Yep. About a 10% drop.
I guess the argument to that is whether Cell+Xenos would have been worth the cost. If PS3 had the same GPU as XB360, would the investment in Cell have delivered worthwhile benefits, or would it have been a waste of money where a simpler CPU would have done the job nicely?
We were seven years into the generation before I saw a game where PS3 outran Xbox on the CPU, and even then PS3 is still severely crippled on the GPU end and there's always room for CPU optimization. Cell was interesting tech and thus was fun to work with, but in no way was it ever a good investment.
Yes but imagine if Microsoft would'be been out of luck with their GPU (i.e. ATI not being ready with their unified shader architecture or whatever) and then both, PS3 and 360, having a very similar GPU? Then Sonys advantage in terms of the CPU would've been the factor that could've completely changed the playing field.
Or the other way around, Nvidia having a faster GPU in the back of the store... it could've easily gone either way for Sony or MS.
So if XB360 had an RSX instead of Xenos, it'd still perform as well as PS3 with Cell and RSX?The sooner you realize that sony didn't have an advantage in cpu, the more clarity you will have.
The sooner you realize that sony didn't have an advantage in cpu, the more clarity you will have.
The sooner you realize that sony didn't have an advantage in cpu, the more clarity you will have.
The old Cell does not get much respect, but it does have its purposes.The sooner you realize that sony didn't have an advantage in cpu, the more clarity you will have.
So if XB360 had an RSX instead of Xenos, it'd still perform as well as PS3 with Cell and RSX?
Of course they did..
What are you talking about?
It will take a few people a long time to realize that given the reality of the situation. It's understandable you detest the architecture of CELL and all the shortcomings that go with it. But without CELL the PS3 would not have kept parity with the 360. Even you should be able to acknowledge that. Now there are workloads where 3 PPE cores are better than one PPE and 6 SPE's and the reverse is also true. But CELL has allowed PS3 to keep up with 360 where it otherwise would be left to twiddle its thumbs with a not as capable CPU.
Now as for CELL + Xenos being good combination. I do believe it would be best of both worlds if the machine had UMA.
T
I don't think Cell is a good CPU for "poor" developers at all, which kinda sucks.
I've often thought it'd be fun to hold a developers contest to see just how far creative developers can go with a CPU such as the Cell.
Without CELL both consoles would of had better games because every game would require significantly less dev resources. CELL merely sucked up additional developer resources while given no real advantage.
Both dropping SPUs and having just PPUs would have been better. Sony could of gone 4x PPUs with roughly the same cost.
Sorry to interfere in your discusion but I feel like it's not a fair question. Cell was the main focus of the design without the cell the ps3 would have been completely different.Did CELL single handedly make development this generation as expensive as it has become? Is that the cause of it? Did it suck up so much resources that nobody is making use of the SPE's because they're just so darn expensive to program for?
And here we have this same debate. Would a 4 core PPU PS3 with RSX be able to keep up with the 360? Or is Xenos just in a league ofits own compared to RSX where one additional PPU makes little difference?
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused by this, because I wasn't asking about Xenos.Yes. The cell is the programming nightmare because its whole entire programming model is broken which means that for any given amount of optimization work, xenos is going to run faster.
no they didn't. The vast majority of PS3 games had 1 single CPU core. To get any use out of the SPUs required a vast amount of resources and optimization, that if spent on Xenos would result in similar speedups, but devs didn't need to spend those resources with xenos because even a simple implementation of a mutli-threaded program ran well enough.
So Xenos did everything the devs needed without much if any additional work. Cell required large amounts of additional work and optimization just to reach an acceptable level of performance.
no they didn't. The vast majority of PS3 games had 1 single CPU core.
To get any use out of the SPUs required a vast amount of resources and optimization, that if spent on Xenos would result in similar speedups, but devs didn't need to spend those resources with xenos because even a simple implementation of a mutli-threaded program ran well enough.
So Xenos did everything the devs needed without much if any additional work. Cell required large amounts of additional work and optimization just to reach an acceptable level of performance.