Playstation's Serious side Fighting Disease

[RoM]

Releasing the goods during a time when the rich get richer and the poor become more poor is the time any company would want to release their primary prouduct.

All i can say to this is any company but sony. Any focus group or review of the hardware would have shown that most they were going to need hardware/software fixes before the machine can be considered a cohesive unit worth it's weight in salt. IMO they should have released to combat the 360, not the wii. Why they didn't i can't speak to, i'm ill informed. But that's just my opinion on the matter to me it makes the most sense not only for further financial gain down the line (hello responsible marketing and titles to support the console) as opposed to releasing yet another console with known issues late in the game not to combat the BIG threat (lolmicrosoft). Sony won out last round because they had their shit together and weren't going to let microsoft squish them being the noobs to the game. It would appear to me that they were either hindered or didn't take it so seriously this round.

Naturally the @home function is great. Helps people, yadda yadda yadda. Why didn't we know about it a year ago when sony was bragging on it's tech against the 360s? That's why i find the buzz on it now questionable and basicly grabbing at straws at this point. Truth be told i think what many conjecture to be a great improvement on the solution times for whatever the hell it is they're working on are really only going to notice a drop in the bucket at best ... specificly with a sony console. Case in point was made earlier; with as fragile as the PS2s were and the already volatile nature of new consoles (let alone sony's) fresh off the line i doubt your tech savvy gamer is going to keep it running very often without playing it. Moreover i seriously doubt participation is going to sway gamers to keep it on for the love of humanity.

Again just my fuzzy biased opinion, i'm not out to preach the imperical (sp?) truth here just my take on it.

 

[Anttaru]

Well a year ago the cell processor was nowhere near complete. They failed to meet the 1st deadline so it be told. IBM is working with Nintendo and Sony and definatly does not what either system to fail. That could be a clue as to how and why the 2 systems were released at the same time.

Sony looses $250.oo per PS3 unit. So prouducing them in small quantity and selling them off is actually helping the company remain stable money wise. Not to mention they claim the chip cannot be prouduced in short time. If Sony was able to make the systems fast enough, It would burn such a whole in their pockets it would lead to Sonys doom.

The making of the PS3 already is facinating. Sony really would go down in flames if it fails. Sony knows there are people blindly willing to purchase every playstation in their life time. It's that same faith Sony has in their consumers or fans or whatever you'd like to address them as, that lead Sony to risk everything in order to make the PS3 happen. If the PS3 successfully takes the #1 spot in this generation of consoles, that might not surprise us. If any of the 3 consoles took took #1, I don't think that would surprise us either. Given the magnitude of what the PS3 is capable of, i'd say game developers will have a feild day completing those exclusive projects that will make or break the PS3.

 

[Garvin]

Sony knows there are people blindly willing to purchase every playstation in their life time. It's that same faith Sony has in their consumers or fans or whatever you'd like to address them as, that lead Sony to risk everything in order to make the PS3 happen.

It's not "faith", it's arrogance. They've even said in numerous press releases "You will buy it because you're buying a Playstation." Not because it is actually worth buying, the hardware is good, or anything else. They know people will unquestioningly buy it because it's the Sony Playstation 3.

And they're right. People are sheep like that.

 

[Elpon]

You're not the joker, you're the joke.

Ok, go ahead and act surprised that i have a natural distaste for you.

For a moment i thought you were gonna say something constructive, now i just want to end our exchanges with silence. I have no desire to talk about our relations in detail. Simply put, i think you're choices are awful, and extremely bad taste.

No sir, you are the joke. I was going to write a full post responding to everything you said but i think we're done here. As soon as you write as something as ridiculous as that, it's over.
So I don't really care if you don't like me. I think it's only cause I don't put up with your shit and you can't take it. Honestly, you are a stubborn dense fool with a reading disability and horrible choice of words and metaphors. Maybe a little paranoid too.
Alright, I think we're done here. Enjoy the rest of your thread.

 

[Tagrineth]

I mentioned it's using 20% yes. And i also mentioned in another thread that it reaches near 2 trillion in 6 seconds.

210 GFLOPs. 210 billion in 1 second. That would make 1 trillion in 5 seconds. I don't know where on Earth 210 * 6 = 2000, apparently it's somewhere around where you live.

The cells arn't equal in speed. I get my information from Michael Gschwind. He's the lead R&D at IBM who pretty much is responsible for how the cell turned out.

The article i posted earlier stated that the cell will be used in an upcoming super computer IBM is making. Said to do 1,000 per second. So if the cell is running at 80% in the PS3 like you say it is, then that is more than we can hope for now isn't it.

Okay, but the Cell in the PS3 uses 7 PEs and is rated at about 210 maximum GFLOPs. The PS3's 8 hardware, 7 operational PE Cell is running at about 83% of its personal maximum (because, you know, it's 7/8ths functional).

