>Cell Broadband Engine is shit >Okay, show me an alternative

>>57012507
>>Cell Broadband Engine is shit

Nobody says this except XBOX fanboys who are for some reason STILL salty that the PS3 beat out the 360 in the end.

>>57012523
>Implying the 7th gen is over

>>57012507

For its usage in the PS3 it was shit. As a cpu aimed at certain types of workloads CELL is an absolute beast.

>>57012593
Actually PS3 was designed to be a home media device that doesn't only include gaming. But apparently this idea scared off game companies because they thought it's not profitable to make game for a device that's not marketed as a game console. So CELL was going to have muuch more usage in PS3.

Other than that, actually it's still a good architecture for gaymen but the pajeet devs were too lazy to adapt themselves into a multithreaded world in 2005. Most of them are probably unemployed now because multicore was the future. You can see how Cell is a beast after it's been mastered after 2012 and how a 2005 CPU can still be relevant in 2013-2014.

Sad fucking developers.

>>57012650

Do consider that the RSX had to be bolted into the ps3 because CELL isn't man enough for what sony envisioned (which amusingly enough is essentially the APU setup current consoles use).

Added comedy: Nvidia fucking sony with the RSX (which realistically means Nvidia will never get a console contract from sony again - hence their butthurt comment about consoles pripr to the ps4/xbone release).

>>57012721
>Nvidia fucking sony with the RSX
elaborate the story plx

>>57012650
Most modern pc games aren't even properly multi threaded. That was the entire point of project mantle to begin with.

>Cell Broadband Engine is shit

it is not that it is shit, it is/was very difficult to program for.

Cerny has a great presentation about it and why they decided to go with x86 for the PS4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHXrBnipHyA

>>57012760

Now forgive my poor recollection of the specific Nvidia cards in question but the tl;dr is sony wanted a high end ultra-turbo-pussy-crushing gpu for the ps3 after it became clear CELL wasn't gonna do what they wanted. So sony goes to Nvidia "gibe gpu plox".

Nvidia takes the deal. However Nvidia (and possibly their foundry, I forget exactly) fuck it up somewhere along the line and can only provide a slightly angry mid range gpu (based off the 7000 series iirc). Not only did said gpu underpeform what Nvidia promised it ran hot as fuck and wasn't as cheap as sony wanted - still the deal was done and it was too late to go ask anyone else for an alternative given the headstart the 360 had on the shelves.

Naturally sony squeezed Nvidia on the margins because 1) thats how business works and 2) fuck you Nvidia. Nvidia then got salty that they weren't rolling in shekels from the deal and basically said sometime 2012 iirc "w-w-we never wanted to give consoles hardware a-a-anyway!".

You know it really is remarkable how advanced the cpu's from 7th gen were. (xbox & ps3 that is)

Why did everything go to shit so fast for 8th gen?

Was 7th gen being so strong and having such a long life-line actually what lead to 8th gen being shit?

>>57012841
Is there a period in history where nvidia didn't run hot as hell? Fuck it even caused apple to start a callback program for macbooks with 9600m GT. LEl. Fucking NVIDIA

>>57012867
>Was 7th gen being so strong and having such a long life-line actually what lead to 8th gen being shit?

basically x86. it's too general purpose and the PC scene is just too competitive so the current hardware is instantly obsolete the next year. x86 is cancer. I miss the times where consoles would actually invest in R&D for innovative CPU architectures.

>>57012867

>Was 7th gen being so strong and having such a long life-line actually what lead to 8th gen being shit?

You're looking at it backwards. 7th gen ended up stroing precisely because neither sony or MS wanted to replace their hardware given the relatively thin margins they were operating (the ps3 was mostly a black hole for sony) so they stretched it out as long as they could to recoup costs. Thus by extension developers HAD to learn how the ps3 and 360 work down to the metal because there wasn't anything coming along to replace them.

File: 972036_313345808797997_1474710890_n.jpg (40KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x375px

why does intel not license cheap ass processors like the celleron d to game console companies?

>>57012523
The 360 hardware was fundamentally better than the PS3 in every way except it lacked a blu-ray drive. There's a reason nobody puts two different ISA's in a CPU. Sony's boner was evident when they had to put an Nvidia GPU in there at the last minute.

