PS4. Again!

What i meant was that irrespective of the PS3, that Sony as a corporation made a huge loss.

The PS side of sonys business only recently came into profit:

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...-division-swings-to-profit-as-ps3-sales-rise/

Sony's Networked Products & Services division, which houses the company's PlayStation, PC and network operations, posted an operating profit of £267 million for the 12 months ended March 31, up from a loss of £624 million the previous year.

So lets presume that sony made at least that much loss for the prior 2 years too, so the entire business unit probably in the hole to -600million x 3 = 1800million, but adjusted for the new 260k profit: say £1500 million loss over 4 years

The company spent many, many millions designing the PS3's Cell processor and its own semi conductor facilities, and Sony chief financial officer Masaru Kato told investors (via Andriasang): "It is no longer thinkable to have a huge initial financial investment like that of the PS3."

IMO sony cant make another console that is destined to make such huge losses over the first 3-4 years because the company isnt in a financial state to be able to allow that to happen. Its true that PS profitability will probably now increase each year for the next 3-4 years for the PS3, but even then it will have taken the business a long time to recoup the earlier losses...
 
Originally Posted by wannabedamned
...You saying PS3 isnt a success? I mean it made losses in the beginning, I wasnt aware it still was?

FInancially the PS3 is a disaster so far imo as backed up by those numbers above. If demand remains strong and increases to profiability can be made, the project may well break even or run into profit, but as an investment it will have been consiered a bad one...
 
I agree with people who say that PS4 will incorporate an enhanced Cell cpu instead of being a brand new architecture.

I believe PS4 will be more of a modification compared to PS3 than a complete new architecture.

Developing a brand new system from scratch will be immensly costly and considering it is meant to be more powerful than PS3 which is already a powerful console system; Sony just can't afford huge investment in R&D this time. That will just cripple Sony.

Instead they will optimize the current Cell technology by adding may be more PPEs and SPEs as rumoured, which will be much easy to implement and will give more boost.

What Sony needs to concentrate more on is a powerful GPU coupled with increased Ram which is essential especially for full HD res.

Edit: With inclusion of Cell, this will hopefully allow for easy backward compatibility aswell compared to the scenario between PS3 and PS2. So this will be an additional bonus and one which I would like definitely.
 
I agree with people who say that PS4 will incorporate an enhanced Cell cpu instead of being a brand new architecture.

I believe PS4 will be more of a modification compared to PS3 than a complete new architecture.

Developing a brand new system from scratch will be immensly costly and considering it is meant to be more powerful than PS3 which is already a powerful console system; Sony just can't afford huge investment in R&D this time. That will just cripple Sony.

Instead they will optimize the current Cell technology by adding may be more PPEs and SPEs as rumoured, which will be much easy to implement and will give more boost.

What Sony needs to concentrate more on is a powerful GPU coupled with increased Ram which is essential especially for full HD res.

Edit: With inclusion of Cell, this will hopefully allow for easy backward compatibility aswell compared to the scenario between PS3 and PS2. So this will be an additional bonus and one which I would like definitely.

Will it still lag behind current high end pc's? its sounding likely by what some of you guys are saying?
 
It cant be said really. The Cell is already a better number cruncher than most PC based CPUs, Obviously if coded for properly

It all depends on GPU and RAM.
 
In some respects of course it will. The design will be set and then probably once thats done it will be out done in terms of brute force within 6 months of being put into prototype..

Does that make the games any worse, or will they even be better on the better hardware of the PC? The PC Games thread about Fifa 12, for instance makes me think not.

It cant be said really. The Cell is already a better number cruncher than most PC based CPUs, Obviously if coded for properly

It all depends on GPU and RAM.

Exactly the cewll might do well in some areas but when you have a GPU that is a 7800GTX but cut down, then obviously you have a limiting factor right there, same with the ram situation. However better optimised games designed for the pres set hardware configurations ensures a smoother experience for the average gamer for a price that the PC cannot get to.
 
really? How has this come about? I would have thought i5 i7 and so on would be more powerful.

It's apple and oranges. You throw unoptimized code at it, it'll work the data worse than a standard processor. You throw optimized code at it, it would make mince meat out of current CPUs. Theres debates around the web about whether the PS3 version of the Cell would stand up to the I7 Intel Quad Core Xeon 2.93ghz. And its generally a rule of thumb from the discussions that optimized Cell coding beats out the Xeon.

And thats talking about old PS3 tech. IBM have a few versions of the Cell Family architecture.
 
Thats not what ive read, the new out of order execution intel and amd processors should be faster at more tasks than the cell is.

there may be specific instances where the Cell can beat an 86 architecture chip, but most of the time no. But then the cell doesnt have to translate via Windows and possibly unoptimised code so..
 
It's apple and oranges. You throw unoptimized code at it, it'll work the data worse than a standard processor. You throw optimized code at it, it would make mince meat out of current CPUs. Theres debates around the web about whether the PS3 version of the Cell would stand up to the I7 Intel Quad Core Xeon 2.93ghz. And its generally a rule of thumb from the discussions that optimized Cell coding beats out the Xeon.

