Linux test shows PS3 beat by a Power Mac G5
by Peter Vrabel 
{ May 23rd 2007 at 8:30PM }
General-purpose code seems to slow down the Cell performance a bit, as it would appear on a recent Geekbench test. Primate Labs ran a few benchmarks under Linux and the results show the PS3 being beat by a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz in all tests except memory performance. We have to keep in mind, the tests only prove the Cell is not a wonderful "general-purpose" CPU. And lest anyone forget, the purpose of the PS3 is to play games! Cell-specific optimizations are going to be implemented in a future Geekbench test, so once round 2 comes along, we'll get a taste of what's really cooking underneath the hood of our favorite console. Fire when ready!
[Via digg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Microdot @ May 23rd 2007 8:46PM
just an fyi - your entire write up is bogus.
this was a test to show... well... nothing. none of the code was optimized for the cell (meaning we probably werent utilizing but a single spe)... which they clearly stated in their article.
all this shows or proves, is how well a g5 does under optimal coding, and how crappy a cell does when it tries to run coding its not really supposed to. it cannot be taken to mean ANYTHING about a comparison of the cell against anything else. to do so is idiotic.
or maybe the ibm cell blade server was built for..... gaming? hahaha
apease @ May 23rd 2007 8:48PM
A lot of things were left out of the PPC core in the Cell, branch prediction being a large one. The reason this was done? The Cell is all about using as many transistors as possible towards actual computing, and not holding the hands of the compiler and application writers. Brand prediction was left out because a good, modern compiler can make up for a lack in the cpu. However, linux essentially runs on gcc, which is the standard for compiler correctness as far as input code goes, but the programs it makes are not very well optimized and everyone knows it, especially in the case of the Cell. You want a fast compiler in linux, you use IBM's Cell compiler and hope the resulting program runs. But it doesn't matter on the games side since the developers have the really awesome compilers.
Cell-specific code will help for stuff that uses the spu's obviously, but the PPC part will suffer unless a better compiler can be used.
humpty @ May 23rd 2007 9:09PM
Oh man, cant wait till the other blogs post this...
Next-Gen-Gamer @ May 23rd 2007 9:21PM
"none of the code was optimized for the cell"
That seems to be a recurring theme for the PS3. You're hard-pressed to find quite a few companies actually willing to go the extra mile for something so new. Its not just general code either. Game developers aren't trying very hard either. Its because, with other stuff out on the market, no one feels a need to make such a drastic leap.
bootsielon @ May 23rd 2007 9:25PM
I can eat pizza much faster than the cell processor inside my PlayStation 3. As for the benchmarks, you don't really need 'em. I gave the cell an advantage of 5 minutes in front of 4 slices of pizza. Then I started eating and finished my half in 10 minutes. The 4 slices of the Cell were still there.
Admittedly, I was overclocked, so perhaps I cheated.
clavian @ May 23rd 2007 9:31PM
bootsielon...dang, that was funny.
Next-Gen-Gamer @ May 23rd 2007 9:32PM
bootsielon
At least the cell processor actually ran code. Its not completely a waste of a test.
Next-Gen-Gamer @ May 23rd 2007 9:33PM
Holy crap, Dr. T. Its a word tower!
mccomber @ May 23rd 2007 9:33PM
"You're hard-pressed to find quite a few companies actually willing to go the extra mile for something so new."
True when we're talking ports of existing 360 titles, but of course that goes out the window when we talk about exclusives, first-party, or even multiplatform games that are using the ps3 as the lead platform, such as Haze. The difference between games built for the ps3 and ones quickly ported to it has obviously been huge so far. Too bad we're waiting on GRAW2 and RS:Vegas, those would be good examples to see if ports have come along any further.
I think GTAIV will be a huge test, as will Assasin's Creed. It will also be interesting to see how DMC4 turns out, since I'm tempted to assume PS3 was the lead system in it's development as well.
Next-Gen-Gamer @ May 23rd 2007 9:40PM
"that goes out the window when we talk about exclusives, first-party, or even multiplatform games that are using the ps3 as the lead platform, such as Haze."
