Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

PS3 limitations.. the old excuse is already startingFollow

#52 Jun 22 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
Torrence wrote:
Sometimes taking the slow and steady road is the path to success. The Ps3 will only hold them back in the long run no matter how many subs they reclaim (if any) at the time of its release. They have to know that......


I understand that from a technical point-of-view, it may not make much sense. However, from a marketing point of view and getting players (in particular, paying customers) back to the game, this is the only chance FFXIV has. (It's still seems hopeless, but I can't think of a better way to make this work).

For one thing, I believe the Japanese would prefer to play FFXIV on the PS3, and appealing to their "base" is probably the last resort this game has. Also, releasing on a new platform will trigger a new round of platform-specific reviews and a chance for FFXIV to score better this time around.

So, sadly, the "PS3 limitation" must be embraced with open arms, for it's the only way FFXIV can continue to exist as a subscription-based MMO at all.


there are two separate reviews for XI, one with the single expansion the other one with the three expansions. a re-review would be in order for this game and it would know doubt score better than it did upon initial release.
____________________________


#53 Jun 22 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
Y'all are missing the big picture. The game graphically looks badass already. These graphics will be more than satisfactory for many many years to come. The PS3 doesn't limit content, which is all that matters at this point.

For what its worth, I am playing FFXI again and the graphics don't bother me at all. In fact, they are much more playable than Rift in my opinion - and the engines for those two games are seperated by more than a decade.

#54 Jun 22 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Default
****
4,145 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
So, sadly, the "PS3 limitation" must be embraced with open arms, for it's the only way FFXIV can continue to exist as a subscription-based MMO at all.

Not true. There is no release date set, no date in sight and no one who cares if it ever comes. The only people who have any interest at all are those who already play the PC version looking for more players to join and make their server more lively, or the few people who didn't want to shell out for a new PC.

To be honest, I'm not sure why we're even talking about PS3 version. The last news I heard was about 7 months back stating that it's postponed indefinitely.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#55 Jun 22 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
To be honest, I'm not sure why we're even talking about PS3 version. The last news I heard was about 7 months back stating that it's postponed indefinitely.
Nothing has changed since then. Which is good, too; they have so much bigger sh*t to worry about. Releasing a bad game on another platform is not the answer and I'm glad they're not pushing it.



Edited, Jun 22nd 2011 6:48pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#56 Jun 22 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,339 posts
Mithsavvy wrote:
Y'all are missing the big picture. The game graphically looks badass already. These graphics will be more than satisfactory for many many years to come. The PS3 doesn't limit content, which is all that matters at this point.

For what its worth, I am playing FFXI again and the graphics don't bother me at all. In fact, they are much more playable than Rift in my opinion - and the engines for those two games are seperated by more than a decade.



Hint: you aren't referring to the graphics but the artstyle. Graphically speaking, Rift is lightyears beyond FFXI and even still a few years ahead of FFXIV.

The *art style* on the other hand is a different matter. I don't know if anything will ever replace FFXI's handling of armor sets and their looks and the majority of monster designs. I just wish the palettes and color decisions of the landscapes in FFXI weren't so damned *BORING* in most areas.
#57 Jun 23 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
you know, if there already going to complain about PS3 limitations they should have just waited to release this game for ps4 since that is right around the corner.

it seems pretty stupid that they released an MMO for a consol that is about to be outdated. i know they didnt announce the ps4 back last september, but you could see it coming as it's been so many years we have had the ps3/360 already.

anyway, MMO for consols would be a nice idea if they were able to upgrade things for PC users while still letting ps3 players play.

in any case were not even close to that point yet so arguing about this is a moot point.
#58 Jun 23 2011 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
you know, if there already going to complain about PS3 limitations they should have just waited to release this game for ps4 since that is right around the corner.

it seems pretty stupid that they released an MMO for a consol that is about to be outdated. i know they didnt announce the ps4 back last september, but you could see it coming as it's been so many years we have had the ps3/360 already.