>>57012896

>Is there a period in history where nvidia didn't run hot as hell?

Maxwell. Funnily enough thats the period where they gutted most of the hardware from the architecture and moved it software side.

>>57012902

Intel generally doesn't give a fuck and most likely won't give good deals on their chips with the required performance. Considering that IBM has ragequit their fabs the only high performance cpu name around is AMD.

>>57012934
>High performance CPU
>AMD.
Pick one

>>57012896
I miss the old POWER PC Macs. They were pretty fucking powerful back in the day and a lot of G5's run fairly well today, apart from software incompatibilities.

But no, Apple just had to go with Intel and x86 and begin their slow decline with mediocre specs. Of course, from what I understand, IBM were as much to blame here for Apple's decision.

>>57013056
because apple didn't want to use 150w cpus that can't be cooled somehow

File: 74847.png (35KB, 650x337px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 650x337px

>>57013043

Well given we know Intel doesn't play ball, POWER is a nuclear fire and Nvidia's offerings are literal potato AMD's APUs are really quite good for the design goals the ps4 and xbone had. In fact the igpu AMD offers is so far ahead of what Intel can muster (especially in 2010 or so when the consoles were being designed) Intel simply can not compete.

>>57013136
Well neither 360 or PS3 use an APU, they use a CPU and a GPU.
Only time AMD was faster than Intel was when Intel hadn't released the Core2, since then AMD hasn't been faster than Intel.

you got persuaded kid

>>57013183

>Well neither 360 or PS3 use an APU, they use a CPU and a GPU.

That wasn't part of the conversation.

>>57012523
Irrelevant when you have lolnogames.

>>57013210
Neither was APU so why did you post >>57013136?

>>57013234
>>>/v/

In reality the cell lost to the increasingly risc-like gpgpu and xeon phi

Can someone explain to me why the Cell Broadband Engine was meme'd to high heaven when the PS3 came out?

>>57012507
Everybody and their dog abandoned the technology after trying to use it and failing. With the advent of GPGPU, things like the Cell are obsolete.

>>57013262

it was a billion dollar project spear headed by 4 mega corporations.

shame they never got the wireless cpu threading working.

>>57013287

>wireless cpu threading

uwotm8?

>>57013262
Multi core and good at threading.

Peoples lack of development skill is what you got.

Why didn't /g/ save the Cell BE by writing high performance logo generators

>>57013262
Because sonyponies eat marketing like they eat shit. The idiots still believe to this day that the ps3 was more powerful than the 360 when the difference between the 2 was hugely in favor of the 360.

>>57013300

originally they were suppose to be able to link up with other cell processors wirelessly and share the load.

so to speak it was going to be the one size fits all cpu of the future where everything in your house would work together to finish projects faster.

>>57013327
gee i wonder why that didn't work out

>>57013321
360 had shit CPU, but a much faster GPU

>>57013321
Instead of making baseless claims let's see some sources backing them up. You won't post any though because you're wrong. Fuck off to >>>/v/

>>57012896
>I miss the times where consoles would actually invest in R&D for innovative CPU architectures.
you mean the one time they did it for the cell? because I fail to see anything "innovative" about the embedded PPC and MIPS chips everything else used at the time and before

it's pretty unsurprising to see consoles going to x86 now, I'm surprised they didn't do it before, using alternate architectures is wasteful and generally pretty retarded anyway, the Cell was fucking shit to program for and PPC in general was a limp-dick platform, good riddance

>>57013353

it was about 10 years ahead of the curve?

>>57012721
>CELL isn't man enough for what sony envisioned


Actually , the original ps3 was even more of a cluster fuck then the one with the RSX.
I dont remember it all that good but there was no GPU and just a lot more of CELL cpu&ppu's,etc...
The cell would act as both the cpu and the gpu.

Madman Ken Kutaragi, the lead desinger of the ps3 expected from the game developers that they would use the cell as he intended it, but after only a short while it showed that the cell was dev hell;
So they cut the cell in half and stuck in the RSX.

We dont really know what the original PS3 was capable off because no dev dared to make a game for it.

