Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums - View Single Post

Happy Joe · 15th April 2008, 02:04 AM

Lenny;
Given the limitations in high definition TV picture resolution/frame rate; does the cell processor (an admittedly superior number cruncher) make a game more enjoyable than an adequate computer (leaving out the rare and expensive Uber gaming rigs)?

I really can't say as I have only played a few games on the PS3 and haven't had the opportunity to do a head to head comparison;

but we can look at the display;

The last time I looked high def 1080p TV was 1080 x 1920 resolution with 30 frames/sec NTSC (US) and 25 frames PAL (Europe), some blue ray players apparently put out 24 frames/sec.
Personally, I think this is adequate for gaming but some folks maintain that much higher frame counts are highly desirable (I can't argue this one).

Many PC monitors will meet or exceed the high def TV resolution so I would not expect to see much of a difference, picture wise, on a head to head PS3 vs a good (not uber) PC comparison.

However the PS3 seems to use a chip that is similar to the old 7800 nvidia series video card for graphics. This is barely acceptable in todays PC gaming community (many/most would say it is long obsolete).

Overall if we are talking raw computing power the PS3 cell processor would have to come out on top of the PC.

This give me a picture of a great processor tied up by obsolete graphics hardware and a lack of applications (other than games).

It is interesting that Crysis is allegedly being ported to PS3 and this is considered by many the only console platform that has much of a chance to run it. It is also interesting that the CEO of Sony has referred to the PS3 as a computer not a console. People are using them to fold at home, and I would expect future inroads into the PC realm by this technology. (For PC prices ($425-$800+) you should expect more than just games and movies, IMO).

I do kind of like Blueray and when Sony satisfies its greed (when the price becomes reasonable for a combo burner, they are dropping) I will stick one in the PC. (Its an advantage of PCs that you can do this).

The number of cores is not really an issue for me on the PC since the applications to fully utilize multi threading are only slowly being implemented; even in games. This may be one reason why the Cell processor has not dominated the PC market - few applications may be capable of using it.

I have seen references to 6 and 8 core chip packages from both AMD and Intel (don't hold your breath, but maybe next year). 8 core, not single processor package, work stations have been available for at least a year, and I believe that at least one company is said to be making a server based on the (IBM, Toshiba, Sony) Cell processor.

Enjoy!

15th April 2008, 02:04 AM	#27 (permalink)
Happy Joe Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 204	Re: Console or PC? Lenny; Given the limitations in high definition TV picture resolution/frame rate; does the cell processor (an admittedly superior number cruncher) make a game more enjoyable than an adequate computer (leaving out the rare and expensive Uber gaming rigs)? I really can't say as I have only played a few games on the PS3 and haven't had the opportunity to do a head to head comparison; but we can look at the display; The last time I looked high def 1080p TV was 1080 x 1920 resolution with 30 frames/sec NTSC (US) and 25 frames PAL (Europe), some blue ray players apparently put out 24 frames/sec. Personally, I think this is adequate for gaming but some folks maintain that much higher frame counts are highly desirable (I can't argue this one). Many PC monitors will meet or exceed the high def TV resolution so I would not expect to see much of a difference, picture wise, on a head to head PS3 vs a good (not uber) PC comparison. However the PS3 seems to use a chip that is similar to the old 7800 nvidia series video card for graphics. This is barely acceptable in todays PC gaming community (many/most would say it is long obsolete). Overall if we are talking raw computing power the PS3 cell processor would have to come out on top of the PC. This give me a picture of a great processor tied up by obsolete graphics hardware and a lack of applications (other than games). It is interesting that Crysis is allegedly being ported to PS3 and this is considered by many the only console platform that has much of a chance to run it. It is also interesting that the CEO of Sony has referred to the PS3 as a computer not a console. People are using them to fold at home, and I would expect future inroads into the PC realm by this technology. (For PC prices ($425-$800+) you should expect more than just games and movies, IMO). I do kind of like Blueray and when Sony satisfies its greed (when the price becomes reasonable for a combo burner, they are dropping) I will stick one in the PC. (Its an advantage of PCs that you can do this). The number of cores is not really an issue for me on the PC since the applications to fully utilize multi threading are only slowly being implemented; even in games. This may be one reason why the Cell processor has not dominated the PC market - few applications may be capable of using it. I have seen references to 6 and 8 core chip packages from both AMD and Intel (don't hold your breath, but maybe next year). 8 core, not single processor package, work stations have been available for at least a year, and I believe that at least one company is said to be making a server based on the (IBM, Toshiba, Sony) Cell processor. Enjoy!