Persistantthug
Newcomer
Actually, Toshiba has a chip called CEVO that they made primarily for their TVs and it's a direct offshoot of Cell tech.
First Cevo-powered Toshiba Regza 3D TVs unveiled
Was Cell any good? *spawn
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
- Status
Actually, Toshiba has a chip called CEVO that they made primarily for their TVs and it's a direct offshoot of Cell tech.
First Cevo-powered Toshiba Regza 3D TVs unveiled
Elan Tedronai
Newcomer
Without the cell, games like GT5 would have looked like an absolute piece of crap due to the weak RSX.
Not only did the cell save the graphical face of the ps3 but it also means that sony does not have to invest in a processor next gen. They can use the cell again for the ps4 and they dont have to pay anyone to do so. More importantly they don't have to throw all their code away like they did with they moved to ps3 from ps2 and start from scratch again.
It means games from Polyphony and Team ICO won't take that long either
Not only did the cell save the graphical face of the ps3 but it also means that sony does not have to invest in a processor next gen. They can use the cell again for the ps4 and they dont have to pay anyone to do so. More importantly they don't have to throw all their code away like they did with they moved to ps3 from ps2 and start from scratch again.
It means games from Polyphony and Team ICO won't take that long either
From a hardware standapoint they don't have to (although who will fabricated Cell for them?), but from a developer standpoint they may well need to invest in a new processor.
But new games will require new engines and new code. There's only so much they could keep. I guess Uncharted 4 could use the same engine as U3 on an 8x Cell and RSX for instant better gameness, but actual next-gen gaming will need whole new code.
Their games take forever due to craft, and not issues programming the CPU. They have to invent systems, create loads of assets, etc. Having Cell in PS4 won't help much at all.
Without the cell they might have had the time/budget for something better than RSX.
Perhaps ! But that doesn't mean Cell is bad. ^_^
It's proven fast and versatile so far:
* At the beginning, I remember people called Cell a DSP and declared it can't be used for graphics (or anything !). No one argues why Cell is bad @ graphics anymore. Instead they redirect the attention to RSX. ;-) We also have MLAA plus a slew of graphical tasks done on the unit. It's doing what some "ex-nextgen" h/w tried to do but fell flat.
* We have PS2 running on Cell + RSX when people said it's impossible
* 40mbps Blu-ray playback ? And then BD 2.0 (with Java run-time) ? And then 3D Blu-ray playback with Java and even better audio. All done without additional h/w.
* Recovering from their security blunder was also pretty amazing.
Have you not seen God of War 3 ? I don't know if it's doing something impossible on anything else, but it's using Cell effectively !
It's proven fast and versatile so far:
* At the beginning, I remember people called Cell a DSP and declared it can't be used for graphics (or anything !). No one argues why Cell is bad @ graphics anymore. Instead they redirect the attention to RSX. ;-) We also have MLAA plus a slew of graphical tasks done on the unit. It's doing what some "ex-nextgen" h/w tried to do but fell flat.
* We have PS2 running on Cell + RSX when people said it's impossible
* 40mbps Blu-ray playback ? And then BD 2.0 (with Java run-time) ? And then 3D Blu-ray playback with Java and even better audio. All done without additional h/w.
* Recovering from their security blunder was also pretty amazing.
Have you not seen God of War 3 ? I don't know if it's doing something impossible on anything else, but it's using Cell effectively !
What do you guys mean when you wonder if cell was any good? Do you wonder if it was any good:
1) ...taken solely as a part and compared to other parts available at the time that could have been realistically used in a console?
2) ...looked at only in the context of it's use in the PS3 ?
3) ...looked at from a long term business view regarding use in other products, licensing, etc?
4) ....looked at in terms of it's affect on the game industry from a coding point of view?
Because the answer definitely varies depending on what you really want to know.
1) ...taken solely as a part and compared to other parts available at the time that could have been realistically used in a console?
2) ...looked at only in the context of it's use in the PS3 ?
3) ...looked at from a long term business view regarding use in other products, licensing, etc?
4) ....looked at in terms of it's affect on the game industry from a coding point of view?
Because the answer definitely varies depending on what you really want to know.
Yes I have the GoW games from PS2 to PS3 (it's the reason I purchased a 60GB PS3 on launch day, and repurchased the games again in the GoW collection). So yes, i'm familiar with GoW. I also remember, as an example, Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 in regards to level movement. I'm just not getting the only on Cell part.
No matter though. Cell is good because it alleviates PS3's weaknesses. It can't solve the bloated OS, split ram, etc problems, but it makes the system hold it's own against the 360 on multiple levels. And I'm not convinced a stronger GPU, which would leave Cell alone to function as it's original intent, would have changed Cell's current perception. There are still the aforementioned problems to overcome that couldn't be solved without an even more astronomical launch price.
They don't. Or rather, the original post was unsubstantiated ranting ("Cell was a piece of ¤&#/.")and, having spawned it off into this thread, tunafish hasn't stayed around to make any reasoned case. So every post here is people challenging the title without reading the OP it seems, and no-one's particularly disagreeing. IMO this thread only exists to stop mindless ranting and silly arguments in a real thread, and it has done its job admirably.
