (CPU only) as the same X2 so....
We already have a developer (metro 2033) backing this up with Xenon. Despite cell's ability to pick up the vertex processing slack from RSX, I don't think Cell is better than Xenon as a gaming CPU, and if it is, not by much.
Of course we have no real way of making fair comparisons so feel free to remain positively mystified. If no one can actually objectively compare it to other hardware, it must be as good as they say it is!
And what are you basing these comments on, in particular the idea that the PS3 Cell can properly power a top spec GPU (GF 680 / AMD 7970)? And by the same logic would you say that Xenon, which has its fair share of titles it performs better in, would be a good choice for MS to pair with a top spec GPU? And are the x86 guys so clueless that little itty bitty <10mm^2 @ 28nm CPU cores from 10 year old PPC technology are better CPUs than their 50mm^2 ones? Some analysis would be helpful. This is B3D after all not GAF or IGN.
That sounds interesting, can you point me too that?
But yeah, current gen AMD quad cores must be an incredible dream to a programmer compared to Cell...
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Maybe so, but I've based the Cell's performance from the dozen or so white papers I've seen (fluid dynamics, cloth dynamics, etc). Some of those papers even show the performance difference between the PPE and an SPE in those simulations. I've, also, seen some of the 1st party games from Sony's studios. I've seen the DICE presentation, for Battlefield 3, where occlusion culling performance was almost twice that of an Intel i7 2.6 GHz processor. I can't just ignore things like that. I can't ignore the best examples in games this generation. Similarly styled games like Dante's Inferno and God of War III look and perform world's apart. Is there a processor that has the kind of inter-core bandwidth the Cell processor, of 6 years ago, has on-chip yet?
I think the Cell processor is a fine processor for gaming and multimedia purposes. I don't belief any processor on the market, in the next few years, would be able to overtake the near linear performance increase of an 18 core Cell processor (two 2006 Cell processors).
Also, when people say Xenon is not far off from the performance of the Cell processor currently in the PS3, I automatically assume that's on poorly written code. Or, it's on code that doesn't take advantage of the Cell's architecture.
Useless personal anecdote, in a game like SWTOR i see my i7 at 25%, that is a fairly new game and it's "only" asking for 25% of the CPU power.
Lets play pretend, lets pretend you took your antique CPU and replaced it with a Cell, wouldn't you gain FPS?
And the Cell in the PS3 is using 6 SPU's
How is a standard CPU from intel or amd better than a Cell cpu.. in games?
Didn't the cell prove itself in the past 5 years? Exotic, yes, specialized, yes?
Is the x86 family just good because it's easier to develop for, or because it can perform better in games than a Cell cpu can?
For all we know the Cell hasn't had a chance to show it's true potentiel with a proper GPU since it's been busy helping the RSX looking good, of course it could be said it's just what it was meant to do. But afaik it hasn't been used for anything exotic besides that.
And it's well documented and the developers have the tools and the knowledge now , they wont start from scratch.
Lets get a mild Cell2 upgrade based on the IBM "monster" where all SPU's can be used and add a Kepler GPU.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Comparing it to desktop is hardly going to give us much insight into anything. Each of those SPU's while highly specialized and quite quick at what they were designed to do is ultimately fare less capable than a traditional CPU core.
Added to that in the desktop space you have to deal with OS overhead that is required in order for it to be a secure and stable platform within which you can run practically any type of application you want at any point in time with multiple other applications also vying for your CPU/memory/storage/GPU resources.
Stick a Cell in a PC and it's likely to struggly signficantly, especially if any sort of multi-tasking is thrown at it.
Cell does particularly well for Sony as the SPU's can some of the GPU related tasks that the included GPU isn't capable of. If it had a better GPU, would developers still be able to achieve decent utilization on it compared to a CPU with more traditional and less specialed cores?
At the end of the day we'll never get a chance to find out as Sony has likely concluded that it makes absolutely zero financial sense to invest in further developement in Cell, when it is quite likely they would be the only ones using it. And that point is driven home even more so with the financial difficulties the company is having.
And for all we know that conclusion could have been helped along when they found out that Cell's benefits are rapidly lost once you have a modern GPU in the system. But again we'll never know. Although I'm assuming that they at least attempted to determine whether Cell would still be useful in a future console considering the work already done with regards to the PS3.
The fact that they are willing to basically throw all that away speaks volumes for how a potential Cell would have performed in light of how much it would have cost.
Regards,
SB
I don't know that Joe Gamer dabbles at all with Steam, or even knows it as an option.
Steam is supported on PS3, at least in some games. I also find it really hard to believe those few million active users it has on PC+mac are all hardcore gamers
I won't argue against Steam offering a cross-over platform for console gamers. However, I don't believe it has significant relevance in the current gamer mindshare to actually position consoles as an alternative platform, such that 100+ million current console gamers will merrily defect to PC next gen because it has superior specs to the next-gen consoles. And I don't think Joe Gamer would even be aware of the difference between the PC games and the console versions either, such that they'd consider trying out this Steam thing on a new PC they'd buy instead of a console.
When Steam starts advertising on TV and sponsoring football matches and the like, then it might start to draw cosole gamers away. Otherwise I don't believe there's a natural migration path from console to PC that would be followed based on hardware specs.
When Steam starts advertising on TV and sponsoring football matches and the like, then it might start to draw cosole gamers away. Otherwise I don't believe there's a natural migration path from console to PC that would be followed based on hardware specs.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I'm completely with Rangers on this one. I dont think any typical games cosole consumer compares the consoles to PCs. They'll compare PS4 to Wuu and XB3. If it's comparable, they won't be turned off. If it's superior (imagine MS really cheap out for some reason) then PS4 will sell to the COD-type fans despite the PC offering a better experience. There isn't yet a direct connection between PC and console gaming that makes them interchangeable. There's a wall between the two universes that is only crossed on gaming forums and websites and by some who frequent them.
