Author Topic: The processor question thickens. (PS3 and the Cell Processor) (Read 11822 times)

BlkPaladin · « **on:** April 19, 2003, 05:39:06 PM »

Today in an article of Electronics Design Magazine. Sony's COO Ken stated that they won't be able to put the Cell Processor in the PS3, for the estimated release for the processor is now in 2007. Now to the Question what will they put in there, and this basically blows the rumors that the PS3 will be released in 2004 out of the water.

A bit of personally I told you so: I remember saying that Sony and IBM will not be able to make it by 2005, because a project such as that always experiences delays.

Here is the article.
Electronics design....

(A little note I found it through TeamXbox.com)

SmellySocks · « **Reply #1 on:** April 19, 2003, 08:05:41 PM »

Yep, I read that also. Makes me wonder what in the world they'll be putting in the PS3. For Sony's sake, I hope they put something that is easier to develop for (not any of that dual-processor stuff). And let's hope Nintendo keeps the hardware nice and simple again.

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2003, 02:05:19 AM »

One abbreviation.... ROFLMFAO!

oohhboy · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2003, 04:09:20 AM »

Maybe Mcguyver can whack up something for them in time. But seriosly, this is a serious problem. Now that we know that the Cell can't be used in the PS3, they now have less development time to create a new console to release 2005ish as nintendo and MS are likely to release then. This could be the mistake that Nintendo and MS has been waiting for to gain market dominance.

PIAC · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2003, 05:14:52 AM »

surely they would be smart enough to have a plan B though? i mean.. everyone has a plan B! its almost more important than plan A

SmellySocks · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2003, 08:16:24 AM »

Who ever said that the Cell processor was what they were planning on using anyway? I believe that that was only the press speaking for them. I'm sure they have something nice planned for their next system.

LoL :::Thinks about Emotion Engine 2::: LoL

Koopa Troopa · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2003, 09:14:28 AM »

No, Sony said it was what it was going to use.

Folks like Tim Sweeney, were talking about it too; mostly about how extremely difficult it would be to program.

BlkPaladin · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2003, 09:31:23 PM »

I will be tricky to program for if you want to get the most of its power. There was also specualation that there was going to be more than one on board which multiple processors get tricky to program for, so I have heard. And to take full advantage of the cell over a network you would have to program for such scalibility. (I think that is the word..)

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2003, 03:16:02 AM »

Ya...there is a guy at another forum who has put up a decent arguement that cell will in some shape or form be on the PS3, but it really doesn't look like it wil be. Oh well, have to see whats on there.

BlkPaladin · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2003, 08:40:35 AM »

You it doesn't stop that a derivitive of the Cell processor will be in the PS3. Because their was a announcment last night in Tokyo that the Cel prosessor will be done in time for the PS3, which probally means its a dumbed down version.
mjb

Note: It seems it not the Cell processor that will be in the machine, the Reuters article is worded very vaguly but it does mention the Cell once in the article but it also mention a processsor built with so and so manufacturing processes and doesn't not say it is the cell what's more the chip is for the PS2.....

Reuters article.

SmellySocks · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2003, 08:45:10 AM »

They probably would have used a dumbed-down version anyway. Anyone know how expensive the Cell would be?

BlkPaladin · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2003, 09:07:45 AM »

The Reuters article mentions 1.2 Billion dollars in the next few years, but I think that's total investments in all chips, they have already made a sizable contribution to the Cell. The first article I link said that the three companies planned to spend $400 million over five years (2005) on the Cell, but if it takes longer that cost will go up.

oohhboy · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2003, 02:45:21 AM »

IMO I believe that CELL or a version of it would not be suitabl for gaming. it may hav big numbers, but that wa what the PS2 has and look what that turned out like from a programing POV.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2003, 11:01:28 AM »

Eh? last time I checked the EE only has 4 MB of video RAM. It causes a lot of bottlenecks just in its physical design. And how can you judge two things that are only related because they are made by the same company? It just isn't too logical.