Ok but you never mentioned it's DDR to memory did you ? No you didin't, plus the chip connects itself to XDR which is a totally different fourm of memory.
I'm talking about a new kind of Hyperthreading here. The Billions is only a base to get amped up.

CPU: Cell Processor

PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
GPU: RSX @550MHz

1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance << TeraFLOP ! Hows that beotch ?
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines
Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
System Bandwidth:

Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
VRAM: 22.4GB/s
RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)
System Floating Point Performance: 2 TFLOPS

The 1.8TFLOPs is on the RSX graphics processor which will BE INOPERABLE WHILE RUNNING FUCKING @HOME because it can't execute general code, only graphics.

System floating point performance: 2 TFLOPS. 2 - 1.8 = 200 GFLOPs - this quote of your own even lists the Cell's specified 218 maximum GFLOPs.

The 2TFLOPs system throughput is marketing FUD to make idiot sheep like you think the system is more powerful than it really is.

The FLOP rating of the graphics chip is misleading because graphics processors are by necessity designed to do many parallel operations at once... but they can't just process anything - they can only process graphics.

In other words, for the purposes of your @home "PS3's contribution to mankind", we are looking at a maximum of about 210 GFLOPs.

Oh and other official resources say the cell processor alone can to up to level 16 TeraFlops.

For those of you that have no clue, Tera represents 1 trillion.

What are "Level 16 Teraflops"? Are they more effective than Level 1 Teraflops? How can I level up the gigaflops in my system!

And you say....

As if it would be easier to do on a processor flying solo. Is that what i'm hearing ?

Actually, yes.

Achieving a processor's maximum capacity is very difficult regardless. Now, imagine instead achieving maximum capacity on seven separate processors, and keeping them synchronised.

In other words - doesn't it just make sense that it'd be easier to max out 1 processor versus maxing out 7?

I'll stay close to the developers word if that's ok with you.

I do the same thing, I just don't usually put names to my sources.

Here's one, though. http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/10/the_playstation.html

Some key points:

JK: Yeah, it is a different vector. For us to extrapolate. We will push the number of special processing units. By 2010, we will shoot for a teraflop on a chip.

DT: Right now you’re at 200 gigaflops?

JK: We’re in the low 200s now.

Dude, you can't school me when you're talking shit. There are the correct spects for the PS3 cell. Read it, then go stare at yourself in the mirror.

Yeah, I just owned you with them. In fact, you owned you with them by posting them yourself. Good game, doofus.

Um. The PS3 is on a pedestal, i never put it there, i only choose to speak of it's technology, and what else it will be doing.

You put it on a pedestal when you said "article regarding PS3 contribution to mankind".

Yes, you're speaking of its technology, but you specifically said, right there, that PS3 is making a major contribution to mankind.

Which it really isn't. Don't act like PS3 is a gift from god (only PSP gets that title by the way, that was a joke). It's a powerful system, and it's cool that it can run folding@home, also cool that it's the first console to get a folding@home client (though x360 could run it too if MS chooses to), but it's not really that massively ungodly badass that PS3 is going to make the world a better place.

"You" say i'm raising it, to add as a 2nd excuse to attack me. I haven't even started with you, and believe me Tagrineth it's a side of me that can get so ugly, i have mercy on my enemies before i even see who they are. I have been kind enough not to cast insults like a child, and don't hate me for thinking you're full of shit either.

Oh noes, I'm only seeing your nice side, what am I going to do, I guess I must be nice to you now and bow before you like...

Go teach you're mindless sheep whatever.

Wait, what? You're accusing me of "[teaching] [my] mindless sheep" but you try to shut me up by threatening to get "so ugly"... god, you really are a piece of work.

I choose to follow what i read and see from realiable sources. Not from some pissy stranger i have come to know in the off topic boards

Then you come in here barking at me from post 1. Then after i show you the way out, you accuse me of calling out you're console bias ? I don't even know what the hell you're console bias is, and if i cross it, who freakin cares ? It's you're choice to make it personal.

Omygod, dude... lol. My first post "barking at you" was in the console graphics chip thread, in which you had no fucking clue what you were talking about... and I tried to be nice to you but you ignored what I said and parroted the tripe you already "knew" again.

And yes, you called out my console bias. Do you not even know what you say yourself? Jesus, no wonder you're such a fucking bitch to "discuss" with.

You said:

You're predijust for the PS3 drives you're very beliefs.

In other words, you were calling me out on having a console bias... and yet, every single FUCKING post in this thread has you defending the PS3 like it's, to steal from Strid for a moment, an lolmedicalmartyr. You don't listen to a goddamn thing, and then in this post I've been quoting, you even posted evidence that backed up MY argument. Thanks for fucking reading your own sources.

I post so rarely, i make new threads not so often, this being the 16th one. And this is the 2nd one in a row Tagrineth, where i end up having to keep the thread clean. I'm not trying to be cocky or anything, i do enjoy our encounters to be honest. Learn to see my point of views, I only dislike you're point of views after i examine them very carefully.

Keep the thread clean, lol, like you're some kind of holy saint or something. I guess people should start bowing before you now? OH wait, I thought *I* was the one preaching to sheep.


Listen. I've been dealing with console hardware info for many, many years (dating back to the 16-bit era). Contrary to what you seem to believe, I really do know my shit. I don't have "sources" like what you can name, most of the time, because I read about the info and then like... close the web page... because I don't usually give a damn who said it as long as I know the source was credible. Mostly because all this knowledge really is pretty useless and I don't have to argue with people about it very often. lol.

 

[Firestreak]

Honestly, helping cure whatever is a good cause of course. Just as long as people don't act smug about it like they're jesus because they're letting their PS3 eat up their bandwidth and electricy when they're not using it.

 

[Anttaru]

210 GFLOPs. 210 billion in 1 second. That would make 1 trillion in 5 seconds. I don't know where on Earth 210 * 6 = 2000, apparently it's somewhere around where you live.

Well that was an "estimated guess". I made in another thread !

So using a calculator

210,000,000,000 X 6 = 1,260,000,000,000

If i had said 8 seconds i would have been closer. to 2 trillion like this 1,680,000,000,000.

Note that i never once said this is happening in 1 second or anything like that.

Okay, but the Cell in the PS3 uses 7 PEs and is rated at about 210 maximum GFLOPs. The PS3's 8 hardware, 7 operational PE Cell is running at about 83% of its personal maximum (because, you know, it's 7/8ths functional).

Not every processor is made to run at max performance. The ones in the PS3 are 20%. They can be clocked to higher and lower speeds. Not a matter of how many cells are operational, it can still be ultered, for the PS3 the chip will do 20% performance so i have read.

The 1.8TFLOPs is on the RSX graphics processor which will BE INOPERABLE WHILE RUNNING FUCKING @HOME because it can't execute general code, only graphics.

folding@home for the GPU is the superior version incase you haven't looked it up. It originated with Nvidia 1st. It has been known that the GPU is better than the CPU at handeling these rendering tasks.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/29/folding_at_home_to_use_gpus/

System floating point performance: 2 TFLOPS. 2 - 1.8 = 200 GFLOPs - this quote of your own even lists the Cell's specified 218 maximum GFLOPs.

The 2TFLOPs system throughput is marketing FUD to make idiot sheep like you think the system is more powerful than it really is.

I pointed out to you where the speed really is in the PS3. I never said the cell in the PS3 is what makes it do trillions. What i did write was how IBM will be making a computer with the cell processor that will do clocking speeds of 1,000T. That is another topic.

I don't know what FUD means. The graphics card alone is doing 1.8 alone. It's working within the system. as a finished machine the PS3 is putting out 2 trillion calculations per second.

If you believe the specs why call me an idiot sheep who believes ? Surly you believe these specs. why else would you even speak to me about it.

The FLOP rating of the graphics chip is misleading because graphics processors are by necessity designed to do many parallel operations at once... but they can't just process anything - they can only process graphics.

That is you're conclusion because you never believed that a GPU is capable to handle the tasks given by folding@home. Did i mention the GPU is more commonly used for folding@home now over the CPU version ? You odda read about it.

In other words, for the purposes of your @home "PS3's contribution to mankind", we are looking at a maximum of about 210 GFLOPs.

I've read how the cell processor will contribute 100 of it's GFLOP in the process.

What are "Level 16 Teraflops"? Are they more effective than Level 1 Teraflops? How can I level up the gigaflops in my system!

16 Teraflops, they are more effective than 1.

Actually, yes.

Achieving a processor's maximum capacity is very difficult regardless. Now, imagine instead achieving maximum capacity on seven separate processors, and keeping them synchronised.

In other words - doesn't it just make sense that it'd be easier to max out 1 processor versus maxing out 7?

Easier yes. But 2 is better than 1, let alot 7. If 1 can be better than 2, than that 1 is mighty fine. That isn't the case here, and has nothing to do with the subject. Talk to IBM about what you think they should have done.

I do the same thing, I just don't usually put names to my sources.

What does that mean ?

Here's one, though. http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/10/the_playstation.html

Some key points:










Yeah, I just owned you with them. In fact, you owned you with them by posting them yourself. Good game, doofus.

/sigh ; ;

You put it on a pedestal when you said "article regarding PS3 contribution to mankind".

Oh ? Is it not a contribution ? Folding@home thinks so, when Sony wrote their own software for Folding@home to work with the PS3.

Yes, you're speaking of its technology, but you specifically said, right there, that PS3 is making a major contribution to mankind. Which it really isn't

I believe what they are doing is great. Millions of PetaFLOPS will happen over this reducing time As it does on the PC. You don't think so and that's fine, maybe because you or anyone you care about is not a victim of stem cell diseases.

