Psychonaut
Well-Known Member
PC wins everytime as AFAIK you still need it to d/l all the games for free.
Grand Theft Auto IV
- Thread starter Augie March
- Start date
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
yup that's my point.stdPikachu said:
Desgining something for a limtied hardware set is a hell of a lot easier that programs for everymans pc which might have to cope with the shit basi onpboard vga and 128 of ram and there for will have to bulk up on code inorder to work in the largest enviroment (and therefore market place) as possible... console programsers in essence have a captive audence they know the tech specs and can spend time coding to rinse eery little bit extra out of it... and make each line of code count and focaus towards doign what it's supposed to do not being a check and failsafe if something can't run...
this is why nitendo are so good at games persay is that for ages they stuck with the cartridge system of games and had a slavish adherence to backaward compatiblity they were limited in storage size on the carts and had to rinse them to get good games out for it... and this made them very mcuh focaused on introducing games and consoles which were very focaused and have in effect lead the boards in each outting... people bang on about the xbox vs the ps2 or the 360 vs ps3 but nintendo has once again come up with something which utterly slays them for a fractuion of the cost (not to mention size or wieght) and yet again has turned out trumps...
a pc's no matter how good the specs will never run a game like a console does it can't to many variables even on emulation it's not going to be as good....
ergo allens daft point about a game being better on the pc is in every way wrong...
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No console will ever be able to get the same level of graphics as a high end computer. More efficient yes, but not always better.
(Anyone who thinks that CPU is the limiting factor on how good games are should be taken outside and shot btw)
(Anyone who thinks that CPU is the limiting factor on how good games are should be taken outside and shot btw)
Bob_the_lost said:
Well... Yep, because a desktop computer can have its hardware changed. Which is also the problem gamers face. A mate of mine spent £2000 on new hardware to upgrade his computer to play the latest (should of got a new one) games. And I just bought a PS3...
subversplat
writer of wrongs
Yawn...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
you have a pc with a better processor than a cell shows the pics????mauvais said:I've got a PC better than all of that, with the exception of BluRay. What do I win?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
but people don't play games on a highend computor dot hey people play games on their normal desktop bought from dell or some other shite 'bargin' *cough* from pc world... and that's the point unless you are arguing that no comprimises every have to be made when programming for eveyrmans machine rather than a closed arcitecture...Bob_the_lost said:
and of course the fucking processor isn't the be all and end all you dipstick however int his case it's pretty fuckign important as one of the 8 is working along side the graphics card ....
either way you've taken a bit of banter and turned it into some kind of geekery with poitn socring... muppet...
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
GarfieldLeChat said:
Yes they do. It's the only reason you'd spend £1000 on top of the line graphics cards. Did i ask what most people do? No, i don't really care tbh, in many cases they're better off with a console. That's why i said high end. My point was brief, consoles are more efficent but they cannot beat high end machines.
Meh. The Cell relies upon games programmers knowing what they're doing and a kick arse compiler. Last time i checked the second was absent and the former is laughable.GLC said:
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Bob_the_lost said:
fairy nuff it wasn't however what was beign discussed however vaild the point is
no new techology is put in place is ever going to reach it's zenith in the first few years of it's production otherwise it'd become obsolete instantly...Bob_the_lost said:
both will happen. eventually...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
in essence it's a x64 with inbuilt capabilites to do distributed computing.mauvais said:
if you remember the seti program you can download to on to you pc to use you machine while it's not in use by you this is in essence designed to do this type of computing natively.
This in theroy at least means that you get much more bang for your buck in terms of processing power as things can (assuming that the programming has split off chunks to be sent for seperate processing to the processor) be processed a lot quicker and mroe efficently...
see this for more info
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cell/Cell1_v2.html
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
In essence it's nothing like it 
. The Cell's closer to an overclocked G3 with some very fast, very limited, arithmetic units that it can shove tasks onto. They ripped out all the out of order processing silicone. Almost all of the branch prediction is gone too.