My point was more the performance of current high-end PC HW in actual games.
E.g. before this gen started (which interestingly was before my initiation into the sordid world of online gaming news outlets/sites/forums), I used to look at the PC releases at the time, e.g. Doom 3, Morrowind, X3 Reunion etc and wish for a next-gen console with similar or higher fidelity graphics in games. I was much more of the typical games console consumer back then, which makes me believe that gamers of all types would look at top spec games running on high-end PC HW this gen, e.g. Battlefield 3, Crysis 1 & 2 etc, and hope for next-gen console which can equal or outmatch that level of visuals.
These current gen games like Battlefield 3 for example have been marketed exclusively on PC with the highest specs to show what the game engines themselves are capable of, even outside online gaming spheres and most definintely into the more casual gaming and typical console gamer spaces. I don't believe that typical console gamers would be ignorant of what the top end games look like running maxed out on high-end PC HW (portals like Youtube are a major factor in this). Hence there would be at least a desire to see next-gen HW that can compete with that which is already readily available to the most enthusiast level PC gamers.
Consoles don't simply exist in a vaccuum, even to more casual and less hardcore console gamers. I think you and Rangers fairly underestimate what the majority of people with even a passing interest in console gaming have been exposed to.
Console gamers mostly compare console to console than PC to console, but when we move to next gen we have high expectations. If what we get is not a significant difference above the previous generation and on similar levels as a top of the line gaming PC then yes we will be disappointed!
With each generation we expect to be impressed with some new graphical and technical features that previously were thought impossible or were unseen. We are already familiar with what powerful PC's can do so expecting some close performance to those PC's will have a hard time impressing us let alone some mid range PC. So yes I am going to be sad with both my next XBOX or PS4 when they dont come with some outstanding performance regardless of which one is more powerful.
And lets face it, current PC games, even though they can run games at 1080p, 60fps, 4xMSAA, better textures and enhanced physics they play and look like enhanced current console games. This is not what we want.
I want to buy my new console and have some AAA title that will make me feel like I am introduced to a new experience. A shift to the new generation. Not some introduction to what was available 1 or 2 years ago in the PC world.
With each generation we expect to be impressed with some new graphical and technical features that previously were thought impossible or were unseen. We are already familiar with what powerful PC's can do so expecting some close performance to those PC's will have a hard time impressing us let alone some mid range PC. So yes I am going to be sad with both my next XBOX or PS4 when they dont come with some outstanding performance regardless of which one is more powerful.
And lets face it, current PC games, even though they can run games at 1080p, 60fps, 4xMSAA, better textures and enhanced physics they play and look like enhanced current console games. This is not what we want.
I want to buy my new console and have some AAA title that will make me feel like I am introduced to a new experience. A shift to the new generation. Not some introduction to what was available 1 or 2 years ago in the PC world.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
For people like here in B3D yes, for others not so much.
They don't care about the hardware, all they care about is what's on the screen and even by using what would be considered mid range hardware in the pc world, games will still look much much better than they do now. Not just like console versions, but more polished as is the case with pc's these days.
They don't care about the hardware, all they care about is what's on the screen and even by using what would be considered mid range hardware in the pc world, games will still look much much better than they do now. Not just like console versions, but more polished as is the case with pc's these days.
How does Joe Gamer know what a top-of-the-line gaming PC is capable of? TBH I don't know what a TOTL gaming PC can do. Without any need to go find out, I remain ignorant. Unless someone is telling Joe Gamer, they'll only know what they come across. For those who frequent gaming sites, they might have an inkling, and might get disappointed. For everyone else, they'll look at what the new consoles achieve next to the old consoles and go, "oooo, it's priddy."
People dont need to go to technical forums, or be able to read and understand specs to have certain expectations about what they want to see on screen next gen.
The on screen difference these people perceive between current consoles and current PC is similar to XBOX vs PS2 and they are familiar of that "much better than they do now" already. But thats not the kind of improvement they expect to see.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
That's pretty easy... they look at the advert of Battlefield 3 that EA plasters all over their TV, or on the internet, or at the superbowl, or on Youtube, and see graphics that are clearly and high distinguishable than what they see on their console when they fire up the game.
Then they'll go, "I expect next gen console to look this good" ;-)
I'm with Nash. I think the general perception internet gamers have of typical gamers is a bit warped.
The majority of console gamers can tell the difference between PC visuals and console visuals imho. Many of my work friends, who are the most casual gamers I know, know and have seen PC games like the Witcher 2, Crysis and Battlefield 3, and can tell the difference between that and what current consoles look like. Said people would look at next gen visuals through those goggles, already having an idea of what, "better than console" visuals look like. I think that's a fair statement to make
I love nice graphics but right now it's to the point where graphics will not mean that much next gen & it's more about what can be done with the tech of the Next Gen Consoles.
I'm really not seeing a time in the next 2 or 3 years where Uncharted 3 & The Last Of Us graphics are not good enough for everyday people.
better graphics is not going to push many people to buy PS4 / Xbox Next over what's already out here it's going to have to be better gameplay & new features that separate the consoles from what's already out here.
I'm really not seeing a time in the next 2 or 3 years where Uncharted 3 & The Last Of Us graphics are not good enough for everyday people.
better graphics is not going to push many people to buy PS4 / Xbox Next over what's already out here it's going to have to be better gameplay & new features that separate the consoles from what's already out here.