In the end the release ps3 was a clusterfuck of high budget development costs, gimped architecture and slapped together parts.

Its no wonder devs only started mastering the console by the end of the generation.

>>57013354
And it was easier to program.

>>57013370

>paying $400+ for a drm box that offers no benefits other then being a baby sitter for your kids/multi-media home theater console.

Honestly i don't understand how 8th gen even hit the numbers it has/will continue to hit. We had universities for christ sakes predicting the death of home consoles within the 8th gen.

>>57013354
>Shit cpu
>The processor is based on IBM PowerPC instruction set architecture. It consists of three independent processor cores on a single die. These cores are slightly modified versions of the PPE in the Cell processor used on the PlayStation 3.[3][4] Each core has two symmetric hardware threads

So basically better version of the Cell dogshit.

>>57013354
No, Xenon was fine. PS3 had a shit CPU which tried to be a GPU and failed.

>>57013056
>But no, Apple just had to go with Intel and x86 and begin their slow decline with mediocre specs

did you forget that green cooling goo for the 'fastest' 180W G5's, which were actually not at all beating Intels or AMDs of the time?

PowerPC is great for when you don't care about wattages, so that rules it out for everyone but computing centers

>>57013412
Both MS and Sony are playing it safe this gen.
They are taking no risks at all.
they even make a small profit on every console from the start, compared to last gen where they both lost money on every unit sold.

>>57013426
It's got three PowerPC cores but lacks the 8 SPEs. The Cell's better.

>>57013366
Every game that came out of both systems had the 360 be miles ahead, with a lot of them rendering 50% more pixels and still having better effects on. Having unified shaders and a unified memory system as well as edram ment the 360 was much more efficient than the ps3 in pretty much all realistic situations.

>>57013354
The 360 CPU isn't even that shit compared to the ps3. The ps3 cpu was seriously inefficient. It was hard to run efficient code and it didn't have caches so it was hard to get data into the PPEs. The memory bandwidth wasn't there to feed the PPEs and there wasn't any easy way to pass data between the PPEs directly. It ment that even first party games ran on 3 threads at most. In the end the 360 had pretty much no problem keeping up CPU wise as you can easily see that games on both systems had no problem with AI or physics on the 360 vs ps3.

>>57013406

good dev's quickly mastered the platform.
Bad dev's who just wanted to shit out another multi-plat title to soak in as many Lowest common denominator gamers as possible struggled to get even performance between the 360 and the ps3.

ps3 had better exclusives.
360 had better multi-plats typically.

that was 7th gen in a nut shell.

>>57013472
>Toshiba is better at designing CPUs than IBM
no

File: 1291514142532.jpg (35KB, 601x348px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 601x348px

>>57012593
>certain types of workloads CELL is an absolute beast.
Exactly, and those certain workloads did not happen to be vidya games. The designers did a bunch of dumb shit like skipping out on basic branch prediction, and dumping a lot of the memory management into software (which is a great way to piss off your compiler writers and engine devs). Games need a general purpose CPU and a nice GPU to match.

Sony was right to fire Kutaragi.

And the work loads Cell was really good at were better done by DSP, dedicated media ASICs and even more massively parallel chips

>>57013472
>lacks the 8SPEs
That's because the SPE's are useless dogshit and Microsoft laughed away the Sony's market share from literally being nowhere in the Console industry.

>>57013491
>Bad Devs don't want to work on the game instead of wrestling with shitty fedora platform.
>Lol lets spend our entire budget on programming! That'll show the games industry how hardcore we are while we lose all our money with our 9 year dev cycle.

>>57013506
>Sony was right to fire Kutaragi.

this, that guy must have been high as fuck to blow so much money on the ps3 development.
Nearly destroyed the sony gaming division and burned away all the money the earned with the PS2.

>>57013575

if you want to play mutli-plats just use a p.c, oh wait ha-ha-ha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAH

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpnUP_tWEyc

Tensilica & GPGPU killed the Cell

>>57013578
Hubris does a lot to a company. Sony expected every PS2 owner to just get a PS3. Xbox was literally a funny American curiosity during the 2nd gen and they never expected Microsoft to push it that hard and fuck them over.
Microsoft just made the right hardware choices even with their reliability issues.

