• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Q6600 Vs PS3 Cell

Strider

Strider

Strider

Associate
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
52
I've had friends tell me that the Cell processor in the PS3 (with a total of 8 x 3ghz SPE's) would knock lumps out of my new stock Q6600.

I'm not remotely interested in consoles, but out of interest, which is quicker?

My new rig:

Q6600, 3 Wd Raptors 36.7gb (raid 0), 2gb 1ghz Dominator Ram, 7800 Gtx (TTL >6 months), Asus Commando.

PS3 Spec;
Link
 
ps3 would be faster if games are what your comparing it to.

even the xbox 360 is faster than pc. look at rainbow 6 vegas, runs great on 360 but not enough pc power to run the game properly.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
even the xbox 360 is faster than pc. look at rainbow 6 vegas, runs great on 360 but not enough pc power to run the game properly.
Click to expand...

Wasnt R6:Vegas just a lazy port by Ubisoft onto the PC platform hence the huge perfomance hit?
 
Your PC is quicker at what it does by about 200x. Cell is a very specialised processor that only performs quickly in a very narrow set of conditions.
 
R6 Vegas was designed to run on consoles. No doubt for gaming the PS3 cell is going to kick bum but your pc can do so much more.

PS3 games are optimized to run on them as its not upgradable, this isnt possible with pc games as all specs vary greatly.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
ps3 would be faster if games are what your comparing it to.

even the xbox 360 is faster than pc. look at rainbow 6 vegas, runs great on 360 but not enough pc power to run the game properly.
Click to expand...
BS, it was just a terrible port by Ubi.
 
no way are consoles faster, compair games, the way they look and the way they run, fair enough vegas runs great on x-box and crap on PC, but GRAW runs fluidly as hell on PC, it looks better and it has a much cooler interface, quake 4 runs 'ok' on x-box, fluidly as hell on PC, and yet again it looks better, marvel ultimate alliance looks good on x-box, stutters a LOT in places, again looks better on PC, runs fluidly, are we seeing a pattern developing, far cry is the same, doom 3 is the same, infact i can't think of a single example of where a console excels over a PC... :confused:

Edit: been playing on PS3 today, resistance: fall of man, looks no better than half-life 2 on PC really, so its nothing to shout about, PC game developers are lazy, period
 
Gashman said:
been playing on PS3 today, resistance: fall of man, looks no better than half-life 2 on PC really, so its nothing to shout about, PC game developers are lazy, period
Click to expand...

I would agree with that lol.

Anyway, yes its really hard to compare a pc system to a consol, i dont think you can compare them not in a way that you finally say a PS3 is better than such and such pc.

Also comparing games with one another is difficult as well due to the fact that games are programmed slightly diffrent on the pc than a consol system.
 
NathanE said:
Your PC is quicker at what it does by about 200x. Cell is a very specialised processor that only performs quickly in a very narrow set of conditions.
Click to expand...

And this is probally the best responce you would ever get on this subject.
 
Gashman said:
Edit: been playing on PS3 today, resistance: fall of man, looks no better than half-life 2 on PC really, so its nothing to shout about, PC game developers are lazy, period
Click to expand...
It is not that they are lazy (usually) it is just much harder to make a game look good an every system out there. If a company built a game specifically for the X1900XT and above then it would look absolutely amazing. Scaling properly on older hardware created huge problems with PC games.
Games like GRAW and R6:Vegas were primarily developed on the Xbox360 and then shoddily ported over to the PC.



Strider said:
I've had friends tell me that the Cell processor in the PS3 (with a total of 8 x 3ghz SPE's) would knock lumps out of my new stock Q6600.

I'm not remotely interested in consoles, but out of interest, which is quicker?

My new rig:

Q6600, 3 Wd Raptors 36.7gb (raid 0), 2gb 1ghz Dominator Ram, 7800 Gtx (TTL >6 months), Asus Commando.

PS3 Spec;
Link
Click to expand...
In terms of FLOPS (floating point operations per second) then the Cell will destroy your Q6600, mainly because it is a massively parallel architecture, much like a GPU is. Sony originally had the cell as both the CPU and GPU in the PS3, until they realised that the cell wasn't all that good for graphics.
IMO opinion, cell is all hype and little substance in terms of the PS3. It will be good for physics and possibly AI, but these functions will never take advantage of its floating point performance. Folding@Home is the sorta thing the Cell was designed to do, that is why it works so well with that. A GPU will still hammer it with throughput though, especially the liked of the 8800GTX.

In terms of general performance though, the PS3 Cell relies on a single PowerPC core which would be demolished by your Q6600.

For gaming, the Cell and Q6600 will still both be GPU limited. So basically, for FLOPS the Cell wins, for everything else the Q6600 wins.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
rainbow six vegas
splinter cell double agent

and various others to add to the list.
Click to expand...

Both of which are terrible ports.... and happen to be published by Ubisoft. Every port they have done from the 360 to the PC that i can think of has been absolutely terrible. Lazy, awful, rushed cash ins.
 
The cell processor is superior in one scenario over PC CPU's and that is floating point operations. PC CPU's excel in all other areas. Running SuperPI on cell revealed that it performs around the same level as a pentium 4 1.8Ghz CPU.
 
XtAsY said:
The cell processor is superior in one scenario over PC CPU's and that is floating point operations. PC CPU's excel in all other areas. Running SuperPI on cell revealed that it performs around the same level as a pentium 4 1.8Ghz CPU.
Click to expand...
How did you get Super Pi to run natively on a Cell? Do you have one of IBM's fancy blade servers? It can't run natively on the PS3 because the Linux OS is locked out of the hardware by Sony's hypervisor.
 
BillytheImpaler said:
How did you get Super Pi to run natively on a Cell? Do you have one of IBM's fancy blade servers? It can't run natively on the PS3 because the Linux OS is locked out of the hardware by Sony's hypervisor.
Click to expand...

I thought that someone had hacked a PS3??

Stelly
 
Cyber-Mav said:
ps3 would be faster if games are what your comparing it to.

even the xbox 360 is faster than pc. look at rainbow 6 vegas, runs great on 360 but not enough pc power to run the game properly.
Click to expand...

that is total crap
R6 Vegas runs on the Unreal 3 Engine - which is designed to run on PCs!!!
It was just a terrible port.....

PS3's processor is too specialised - in fact the 360s CPU is much faster, according to games developers....

I think that a Core 2 Quad Extreme QX6700 would be faster overall than the new console CPUs....
Plus the PS3's graphics chip is poor - only as fast as a 7800 GTX or so I hear....
 
Isn't the 7 SPE cores of the Cell Cpu of the PS3 basically 7 co-processors?
I read this last night before starting of the thread;
Cell - Wikipedia

Somewhere on there I'm certain it mentions that the 7 cores of the cell act as co-processors, limited to mathmatical calculations (although I previously thought the Cpu only processed mathmatical calculations).

I'm guessing (by guessing, I mean, I'm not a CPU architect, although I wish I was) that the 7 co-processors would make an excellent AI engine for the PS3, if only total war was available for the PS3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom