LifeOnMarsyay, more stuttering framerates for the ps3. Lucky people.

LifeOnMarsSo its not true that alot of people have problems coding on the machine? Hence bad performance.

DarkMatterYes much much better than in a Quad. Remember the GFlops I gave? Well those are not the advertised ones. AFAIK IBM/Sony advertised it as being 256 GFlops. 150 is the maximum sustained Flops found in the chip, I think and 100 was the median low (when SPEs are used). It is commonly accepted that a Core2 has 8-10 Gflops per core depending on the clocks, more when overclocked. We could say that a heavily overclocked Quad has like 50 GFlops, versus the 150 Gflops on the Cell processor. The difference is that Cell's power can only be used in heavily parallel number crunching tasks (such as physics) while Core2 can run everything. Think of it as having 7 workers and an engineer, versus 4 engineers. 4 engineers are much slower doing the hard work, but all of them know what needs to be done at any given time. The 7 workers completely depend on their engineer's instructions.

leonard_222003I can't say you are wrong in what you say but i'm unsure about what IBM says about their CPU , it's an old arhitecture from the days of pentium4 and athlonx2 if i'm not wrong and i know there is theoretical flops number and the one tested in reality and there is a hugeee difference bettwen them.
I was looking trough some forums and i found this
img116.imageshack.us/img116/8032/flops1ue4.jpg
a quad QX9770 has 35 real Gflops and a cell processor i have to believe it has 150 gflops ?, i know it's specialized for games and can't do anything but it can do a game menu and AI and has some operating system to run so a game puts that CPU trough a lot of different things to do.
It's just hard to believe that the cell CPU is that good , if it was that good it could've beaten all the CPU's from that time and rule the microprocessor bussines , that stated computing power is pure bullshit for gullible people to believe , Intel and AMD can't exagerate because the next day a happy man makes a software and tests the cpu and shows it can do shit or it shows all that power is not present in some thing he does , IBM had the nerve to state such big numbers because they can't be checked that easily.
People still say even today that PS3 is such a powerfull hardware and can do so much more but no one acces the "power" like it should , or some other excuse , well years have passed and PS3 didn't impressed anyone with great graphics or compiling/encoding/physics :) or whatever , programers had enough time to learn the "power" of the PS3 and didn't find anything extraordinary in it , even worse for the PS3 the xbox360 wich has worse computing power has better game graphics and the same physics , so where is all that power no one could find IN YEARS ? i think it's in marketing bullshit.

h3llb3nd4nVidia+PS3=$$$$+more$$$$
$$$$+more$$$$=no money
no money=no more nice i7 :(

leonard_222003I can't say you are wrong in what you say but i'm unsure about what IBM says about their CPU , it's an old arhitecture from the days of pentium4 and athlonx2 if i'm not wrong and i know there is theoretical flops number and the one tested in reality and there is a hugeee difference bettwen them.
I was looking trough some forums and i found this
img116.imageshack.us/img116/8032/flops1ue4.jpg
a quad QX9770 has 35 real Gflops and a cell processor i have to believe it has 150 gflops ?, i know it's specialized for games and can't do anything but it can do a game menu and AI and has some operating system to run so a game puts that CPU trough a lot of different things to do.
It's just hard to believe that the cell CPU is that good , if it was that good it could've beaten all the CPU's from that time and rule the microprocessor bussines , that stated computing power is pure bullshit for gullible people to believe , Intel and AMD can't exagerate because the next day a happy man makes a software and tests the cpu and shows it can do shit or it shows all that power is not present in some thing he does , IBM had the nerve to state such big numbers because they can't be checked that easily.
People still say even today that PS3 is such a powerfull hardware and can do so much more but no one acces the "power" like it should , or some other excuse , well years have passed and PS3 didn't impressed anyone with great graphics or compiling/encoding/physics :) or whatever , programers had enough time to learn the "power" of the PS3 and didn't find anything extraordinary in it , even worse for the PS3 the xbox360 wich has worse computing power has better game graphics and the same physics , so where is all that power no one could find IN YEARS ? i think it's in marketing bullshit.

alexp999I read today, that game developers are demanding Sony to drop their PS3 prices $50-$100 as they are far too expensive against the Wii and 360. They threatened they would discontinue development for the PS3 if Sony didn't because it was becoming unprofitable with the number of PS3 games sold.

leonard_222003Ok , so we established the cell can do physics faster than any CPU , now let's see what it brings to the table , i guess it has to be better effects in games and physics of course , let's see if they can deliver something better than what we seen until now.

DarkMatterOnly reason they are not including amazing ohysics already is because Ati users wouldn't be able to enjoy them thanks to AMD prefering to be Intel's friend than Nvidia's on this.

alexp999Take Mirror's Edge, for example. the game developers have designed around Physx for the PC, so it requires no extra work to enable it on PS3.

Same goes for future games, if they are working on games that will be Physx enabled on PC, they can now enable Physx on PS3 without paying for coding another physics engine.

DarkMatterCOLLADA is not a physics engine...

FordGT90ConceptThey have to work from the ground up to recode everything else as well. Converting physics code isn't that much of a hurdle compared to the rest (liking making use of the CELL engine). Valve learned the hard way on that one when trying to port Half-Life 2 to the PS3.

Simply put, there is little to no value of NVIDIA Physx on PS3 unless it shows significant performance gains over COLLADA. Programmers will stick to what they know and very few PS3 programmers know NVIDIA Physx.



It runs on a PAL. What PAL Sony has in the PS3 is, as far as I know, unknown. It is most likely Bullet.

FordGT90ConceptRegardless, it is basically another option to use instead of COLLADA/Bullet. It may or may not get used. Because there is no indication PhysX would execute on the GPU, there is likely to be virtually no difference between them for the users.