>>57013370
Nether the PowerPC 750 in the Gamecube or the MIPS 3000A in the PS1 were embedded chips when they launched...

They may have later become that with bigger and bigger chips being able to be squeezed into embedded size packages and power envelopes thanks to improvements, but almost everything from the early 90s and early 2000s can be squeezed into embedded packages these days.

>>57013618
>Haha just use a PC argument.
Console ports ran like dogshit for most of the 3rd gen.
Especially if the lead platform was PS3.

>>57013637

devs intentionally fuck "p.c ports" to let consoles have better sales margins.

>>57013618
>haha pc argument
>shitty nig-nog music link

Sasuga, sonyggers.

>>57013406
Sony didn't cut the Cell in half, the PS3 was originally supposed to have two of the damn things, but it turned out to be too expensive so they got Nvidia involved at the last minute to add a traditional GPU to the mix. Even thou the Cell was basically like the bastard child between a CPU and a GPU.

>>57013370
The original XBOX was basically a Pentium 3 and whatever Nvidia GPU was cheap enough to put in there at the time.

>>57013649
>fuck p.c. ports
No such issues this gen except for the 'early' gen 3/4 tweener titles.If anything major studios like Ubisoft, EA, Capcom and Squeenix will literally port to Android if it doesn't cost too much.
There's literally no reason not to sell a few more copies if it's not too much work unless you're retarded. They don't give a shit which platform they sell on. Money is money.

>>57013687

Your just wrong sorry, its been proven more times then it matters that p.c versions of games are being held back and outright sabotaged to allow the console versions more of a foothole/better sale margins.

hell some retards even buy games once on console then once on p.c because they'll delay the game for a month or a few months for p.c.

>>57013784
>p.c.versions are being held back and sabotaged

>muh conspiracy
The only reason this happens is the devs doing it are incompetent or too lazy.
If anything P.C. is far more profitable per sale because there's no console tax to pay to Console companies for every copy sold.

>>57013649
You do realize that It's PC that has the higher sales margins?

On a $60 console game $25 are just per-produced-game license fees and production of the disc and case, which is the exclusive right of the console manufacturer. On top of that you have flat fees for the right to even develop on the platform, overpriced dev hardware, documentation and finally $10.000 per try certification if you want to finally publish the game or publish more than one update (which is the reason why a lot of indie developers leave their games buggy because they can't afford to publish a second patch).

For PC on the other hand you don't need to pay Nutella & Co a single dime to create, publish or update your games. Sure, Steam takes it's 30%, but that rate is only for Indies, big developers pay considerably less.

>>57012650
>pajeet devs were too lazy to adapt themselves into a multithreaded world in 2005
It had nothing to do with lack of documentation at all

>>57013835

its done because the publisher demands it...

>>57013859
Don't forget that Retaillers also take about a 30% cut right off the bat. So there's really no difference if you sell by retail or Digital.

One way of cutting out the middleman is by launching your own Digital stores, which EA has done and Ubisoft has attempted.

>>57013673

Its also completely undocumented which means emulation is essentially never going to happen.

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>57012507
> While being cheap
> 599 US dollars

It was completely garbage and their presentation was embarrasing. They couldn't impress anyone after years of development.

You're delusional if you think that PS3 was amazing in any way, and it was Nvidia's fault that it ended so bad.

>>57013784
Low grade PC builds are more of a progress of laziness than any conspiracy. Microsoft put in a lot of work to make PC gaming the powerhouse it was in the 90's. Then they ditched it to push their console. Publishers were delaying PC builds over piracy, but the ill will generated by their anticonsumer behavior cost them more than any sloppy work.

>>57013882
>It's done because the publisher demands it

No, it's done because the publisher prioritizes the platform on which they get the most sales. There is no 'sabotaging' of the P.C. port.
The reason some P.C. ports are terrible is because the studios still don't use some sort of unified engine. And the amount of games that still do this is laughably low.

>>57013926

>proved the power of the cell.
>made blue-ray the defacto winner of the digital format wars.

I'm not saying the 360 didn't have an impressive list of feats but to claim the ps3 was an out right failure is simply blind loyalty.