I wouldn't say it goes out the window for multiplatform games. Which is one definite problem. There's a ridiculous amount of PS3 titles that can be found on the 360, whether it be already release, or upcoming. As for Haze, I'm confident that if the 360 eventually launches, it'll look just like the PS3 version. Same with every EA game, every THQ game, every Activision game, etc. If it can be found on the 360, its probably not going to look any better (sometimes worse) on the PS3.
"I think GTAIV will be a huge test, as will Assasin's Creed. It will also be interesting to see how DMC4 turns out, since I'm tempted to assume PS3 was the lead system in it's development as well."
I think its safe to say that Capcom may be willing to make an effort on the PS3. They may not, but then again they've done a pretty good job working on all platforms.
Next-Gen-Gamer @ May 23rd 2007 9:40PM
Edit: the 360 version* (referring to Haze)
massive_98 @ May 23rd 2007 9:42PM
The only reason online is better on Xbox is because all the infastructure was setup by Microsoft. Sony left this to the devolopers.
antong @ May 23rd 2007 9:56PM
Dr. T wrote:
There are seven SPE subprocessors that receive instructions from the CPU with their thread.
Dr. T has never programmed a SPE it seems. Before you write such mindless drivel, do some research. SPEs can talk to each other and perform DMA transfers, the PPE wouldnt need to constantly communicate to the SPEs, they run completely independant code.
apease @ May 23rd 2007 9:55PM
Wow, if you're a game developer you obviously don't develop for the ps3 or 360. That 512 MB for general purpose computing? Great, now you don't have anything to show on the screen because you don't have any texture maps or geometry. Hey, guess what? That extra 10MB of edram for general purpose computing? Only can be used by the 3d chip.
And the ps3 isn't hard to program for if all you're using is the powerpc core. The powerpc cores don't "send signals" to the spu's like you imply, the spu's are separate cores with separate memory to store programs and data... you just load them up and go.
Seriously, the only thing you're even mildly close to being accurate on is that the 360 does apparently use less memory for the OS, but the ps3 doesn't use 96 MB, it's closer to 50 as of the latest SDK, and still shrinking. You honestly sound like one of those stupid MS press releases from when the ps3 was first announced.
And oh gee, a crappy port doesn't run very well on the ps3... no shit, sherlock. This is why Sony released the Edge system, so they wouldn't have to put up with lazy developers crying about how hard it is to program. Now they can easily use the spus to handle far more complicated models and levels than the 360 ever will, without having to put forth much effort, among a bunch of other things.
Do you even know what kinds of things "General Purpose" calculations are used for, the ones that apparently can only be done on the powerpc core and not the spus? Geometry? No. Physics? No. Oh, wait, procedural textures and geometry! No. Collision detection? No. Speech recognition? No. Parsing input from the motion sensing controller? No... oh, sorry, 360 doesn't even have one. Maybe... HDR lighting? No. Antialiasing? No. Face and object recognition from the webcam? No.
What are we left with that takes more than a tiny percentage of cpu power? AI. And we all know that can't be done on an spu, right?
Except they're doing AI on the spus in Heavenly Sword.
Seriously, if doing something as simple as writing mini-programs for the spus is too difficult, you really shouldn't be writing games... on any system, game programming takes real skill. At least on the low level... if you're just shoving models and scripts into someone else's engine, like Unreal 3, then yeah, C code might be difficult for you.
Wait, do you work for UbiSoft? That might explain a lot.
mccomber @ May 23rd 2007 9:56PM
You had me (yes, I was going to read this whole thing...) until:
"I was reading an article from Ubisoft that talked about how the Xbox 360 version of Assassins Creed will have noticeably better Artificial Intelligence than the Playstation 3 version. The reason for this is because the developers said they could devote an entire CPU to focus entirely on Artificial Intelligence with the Xbox 360."
Nope, sorry.
"While the method for distributing AI load is different on each platform, the AI code itself is the same. Players will experience the exact same crowd results on PS3 and Xbox360."