anyway, MMO for consols would be a nice idea if they were able to upgrade things for PC users while still letting ps3 players play.

in any case were not even close to that point yet so arguing about this is a moot point.
Or be willing to update their game engine like Aion has done. Maybe drop ps3 support in the future with a new game engine that will run on ps4. Or just stop trying to cater to consoles with an MMO.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#59 Jun 23 2011 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
What you are saying is all true ForceOfMeh. Limiting or not if they decide to ditch the PS3 version it's all over.
#61 Jun 23 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
you know, if there already going to complain about PS3 limitations they should have just waited to release this game for ps4 since that is right around the corner.


Unless you have a confirmed release date and considering a reasonable release date, if this game was held until PS4 came around it would be called FFXVI and not FFXIV. Also, I think you're missing the point. Consoles will never be upgradable as PCs are. Any game that releases for both a console and a PC will be limited by the console unless the game isn't sporting top notch graphics.

There are three solutions:

Develop MMOs for PC only.


____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#62 Jun 23 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Keysofgaruda wrote:
you know, if there already going to complain about PS3 limitations they should have just waited to release this game for ps4 since that is right around the corner.


Unless you have a confirmed release date and considering a reasonable release date, if this game was held until PS4 came around it would be called FFXVI and not FFXIV. Also, I think you're missing the point. Consoles will never be upgradable as PCs are. Any game that releases for both a console and a PC will be limited by the console unless the game isn't sporting top notch graphics.

There are three solutions:

Develop MMOs for PC only.




you obviously didnt read the rest of my post.

it would only be worth it if they could let the PC players get the benefits they should be getting while still letting the consol players play.

although i do agree that an MMO should be PC only because you cannot upgrade a console.

also as for the release date for the ps4, just look at when the new xbox is going to be released. microsoft said 2012. you can bet sony will want to release one around the same time for competition purposes. if they don't they better hope enough people will want to stay with the old generation console long enough to make a profit, because if not that would be a bad buisiness move.
#63Lonix, Posted: Jun 24 2011 at 5:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's called life.
#64 Jun 24 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,339 posts
Lonix wrote:
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.

That's called life.

PS3 Limitations will not take serious affect for a long while, most people dont have PCs that can run XIV on lowest settings yet let alone highest.
PS3 graphics will do fine and the limitations was also mentioned with Gran Tourismo, its life...
PS3 will be more then fine, the graphics of XI on release was nothing special but the graphics of XIV is some thing special and I am sure it will be for a long time.


Hint: PS3 Limitations occurred when it was released.

It's called RAM.
#65 Jun 24 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
351 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
also as for the release date for the ps4, just look at when the new xbox is going to be released. microsoft said 2012.


Well, the timing couldn't be worse for FF14. While MS is aiming for an E3 2012 unveiling of the next gen XBox, Sony couldn't be far behind with its PS4.

The problem is that even if SE goes "***** the PS3, let's go straight to PS4," the difficulty is going to be that almost no one will have a PS4 for awhile. Brand new consoles are hard to find on store shelves, at their peak expense, and short on games, so outside of rabid early adopters, you don't have as many players to sell to as you would optimally prefer to see.

SE doesn't have the luxury to hold off that long to start selling subs for a console that may not even sell well (Sony has lost a lot of ground to Microsoft lately), or even start being sold until 2013 or 14. In light of this, I still think the PS3 will be the console of choice with the idea that PS4 compatibility will be considered down the road (if FF14 lasts that long).
#66 Jun 24 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
Viertel wrote:
Lonix wrote:
Caia wrote:
It was going to happen one way or another eventually. You can upgrade your computer. You can't upgrade your PS3. Since SE has to keep it playable on your PS3, that will eventually limit what they can do.

That's called life.

