PhysX: PS3 can handle it; 360 features limited

[mckmas8808]

Where did I call you a f@nboy? I just said I'd rather err on the side of caution than hype the Cell up as someing "as good as a dedicated PPU" which is obvious bullshit and would make me look like a f@nboy. I didn't say the Cell wasn't good at physics. I just found a problem with people equating it with a dedicated physics processor based on one isolated technical demonstration.

Well you can't blame some people. The Aegia guys said it themselves. They are the ones that made the charts. Don't blame more than blaming some people here.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Well you can't blame some people. The Aegia guys said it themselves. They are the ones that made the charts. Don't blame more than blaming some people here.

If you are insinuating that Ageia equated the Cell with an actual dedicated PPU, then you are seriously mistaken.

 

[_phil_]

If you are insinuating that Ageia equated the Cell with an actual dedicated PPU, then you are seriously mistaken.

they've done that.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

They haven't done that. You misinterpreted.

90% of misinterpretation is wishful thinking while the other 10% is ignorance.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Aegia haven't said that Cell=PPU, but they have placed both into the same ball park/league. They have said both these solutions will provide a complete simulation platform without leaving bits out. As for whether Cell = PPU in PhysX solution that's not an impossibility, especially if the PhysX chip is clocked fairly slow, but of course in the PS3 devs are unlikely to be able to dedicate pretty much 100% of their processor to PhysX. Head to head a game on PS3 will not have the same physics potential as that same game on a dual-core PC with PhysX PPU - the latter has a lot more silicon to throw at the problem.

 

[Thegameman]

I think the last news was more of cover up than anything else,those people openly say the xbox 360 could not handle all the features,cuz of the hardware limitation.


Now they try to fix it,something happen here.

 

[_phil_]

They haven't done that. You misinterpreted.

90% of misinterpretation is wishful thinking while the other 10% is ignorance.

and no % left for lies ?

In fact ,it's something in the lines :"PS3 ad PPU are very very close "(possiblilties ,performance ,and architecture).

If my ears do work well.
Mark Rein said it too (repeting what he's been told ,most probably), less than a meter here ,sitting at his UE3 live demo.

As i said ,maybe they lied ,Ageia is not clean and fair at PR (i've my own proof of them baltantly lying).

 

[MrFloopy]

and no % left for lies ?

In fact ,it's something in the lines :"PS3 ad PPU are very very close "(possiblilties ,performance ,and architecture).

If my ears do work well.
Mark Rein said it too (repeting what he's been told ,most probably), less than a meter here ,sitting at his UE3 live demo.

As i said ,maybe they lied ,Ageia is not clean and fair at PR (i've my own proof of them baltantly lying).

Aahh, who cares. It's all pointless crap anyway.

 

[hugo]

Well after going through this thread I have found out that many of the posters weren't comfortable with the fact that Cell > Xenon when it comes to physic calculations.

Why?

 

[mckmas8808]

Well after going through this thread I have found out that many of the posters weren't comfortable with the fact that Cell > Xenon when it comes to physic calculations.

Why?

I'd like to know that answer too. Because you have other posters that say, "What did you expect that's what the CELL is great at". Why are there two different sides to this issue?

 

[BTOA]

Well after going through this thread I have found out that many of the posters weren't comfortable with the fact that Cell > Xenon when it comes to physic calculations.

Why?

Fan boyism, its a mental disorder. :|

 

[_phil_]

Aahh, who cares. It's all pointless crap anyway.

completly agreed.

 

[mckmas8808]

Aahh, who cares. It's all pointless crap anyway.

Pointless. Yeah right. We'll see in the games.

 

[MoeStooge]

Aahh, who cares. It's all pointless crap anyway.

I don't know if its pointless crap, but people have spent waaaay too much time debating something that is not likely to be that important.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Aegia haven't said that Cell=PPU, but they have placed both into the same ball park/league. They have said both these solutions will provide a complete simulation platform without leaving bits out. As for whether Cell = PPU in PhysX solution that's not an impossibility, especially if the PhysX chip is clocked fairly slow, but of course in the PS3 devs are unlikely to be able to dedicate pretty much 100% of their processor to PhysX. Head to head a game on PS3 will not have the same physics potential as that same game on a dual-core PC with PhysX PPU - the latter has a lot more silicon to throw at the problem.

This is exactly what I've been saying. Specialized hardware dedicated to ONE and only ONE task will always be better than even a powerful multi-function CPU.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

and no % left for lies ?

Probably, but everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Well after going through this thread I have found out that many of the posters weren't comfortable with the fact that Cell > Xenon when it comes to physic calculations.

Why?

Why? Well for one, we don't know. We only know that Cell SUPPOSEDLY has better THEORETICAL performance with this ONE physics SDK.

Ageia did not prove that Cell can generally do better physics than Xenon (show me a general, architecture agnostic SDK and I'll agree). While it may turn out to be true, we've seen nothing that proves this. I've been singing this same tune throughout this entire thread.

To help the mentally deficient, if it is shown that Havok performs better on Xenon than Cell, what will you conclude? Would you conclude that Xenon > Cell in physics? I wouldn't. I would just conclude that Havok favors Xenon's architecture.

</spam>

 

[Titanio]

Not to flog a dead horse, but this part of the 4Gamer.net article might provide an answer to the "is it or isn't it" question of how Cell relates to PhysX in terms of performance.

From babelfish:

In other words Lassanske, being dual core CPU loading PC, means to express that you are behind of Playstation 3 in the specifications aspect. If, whether more and more also the PC game end, if you say, here as for the same person,as "PhysX loading PC if, physical operation of the same level as Playstation 3 announcingthe demonstration which used the apparatus of the PhysX on-board card, possible", you showed.

It's a messy translation, but Lassanske mentions "Playstation 3" "PhysX PC" and "operation of the same level" in the same sentence Can anyone provide a more decent translation? Or even of the whole article (a lot to ask, I know!). There's another bit later on that mentions PS3 again when talking about a PhysX-enabled PC's performance with the boulders demo.

Again, Babelfish:

That, "will try leaving physical operation to PhysX", that, when Lassanske modifies setting, frame rate roseto 35 -40fps at a stroke. The rolling of the rock of course smooth. Furthermore, as for the activity ratio of CPU which is visible from the task manager it understands that it has gone down at a stroke. Truly as Playstation 3 being the same level, in addition, whether this demonstration has linked with the actual game to somewhere you probably can call impact great ones as anyhow.

 

[_phil_]

completly agreed.

nota bene: ps3 has still more room than x360 in physics departement.

 

[mckmas8808]

To help the mentally deficient, if it is shown that Havok performs better on Xenon than Cell, what will you conclude? Would you conclude that Xenon > Cell in physics? I wouldn't. I would just conclude that Havok favors Xenon's architecture.

</spam>

I would conclude the exact samething that you just said also. So I guess we will have to see in the future.