Games like FEAR and COD3, both of which you bring up, are less about the limitations of the PS3 hardware, and more about the limitations of the software that was ported to it. As for voice chat, another feature you attribute to the 360's processor setup — Resistance has buttery-bullet firing smoothness and voice chat with 40 people at once... did they just find a performance loophole to achieve that?
I won't argue that the 360 isn't easier to write for at this point, because it is. But I will argue that anyone writing specifcally for the ps3 and actually pushing themselves to do something with it will achieve great results.
Andir3.0 @ May 23rd 2007 10:01PM
"Holy crap, Dr. T. Its a word tower!"
And 90% of it is wrong.
Kyle Kennedy @ May 23rd 2007 10:22PM
LINUX ON THE PS3 ONLY USES THE PPE - NOT A SINGLE SPE (THE POWER OF CELL).
The Power PC Processing Element was NOT intended to work as a CPU. It is like a manager at a dept store - it isn't meant to do the grunt work, that is what the SPEs are for.
This entire thing is bunk. Shame on PS3Fanboy for not even knowing how the Cell works. :P
mccomber @ May 23rd 2007 10:03PM
Well, perhaps not out the window, but I doubt that we'll see games developed with the ps3 in mind looking or running better on the 360 as has been the case with several titles going the opposite direction. At this point we really don't have any titles to show what will happen with that, but I honestly believe that with this generation, whichever system is the lead in development is the one that will be the best overall, and sloppy ports in either direction will, of course, be poorer for it. Several titles have been basically identical as far as the game itself, so blaming the ps3 hardware for poor ports is premature and flawed reasoning in my opinion.
Real Gambler @ May 23rd 2007 10:08PM
Great! An article testing a PS3 against a G5 on a PS3 web site.... Nobody talk about the G5!!!! Again and again, it's 360 vs PS3!!!
C'mon guys... Before you go to war, read the article, and bring something related to the article!!! Did you see anything at all about the 360 in this article? Why do we have to hear again that general purpose processing is better on the 360. Did I miss anything? I've seen the cut and paste version of the "general purpose bull..." about 300 times so far. Yet, nothing about the 360 in this article. So if I want to read that cut and paste bull again, I just have to read it in some 300 other posts in any PS3 web site...
Anybody as something to say about the G5, please say so.
If you have something to say about the PS3, you're more than welcome to do so, it's a PS3 web site.
If you want to cut and paste bull about the 360 please do so in your 360 web site.
Thanks
And since we have to talk about the article, yes, it was very badly optimized code. Proves nothing. IBM is using the Cell in Linux servers. I don't think they would if the Cell was so bad.
Oranges with oranges and in this case, apples with apples : )
Darko @ May 23rd 2007 10:12PM
"And lest anyone forget, the purpose of the PS3 is to play games! "
Um.... Sony forgot
Oh and my PC stomps all over the PS3....
WhackMushroom @ May 23rd 2007 10:15PM
still better than whatever is in the 360 from a tech standpoint.
mccomber @ May 23rd 2007 10:19PM
"Oh and my PC stomps all over the PS3...."
And my quad-core G5 could crush your PC. I mean literally, it weighs like 50 pounds and it's solid metal.
There, now we're talking about G5s too.
Killer @ May 23rd 2007 10:24PM
@bootsielon
Oh yea, Well my 360 can bake that pizza in 5 minutes and then give me a nice 3 ring red light to tell it's done.
Truth be told, I thawd a chocolate pie once with it. Thawd it within minutes. If I could I would convert my 360 to have a bay (alas that would be a mod) so I can trap the heat and cook things. I could call it the Easy-Bake 360, frying myself up some good old hot pockets. mmmmmhmmmmm, tasty! While playing Gears.
Killer @ May 23rd 2007 10:25PM
LOL @ mccomber. Good one.
vizunary @ May 23rd 2007 10:40PM
"Wait, do you work for UbiSoft? That might explain a lot."