PS3 Limitations will not take serious affect for a long while, most people dont have PCs that can run XIV on lowest settings yet let alone highest.
PS3 graphics will do fine and the limitations was also mentioned with Gran Tourismo, its life...
PS3 will be more then fine, the graphics of XI on release was nothing special but the graphics of XIV is some thing special and I am sure it will be for a long time.


Hint: PS3 Limitations occurred when it was released.

It's called RAM.


Consoles don't Cache the same way PC do, PC's Hold onto information until overwritten or the computer is turned to Critical/Non-Powered state. consoles don't hold game data any longer than its capable of flushing it. in other words it only takes what information is needed at that precise time, then immediately overwrites it and it does this 100x faster than a PC can not to mention the 256bit bus width of the current gen consoles, compared to the measly 32bit bus width of a PC.
____________________________


#67 Jun 25 2011 at 2:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,339 posts
FelixValmont wrote:
Consoles don't Cache the same way PC do, PC's Hold onto information until overwritten or the computer is turned to Critical/Non-Powered state. consoles don't hold game data any longer than its capable of flushing it. in other words it only takes what information is needed at that precise time, then immediately overwrites it and it does this 100x faster than a PC can not to mention the 256bit bus width of the current gen consoles, compared to the measly 32bit bus width of a PC.


You're really clueless, and entirely incorrect on both your false numbers and statements.

Must be another one of those "It's OK, people just haven't unlocked the true potential of the PS3 yet guys after all these years!" Sony fanboys when the limitations of the systems are pointed out.
#68 Jun 25 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
351 posts
FelixValmont wrote:
in other words it only takes what information is needed at that precise time, then immediately overwrites it and it does this 100x faster than a PC can not to mention the 256bit bus width of the current gen consoles, compared to the measly 32bit bus width of a PC.


Murder me if I'm wrong, but, I believe the bus width only improves the amount of memory addresses the CPU is capable of accessing at once, it doesn't improve speed in and of itself.

In other words, a single 32-bit CPU is limited to being able to access 4GB of RAM because of the range of addresses a 32-bit bus offers (2 to the power of 32 addresses), while a 64-bit CPU is capable of accessing up to roughly 18 million TB of RAM (2 to the power of 64 addresses).

But you actually have to have the physical RAM and an operating system that will take advantage of it for that to matter. And, as far as I understand, the PS3 has two banks of 256 MB RAM, not something that requires any more than a 32-bit bus. Since there are 7 cells in the CPU (7 X 32 = 224), I think that may explain where you're getting your bus-size ideas from, but it's certainly not to access a near infinite amount of RAM that it simply doesn't have.

Viertel wrote:
Must be another one of those "It's OK, people just haven't unlocked the true potential of the PS3 yet guys after all these years!" Sony fanboys when the limitations of the systems are pointed out.


The PS3 actually has proven itself in the world of computer science (in the world of gaming, not so much). The CPU of the PS3 is an integral part of the current Guinness World Book of Records for most powerful distributed computing network in something called the Folding@home project. In 2007, this network, which primarily uses linked PS3s, surpassed the petaFLOP milestone making it more powerful than IBM's most advanced supercomputer (at the time). It's currently expanded to 7 petaFLOPs as of March of this year. It's actually quite capable of breaking 128-bit encryption with ease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@Home
#69 Jun 25 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
676 posts
Quote:
Consoles don't Cache the same way PC do, PC's Hold onto information until overwritten or the computer is turned to Critical/Non-Powered state. consoles don't hold game data any longer than its capable of flushing it.
Okay, I'll confess im no expert on computer stuff. Most of this reads like techno babble to me. However, it stands to reason that if a computer 'forgets' everything (ie, removes everything from memory to put new stuff in) then it no longer has that information to refer to in order to update whatever is going on. In effect, it would be like restarting the game every millisecond. It would no longer remember your current HP, it would no longer remember your current location. It wouldn't even remember what the walls are supposed to look like.