SmellySocks · « **Reply #14 on:** April 22, 2003, 03:08:07 PM »

ooohboy----The CELL processor has some excellent network capabilities. If gaming companies are serious about putting their systems online, that is the perfect processor to do it with. Imagine the ability to share your great connection and resources among multiple users to help stabilize (reduce lag) on the network. If Sony uses a version of this, I will be greatly impressed.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2003, 04:38:50 PM »

Its not the problem with the protocol, its a problem with the network speed. 500k is not going to be able to do ANYTHING for stable networking conditions, nor would it do anything for the sharing side of it.

ThePerm · « **Reply #16 on:** April 22, 2003, 08:57:14 PM »

the next leap in graphcis is gonna be crazy.....but what about the leap after that!?!

oohhboy · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2003, 03:11:25 AM »

I don't see how having any particular processor at all would reduce lag by itself. Lag is caused by delays in the data from getting from point A to point A. Delays ranging from lost packets, insuffient international bandwidth, server overload to computer being too slow to send the data. As you said 500K is nothing over a network to play with.

The cell is like having multiple cpus on one chip instead of on one mother board. that maysound great, but you still have to give instructions to each individual chip and you would have to make everything paralle. Gaming is not something that runs in paraelle. The conditions are always changing. You fire your gun. the program jumps to a new loop of instrustions and then has to jump back. This happens every frame. It would be extreamly ineffecenit processor to use for gaming. The paralle design would be great for code breaking snce that is a big loop of non-changing instructions. It may have big numbers, but for partical gaming use. No thanks.

The Doc · « **Reply #18 on:** April 25, 2003, 05:06:00 AM »

Hmmm, I too wonder what Sony will use as a processor for their PS3 hardware. I do not have a lot of experience with Sony's consoles or what hardware they usually use in these consoles, however don't they usually design their own processors for their consoles? I take it the Emotion Engine was of Sony's own design, and if I am wrong then let me know. If this announcement is fact rather then fiction then Sony is in high water and they need to figure something out fast. The video game industry is very unforgiving and one mistake can really hurt you in the long run, for example, Nintendo's N64 hardware which used cartridge media instead of DVD media. In my opinon, Sony has not been in the console market long enough to where they can afford to make a mistake such as this one.

The Doc

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #19 on:** April 25, 2003, 05:20:36 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
the next leap in graphcis is gonna be crazy.....but what about the leap after that!?!

Actually it's not going to be as big as you think. Things might look a little smoother, but really, you can only use so much power. Videogames are getting to the point where graphics have peaked. Maybe 5-10 years down the road, raytracing will be possible in realtime, and you can get some nice eye candy going on without too much work, but at the moment, I don't think that you will be seeing much of an improvement in graphics.

I personally don't see a need to replace the GameCube yet, but I understand why Nintendo is required to do so.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 25, 2003, 02:10:10 PM »

You won't be able to tell the difference? Eh, trust me you will very well. Its been less than two years since consoles were pretty far up there and they are already blown away by a lot of PC games.

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #21 on:** April 25, 2003, 02:34:21 PM »

Really? I have a fairly modern PC, and I have yet to see something better than Metroid Prime or Legend of Zelda on PC. There's Doom 3 I suppose, but really, I don't see much of a difference, and it's not even out yet anyways.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 25, 2003, 05:46:42 PM »

Unreal Tournement 2003 is all I have to say. I run it at 1600x1200 all settings maxed out. The difference is amazing.

Locke Cole · « **Reply #23 on:** April 25, 2003, 05:49:14 PM »

Also play regular Unreal 2, that has great graphics, heard the AI was flawed though. Don't argue about PC's not being better then consoles. You'll never win, cause PC's are always upgraded and always get better and better.

Uncle Rich AiAi · « **Reply #24 on:** April 25, 2003, 07:21:17 PM »

Grey Ninja is right. the graphical leap won't be as big as you think. sure, the graphics will look better, with models having a higher poly count, and maybe anti-alaising at 60fps (*drools*), but there's so much time and effort the developers can put into the graphics. development cost has skyrocketed from the 8 and 16bit days.

don't expect a big leap in graphics folks.

News:

Author Topic: The processor question thickens. (PS3 and the Cell Processor) (Read 11822 times)