Josh378 said:
After reading some of those post on the GC board, I really don't see why Sony would need a PPU for PS3? I mean, if CELL is suppose to have the ability to act as a physics processor as well, it wouldn't make sense to add a PPU, especially one with less than half the transistors of CELL. Only way I cans see this is if the GPU of CELL was to be a PS or VS monster only and the CELL had to handle the VS and everything else, while the PPU would handle the physics.
If the Rumors are true, then the GPU of the PS3 should handle both PS and VS, freeing the CPU to do other tasks. Although, I'm not saying that a dedicated PPU wouldn't help the PS3. I just think that CELL should be handling the physics, since Sony said it was designed to handle massive physics..
-Josh378
edit: I may be wrong about this, but didn't IBM say that CELL is "scalable"...(stop me if I'm wrong with this)
What about a 2nd CELL with 1 PPC core and 4xSPU's with 128 XDR-ram as a dedicated physic processor at (3.0 ghz)...but what can I say? A man can dream right?
There are some various factors in play here as to why I and others think the PS3 would be at a disadvantage to the other consoles if they had PPUs and it didn't.
-the transistor count is not so relevant...it is how those transistors are spent.
Cells are general purpose a PPUs are not.
More instructions would have to executed on a Cell to achieve the same result with fewer instructions on the PPU.
-this is also relative to speed comparisons---i.e. comparing GPUs to CPUs
CPUs need to expend many many more cycles to get the same results compared to a part which is specialized to the task.
-Cell must perform other tasks often where a specialized part does not.
Cell must also handle AI, background tasks, keeping the SPEs busy, the supposed (the degree is only in question) acceleration of a software renderer, and also physics or physics based graphics (what this means?) etc. like sound maybe
A specialized part such as a PPU will only be put to task doing physics interactions.
it is not very reasonable to assume 125 million of the Cells transistor budget would be sequestered off or put to task for just physics on the norm. (ignoring the truth that transistor for transistor a Cell is not as efficient with physics calculations as a PPU would be)
-it will be a simpler task to get a PPU to do physics interactions than it would be to tell a Cell to do the same. Ease of use could adversely affect the Cells efficiency or rather potential made kinetic in comparison with respect to physics or any other task for which a dedicated part is used.
This is not to say the Cell cannot handle physics interactions or do it well. It can. It is putting the Cell into real world situations vs. ideal or synthetic positions.
------------------------------------------
If 2 Cells where in the PS3 with no PPU and the other systems where to have a PPU and something similar to the Xbox2 CPU in both then it would be fair to say the other two systems would be at a disadvantage in MANY areas possibly including physics which is not unfair to say.
The problem is this. Cell cost vs. PPU cost. I am highly skeptical that there is not a large disparity between the two. Sony would be much wiser to simply use a PPU. A second Cell is justifiable if they seek total world dominance...at a high price no doubt but not simply to combat a PPU in the other systems.
Complete technical dominance at a ridiculous price will net you a loss as the Neo Geo is a glaring example.
REMEMBER Josh as I remember you
I post on the GCNGB but I do so objectively. I do not hate the Cell simply because Sony is involved with it. If you'll remember I've made many failed attempts to show that the Cell is a very robust processor and something to be reckoned with. I hate not simply because someone or something may be of a different persuasion than I. Please do not think I'm dissing the Cell at all. It's awesome, but not capable of doing all things...especially not all at the same time.
Could this be the hardwork from IBM?