>>57013952
>defacto winner of the digital format wars
You mean digital downloads became the winner of the digital format wars.

>>57013974

shieeetttttt

>>57013901
Retailers don't take anywhere near that big of a cut. Physical retailers like Gamestop buy games in bulk pay about $50 each and sell them at $60 + tax at retail. The only place where retailers take 30% is on GoG and Steam, but even there it's just indies who fork up that much while bigger companies get to negotiate much better revenue splits.

>>57012773
>Tfw no multi threaded RTS games

>>57013952
>>made blue-ray the defacto winner of the digital format wars.

Yep, Do you see how Sony is celebrating this milestone by not including Blu-ray UHD on Ps4 Pro? Yep...

>>57014008

isn't grey goo multi threaded?

>>57014018
I mean the ones people actually play like total war and company of heroes

>>57014012

Blu-ray UHD? do you mean 4k? i still only use 1080p max.

>>57014027
No love for AotS? Or is it just a shitty AMD tech demo meant to make Nvidia hardware look bad?

>>57014027

the rts genre is waiting to make a come back with Warcraft 4 and Starcraft 3.

>>57013952
>proved the power of the cell.

They were retarded enough for making cell.
Enjoy compatibility, and buy The Last of Us remastered UHD 4K remaster: Redition

>>57014043
I should try it out but I already have grey goo despite never playing it

>>57013999
>$50 each

The warehousing and shelving costs alone would eat up most of that. It's literally not stocking on shelves considering the amount of risk they take on if they game doesn't sell.

The reason Steam does well is that it takes a retailer cut and saves the cost of manufacturing/warehousing/shelf stocking.

If it was anymore it wouldn't make economic sense to offer games on steam instead of in stores in the first place to allow them to grow into the behemoths they are now.

>>57014055

cell was joint project between 4 mega-corp's and its R&D hit around 1 billion no?

>>57014027
I thought planetary annihilation was supposed to be some sort of monster that could gobble up everything you had if you let it. Seen people talking about dedicating low capacity ssds for page filing the fucking thing.

>>57014077
And Sony agreed to this madness, because they can't even code a proper web browser.

>>57013625
maybe not the gamecube's, but the PS1's sure as hell wasn't even a laptop worthy chip by 1995, the R3K was ancient garbage by then

besides, that's merely tangential to my core point, that they aren't "innovative" just because they weren't made by Intel

>>57013412
and muh RISC will change this how?

File: Warzone 2100.jpg (299KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1152x864px

>>57014043

AoTS is just very...plain. It does nothing bad but equalliy it does nothing to seperate itself from other RTS games. The biggest huirdle is really while the game is mechanically rock solid its just not that much fun to play.

If the game cribbed warzone 2100 a bit more it might be rather good but as of right now is a generic futurisic RTS.

>>57014167
The psx was meant to be a coprocessor which is why it was such a hot pile of garbage to begin with.

>and muh RISC will change this how?
Dreamcast 2 hopefully, baby. One day maybe.

>>57012507

>Okay, show me an alternative architecture that's as powerful and efficient as Cell while being cheap.
>Insert GPU or modern ARM chipset of choice here

>>57012650
>the pajeet devs were too lazy to adapt themselves into a multithreaded world in 2005. Most of them are probably unemployed now because multicore was the future.
They were focusing on massively-multicore processing. What we call GPGPU today. ATi had Close to Metal and nVidia had CUDA coming out by the PS3's release. Devs were looking forward, to massively-parallel tasking versus backwards to multiple RISC processing like whats been used in consoles since the NES.
>You can see how Cell is a beast after it's been mastered after 2012 and how a 2005 CPU can still be relevant in 2013-2014.
It's still shit. It can't handle CISC loads, and for specialized tasks, GPGPU fucking destroys it. It was special back in it's day for it's good FLOPs/Watt performance. Now, we have GPUs that can decimate it.

Also, console innovation is dead. Everybody but Nintendo gave up, and they went full Gimmick.

Commercial graphene CPUs when?

>>57013488
>graphics
We're talking CPUs, dumbass.

>>57015374
Two decades?