And thats talking about old PS3 tech. IBM have a few versions of the Cell Family architecture.

Learn something new everyday, Why have IBM not made this available to other systems? Well regards less on how powerful it is ill end up buying as Its tricky for me to play pc in bed hungover!
 
Learn something new everyday, Why have IBM not made this available to other systems?

because nobody wanted IBM power pc architecture. The only people that used them were Apple, and even they diteched it for Intel X86 / X64.

In the real world it's not about who technically made the best engineered product, its what people want to design their products for.

VHS vs betamax proved that.
 
Thats not what ive read, the new out of order execution intel and amd processors should be faster at more tasks than the cell is.

there may be specific instances where the Cell can beat an 86 architecture chip, but most of the time no. But then the cell doesnt have to translate via Windows and possibly unoptimised code so..

I thought I'd go have a look around myself, rather than guess and spout off what I've seen on forums.

The PS3 is capable of 100 Gflops double precision

The I7 980 is capable of 107.55 Gflops at double precision.

Which puts the I7 980 mildly ahead.

but consider how old the Cell in the PS3 is, And how long an I7 980 has been on market. I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd go have a look around myself, rather than guess and spout off what I've seen on forums.

The PS3 is capable of 100 Gflops double precision

The I7 980 is capable of 107.55 Glops at double precision.

Which puts the I7 980 mildly ahead.

but consider how old the Cell in the PS3 is, And how long an I7 980 has been on market. I'd say thats pretty damn impressive.

and considering how much an i7 980 costs
 
Will it still lag behind current high end pc's? its sounding likely by what some of you guys are saying?

The desktop CPUs are integer general purpose processors and excel in multi-tasking whereas Cell CPU is a specific type of processor which acts more like a GPU and it's main strength lies in real numbers processing i.e Floating Points.
I don't think Cell is an integer processor.

So the two Cpus can't be directly compared.

However if you want to compare the two CPus then more direct comparison has to be made between FPU (Floating Point Unit) (which actually calculates real number values) of the desktop CPU and Cell.

Cell main strength lies in single precision (32bit) Flops and for [email protected], it can compute a maximum of 204GFlops. The Gflops increase as you increase the clockspeed. ( You will know what I mean when running IBT at lower or high clock speed)

Modern CPUs are 64bit (correct me if I am wrong) and are more powerful at carrying out double precision (64 Bit) Flops (i.e larger numbers with more decimal points).

Unfortunately PS3 Cell cpu could only manage about 20GFlops in double precision although theoretically it is capable of 102.4GFlops (multi-add instructions)

So in single precision PS3 cell is faster

In double precision Desktop Cpus are faster.

However FPUs of desktop CPUs are also capable of single precision Flops and for [email protected] it is faster.

I did the following calculations some weeks ago for PS3 Cell Cpu and Sandybridge as below so you can get a better idea.

As things stand currently SandyBridge is faster than Cell in both single and double precision Flops. However with the talk of PS4 enhanced Cell aiming to achieve 1TeraFlops in single-precision, it will beat any desktop Cpu.

I don't know much about Game design but I read somewhere that modern games also incorporate Flops calculations hence you get GPUs maximum peak power quoted in TeraFlops already.

So all that needs to happen is for Sony to increase PPEs and SPEs which will allow them to reach 1 TeraFlops and also to include a power GPU coupled with increased Ram as stated previosly and it will outperform any desktop CPU in gaming.

However Flops isn't everything but this is one benchmark that can be used to see some differences between techs.:)

Before the introduction of SandyBridge and AVX instructions, Core2 (Q6600, E8400, etc)and Nehalem processors (i3,i5, i7) made use of SSE instructions (SSE1,2,3,3S,4.1,4.2) to carry out FLOP calculations. SSE is part of SIMD instructions set which is also used in Cell cpu. So both the desktop CPUs and PS3 Cell broadband processor compute Floating Point operations in similar numbers in a cycle in single-precision and double-precision.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD#Hardware


SSE has 128-bit wide register.

Single-Precision Floating point numbers are 32-bit wide

Double-Precision Floating point numbers are 64-bit wide

So SSE register can store 4 single-precision floating point numbers and 2 double-precision floating point numbers.

Modern processors with SSE instructions can carry out a mutliplication+addition operation (2 Flop) on a single floating point number per core in a cycle. This is 2 Flop per core in a cycle.

So in Single-Precision: 2 Flop x 4 Floating Point numbers = 8Flop or (4 multiplications + 4 Additions) per core in a cycle

Double-Precision: 2 Flop x 2 Floating Point numbers = 4Flop or (2 multiplications + 2 Additions) per core in a cycle.


However with the introduction of Sandy Bridge and AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions), the 128-bit SSE register is expanded to 256-bit.

This means you can store eight 32-bit numbers or four 64-bit numbers in the 256-bit register.

