Secrect 360 Death Switch?

Strife212 · 17 May 2009 at 14:15

wannabedamned said:
disk scene where otacon actually says "We're on PS3, We don't need to swap disks"

Do you think those will be cut out for an xbox 360 version? Considering Hideo put them in intentionally to mock the 360

It isn't. Play MGS1, it's mocking the PS1. It's at that point in MGS1 that you need to swap disks.

WatchTower · 17 May 2009 at 23:54

Get two PCs one with a great CPU but average GPU then another PC with an average CPU but a great GPU and as long as the CPU isn't bottle necking the GPU the PC with the great GPU and average CPU will give better performance. I know the PS3's cell cpu is great but with a lesser GPU will the PS3 be truly be able to take advantage of it's Cell possessor?

I think next Gen Sony should put a GPU in the PS4 that can really give the Cell a good workout.

Streeteh · 18 May 2009 at 00:00

It's not quite that simple watchtower as the cell isn't a 'normal' cpu. A good example would be killzone 2 where a large proportion of the cells SPUs are dedicated to helping out the GPU with certain tasks which is ultimately how the PS3 was able to run such a good looking game; the GPU is inferior to that in the 360 but i think we can all agree KZ2 equals the best titles on the 360 in terms of graphics. The SPUs in the cell can be used for many different tasks.

A better GPU would improve the PS3, yeah, but the SPUs are being used to pick up the slack at present with some rather impressive results.

EDIT: Just noticed this:

edGfaCTor said:
Sony was foolish relying on the cell if they had done like ms gone to a few people to see what they can offer they would have had a far better gpu and at cheaper price which nvidia are known to be a rip off.

In Sonys defence, the 360 CPU is based on the cell, IBM did an underhanded deal with Microsoft to create the 360 CPU for them using research paid for by Sony. To be fair, Sony should have protected themselves better to avoid this happening in the first place. But i wouldn't say they are foolish for relying on cell; it's been a good way to get the technology some exposure and show off what it was capable of (the initial folding@home figures were astounding when the PS3 first came out, iirc it was outputting 4 times more data than some of the top end PC CPUs at the time). Because of this i imagine the cell has been given a good boost in the server market etc.

Kreeeee · 18 May 2009 at 00:08

WatchTower said:
Get two PCs one with a great CPU but average GPU then another PC with an average CPU but a great GPU and as long as the CPU isn't bottle necking the GPU the PC with the great GPU and average CPU will give better performance. I know the PS3's cell cpu is great but with a lesser GPU will the PS3 be truly be able to take advantage of it's Cell possessor?

I think next Gen Sony should put a GPU in the PS4 that can really give the Cell a good workout.

It doesn't work like that. A far superior configuration is the reverse of yours, having a very powerful standard CPU and a modified Cell as the GPU. The Cell processor is inherently ineffective for gamings core processing, but as a supporting GPU/general purpose processor it's amazing, especially in terms of scalability.

WatchTower · 18 May 2009 at 00:14

I guess giving developers a taste of the Cell now is a great way to get them to grips with it so by the time the PS4 comes out programming games to use it will be less of an issue and there for games will better take advantage of it and look great. I often wonder if it was put in the PS3 for that reason.

Streeteh · 18 May 2009 at 00:16

Iirc sony actually said early on in the PS3s lifecycle something along the lines of:

'Yes, we know we've made this console another hard to programme for setup, but next time we'll use the cell again, honest! Please don't run away devs!'

Kreeeee · 18 May 2009 at 00:21

WatchTower said:
I guess giving developers a taste of the Cell now is a great way to get them to grips with it so by the time the PS4 comes out programming games to use it will be less of an issue and there for games will better take advantage of it and look great. I often wonder if it was put in the PS3 for that reason.

Sony put the Cell in the PS3 to help justify/recoup development costs and spread the Cell name so server manufacturers and suppliers will become aware of the brand. The Cell was not designed for the PS platform at all, but as a scalable processor for use in servers, routers, TVs etc. Basically anywhere parallel processing occurs, the Cell is designed to scale for the purpose. Putting it in the PS3 was a genius idea to spread the brand name of the Cell processor and avoid extra development costs for the PS3.

The Cell design will always be an issue for gaming as there will never be a perfect situation of equally loaded threads, and a small number of powerful cores will always reap the biggest benefits as there will always be a few central power hungry processes and a varying number of smaller processors which can be offloaded onto a Cell like processor.