Don't act like PS3 is a gift from god (only PSP gets that title by the way, that was a joke).

I'm acting like it's a gift from God ? I never said it will save Humanity, i only speculate how it will help some of us. And you bash me for that.

It's a powerful system, and it's cool that it can run folding@home, also cool that it's the first console to get a folding@home client (though x360 could run it too if MS chooses to), but it's not really that massively ungodly badass that PS3 is going to make the world a better place.

Oh, but 1 shouldn't speak of it on a board or else that person will be taken for some kind of fan.

Oh noes, I'm only seeing your nice side, what am I going to do, I guess I must be nice to you now and bow before you like...

And still you attack.

Wait, what? You're accusing me of "[teaching] [my] mindless sheep" but you try to shut me up by threatening to get "so ugly"... god, you really are a piece of work.

That wasn't a threat, I was pointing out why i choose to remin kind, even to my enemy. You don't find you're persona very attractive here do you ?

Omygod, dude... lol. My first post "barking at you" was in the console graphics chip thread, in which you had no fucking clue what you were talking about... and I tried to be nice to you but you ignored what I said and parroted the tripe you already "knew" again.

I was right about the HDMI and the 360 wasn't i ? and the HD attachment. As for the Geforce and XboX GPU. I did not deny you. I just showed you a few threads that talk about the GeForce and the GPU being the same caliber and status and you went all frizzy on me.

And yes, you called out my console bias. Do you not even know what you say yourself? Jesus, no wonder you're such a fucking bitch to "discuss" with.

You said:You're predijust for the PS3 drives you're very beliefs.
In other words, you were calling me out on having a console bias...

What am i supose to think if you come cursing at me from post 1 ?

and yet, every single FUCKING post in this thread has you defending the PS3 like it's, to steal from Strid for a moment, an lolmedicalmartyr.

I love all systems, I do see PS3 as a good deal. I don't promote the bashing of any console. I also like Microsoft and Nintendo. If i take part in a thread where there is console bashing going on, i will not take part in it calling someone names because they want a PS3 or a Wii, or assuming my favourite is the best. I speak off PS3 positivly. Is that really wrong ?

You don't listen to a goddamn thing, and then in this post I've been quoting, you even posted evidence that backed up MY argument. Thanks for fucking reading your own sources.

You posted in this thread once. I do not understand you're argument though. You just curse and swear and throw points about the cell processor that i'm not glorifying. Perhapse it was a mistake on my part to write about how the processor will be used by IBM at faster speeds. Am i right ?

Keep the thread clean, lol, like you're some kind of holy saint or something. I guess people should start bowing before you now? OH wait, I thought *I* was the one preaching to sheep.

Well if you want a filthy thread, the flameboard is open. Why come to my threads ? I'm not asking for anyone to kneel to me. It's the board rules. It's very simple, why don't you follow it ?

Listen. I've been dealing with console hardware info for many, many years (dating back to the 16-bit era). Contrary to what you seem to believe, I really do know my shit. I don't have "sources" like what you can name, most of the time, because I read about the info and then like... close the web page... because I don't usually give a damn who said it as long as I know the source was credible. Mostly because all this knowledge really is pretty useless and I don't have to argue with people about it very often. lol.

You need to put more focus into what GPU's are doing these days. Am i right ?

 

[xRiokox]

After the failures of the PS2 through normal use (Yes, I love the PS2, but it is fragile)

I've heard, read and known many cases about the PS2 having failures.. close friends and people of all places... yet I've had my PS2 for years(and obviously used it for a long time, not just there eating dust XD ) and I havent had a single problem with it I guess I've been lucky

 

[K. Ishitar]

Hmm...looking at this in general I'd say nature always develops a new way to keep earth from overpopulating, it seems to overcome everything that we throw at it cancer is the new bubonic plague now.

Not saying its pointless but dont count your chickens before they hatch something new(as in diesease) could come out and nullify the potential from what you're saying

 

[Tyrath]

I've heard, read and known many cases about the PS2 having failures.. close friends and people of all places... yet I've had my PS2 for years(and obviously used it for a long time, not just there eating dust XD ) and I havent had a single problem with it I guess I've been lucky

The closer your PS2 was to launch, the more likely it was to have problems =/

 

[Marajade]

The less care you give your PS2, the more likely it was to have problems =/

Fixd
Mine was a launch PS2 and it lasted untill Christmas of last year when i accidentaly dumped a pitcher of coke on it <,<
Seriously, if you treat it like shit, it'll fail. Its not defective, but its not Overbuilt like the GC was.

 

[RoM]

I call bullshit. Got mine that christmas, all but first off the line: didn't last more than 3 days out of the box in my entertainment center before the cog/laser track thinger crapped out. Go ahead and check all the data on the problem and how to fix it. The problem was so persistent that tech TV hosted a SPECIAL on how to crack the case and fix that. If you happen to be in further need of proof of the complete screwing of the pooch that was launch for PS2 check with any local preowned/new game store that does in house work.