File: dontwanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg (42KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x282px

>>57015450

>>57013926
>Nvidia
>having anything to do with the CPU

File: old man huang.jpg (25KB, 475x324px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 475x324px

>>57015498

Hey now tegra is a fine piece of kit.

File: despair.png (209KB, 517x453px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 517x453px

>hardmodded a phat
>ylod a week later

>>57015603
Tegra was power hungry piece of shit until 4 arrived. Did nvidia really think that they were going to entice console builders with Shield?

>>57015740

Its still shit. Nvidia is learning the hardway building a cpu is difficult (much like Intel learnt that gpus aren't just MOAR COARS cpus). As much as /g/ likes to meme its easy to forget AMD is sitting on a huge wealth of talent and expertise for both cpu and gpu technologies.

>>57015790
Nvidia doesn't build CPUs. They license ARM cores.

>>57015603
But we're not talking about the Tegra, we're talking about the PS3's Cell vs. the 360's Xenon.

>>57015811
what is denver

it probably matches up to an i3 today

>>57012507
FOrced AMD and Intel to up their development of multicore chips.
With the release of deal many big fucks in the industry openly said that IBM is like years beyond AMD and Intel in regards to multicore architecture.

>>57013406
One of the main problems actually was that the higher ups at Sony said, reduce production cost and thus reduced the memory size.

Also most devs are simply shit at multicore devolopment, and that just because they do not want to put in the effort.
We have this problem to this day despite shit like the, I believe it was the Saturn featuring a dual core.

>>57013426
That is why the standard Cell BE was roughly twice as fast.
Not even mentioning the Cell BE+ and the Cell BE2.

>>57013056
>>57013450
Well the last IBM Macs performed better for their intended media workloads than the first intel based macs.

>>57013321
That is why the 360 internally rendered with the lower resolution and why something like the first Uncharted looks better than any 360 game.

>>57012507
Cell wasn't cheap to design, didn't have very good market penetration, nor was it easy to write programs for

specialty cpus like that are probably dead now with things like opencl and accelerator boards (using fpgas) becoming popular again.

>>57013327
Well the chip was planned to be put in TV and other shit.
I remember the few Toshiba's that had it cruhed the competiton in tests.
If the connection at least worked per capable it would have been awesome.

>>57013543
MIcrosoft lost nearly 0.5 billion with the original Xbox.
They only stayed in the markt because of their huge amounts of money and I do not want to know how much they used to push the 360 to be even to compete, which in the end she did not and fell short to the PS3.

>>57017289
Wasn't it for scaling?

Wouldn't a traditional dsp be better... ?

>>57013488
>didn't have caches so it was hard to get data into the PPEs. The memory bandwidth wasn't there to feed the PPEs and there wasn't any easy way to pass data between the PPEs
You are literally full of shit.
Look at the fucking design sheets again.

>>57017170
>they do not want to put in the effort.
Safe multithreading is a bitch and a half to do. Even until the mid 00's, most OS's and libraries said "fuck it, do it yourself" when it comes to thread safety. Even today, it isn't anything to crow about; nobody wants to deal with lazy hardware people throwing moarcores at their lack of megahurts.

>>57017343
Scaling and other stuff from what I remember.
What I know is that they beat the competition.

>>57017394
spotted the incompetent programmer, games are very easily threadable

>>57017455
>I've never written anything more difficult than "hellow world"
Try getting a pile of third party libraries not to shit the heap together.
>inb4 jus writ yer own os

>>57017495
...but that's almost what they did, the FreeBSD kernel is quite small and it couldn't have been such a major hassle to implement things the right way, and the Power ISA 2.0 permits quite a large amount of control over the caches and interrupt sharing btw the cores, you'd know all this if you weren't just a wannabe.

File: 1264268089712.jpg (33KB, 120x115px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 120x115px

>>57017570
>I don't understand actual programmers, The Post
If the original low level code monkeys didn't want to do it at the asm level, what makes you think people in charge of business logic are going to want to make up for them? Laziness goes up the hardware hierarchy.

>>57017636
>thinking every programmer is as depressed and unmotivated as him
silly anon

>>57013426

PS3 Cell had 7 cores.