The Blachford document is a good primer for the Cell but it is the most optimistic take i've read on the possibilities. If they hadn't gutted the orriginal specification regarding connectivity, if the chip were being used in consumer goods, if there were programs that would benefit the user, it'd be fantastic.
As it is it's nothing but unfulfilled potential. Crap at general computing, crap at tasks that cannot be threaded (that can't change). The design philosophy that's required is completely opposed to computing trends of greater abstraction. To say that it's a better computing chip than a Quad Core 2 is completely unjustified at this point.
[/rant]
. The Cell's closer to an overclocked G3 with some very fast, very limited, arithmetic units that it can shove tasks onto. They ripped out all the out of order processing silicone. Almost all of the branch prediction is gone too.The Blachford document is a good primer for the Cell but it is the most optimistic take i've read on the possibilities. If they hadn't gutted the orriginal specification regarding connectivity, if the chip were being used in consumer goods, if there were programs that would benefit the user, it'd be fantastic.
As it is it's nothing but unfulfilled potential. Crap at general computing, crap at tasks that cannot be threaded (that can't change). The design philosophy that's required is completely opposed to computing trends of greater abstraction. To say that it's a better computing chip than a Quad Core 2 is completely unjustified at this point.
[/rant]
mauvais
on reddit or something
There's nothing special with regard to the Cell's distributed computing ability. You can have any computers parallel process a shared task like SETI. However unless it's a long term task it's no use - the transmission speeds between even a CPU and a disk are too slow, never mind an external machine.
The only thing of interest about Cell is that it falls in between a general purpose multi-core CPU and something like NVidia's CUDA. CUDA, by the way, has very interesting potential but probably won't be exploited, at least not in this generation.
What that means is that it can't do general purpose computing, like Bob says, but it will do graphics/sound etc better than a PC with no specialised processors. That advantage is lost when you think about the high end GPUs, sound cards, physics cards, etc.
Given the disadvantages, i.e. that you have to write and optimise code for the architecture, and given that in its PS3 implementation it's below the fastest x86/x64 processors anyway (look at its cost), it's not a significant rival. It probably does its job in the PS3 well, but the idea that it competes with high end PCs is nonsense.
The only thing of interest about Cell is that it falls in between a general purpose multi-core CPU and something like NVidia's CUDA. CUDA, by the way, has very interesting potential but probably won't be exploited, at least not in this generation.
What that means is that it can't do general purpose computing, like Bob says, but it will do graphics/sound etc better than a PC with no specialised processors. That advantage is lost when you think about the high end GPUs, sound cards, physics cards, etc.
Given the disadvantages, i.e. that you have to write and optimise code for the architecture, and given that in its PS3 implementation it's below the fastest x86/x64 processors anyway (look at its cost), it's not a significant rival. It probably does its job in the PS3 well, but the idea that it competes with high end PCs is nonsense.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
The original specification for the cell envisaged every household item having a Cell in it from TV to washing machine,s well as a wireless link. That way if your computer (Cell based) needed more computational ability it'd offload the task to the TV or washing machine. If the programs are suitable for this, if it wasn't part of the "reality check" changes for the version that got produced then it would be very nifty.
Also the Cell is a great design regarding production, if one of the SPEs is dodgy then you don't have to discard the chip, you burn it out and stick it in a PS3. If three or more are dead then it's a TV, four it's a washing machine and seven it's a toaster. (etc.)
I LIKE the cell, but i don't like sony, nor do i trust them to get software right, ever. This is why i don't think the cell will replace the x86 esque mainstream chips.
Also the Cell is a great design regarding production, if one of the SPEs is dodgy then you don't have to discard the chip, you burn it out and stick it in a PS3. If three or more are dead then it's a TV, four it's a washing machine and seven it's a toaster. (etc.)
I LIKE the cell, but i don't like sony, nor do i trust them to get software right, ever. This is why i don't think the cell will replace the x86 esque mainstream chips.