@apease LMFAO, that's priceless, I don't even have the energy to argue this point over with anybody, it's just not worthy of my response...
Dahk @ May 23rd 2007 10:43PM
I have to give a laugh at mccomber for that one ahah.
Josh L. @ May 23rd 2007 10:56PM
Unfortunately, as presumptious as this sounds, it's true, and in th worst way possible to boot. The PS3 is ahead of it's time.
I like how someone in a previous post put it, Cell is built to cram as much transistors and processing power possible, not hold the developers hand. You see, people were counting on IBM to make some kind of magical compiler(or Octopiler) to sort out their code for them, not really sure what's going on there... In the mean while, I could kinda see how you can blame "lazy" developers(GTA IV might not be optimized for the PS3, but can you really call a developer lazy for that?) What I don;t understand is why Sony's first party developers aren't working, or atleast taking a page out of Nintendo's book(well, kinda) and assisting other developers making exclusives in "optimizing" everything.
Really, the PS3 would only pay off when all the diodes have cheapened, and the Cell shrinks, and people learn how to write the code propperly, and yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah.
Let's just hope it can last that long...
Breeze @ May 23rd 2007 11:20PM
@DR.T
You should think about seeing a psychologist because you clearly have issues when it comes to logical thinking. You're so obsessed with the inadequacies of the 360 that you've resorted to lying to get your sorry point across. Dr.T is a delusional little old man that goes around trying to convince people that he made the right decision. In the end, that's all he does.
Dr.T, you're an embarrassment and a disgrace.
vizunary @ May 23rd 2007 11:12PM
@mccomber... your G5 doesn't stand a chance against my AT/XT with monitor combo, now your looking at least 90-100 lbs, really now, that's crushing power... it's in the attic boxed up, so don't make me whip it out.
vizunary @ May 23rd 2007 11:12PM
@mccomber... your G5 doesn't stand a chance against my AT/XT with monitor combo, now your looking at least 90-100 lbs, really now, that's crushing power... it's in the attic boxed up, so don't make me whip it out.
Joe @ May 23rd 2007 11:25PM
hi moderator, can u delete dr t's post, according to the others, it's very misleading and very very wrong. I know very little about programming, and if it weren't for appease, we all would've bought that bullshit. mr t, i hope u die. dr t, i hope u read appease's post and feel like a complete dumbass, then jump out the window.
Popfrogs @ May 23rd 2007 11:30PM
Dr. T....does the T stand for Troll? I can name at least 5 developers that will tell you you're full of shit.
The PS3 is a different, new, unusual architecture. Just like the Ps1 and Ps2 were. Wow, that must make it *worse* right? Wrong.
I'll get the salt and pepper so you can eat your words when the AAA titles arrive.
Joe @ May 23rd 2007 11:57PM
popfrogs to the rescue...! um 'appease' destroyed dr t, already... ur a lil late. hehe ;P
craigemac101 @ May 24th 2007 2:07AM
come on u people can do better"The PS3 is ahead of it's time" what ???????? as was 3DO
Wow, if you're a game developer you obviously don't develop for the ps3 or 360. That 512 MB for general purpose computing? Great, now you don't have anything to show on the screen because you don't have any texture maps or geometry. Hey, guess what? That extra 10MB of edram for general purpose computing? Only can be used by the 3d chip.
And u work for sony whats the difference?????????
u have to say its better thats your job
bootsielon @ May 24th 2007 2:26AM
Craigemac:
The point is that this FUD SPAMMER doesn't even know what he's talking about.
Try getting the point next time, dipshit.
Mak @ May 24th 2007 3:59AM
Totally flaw test. The PS3 runs under a hypervisor, which adds additional layer of bloat
Compare a G5 running linux under VMWare, that's a more valid test!!!
matt @ May 24th 2007 1:14PM
"...And lest anyone forget, the purpose of the PS3 is to play games!"
damn, which model do you have? cuz all mine does is fold.
TheBigFatJ @ May 24th 2007 1:54PM
"none of the code was optimized for the cell (meaning we probably werent utilizing but a single spe)..."