So in Single-precision

2 Flop x 8 Floating Point Numbers = 16 Flop or (8 multiplications + 8 additions) per core in a cycle

Double-Precision

2 Flop x 4 Floating point numbers = 8 Flop or (4 multiplications + 4 additions) per core in a cycle.

As Sandybridge is a quad core having 4 physical cores, so this translates into;

Single-Precision: 16Flop x 4 cores = 64Flop per cycle

Double-Precision: 8 Flop x 4 cores = 32Flop per cycle

[email protected] means it can operate 4.7billion cycles in a second. Hence in;

Single-Precision: 64 Flop per cycle x 4.7 billion cycles in a second = 300.8 billion Flops or 300.8GFlops

Double-Precision: 32 Flop per cycle x 4.7 billion cycles in a second = 150.4 billion Flops or 150.4GFlops



In the case of PS3 Cell [email protected]:

It has 1 PPE (Power Processor Element) and 8 SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements).

A PPE can perform can perform 2 Flop in a cycle in double-precision and 8 Flop in a cycle in single-precision.

So that is 8 Flop per cycle x 3.2 billion cycles = 25.6 billion Flops or 25.6GFlops in single-precision and 2 Flop per cycle x 3.2 billion cycles = 6.4 billion Flops or 6.4GFlops in double-precision


Each SPE (128-bit wide register) can also perform 25.6GFlops in single-precision and 12.8GFlops in double precision


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Architecture



Single-Precision: (1PPE + 7SPE) x 25.6GFLops = 204.8GFlops

Double-Precision 7SPEs x 12.8GFlops = 89.6GFlops

1PPE x 6.4GFlops = 6.4GFlops

Total = 89.6 + 6.4 = 96GFlops

However assuming if PPE is only used to control the SPEs and the 8th SPE is also enabled, then you will end up with 8SPEs x 12.8GFlops = 102.4GFlops in double-precision.


To make use of AVX instructions, I believ you need to have Windows7 SP1 installed and latest version of Intel Burn test/LinX to take advantage of AVX instructions.

Since I assume you aren't using SP1, then SandyBridge will only be makng use of SSE instructions.

In that case [email protected] means the maximum theoretical GFlops value you can get in IBT is 75.2GFlops (Double-Precision). Notice this is half of 150.4GFlops with the inclusion of AVX.

You are getting 65GFlops in IBT which is still a very high value and is 65/75.2 = 86.4% of the theoretical maximum.

To get 75.2GFlops:

No of cores x no of Flop per core per cycle x cpu speed = 4 cores x 4 Flop x 4.7Ghz = 75.2GHz

To get 65GFlops:

No of cores x no of Flop per core per cycle x cpu speed = 4 cores x 3.5 Flop x 4.7Ghz = 65GFlops.

However you can't get 3.5Flop and the number will likely be a whole number. Getting 65 GFlops just means that you can't utilise all of the cpu cycles as many of them are also being taken by running of windows, background processes, devce drivers, cached data etc coupled with RAM latencies.

With the inclusion of AVX instructions, you should be getting 65 x 2 = 130GFlops out of a possible 150.4GFlops as discussed above:):cool:.
 
Just thought I'd reassure some people... We are still talking about the PS4 here! Just talking about the Cell! Which will no doubt be included in the machine, only in an advanced state! :p
 
I hope Flops calculations for Cell and Sandybridge weren't confusing:p.

In a nutshell as things stand and assuming Sandybridge is overclocked to 4.7Ghz

[email protected]

Single Precision (32bit): 204GFlops
Double Precision (64bit): 102GFlops
(Theoretical though it can only manage about 20GFlops or even less in real world)


[email protected]

Single Precision (32bit): 300GFlops
Double Precision (64bit): 150GFlops


So if PS4 Cell can reach 1TeraFlops in single precision, it will beat any current may be future desktops cpus in gaming
 
I hope Flops calculations for Cell and Sandybridge weren't confusing:p.

In a nutshell as things stand and assuming Sandybridge is overclocked to 4.7Ghz

[email protected]

Single Precision (32bit): 204GFlops
Double Precision (64bit): 102GFlops
(Theoretical though it can only manage about 20GFlops or even less in real world)


[email protected]

Single Precision (32bit): 300GFlops
Double Precision (64bit): 150GFlops


So if PS4 Cell can reach 1TeraFlops in single precision, it will beat any current may be future desktops cpus in gaming

The trick is of course utilising that extra performance, something you tend to see only a few years into the console cycle, by which time desktop CPU may have caught up and overtaken. And of course, its not just CPU, its GPU as well, with a AMD 6970 able to produce 2.7TFlops in SP and 675GFlops in DP, and I imagine that will increase by the time the PS4 comes out.

Of course, an advantage for consoles is that the hardware stays the same for 5/6/7/8 years, allowing optimisations and the ability to squeeze out all of the extra performance.
 
The thing I love mainly is the cell processor has been operational since January 2007, And its only now current tech is matching it.

Imagine if people would use it mainstream.
 
Back
Top Bottom