Again, im a total computer idiot, so sue me. But its pretty obvious, even from an idiot's standpoint, that the computer must store that information somewhere so it knows what its supposed to do next. Unless these systems are so super-advanced they can just predict it.

Just saying.
____________________________

FFXI: Siren Server: Seiowan Lvl 99 WHM, SCH, BLM
FFXIV: Ragnarok Server: Lemuria Glitterhands All Classes 50
#70 Jun 25 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
FelixValmont wrote:
in other words it only takes what information is needed at that precise time, then immediately overwrites it and it does this 100x faster than a PC can not to mention the 256bit bus width of the current gen consoles, compared to the measly 32bit bus width of a PC.


Murder me if I'm wrong, but, I believe the bus width only improves the amount of memory addresses the CPU is capable of accessing at once, it doesn't improve speed in and of itself.

In other words, a single 32-bit CPU is limited to being able to access 4GB of RAM because of the range of addresses a 32-bit bus offers (2 to the power of 32 addresses), while a 64-bit CPU is capable of accessing up to roughly 18 million TB of RAM (2 to the power of 64 addresses).


You're neglecting the difference between the address bus and the data bus. They affect different things, and there is no requirement for them to be the same size - in fact, CPUs where they are the same size are more the exception than the rule.

The size of the address bus determines the maximum amount of available RAM, with a limit of 4 GB for a 32-bit bus and 16 EB for a 64-bit bus (although its worth noting that to date, not a single 64-bit CPU actually has a full 64-bit address bus).

The size of the data bus determines the maximum amount of data that can be read from RAM each cycle. Thus, the larger the data bus, the faster the CPU can read data - the CPU will (generally) always read the full size of the data bus, because RAM has very high latency compared to the internal cache, so it tries to load as much as possible into the cache as quickly as possible.

Of course, FelixValmont's numbers are wrong anyway. PC's don't have 32-bit data buses anymore - all Pentium-class and higher x86 CPUs (excluding the Cyrix and AMD 5x86 chips) have a 64-bit data bus (yes, even the 32-bit Pentiums have a 64-bit data bus).

The PS3's Cell CPU also has a 64-bit data bus... it has an internal 512-bit data bus, but this bus is only transfers data between individual subunits of the Cell - it doesn't connect to RAM. The 360's Xenon CPU also has a 64-bit data bus.
#71 Jun 25 2011 at 10:47 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Viertel wrote:
Mithsavvy wrote:
Y'all are missing the big picture. The game graphically looks badass already. These graphics will be more than satisfactory for many many years to come. The PS3 doesn't limit content, which is all that matters at this point.

For what its worth, I am playing FFXI again and the graphics don't bother me at all. In fact, they are much more playable than Rift in my opinion - and the engines for those two games are seperated by more than a decade.



Hint: you aren't referring to the graphics but the artstyle. Graphically speaking, Rift is lightyears beyond FFXI and even still a few years ahead of FFXIV.


The really sad thing is that you could port Rift straight to the PS3 or Xbox 360 in a few months relatively painlessly and without too much loss in graphics quality because it's running on the Gamebryo engine. Compare Fallout 3 on PC with the 360 and Ps3 versions, that's about the same difference that would exist between the PC and a theoretical 360 and PS3 port (Fallout 3 also uses Gamebryo). Using a licensed middleware makes development, UI and game mechanics changes, and especially porting to other platforms much easier than if you roll your own. Even the old excuse that a custom engine is more efficient no longer holds because the companies that develop game middleware spend far more man hours optimizing their code than a game studio with a deadline is able to. Even most AAA titles are usually done using middleware for everything these days because the results are the same or better than what your own programmers can do and the development tools are much better than anything you could develop in house for a proprietary engine.