Incorrect. The Linux Kernel does use SPEs, although it does reserve one of them for itself so performance may be slightly hobbled for doing stuff like Folding/SETI, which the Cell is great at. However, 90+% of the time that the Cell is doing stuff, it's SPEs won't be fully loaded anyhow.
Gaming is far more "general purpose" than one would suspect. The Cell looks like it was intended to replace some of the functionality of a GPU as well as performing as a CPU. It simply cannot do that since most GPUs are several times more powerful than the combined SPEs.
The Cell simply isn't a processor designed with gaming as its primary target. Sure, it's great at crunching embarrassingly parallel applications (such as folding/SETI), but for most games its usage patterns will be quite suboptimal.
Nick @ May 24th 2007 3:13PM
"The other reason for those framerate performance problems in Playstation 3 games is because the PS3 is always limited to 256MB of CPU RAM, much of which is dedicated to the 96MB PS3 Operating System that takes up too much memory."
The above statement is so flawed i don't know where to begin. The PS3 doesn't take up 96MB, it takes closer to 45MB right now. This number is getting smaller and smaller by allowing the system to use VRAM for tasks that its not requiring all the time. and the code is being optimized to take less space on the ram itself. Also when considering what that ram is really used for you might have figured out why its not a very big deal. the PS3's OS is also known as the hyper visor. yes they are 1 in the same. It handles alot of mundane tasks, and repetitive things that developers may use often, as well as security measures and other things that increase the effectiveness of the system. online play is controlled by many parts of this code, sound decoding, Usb controllers and flash media, tools the system and developers can really use. to create a unified network code has to be unified. also for all those MS fans, Vista takes up 512MB for the OS, with closer to 700 recommended, and you think Sony wastes ram! The ps3 uses 45MB for the OS, leaving 211MB for games to use, and that not including video, optimized code can easily run on that, maybe your worried about the bloat of operations that MS likes to leave behind by forcing developers to use extra ram to run the live service and other features. all that are not supported by the 360 OS. Plus with the PS3 at least virtual ram and caches are an option, core owners don't have that option. (and if you haven't noticed the ps3 has a virtual ram section already)
"Xbox 360 has a much more efficient Operating System that takes up only 32MB of RAM, and the Xbox 360 can use up to 512MB of RAM for the General Purpose CPU functions. Xbox 360 even has an addition 10MB of eDRAM to help with General Purpose CPU power."
if you call a simple protection and system maintenance element an OS yes. but some live code, hardware code, and functions code requires more ram, so the 13Mb you save can easily be used by an active game. But you would be right, if you wanted a bouncing 2d ball with the worlds best physics that would work. but if you want to actually show off the systems power and graphical ability's then it really wouldn't. Plus by Having ram shared it can cause memory conflicts, sharing 256Mb of ram with the CPU is never as good as having 256Mb of dedicated GPU ram. The PS3 works in the other direction, The GPU has access to all the ram, Sony thought this would be better then choking the GPU something always used intensively. During cinematic Scenes the GPU can kick off with 3/4 of the ram having the Cell help run the operations. since the RSX would do alot of work, and the CPU just handle a little this makes sense. but since when the CPU is working hard handling 1000 enemy's, the GPU is also busy drawing those enemy's. What you say is good, is very very bad when abused. and any game developer should know that.
"No doubt about, the General Purpose CPU power is something the developers of games appreciate very much! I should know, because I'm a game developer! General Purpose power gives you the ability to use processing power and RAM wherever you need it at any time; it is very flexible."
General Purpose CPU's are flexible, but not powerful, and to be honest to say they can get the ram they need when they need it is a lie for every processor. most GP CPU's spend about 80% of their time waiting for ram. This can be helped by using multi threading such as Intel's Hyper threading technology, however that cant be used with every process and much of the time a process just waits till it can get to the ram it needs. The cell however makes this alot simpler by allowing for the 256-bits to be transported to the processor every clock cycle, the exact amount the processor needs for 8 x 32-bit processes it performs.this is because the Cell is good with vectorized code (as a programmer you'll know what that is right?) this basically allows processes to sit on top of each other. 4 of them per stack, to since the PS3 has a 64-bit PPE it can send a total of 256-bits of Vectorized code, or 8 X 32-bit Operations.