You lucked out mara

 

[Legomyeggo]

I got a launch day PS2. It hardly lasted 30minutes.

 

[Tagrineth]

Anttaru, I'm just going to say one thing.

Folding@home for GPUs relies on having strong programmable pixel shaders. Ever heard of the GPGPU movement? It stands for General Purpose GPU, referring to programmable shaders that are so complex and open that the GPU can actually potentially run CPU-like general purpose code (of course, still having severe limitations compared to an actual CPU but still out of the normal boundaries of graphics). A well known 3D graphics site had a contest about a year ago to make GPGPU style programs for DirectX9, one of the top 10 was a version of Frogger that ran purely on the GPU - physics, sound, collision were all done using pixel shaders.

This is how folding@home GPU edition works.

The PS3's RSX, while being capable of an astounding 1.8 TFLOPs in graphics calculations, probably can't run folding@home GPU edition.

I'm not 100% positive on this, as for some reason my usual sources say nothing about how powerful RSX's shaders are. =c

But any PC with a GeForce 7k or Radeon 10k model would be able to do the same thing, and probably just as fast. =x And an SLI or CrossFire PC could easily outperform a PS3's folding@home...

Edit again: I read your Folding@home on GPUs link.

After reading it, I guarantee the PS3 Folding@home will NOT run on RSX.

From your page:

So, what about Nvidia cards? According to Pande, the group has not been able to get the software to work on Nvidia chips.

He mentioned that Nvidia wants to change this situation and considers the GPGPU market as "exciting" and something that "the company has been looking at for years." He stated that he had no personal knowledge of the development of a Folding@Home client for the Nvidia platform, but stressed that the company has a "long-standing relationship with Stanford."

Since the RSX was developed based on an existing nVidia core foundation (much like the NV2A being based on the GeForce3 architecture) - I believe in this case it is similar to the GeForce 7900 line - I very highly doubt folding@home will be able to tap into its 1.8TFLOPs in any way whatsoever.

Also, the folding@home programmers had this to say about PS3's client -

A client for the PS3 was shown already in August, but, according to Pande, that applications for the Cell aren't easy to program.

This puts folding@home's effectiveness on the PS3 into a very different light, I'd say. They've probably improved their code since that early client's demonstration, but one wonders how much. They're also limited to an absolute ceiling of 218 GFLOPs, while on a current PC client -

A new client released today supports ATI's X1900 and X1950 graphics cards, which can unleash about 375 GFlops

Which means, a high end PC with just one ATi X19x0 card would outperform the PS3 client by about double, and if the system had two in CrossFire, that number would soar.

PS3's contribution to... what, now?



Edit: Okay, I lied. I'm gonna add a little to this.

That is you're conclusion because you never believed that a GPU is capable to handle the tasks given by folding@home. Did i mention the GPU is more commonly used for folding@home now over the CPU version ? You odda read about it.

I never said I don't believe GPUs are capable of more. I'm well aware of the GPGPU concept and have been for years, actually. I'm just doubting the PS3's ability to run GPGPU code. Also, keep in mind that GPGPU operation is usually very wasteful because it takes very complicated pixel shaders, much moreso than it would on a CPU. It's still very fast, though, because GPUs are very highly parallel by nature.

But it takes a very advanced GPU to be capable of GPGPU operation, and historically, saying "PS3 is a 2TFLOP system because the GPU offers 1.8TFLOPs!" is a very misleading statement (note, also, that FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - which refers to marketing tactics that involve befuddling the consumer with misleading statistics, pretty much).


Also.

PS3's Cell processor runs at 3.2GHz. Period.

It isn't variable.

It can't go higher.

~218 GFLOPs is the *maximum* of PS3's 7-PE Cell. It isn't a "variable" "current speed", it's the maximum. The ceiling. It won't go faster than that.

It also won't go as fast as that without *FLAWLESS* programming and absolutely no hiccups like cache misses, branch misprediction, memory latency issues, multiprocessor ring bus holds, et al. There are a lot of reasons why it's more difficult to get full performance out of a multiprocessor system, and the more processors you add, the more difficult it becomes. Cell has a lot of features which try to alleviate those problems and make more processors more efficient, but there are limits. Especially once Cells get into 16-32+ elements, I'd hazard that, say, a 16 Cell core would likely only be able to run up to the theoretical peak of at most 14-15 of those processors, with the wasted power due to memory, bus, and code inefficiency being at least equivalent to an entire PE. Maybe Cell is so clever that it might take more PEs total to get to the equivalent point of one PE being wasted, I'm not sure, but look at it this way:

A dual processor PC will generally only be about 50% faster than a single processor of the same make and model.

 

[Anttaru]

Anttaru, I'm just going to say one thing.