Edited, Jun 26th 2011 1:58am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#72 Jun 25 2011 at 11:20 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:


The PS3 actually has proven itself in the world of computer science (in the world of gaming, not so much). The CPU of the PS3 is an integral part of the current Guinness World Book of Records for most powerful distributed computing network in something called the Folding@home project. In 2007, this network, which primarily uses linked PS3s, surpassed the petaFLOP milestone making it more powerful than IBM's most advanced supercomputer (at the time). It's currently expanded to 7 petaFLOPs as of March of this year. It's actually quite capable of breaking 128-bit encryption with ease.


That proves nothing. You could build the world's most powerful supercomputer out of 6502's if you used enough of them. It might even be cost effective in terms of $$$ spent on computing hardware. (though certainly not floor space)

Intel's Core i7 and later chips use dual or triple 64 bit external data busses. The upcoming Socket 2011 will have four 64-bit data busses

Don't try to argue that game consoles are faster than desktop PCs because they are not. They just have a high price vs performance ratio.



Edited, Jun 26th 2011 3:14am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#73 Jun 26 2011 at 8:59 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
351 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:


The PS3 actually has proven itself in the world of computer science (in the world of gaming, not so much). The CPU of the PS3 is an integral part of the current Guinness World Book of Records for most powerful distributed computing network in something called the Folding@home project. In 2007, this network, which primarily uses linked PS3s, surpassed the petaFLOP milestone making it more powerful than IBM's most advanced supercomputer (at the time). It's currently expanded to 7 petaFLOPs as of March of this year. It's actually quite capable of breaking 128-bit encryption with ease.


That proves nothing. You could build the world's most powerful supercomputer out of 6502's if you used enough of them. It might even be cost effective in terms of $$$ spent on computing hardware. (though certainly not floor space)

Intel's Core i7 and later chips use dual or triple 64 bit external data busses. The upcoming Socket 2011 will have four 64-bit data busses

Don't try to argue that game consoles are faster than desktop PCs because they are not. They just have a high price vs performance ratio.


Geez, even a world record isn't impressive anymore. I suppose you scorn Olympic Gold Medalists because they don't have the non-existent Platinum Medal yet (get on it mofos!)

And actually, you are really dead-wrong about consoles. They are always sold at a loss because they want them in your hands so you'll buy its games (where the real money is), and in Sony's case, their Blu-Ray movies.

The 7-cell processor in the PS3 was way more powerful than any equivalent processor you could get for the same price, especially in 2006. The same could be said for the 360's 6-core processor.

Of course, times change, and they won't be that impressive someday, but a petaFLOP distributed network in 2007 using a relatively inexpensive console is quite an achievement.
#74 Jun 26 2011 at 2:28 PM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
well we were all wrong about the PS3's Data Bus, as it doesn't work like a traditional fixed bus system.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/aug06/images/gamef1.pdf



Edited, Jun 26th 2011 4:29pm by FelixValmont
#75 Jun 26 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:

The same could be said for the 360's 6-core processor.


Xbox 360 uses a 3 core processor with 2 virtual cores per physical core.
Quote:

And actually, you are really dead-wrong about consoles. They are always sold at a loss because they want them in your hands so you'll buy its games (where the real money is), and in Sony's case, their Blu-Ray movies.


Yes sold at a loss but still good price vs performance value. Also the PS3 leverages cell chips that were rejected for use in more expensive products because they have a non functioning core, which is why it has 7 cores and not 8. It has 7 working cores and one defective one that has been disabled.

Quote:
The 7-cell processor in the PS3 was way more powerful than any equivalent processor you could get for the same price, especially in 2006.


Not at general computing it isn't. Removing branch prediction and relying on code optimization instead has been tried before, and it has always ran into the same problems. i.e. hard to program and mediocre at general purpose computing.

Yes cell is good at high speed math but you know what's even better at that?

GPGPU's

At high speed math Nvidia's Tesla GPGPU products are faster than similar cell based solutions and cheaper.