File: 1348921730138.jpg (46KB, 336x322px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 336x322px

>>57017708
I was a young CS major too, anon. Then 8 years of experience hit me.

>>57017731
Cell's a single core CPU.

>>57017746
I guess this is why people tell you that you should join CS only if you're passionate and have a talent for it

>>57012507
>show me an alternative architecture that's as powerful and efficient as Cell while being cheap

For single precision floating-point operations: GCN and Pascal completely wipe the floor with Cell.
For literally anything else (including double precision FLOPS): Even a single-core Pentium 4 can match Cell. Any Core 2 CPU runs circles around it.

Cell was a "middle-ground" architecture that doesn't really excell at anything. GPGPUs do all the specilized stuff Cell did, only a lot faster. And Cell was never very good a general-purpose processing to begin with when compared to CPUs of that time, let alone of today.

>>57013305
Cell wa snot a multicore processor. It was a single-core processor with an extra cluster of SIMD units.
That's the opposite of actual multicore processors we have today. The whole point is that they are not SIMD and each core operates (practically) independently. Also, those SIMD units were so limited in what they could do that today even OpenCL is a lot more versatile (while also being faster on today's GPUs).

>>57017340
>and fell short to the PS3
The goal of a business is not to have the biggest marketshare, you retard. It's to generate profit. You don't need the biggest marketshare to generate profit (you can even have the largest share and still lose money, if the business is poorly managed). If you earned more than you spent, you suceeded.

Or do you think of brands like Ferrari or Prada and think "look at how few people buy them compared to other brands, those companies must be a failure"?

File: 1443927645011.gif (2MB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x252px

>>57017782
>passionate and have a talent for it
That only gets you started after you get your first real job and realize that your four years of college taught you shit about the real world.
>anon, build this software expansion based on this vague description I got from my clients
>anon, build this youtube clone on a $600 budget
>anon, let me mushroom manage you into trying to clone this software my competitor has while describing everything as poorly as possible
>anon, build something that leverages this disgustingly underbaked technology that people say is going to be the next big thing
Passion is going to stop you from setting these people on fire and becoming a Gregorian monk after two years.

>/v/ invading /g/ to try to get ammunition for their horribly flawed and stupid campaign to legitimize obsolete consoles
HAHAHAHAHA

>>57018737
>waah stop discussing technology on a technology board

>>57018751
Video games aren't technology they're shitty overpriced toys.

>>57019582
>toys can't be technology
go bitch at the phone threads then

>>57012523
>Nobody says this except XBOX fanboys who are for some reason STILL salty that the PS3 beat out the 360 in the end.

Xbox fanboys aren't made about that because the 360 beat out the PS3 in the beginning and in the middle, and only lost in the end because of Kinect.

>>57018426
They've found a niche that allows for low volume at high cost

Ferrari avoids various regulations in many countries by keeping production low

>>57012650
Cell wasn't even properly multicore, it had one fully featured core and something like 7 vector cores (1 of them disabled to improve the godawful yields). Which made it painful as hell to program.

If it was still relevant in 2012 it was because IBM pushed it as well, not just Sony.

Fun fact: PS3 was originally meant to have a second Cell used for graphics. This was such a bad idea, that they had to ditch it and get a Geforce 7800 in there instead. Which was not even as powerful as the Radeon chip shipped in the x360 a year earlier.

>>57012721
>Nvidia fucking sony with the RSX (which realistically means Nvidia will never get a console contract from sony again - hence their butthurt comment about consoles pripr to the ps4/xbone release).

Nvidia fucked Microsoft with the gf3 in the first Xbox, then Sony with the PS3 - from what I hear the NX will have a Tegra or something, so it's now Nintendos turn.

>>57012896
>the PC scene is just too competitive so the current hardware is instantly obsolete the next year

We haven't gotten anything but 5% increases per generation for the past 5 years or so. Anyone running an overclocked Sandy Bridge STILL has no reason to upgrade.

There hasn't been any great leaps in x86 power since Sandy, and even that was not-that-hot compared to Nehalem, but most people went from Core 2 to Sandy since Nehalem was high end only.