Folding@home for GPUs relies on having strong programmable pixel shaders. Ever heard of the GPGPU movement? It stands for General Purpose GPU, referring to programmable shaders that are so complex and open that the GPU can actually potentially run CPU-like general purpose code (of course, still having severe limitations compared to an actual CPU but still out of the normal boundaries of graphics). A well known 3D graphics site had a contest about a year ago to make GPGPU style programs for DirectX9, one of the top 10 was a version of Frogger that ran purely on the GPU - physics, sound, collision were all done using pixel shaders.

This is how folding@home GPU edition works.

The PS3's RSX, while being capable of an astounding 1.8 TFLOPs in graphics calculations, probably can't run folding@home GPU edition.

I'm not 100% positive on this, as for some reason my usual sources say nothing about how powerful RSX's shaders are. =c

But any PC with a GeForce 7k or Radeon 10k model would be able to do the same thing, and probably just as fast. =x And an SLI or CrossFire PC could easily outperform a PS3's folding@home...

Edit again: I read your Folding@home on GPUs link.

After reading it, I guarantee the PS3 Folding@home will NOT run on RSX.

I cannot guarantee the RSX will render for Folding@home. Folding@home previously ran off of Nvidia's hardware in the past according to Stanford.

Yes they are more interested in ATI, cause ATI can mash Nvidia. In the end it's all a matter of what kind of driver is running off of the hardware. Software can fix such issues.

Since the RSX was developed based on an existing nVidia core foundation (much like the NV2A being based on the GeForce3 architecture) - I believe in this case it is similar to the GeForce 7900 line - I very highly doubt folding@home will be able to tap into its 1.8TFLOPs in any way whatsoever.

Folding@home started in 2000. Before the NV2A's time. Stanford did start off with Nvidia according to the official information posted in their website. There is no reaosn why they can't do it again. They just have their heart set on ATI, because ATI smokes Nvidia.

This puts folding@home's effectiveness on the PS3 into a very different light, I'd say. They've probably improved their code since that early client's demonstration, but one wonders how much. They're also limited to an absolute ceiling of 218 GFLOPs, while on a current PC client -



Which means, a high end PC with just one ATi X19x0 card would outperform the PS3 client by about double, and if the system had two in CrossFire, that number would soar.

PS3's contribution to... what, now?

I'll say again. The Cell will donate around 100 of it's Giga floating point operations. The rest will be riding on the GPU most likely.

Official Standford University information: Folding@home PS3@cure project

Now in 2006, we are looking forward to another major advance in capabilities. This advance utilizes the new Cell processor in Sony’s PLAYSTATION 3 (PS3) to achieve performance previously only possible on supercomputers. With this new technology (as well as new advances with GPUs), we will likely be able to attain performance on the 100 gigaflop scale per computer. With about 10,000 such machines, we would be able to achieve performance on the petaflop scale. With software from Sony, the PlayStation 3 will now be able to contribute to the Folding@Home project, pushing Folding@Home a major step forward.

It's not a matter of who can solo this faster. And it is obvious there will be more PS3's out there than R600's and 1900XT as everyone has acceptable graphic cards already. If you want to compare numbers, we'll probably have a chance when they post results. 10,000 PS3's will do petaflop scale digits, that is more than what they can hope for.

If the 360 were to do this and one console did better than the other in progress reports, you don't just finger the system that got less work done. You welcome it with open arms cause their presance makes the point of the operation better. This is how it will be for PC and PS3. And if Microsoft does this with the 360, then good, let them do it without being harassed.

Edit: Okay, I lied. I'm gonna add a little to this.

I never said I don't believe GPUs are capable of more. I'm well aware of the GPGPU concept and have been for years, actually. I'm just doubting the PS3's ability to run GPGPU code. Also, keep in mind that GPGPU operation is usually very wasteful because it takes very complicated pixel shaders, much moreso than it would on a CPU. It's still very fast, though, because GPUs are very highly parallel by nature.

It's funny how you're trying to teach me about GPU processing other tasks after i told you about it, when in you're last post you said:

The 1.8TFLOPs is on the RSX graphics processor which will BE INOPERABLE WHILE RUNNING FUCKING @HOME because it can't execute general code, only graphics.

And

The FLOP rating of the graphics chip is misleading because graphics processors are by necessity designed to do many parallel operations at once... but they can't just process anything - they can only process graphics.

Will you repeat the above today ?
cause now you saying stuff like

But it takes a very advanced GPU to be capable of GPGPU operation,

Advanced GPU is faster and is now modern, but these methods has been happening for a long time now. I've stressed out a 64 meg graphics Rage series. It wasn't too bad but it's freaking slow compared to my 9550. The rage got fried eventually.

and historically, saying "PS3 is a 2TFLOP system because the GPU offers 1.8TFLOPs!" is a very misleading statement (note, also, that FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - which refers to marketing tactics that involve befuddling the consumer with misleading statistics, pretty much).