Edited, Jun 27th 2011 12:17am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#76 Jun 27 2011 at 12:07 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
351 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
Yes sold at a loss but still good price vs performance value. Also the PS3 leverages cell chips that were rejected for use in more expensive products because they have a non functioning core, which is why it has 7 cores and not 8. It has 7 working cores and one defective one that has been disabled.


Not quite. Each CPU has 8 SPEs, and if anyone of them is found to be defective in the test process, that's the one chosen to be disabled. But each chip usually has 8 functional SPEs (but they still disable one, no matter what, for uniformity in the final product). This is done to as an improvement to manufacturing yields, not because IBM is handing Sony its rejects.

Lobivopis wrote:
Not at general computing it isn't. Removing branch prediction and relying on code optimization instead has been tried before, and it has always ran into the same problems. i.e. hard to program and mediocre at general purpose computing.


Just because it isn't well understood doesn't mean it isn't powerful in its own way. The Cell processor was developed as a joint project by IBM, Sony, and Toshiba, and is currently used in all types of devices ranging from servers to military hardware. These weren't miscreant idiots making a snake oil product.

The original "fat" PS3s with the "Other O/S" option allowed you to install Linux and there was code released that allowed you to link several PS3s on a local network as a means to give student access to a cheap "Supercomputer" using its combined processing power.
(Enough details about it at the link below to bore you to tears)
http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/scop3.pdf

That may not mean much to someone looking for their Tetris fix, but that's an incredibly useful device to have when access to high-end supercomputer time is extremely limited.
#77 Jun 27 2011 at 12:36 AM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:


Lobivopis wrote:
Not at general computing it isn't. Removing branch prediction and relying on code optimization instead has been tried before, and it has always ran into the same problems. i.e. hard to program and mediocre at general purpose computing.


Just because it isn't well understood doesn't mean it isn't powerful in its own way. The Cell processor was developed as a joint project by IBM, Sony, and Toshiba, and is currently used in all types of devices ranging from servers to military hardware. These weren't miscreant idiots making a snake oil product.


Look up the Intel i860. It was very, very fast for it's time (a 64-bit RISC CPU in 1989) but like cell it removed branch prediction in favor of using code optimization. It failed because it was too hard to program. It only found some use as a coprocessor for a general purpose CPU where it ran off firmware as a graphics coprocessor but nobody wanted to use it as a main CPU because of the difficulty of developing software for it.

It's not that it's not well understood, it's that writing efficent code for a CPU that doesn't do branch prediction is freaking hard. The i860 had the same problem, and so did Itanium. In theory it's very fast because the program is arranged so that all the instructions are lined up for execution by the CPU and branch prediction isn't needed. But writing that code in the first place is the problem. It's hard to do by hand and compilers that can do it for you automatically aren't there yet (Intel has been trying with Itanium for a decade and is still having problems)

Cell is very fast at vector calculations and the like. It's also good when used in embedded applications. The problem here is that DSPs controlled by a general purpose CPU (e.g. a desktop PC with 4 Tesla cards in it) are faster at processing that sort of data, easier to program and cheaper, and custom ASICs do embedded applications better.

Quote:
The original "fat" PS3s with the "Other O/S" option allowed you to install Linux and there was code released that allowed you to link several PS3s on a local network as a means to give student access to a cheap "Supercomputer" using its combined processing power.
(Enough details about it at the link below to bore you to tears)
http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/scop3.pdf


Assuming your data sets will fit into 256 megs that is.



Edited, Jun 27th 2011 3:46am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#78 Jun 27 2011 at 2:17 AM Rating: Default
***
1,408 posts
Viertel wrote:
FelixValmont wrote:
Consoles don't Cache the same way PC do, PC's Hold onto information until overwritten or the computer is turned to Critical/Non-Powered state. consoles don't hold game data any longer than its capable of flushing it. in other words it only takes what information is needed at that precise time, then immediately overwrites it and it does this 100x faster than a PC can not to mention the 256bit bus width of the current gen consoles, compared to the measly 32bit bus width of a PC.