WatchTower · 18 May 2009 at 00:39

Sony won't have worry about people running PS3 games on Emulators ever. lol

Kreeeee · 18 May 2009 at 00:43

The PS2 was an equally complex machine in relation to its competition, so I'd expect it to be reverse engineered one day, but not for many, many years!

This thread has gone wildly off topic but I've enjoyed sharing my knowledge on the subject. I think I'll leave it there now though unless someone creates a new thread to discuss these issues.

edGfaCTor · 18 May 2009 at 14:57

Streeteh said:
It's not quite that simple watchtower as the cell isn't a 'normal' cpu. A good example would be killzone 2 where a large proportion of the cells SPUs are dedicated to helping out the GPU with certain tasks which is ultimately how the PS3 was able to run such a good looking game; the GPU is inferior to that in the 360 but i think we can all agree KZ2 equals the best titles on the 360 in terms of graphics. The SPUs in the cell can be used for many different tasks.

A better GPU would improve the PS3, yeah, but the SPUs are being used to pick up the slack at present with some rather impressive results.

EDIT: Just noticed this:

In Sonys defence, the 360 CPU is based on the cell, IBM did an underhanded deal with Microsoft to create the 360 CPU for them using research paid for by Sony. To be fair, Sony should have protected themselves better to avoid this happening in the first place. But i wouldn't say they are foolish for relying on cell; it's been a good way to get the technology some exposure and show off what it was capable of (the initial folding@home figures were astounding when the PS3 first came out, iirc it was outputting 4 times more data than some of the top end PC CPUs at the time). Because of this i imagine the cell has been given a good boost in the server market etc.

The cpu in the 360 is not based on the Cell that was a rumour if you look at the details of 360 cpu you will see there nothing alike

Who really cares about folding this is a games console they used a chip which should have never been in a games console they was foolish and over confident.

wannabedamned · 18 May 2009 at 16:10

edGfaCTor said:
The cpu in the 360 is not based on the Cell that was a rumour if you look at the details of 360 cpu you will see there nothing alike

Who really cares about folding this is a games console they used a chip which should have never been in a games console they was foolish and over confident.

You need to take a look into the folding thing, It has a massive PS3 backing, So plenty care.

With regards to it being a mistake, The Cell\RSX combination was set to give the PS3 a fantastic advantage over its competitor, Unfortunately things didn't turn out, and the PS3 ended up crippled.

*edit*

Just to ask you a question, If the GPU in the PS3 was the same as the GPU in the 360...AND it had the Cell. Would it then still have been a mistake? Only mistake sony made, was with their GPU, Not the Cell.

edGfaCTor · 20 May 2009 at 14:55

wannabedamned said:
You need to take a look into the folding thing, It has a massive PS3 backing, So plenty care.

With regards to it being a mistake, The Cell\RSX combination was set to give the PS3 a fantastic advantage over its competitor, Unfortunately things didn't turn out, and the PS3 ended up crippled.

*edit*

Just to ask you a question, If the GPU in the PS3 was the same as the GPU in the 360...AND it had the Cell. Would it then still have been a mistake? Only mistake sony made, was with their GPU, Not the Cell.

Does folding sell consoles to the public no it doesn't so it is a mistake.

The 360 gpu wouldn't work in the PS3 with the Cell and yes the cell is still a mistake being in a games console it does not function well in that role.

Streeteh · 20 May 2009 at 15:11

You're looking from this from a very limited perspective. Look at it this way, was bluray needed in a games console? No, the 360 proves it isn't, but while it increased the cost to manufacture the PS3 significantly the benefits that are being reaped due to bluray now becoming the only HD disk format far outweigh the initial costs. One of the main contributors to this success was its inclusion in the PS3; it showed the capabilities of the technology and got some much needed coverage.

The same goes for the cell, people were blown away by its folding figures when the ps3 first came out. As a result i feel its sales in the server market can only have benefited. While it is not best suited for running games (but it is still very adept), it has shown people how good it is at performing number crunching tasks that servers are often required for.

Many of the technologies used in the PS3 aren't there because they're best suited for a games console, it's just a very good platform for getting the products out there and known.

If you have a source disproving the claims that IBM used Sony funded research to help produce the CPU in the 360 please do post them. I have only ever seen statements saying it is the case.