I didn't say only on Cell. ^_^
I mentioned Cell is used to generate huge moving level, with MLAA in GoW3. PS2 did SotC in SD and poor framerate. Cell + RSX did it in HD resolution and textures, stereoscopic 3D, 7.1 audio, and a higher framerate.
They don't. Or rather, the original post was unsubstantiated ranting ("Cell was a piece of ¤&#/.")and, having spawned it off into this thread, tunafish hasn't stayed around to make any reasoned case. So every post here is people challenging the title without reading the OP it seems, and no-one's particularly disagreeing. IMO this thread only exists to stop mindless ranting and silly arguments in a real thread, and it has done its job admirably.
You are a genius
Cell seems pretty good to me, especially for a design with only 215 (?) million transistors. I can't really say for sure where it sits in reference to perhaps various x86 processors (I would love a full on analysis comparing Cell to let's say an i7), but I think Cell is a successful design in it's intent and the products that use it's derivatives. Not only has it proved useful and effective for getting PS3 titles to the level of quality they are at in comparison to the 360, but it's a marketing tool with the way discussion of the Cell is thrown around constantly by fanboys and haters alike.
forumaccount
Newcomer
This claim is ridiculous. You're going to need to come up with a list of 5 multiplatform games released in the last 2 years that don't even "initialize the SPEs for use". I doubt you could make it to 3, especially since for the most part this information isn't publicly available.
That's not to say the design of the PS3 was a success, really. Xbox games hold their own against the ostensibly superior Cell, and do it with less hurdles in the process. Sony could have gone with a more straightforward (and possibly cheaper) design and been just as well off.
Last edited by a moderator:
True, I think not exist engine that don't initialize the SPEs for use BUT game which use SPEs like Frontsibe 2 for the graphic, are not so a common 'standard' in the multiplatform development (the claimed cryengine 3 it's a suprising example).
There are a few things that cripple this discussion:
1) We don't know how devs use the Cell other than what they actually say. Not many of them say much.
2) Cross-platform games are generally designed to be portable, so not only do we not know how well a game is or isn't using the Cell, we also don't know how well it is or isn't using Xenos, either.
3) We don't know what kind of design Sony would have gone with otherwise. Don't assume the GPU would have been like Xenon. They may very well have gone with something without any EDRAM, necessitating the RAM split that is the source of most of the ever-so-slightly-decreased graphical fidelity in the PS3 versions of various cross-platform games.
4) We don't know how costs or sales would have shaken out. I mean, we really have no clue. Ultimately, the measures of any product's success are sales and profit. We've seen enough console generations now to know that subtle graphical differences are pretty much irrelevant to a platform's success.
Two things we do know:
a) Sony had much bigger plans for the Cell than just PS3, and those plans didn't pan out nearly as well as they'd hoped.
b) The 360 isn't getting a lot of third-party exclusives, so it's pretty clear that Cell isn't causing some kind of hemorrhaging of developers to its competitors.
1) We don't know how devs use the Cell other than what they actually say. Not many of them say much.
2) Cross-platform games are generally designed to be portable, so not only do we not know how well a game is or isn't using the Cell, we also don't know how well it is or isn't using Xenos, either.
3) We don't know what kind of design Sony would have gone with otherwise. Don't assume the GPU would have been like Xenon. They may very well have gone with something without any EDRAM, necessitating the RAM split that is the source of most of the ever-so-slightly-decreased graphical fidelity in the PS3 versions of various cross-platform games.
4) We don't know how costs or sales would have shaken out. I mean, we really have no clue. Ultimately, the measures of any product's success are sales and profit. We've seen enough console generations now to know that subtle graphical differences are pretty much irrelevant to a platform's success.
Two things we do know:
a) Sony had much bigger plans for the Cell than just PS3, and those plans didn't pan out nearly as well as they'd hoped.
b) The 360 isn't getting a lot of third-party exclusives, so it's pretty clear that Cell isn't causing some kind of hemorrhaging of developers to its competitors.
I would dare to say that if a game is optimized to run well on SPEs it WILL run great on Xenos as well. Sure, the actual underlying intrisics will have to be replaced but the general design and probably even data structures and memory layout should port over quite nicely.
Of course I'm no developer and I'm just saying that on my gut instinct. It would be great to hear what actual devs have to say about it
If you're trying to say that most multiplatform games don't use Cell for graphics to help RSX, I find that very hard to believe. Multiplatform games now are pretty much neck and neck between both platforms and I don't see that happening on the RSX alone in most cases.
I could be mistaken, but what you're saying here is flat out wrong IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes they are forced to use Cell if they want parity, which is my point. Of course they can opt to not use Cell to aid RSX but then their game will likely lag behind with performance.
Ha ha, even without 360, they are forced to use Cell if they want to do something ambitious/advanced. Teh Cell is designed to be the star of the show.
From what I hear, the first few Insomniac games relied mostly on RSX for graphics work (No fancy SPU post processing).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