"But the Playstation 3 has so many hardware bottleneck restrictions and limitations that it makes programming very difficult. What would you rather have, one 3.2 Ghz CPU with two threads, like the PS3 has, or would you rather have three 3.2Ghz Power PC chips, each with two threads, for a total of six threads, like the Xbox 360 has. I think it's pretty obvious that the Xbox 360 is better."
I think its obvious that you didn't do your math. i just said there are 8 Vectorized Processes per cycle in the CELL. sure we cant count the operations performed by the PPE because they are required to get in that 256-bits of data, but 8 operations per cycle input is higher then your 6. and because the CELL can stream larger amounts of data without requiring the wait, Once the operation gets to the SPU it already has its ram, where in the Xbox360 it may have to wait in that thread that you have. do you even know what a thread is or how it works? and thats not counting the slower speeds that the Xbox360 has in its buffer zones for the processor. the CELL uses high speed buses developed by RAMBUS to exceed the needs of the system. so there is no slow bus to cause problems.
"The Playstation 3 can't compete with that kind of performance, because it's outdated parallel processing architecture won't allow it. PS3 only has one CPU with only two threads. There are seven SPE subprocessors that receive instructions from the CPU with their thread. The problem is the fact that the CPU has only two threads to send signals with. Sony originally wanted to include two Cell CPU processors with the PS3, but they couldn't because of the pricing. This means the PS3 can only send instructions to two SPE subprocessors at a time. This is not an efficient way to program games; it is literally like trying to juggle seven balls with only two hands...it's pretty much impossible, and it offers very poor performance."
Out..Dated? are we talking about the same processor? The Cell does use alot of older tech, but this is only because IBM isn't holding someones hand anymore.The applications are state of the art. To be honest giving the system the correct resources does limit the system to sending to 4 SPU's this is lower then the possible 32 bit operations sent because the system can send only one thread at a time. For the Xbox 360 to send operations to its 3 processors it takes 3 cycles. For the ps3 to send to its 8 it takes 2. so the xbox 360 is like tossing up a 3 balls with 3 different people. however the balls cant land at the same time. one could toss it really high and another really low as long as no 2 balls touch at the same time. with the CELL Sony just taped 4 balls together, now Sony needs only worry about if one clump lands at the same time as another. Thats more effective. The xbox360 offers standard performance. and if someone actually puts something in the 4 clumped balls then the CELL offers insane performance. thats where you are flawed. you don't even understand the basics of the processor. you apply knowledge of a standard processor to one that uses different technology. you'd be better comparing how chocolaty cherry ice cream is because thats all you did. performance in the cell isn't achieved by just feeding the cell, but rather by cramming as much code as you can think of down its throat, and IBM gave you a huge mouth to do it with, Xbox's mouth is a tiny little slit.
"More and more publishers and developers have become aware of this as time has passed. The performance game continues to increase in favor of the Xbox 360 as time goes on."
1st party ps3 games look near as good as 1st party Xbox games. some look better some look worse. however 360 has been out longer and developers have already wet their whistle, and earned rewards. The time you must be talking about is i douno, the time before November 17th? when they had no other system to compete against? The first ps3 games looked as good as the then 360 games, and alot better then the launch 360 games for sure. and PS3 is catching up. Once developers start Vectorizing code, and rewriting algorithms. then we will see the future of the ps3.
"Look at how newly released games like Virtua Tennis 3 still don't have online play for the Playstation 3. The Xbox 360 version has online play and online voice chat. Those are awesome features that add a lot of fun to the Xbox 360 version. General Purpose CPU power is one of the reasons why the Xbox 360 is so much better in terms of all the features included in the games."