This is all very interesting but I think it misses the point that a dedicated games console is easier (and cheaper) to set up than a PC.
Say that GTA IV is available for PS3 and PC from day one. I'm betting it would be cheaper + faster to get a brand-new PS3 to play the game, rather than a brand new PC with the graphics card to play GTA IV...
Playing the latest PC games is for spods... Consoles for the rest of us...!
Say that GTA IV is available for PS3 and PC from day one. I'm betting it would be cheaper + faster to get a brand-new PS3 to play the game, rather than a brand new PC with the graphics card to play GTA IV...
Playing the latest PC games is for spods... Consoles for the rest of us...!
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Play it, the other way around, but it'd have crap graphics settings. So for the have not's a PS3 would probably be best.jæd said:This is all very interesting but I think it misses the point that a dedicated games console is easier (and cheaper) to set up than a PC.
Say that GTA IV is available for PS3 and PC from day one. I'm betting it would be cheaper + faster to get a brand-new PS3 to play the game, rather than a brand new PC with the graphics card to play GTA IV...
Playing the latest PC games is for spods... Consoles for the rest of us...!
Then again if you've got a relatively recent computer it'd be far cheaper to upgrade it to play GTA IV than buy a PS3. (New CPU ~=100, 2GB RAM ~=£50 new GPU ~=£150 total is £100 cheaper than a PS3)
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You buy yourself a PS4 or think about upgrading again.jæd said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
So Sony'll support it, the bleeding edge in games will STILL have moved on. Even now you can't play the games on the consoles at full HD resolutions as the GPU isn't powerful enough.jæd said:
If you were willing to settle for the same mediocre graphics then you'd have no need to upgrade.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
One of the reasons for DX10 is that MS have decided that there is now no place for CPU features. There are no compatibility bits to check. If the card is DX10 compatible it will support all DX10 features in hardware. The only way to differentiate the hardware is on performance.
This is going to make games a lot simpler to code for on the PC because if its DX10 it should play it.
This is going to make games a lot simpler to code for on the PC because if its DX10 it should play it.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
this is toss mate unless you are sayign that there is a mass produced consumer unit out there which is better than 1080p ... both the 360 and the ps3 (and via a software update nintendo are supposedly releasing) support this and both the 360 and ps3 support upscaling natively now...Bob_the_lost said:
Bob_the_lost said:
Not really... In the next few years people will just start getting more and more out of the PS3 as they learn how to use it better. Any, all the games I've tried have been in nice HD...
Bob_the_lost said:
Again, not really. The graphics would downgrade with every hot new release until you bought a new graphics card.
My point is that to play current games on a PC you need to spend money maintaining it vs just spending a wodge of cash once...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
erm huh are you mental ....mauvais said:
upscaling isn't for hd output is it?
it's for non hd output which you want to convert to hd output such as your old dvd's or old games and the like the machines themselves natively support 1080p and can also upscale non HD media to this. the fact it can do this doesn't some how translate as not beign able to output propper HD, in actual fact as the HD res is usually limited by a) the media b) the screen and not the player which is ordinarly of a higher spec than the screen it play's back through...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
as for this name one screen out their on the market at present which is an HD tv whcih can display hier than 1080p which was the question again the limitation is the SCREEN not the machine.mauvais said:
sometime's i really wonder about tech heads...
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Oh they'll be nice alright. But they aren't full HD, in terms of computers 720p is fairly low res.jæd said:Not really... In the next few years people will just start getting more and more out of the PS3 as they learn how to use it better. Any, all the games I've tried have been in nice HD...
Again, not really. The graphics would downgrade with every hot new release until you bought a new graphics card.
My point is that to play current games on a PC you need to spend money maintaining it vs just spending a wodge of cash once...
You can't have it both ways, you'll get the same graphics out of your PS3 untill the games makers give up on it, and as such the same graphics out of your computer's GPU untill the games makers give up on it or you upgrade. To claim that the users of the PS3's GPU will become more efficent and computer GPUs less is balls.
Similar threads