It's not like i said it was a 2TFLOP, i said it was near that. At my first estimate 6 seconds. 8 seconds would have been closer and 10 seconds would have been there.

The CPU does 218GFLOP and the GPU 1.8TFLOP that is 8GFLOP above 2TFLOPs of calculation occuring within the system. Hmm. There is no sense seperating the colaberation happening in a single package.

Also.

PS3's Cell processor runs at 3.2GHz. Period.

It isn't variable.

It can't go higher.

~218 GFLOPs is the *maximum* of PS3's 7-PE Cell. It isn't a "variable" "current speed", it's the maximum. The ceiling. It won't go faster than that.

I never said the Processor inside the PS3 would magically get faster.

It also won't go as fast as that without *FLAWLESS* programming and absolutely no hiccups like cache misses, branch misprediction, memory latency issues, multiprocessor ring bus holds, et al. There are a lot of reasons why it's more difficult to get full performance out of a multiprocessor system, and the more processors you add, the more difficult it becomes. Cell has a lot of features which try to alleviate those problems and make more processors more efficient, but there are limits. Especially once Cells get into 16-32+ elements, I'd hazard that, say, a 16 Cell core would likely only be able to run up to the theoretical peak of at most 14-15 of those processors, with the wasted power due to memory, bus, and code inefficiency being at least equivalent to an entire PE. Maybe Cell is so clever that it might take more PEs total to get to the equivalent point of one PE being wasted, I'm not sure, but look at it this way:

A dual processor PC will generally only be about 50% faster than a single processor of the same make and model.

Remember 1 of 8 SPEs is reserved for redundancy. That can be the hardware solution to poor programming. I'm sure the programers musn't ignore that when developing software for the PS3 version of the cell.

Overkill is often the solution to dealing with lag issues. Like for graphic cards .... Why do we have cards that are doing hundreads of fps when we cannot see past 30fps ? The answer is when it does lag we do not notice it.

If software will lag out the machine, fix it. If it cannot be done, then save it for the next advancement in hardware.

In closing i would like to add. I haven't much more to say. I've had to repeat myself a few times, and highlight alot of what i said. I don't see the reason for battle here.

Assuming this is based on myself and my beliefs i'll have to say.

- I don't support console war to the extent of destruction, i don't give a shit if 1 system has "the best of any", cause i will have them all.

- I do favour Sony, Wii and 360 never touched PS2 for me yet I have no choice but to look foward to PS3 more than Nintendo and Microsoft. However if PS fails to be number 1 again, That's because we are all playing number 1. So what ?

- I believe PS3@cure is a major contribution. If it opens people hearts, it will also set a many, lovely mood, for so many strangers, friends, and family. I cannot understand negativity towards it. Sure there are 2 sides to everything, one would dislike the fact Sony may be doing this to sell more PS3. Now everyone hates cold business, but we all love our videogames. So who cares, it's all good.

- I have always been scolded for being a firm ATI man. So this is just plain irony i find.

- Everytime i wrote about the Cell processor outdoing itself, i wrote about what they will be doing with it in other machines. Like Toshiba's claimes of the cell processor recording 49 mpeg2 videos at the same time, or IBM making a 16TFLOP machine. I never said the one in the PS3 is of that caliber.

- I threaten no one. I'm proud to be able to keep my cool when being cursed for unacceptable reasons. I have no desire to be better than anyone. I also know i am not the best.

- I do not dissmiss everything my opponet has shown me. Nor do i feel i ever debated against the materals usied against me it to begin with.

- I do not think the PS3 "alone" is a gift from the highest.

- I don't assume my grammar is perfect when presenting argument. I can use Word if it's ever an issue. Which it is not.

As true as they are. I hope my points end this foolishness Tagrineth. I've had enough of this for now. At this point It's taking alot of time to edit and write these posts. No argument is worthy of so much time.

 

[Skaw]

Given the magnitude of what the PS3 is capable of, i'd say game developers will have a feild day completing those exclusive projects that will make or break the PS3.

Honestly, this line just caught my eye. Do you realize what would happen if a developer actually used up a complete single layer blu-ray disc? Not to mention multilayer ones. Developers were already barely turning profit due to piracy and $50-$60 DVD game sales. Remember, this is profit - the overhead from recovery of money spent actually making the game. And those were only 9.5GB after compression, tops. People(Elemmire) always say "Blu-Ray will allow for larger game worlds!" While ignoring the point I just described. Aren't they also dual-layer by default? 50 GB would mean massive price tag.

$500/$600 for the console is pretty pricey as is. $120+ per game would be disgusting. Granted, the games would be longer, but think about how many titles you'd want to buy every couple of months at that price.

 

[ziphor]

aiiee...

regardless of the replies from some in this thread, i found this interesting. Thanks for sharing the link to the story and such, Anttaru

 

[Sphene]

ok I am not going to read all the posts cause well its 03:11 and it seems
like a lot of the usual flamebait kinda garbage.
Cell Processor = good and full of epic win. However, Sony does not
get 100% credit, they just shoved it in and make it work.