>>57019671
But the 360 didn't have a low level api like the ps3 so the devs couldn't even take advantage of it

>>57019614
>xshit beating ps
top kek

these fanboys shills are real

>>57013354
X360 cpu was 3 PowerPC cores with multithreading and a unified memory space.

PS3 was 1 PowerPC core with 6 vector units, running on its own memory space, and with abysmal ram <-> vram speeds.

PS3 has a better CPU in SOME marginal workloads that you might barely if ever use in a game (think of gpgpu like tasks). X360 one was much easier to use and to program complex tasks on, which games actually used.

>>57012507
Any recent GPU.

>>57019671
>Cell wasn't even properly multicore, it had one fully featured core
Along with SMT

File: microsoft emulation ninja 1.png (13KB, 578x367px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 578x367px

>>57013921
>Its also completely undocumented which means emulation is essentially never going to happen.

It already happened, on the x360. They considered it an impossible job and teased the team doing it for months about where will they go to work to once they shut them down for not delivering. Then they got it done, and their job titles were all officially changed to "EMULATION NINJA".

But yeah, Nvidia fucking Microsoft over with the Xbox is partially why they haven't bothered with them ever since.

Also the issue isn't just the Geforce 3 being unknown (it is actually halfway between the GF3 and the GF4), but that the Celeron 3 in there being a bitch to emulate too, since no one knows how x86 works on a low enough level, such as internal instruction parallelism.

>>57014464
>Dreamcast 2 hopefully, baby. One day maybe.

That was the original Xbox.

File: Denver_the_last_dinosaur_by_dacoh1-d52ae8n.jpg (169KB, 900x1165px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 900x1165px

>>57015940
>what is denver

the last dinosaur?

>>57017170
>We have this problem to this day despite shit like the, I believe it was the Saturn featuring a dual core.

Saturn had an idiotic dual core design, they were in a master/slave configuration and only one could access the bus at the same time. You had to run your code out of 4k L1 cache on the slave cpu, so people never used it for anything other than stupidly mundane tasks.

It also had a DSP chip that they wanted to use for vertex transformations, but nobody could figure out how to code for it.

Originally they wanted a NEC V60 and the DSP to handle 3d, but then they saw the PS1 presentation, panicked, and changed the V60 to the dual SH2 setup since they were already sucking Hitachis dick (2/3rds of the machine were hitachi asics).

>>57019914
Why bother emulating an x86 CPU, is it really that hard to pipe some instructions from the game to an i5 or something?

>>57017340
Microsoft was spending a ton with the original Xbox because they were complete newcomers to the console industry, so they pumped as much money as they could into it.

The end result was that the X360 DESTROYED the PS3 for half a decade, until they went fully retarded with the Kinect crap, and lost all lead they had. (and the Wii was destroying both the X360 and PS3, but only for 2-3 years until everyone realized that it was shit).

>>57018307
For what its worth, GPGPUs weren't a thing when the PS3 came out. The first such GPU was the Geforce 8000 series, and that came out a bit later than the PS3 - and that was merely the infancy of the entire idea of having fully programmable GPUs.

>>57020022
Yes, it is.

>>57020110
Why is it so hard then?

>>57019582
We're not discussing video games, we're talking about the unique architecture of the processor in a game console.

>>57012923
You realize that the ps3 never even reached its full potential as a gaming console right?

So everything you just said is irrelevant and inane in every way.

>>57019582
>video games

where the fuck did you see us mentioning it ITT? discussing architecture is not vidya. now please >>>/v/ or >>>/reddit/

>>57019582
>being a toy has any bearing on whether or not it's technology
???
we can discuss something other than your pedestrian used business laptop sometimes you know

>>57017752
dusty bait

>>57023843
he is one simple minded, trying to imply you that SPEs are not working cores.

>>57012896
I had a well-cooled GT610 (30W TDP), idle with maxed vents in a well cooled case and it still wouldn't go lower than 50 degrees Celsius, most of the time it went to 65 degrees and it maxed at 75. Fucking wtf, I got an AMD HD4350 that's passively cooled and it maxes at 45 degrees full load (19W TDP)

And don't even get me started on my GT460 and it's temps, also the factory thermal paste was literally thicker than sand and utter shit, but there thing shat itself in full load anyway