You're really clueless, and entirely incorrect on both your false numbers and statements.

Must be another one of those "It's OK, people just haven't unlocked the true potential of the PS3 yet guys after all these years!" Sony fanboys when the limitations of the systems are pointed out.

I was thinking the same thing about you, straight away with the "Fan Boys". Reminds me of back in the day when everyone was accusing of SE or FF fan boys.

Personally think this arguement is rather sad, PS3 will do fine its just the PC/XBOX fan boys that have issues. Oops used the fan boy arguement back.....
____________________________


If my velocity starts to make you sweat, then just don't
let go
#79 Jun 27 2011 at 3:45 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
(Intel has been trying with Itanium for a decade and is still having problems)



As an aside, those responsible for Itanium can burn in **** because the "threat" of Itanium is part of what caused DEC to sell off the Alpha to Compaq who then abandoned further development. After all Itanium was going to be so much better and take over everything, so better cut losses and not waste any more development on the Alpha processor right? Never mind that it was huge success in high end computing at that time and the architecture was designed to last for at least 25 years. On top of that it's also what probably killed off further development on the MIPS architecture as well. Even SPARC was almost killed off because of it.

Then Itanium arrived and it sucked. The cynic in me thinks that they figured that out early on but kept developing it anyway because the fear it created would kill off competing CPU architectures leaving the field open for x86.





Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:50am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#80 Jun 27 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
351 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:
(Intel has been trying with Itanium for a decade and is still having problems)


Then Itanium arrived and it sucked. The cynic in me thinks that they figured that out early on but kept developing it anyway because the fear it created would kill off competing CPU architectures leaving the field open for x86.


You hear that sound? That's the sound of us boring the crowd. And you're replying to yourself. That's always a good sign to put this to rest. ;)

So, uh, **** that PS3! It's going to limit FFXIV's potential, or so I hear...
#81 Jun 27 2011 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,898 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:
(Intel has been trying with Itanium for a decade and is still having problems)


Then Itanium arrived and it sucked. The cynic in me thinks that they figured that out early on but kept developing it anyway because the fear it created would kill off competing CPU architectures leaving the field open for x86.


You hear that sound? That's the sound of us boring the crowd. And you're replying to yourself. That's always a good sign to put this to rest. ;)

So, uh, **** that PS3! It's going to limit FFXIV's potential, or so I hear...


Yep, I think I actually fell asleep while reading the last few posts. =P
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#82 Jun 27 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
And you're replying to yourself. That's always a good sign to put this to rest. ;)


Yeah, it is getting kind of schizophrenic in here.
KaneKitty wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
Yeah, it is getting kind of schizophrenic in here.

You know it, bro.

Shall we put "the plan" into action tonight, then?

Yes: they'll never suspect a thing. heh heh heh! *wrings hands from the shadows*
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#83 Jun 27 2011 at 2:57 PM Rating: Default
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
BartelX wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:
(Intel has been trying with Itanium for a decade and is still having problems)


Then Itanium arrived and it sucked. The cynic in me thinks that they figured that out early on but kept developing it anyway because the fear it created would kill off competing CPU architectures leaving the field open for x86.


You hear that sound? That's the sound of us boring the crowd. And you're replying to yourself. That's always a good sign to put this to rest. ;)

So, uh, **** that PS3! It's going to limit FFXIV's potential, or so I hear...


Yep, I think I actually fell asleep while reading the last few posts. =P


If the facts you have presented cannot be disputed and the only thing your opponent can say is that the information is boring then you have won the argument.



Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:02pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#84 Jun 27 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
351 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
If the facts you have presented cannot be disputed and the only thing your opponent can say is that the information is boring then you have won the argument.


I honestly didn't think we were having a contest, but putting me to sleep was a tactic I could not withstand. So sure, dude. You won. Here's the internet. Just take it before I pass out again. ;)
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 22 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (22)