Cell Processor
1) Makes games all nifty and fast. Yay...
2) Cell Processor can run Folding@home on the side when the resources
are avalible to run it, yes I know high end home PCs can run it
"faster" but speed of process isnt the issue. Think forward say...
six months to a year, the "good" games will be out and PS3 will have
hopefully dropped in price. Demographicaly any houshold that
can toss out the money for a Game Consoul, is very very likely to have
internet service of some type. Now, back to this six months to a year
down the road thing. I am going to pull numbers out of a hat here so
hold your insults. Sony floods the market - 3million

(remember I made this number up) units go out and are bought up in a heartbeat.
Say half of those units are left on 24/7/365 because the users cant figure out
how to turn them off. That is 1,500,000 PS3s adding thier processing
power to one thing or another. To put it another way, thats 1.5 million
respectable home PCs all running the same app. I dont know about
some of you but there are 3 people and 3 PS2s in my house, and the
only thing that gets used more than the PS2s is the bathroom.
Imagine if those were all PS3s...
These processing jobs are not set up in such a manner
like all resources have to be commited to the project at all times.
Its all about the on again off again, the system goes idle the processing
starts, the system goes un-idle(I dont think this is a word) the processes shut off... kind of like a usefull screensaver.

Again, I did not go through each and every post so if this has been
brought up before then oppsy ^.^;
I would like to thank the OP for bringing this bit of information
to my attention, I for one will gladly lend my Cell Processor/bandwidth
and electricity (since the litteral cost of powering a machine
such as this is similar to the cost of running a lightbulb.)
to assist in the research of this nature. I would gladly be a
link in the chain helping out others.

 

[Tagrineth]

Anttaru, when I said the GPU wouldn't run anything besides graphics, you don't really think I was referring to *all* GPUs did you? I was referring to RSX. And your own quote, again, said a single PS3 would contribute about 100 GFLOPs to folding@home, with no mention of RSX whatsoever.

But god, I hate you, and I really don't have the motivation anymore to counter your shit.

Congrats, you won this argument by beating me with pure obstinacy.

Glad to see Elpon stopped bothering before I did.

Have fun with your PS3. I hope your dick fits somewhere into it, since you seem to want to make love to it so badly.


Edit: And one last thing. The PE in Cell that's disabled is disabled as a redundancy for hardware defects, not for programming. In other words, they're making the PS3 Cells with the assumption that one of the eight PEs will be DOA. There's nothing really wrong with that strategy as it's done with a lot of cores, but yeah, it's a hardware thing.

 

[Anttaru]

Not a flame, i'm just interested in talk.

Honestly, this line just caught my eye. Do you realize what would happen if a developer actually used up a complete single layer blu-ray disc? Not to mention multilayer ones. Developers were already barely turning profit due to piracy and $50-$60 DVD game sales.

Loading a Blue Ray disc would be nightmarish depending on how much efforts were put into the game. More time spent making a game could decrease the speed at which the developers would gain income on that project.

As far as piracy goes, Blue Ray discs are exclusive and there is no burning hardware available to the market. It's possible Sony will keep it that way, which is attractive to game developers and movie makers, saving probably billions. It's likely the Blue Ray will contain un-removable data that will only allow the content on the disc to be played back on a blue Ray signal.

Remember, this is profit - the overhead from recovery of money spent actually making the game. And those were only 9.5GB after compression, tops. People(Elemmire) always say "Blu-Ray will allow for larger game worlds!" While ignoring the point I just described. Aren't they also dual-layer by default? 50 GB would mean massive price tag.

Well let's take a look at the PS3 Title 'Resistance: Fall of man.

It is 20 gigs in size "all compressed". It has over 40 levels 300 megs a peice. And it is on a Blue Ray disc.

The Price .... $59.99 USD.

$500/$600 for the console is pretty pricey as is. $120+ per game would be disgusting. Granted, the games would be longer, but think about how many titles you'd want to buy every couple of months at that price.

$120 for a game would be insane.

It's ok not to load a Blue Ray disc to the max. Not every PS3 game will be large. I think a game exceeding $120 is most likley to happen the same way. 1st the game would have to have a major fan base to even take such a risk.
the risk involves putting that amount of time into the making the game, which makes it more expensive to make. People gotta get paid.

If something like FFVII is redone on PS3, and say it did cost a buck twenty. If it makes people wet enough. I think they will buy it, and SE will be able to make a profit from it. Personally i would have to taste the game before i make such a purchase, and if i liked it enough, i would treat myself to that.

That kind of price would be on SquareEnix and not Sony. Sony gave developers the option to go all out on making large titles. the asking price is of the 3rd part developer in this case.

Although i would like to see a super improved FFVII. I wouldn't wish for it to be exspensive.