The 360 is out longer, its a known fact. Developers will spend the $$$ on a system that will make them more $$$. and GP CPU's have alot of problems. the Cell is based between a CPU, and GPU. this means that it is not as good with standard int code, however its better then GP CPU's at things like processing graphics, physics, lighting and shaders, Vastness, and Water, Air, Fire, and wind effects. things that are nextgen and require high powered vectorized, precision floating point operations. in a standard CPU they are GIMPED, in the CELL they run as fast as a Regular Int Operation. so the Int portion runs slower, but the Floating point operations run ALOT faster. I once built a program to Benchmark my PC and a Friends. it used a simple system to calculate a square root, Cube root, and Quartic Root, then give the time taken. this merely involved a system of counting and multiplying roots to close value to the roots. it took my pc a long time to complete. Minuets just to find a numerically calculated root. running this code in a SPU would be alot faster, and could even be streamed meaning 8 instances would run at various levels. 8 minutes could become 3. the ps3 may only give developers 5 cores to work with but if well built code can run at amazing speeds. especially code built for the CELL.
"But, the lack of General Purpose CPU power is the reason why the PS3 has developed a reputation for having poor framerates, and offering fewer features in games. This lack of General Purpose CPU power is also why PS3 versions of games are released later in many situations where developers aren't familiar with that type of non-traditional programming environment. Overall, my friends and I are very disappointed with the Playstation 3, it's lack of games, it's difficult programming environment, and it's overall lack of performance."
where are these rumored developers coming from? Any programmer with a little knowledge of PPC cores, Multi threading, and multi core processing, and know how to turn on an option for Vectorizing in their compilers can Adapt pretty quick to programing for the cell.the PPE is meant for general tasks, the SPU's meant to do the brute work I haven't seen once developer say out loud, The ps3 is hard to program for, i have heard "its different", "requires new Thinking", and "requires more control" but not i hate this hardware it sucks and is hard to develop for..
Everything you say is flawed. in all the 360 is really flawed. no HD-DVD drive, no guaranteed HDD, No Guaranteed HDMI port? Just a standard 8.5GB DVD-DL. Arnt you glad they decided to pump it up so much? i mean the idea to see if people would buy it when they take stuff out, toss 3 CPU's in it, and use a substandard Disk medium was genius! and not letting people resell them because of crappy backwards compatibility really makes me happy. Nah i think ill stick with my good old PS3. I mean it does upscale everything to 1080p, movies, games.
and much of this explains why the Ps3 doesn't run Linux as fast. Not nearly enough library's have been created to support the CELL, The hyper visor can only add so much functionality, at some point software will have to be written to support the PS3 instead of just the fake PC the Ps3 Creates.
Popfrogs @ May 24th 2007 5:01PM
In other old obvious news, sky reported to be blue; water, wet. Over to you Mike.
Don't forget the PS3 has it where it counts. So it's a crappy setup for a desktop PC. That doesn't explain it being seriously 30x faster than desktop PCs that can BURY a Mac G5 when it comes to Folding, and Folding is hardcore math.
ConteZero @ May 25th 2007 5:24AM
Ok, time to end this.
As far as I can see GeekBench is a PPC/x86 benchmark, so it run PPC or x86 code, no SPE code.
How does someone tries to imply that PS3 was using SPE "because the kernel itself" recognize them ?
Let me be clear... I can have a quad GeForce 8800 on a linux system... if my X server is using a VESA driver it won't do any good.
Back in business... 1.6GHz G5 is a lot of power, and Cell has only one PPE with no OoOE unit... not this much of a fight (and since SPE are DIFFERENT PROCESSORS with DIFFERENT ADDRESS SPACES you cannot simply assume that "they work" because dmesg says "there are six of them, I can see them").
More about this... can someone (I could, but I lacks 2layer DVD right now) run Linux on a modded XBox360 (you can...) and run the same benchmark on that console ?
Being another 3.2GHz core with no OoOE unit (only x3) you should get the same results (as far as I can see this benchmark "tries" only one core) or something less (due to memory bandwidth constrains).