IBM Clocks the Cell, PS3 not much more powerful than X360

[Instant Sunrise]

PS3 not as powerful as Sony said.

Sony has been toting the unparreled power of it's new Cell's Processor for years now. Claiming that the PS3 will run circles around the XBOX 360's core setup. Well IBM the chips creator recently put the little fella through the paces and the result may surprise you. Assuming you can read engineer!

At this year's E3 (or thereabouts) Sony proclaimed that their processor could achieve 200GFLOPS! However, according to IBM's white paper, only 155.5 GFLOPS was actually achieved (Table 4). BUT, IBM's tests used all 8 SPEs. The PS3 will only use 7 SPE's, due to manufacturing yield issues.

The efficiency of the Cell is 75.9% (Table 4), with of a theoretical peak of 201GFLOPs (Figure 5)--running 8 SPEs at 25.12GFLOPS apiece (Table 2). Similarly, the theoretical peak for the PS3's processor will be 176GFLOPS, using 7 SPEs at 25.12GFLOPS apiece. Assuming the same 75.9% effieciency, we could easily interpolate the PS3's Cell to be capable of 133.6GFLOPS.

The take home message is that with the PS3 being cabable of 133.6 GFLOPS and the Xbox 360 being capable of 115.2 GFLOPS, the PS3 is not nearly as far ahead of the Xbox 360 as we were lead to believe. we should expect relatively similar power coming from both consoles, processor power, and ease of programming all considered.

Bottomline is that the Cell isn't going to lap the XBOX 360 in terms of power. Ultimately it will be up to the developers to push each machine to it's limits, not the CPU.

Original IBM report


Somehow, this does not acually surprise me that the PS3 specs would be overinflated. Seems par for the course for Sony.

[Nephtys]

Somehow, this does not acually surprise me that the PS3 specs would be overinflated. Seems par for the course for Sony.

Sounds about right. Much like the infamous 'Totally Real Time, not Pre-Rendered' Killzone video. If they really had a real time video like that, the PS3 would already be done. It's hard to believe fantastic claims when a company lies through it's teeth...

[Shogoki]

It's normal practice for Sony to only publish maximum theorical yields for pretty much anything they produce, and then go ahead and publish that as the practical performance and then suggest room for improvement everywhere, remember: Toy Story graphics on PS2 ZOMG!! Untapped potential!

[Xon]

Bottomline is that the Cell isn't going to lap the XBOX 360 in terms of power. Ultimately it will be up to the developers to push each machine to it's limits, not the CPU.

And CPU is not nearly as important as GPU grunt

[Vendetta]

And CPU is not nearly as important as GPU grunt

And, naturally, ATi says theirs is better. It certainly sounds like the unified shader and funky memory architecture will give the ATi part the advantage (and their experience with it will help when it comes to making WGF 2.0 parts, as that's essentially what their X360 chip is).

The power difference between the two machines, at least as far as the player is going to notice, is going to be very slight indeed. Sony's only advantage is going to be storage.

[Max]

Wait...does this mean it WON'T be able to make waffles?


Really, is anyone surprised that Sony exaggerated specs?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

With such a slight disparity in power, Sony better have pulled its developer tools together much earlier in the process than Microsoft, because otherwise the X360 games will be much more impressive graphically, having a whole generation lead-time.

[Master of Ossus]

And CPU is not nearly as important as GPU grunt

And, naturally, ATi says theirs is better. It certainly sounds like the unified shader and funky memory architecture will give the ATi part the advantage (and their experience with it will help when it comes to making WGF 2.0 parts, as that's essentially what their X360 chip is).

ATi will have to forgive me for being skeptical, since their latest computer cards were pieces of shit next to their Nvidia competitors.

[Ace Pace]

And CPU is not nearly as important as GPU grunt

And, naturally, ATi says theirs is better. It certainly sounds like the unified shader and funky memory architecture will give the ATi part the advantage (and their experience with it will help when it comes to making WGF 2.0 parts, as that's essentially what their X360 chip is).

ATi will have to forgive me for being skeptical, since their latest computer cards were pieces of shit next to their Nvidia competitors.

Anyone else noticed that while nVidia was developing the Xbox GPU their desktop cards sucked(FX line) and now ATi has a sucky GPU while their developing the Xenos. That said, nVidia had an awesome GPU so hopefully ATi will continue with that.

[Praxis]

And, naturally, ATi says theirs is better. It certainly sounds like the unified shader and funky memory architecture will give the ATi part the advantage (and their experience with it will help when it comes to making WGF 2.0 parts, as that's essentially what their X360 chip is).

ATi will have to forgive me for being skeptical, since their latest computer cards were pieces of shit next to their Nvidia competitors.

Anyone else noticed that while nVidia was developing the Xbox GPU their desktop cards sucked(FX line) and now ATi has a sucky GPU while their developing the Xenos. That said, nVidia had an awesome GPU so hopefully ATi will continue with that.

Yeah, but the XBox GPU ended up being based off the Geforce 3, not their FX line.

Last I heard, the PS3 GPU is based off the Geforce 7800.

[Ace Pace]

ATi will have to forgive me for being skeptical, since their latest computer cards were pieces of shit next to their Nvidia competitors.

Anyone else noticed that while nVidia was developing the Xbox GPU their desktop cards sucked(FX line) and now ATi has a sucky GPU while their developing the Xenos. That said, nVidia had an awesome GPU so hopefully ATi will continue with that.

Yeah, but the XBox GPU ended up being based off the Geforce 3, not their FX line.

Last I heard, the PS3 GPU is based off the Geforce 7800.

It is, the RSX is an optimized version of the G70(GTX 256)

[Admiral Valdemar]

Am I the only one who couldn't give a shit? You can have the shiniest graphics out there, but if you have fuck all gameplay, you've just lost yourself a customer. The Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 or GameCube, yet, the last two had games that appealed. The Xbox just looked crap in my eyes, and still does.

It's high-time they got innovating rather than giving us ever more realistic looking fucking driving or shooting games.

[Dalton]

It's high-time they got innovating rather than giving us ever more realistic looking fucking driving or shooting games.

But Shaq can sweat now!

[Praxis]

Am I the only one who couldn't give a shit? You can have the shiniest graphics out there, but if you have fuck all gameplay, you've just lost yourself a customer.

Not true- consumers are stupid. These days, oftentimes, visuals are more important than scripts in movies, and visuals are more important than gameplay in games.

If you have crap gameplay, you SHOULD lose yourself customers. Unfortunately, the average gamer is not that intelligent, and buys whatever has "teh grafix!!!111one".

At least, American consumers are stupid. Japanese seem to care more about gameplay.

The Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 or GameCube, yet, the last two had games that appealed. The Xbox just looked crap in my eyes, and still does.

Agreed. I never bought one because the only games the XBox had that interested me, I could already get on my PC. And very few of the games actually interested me.

It's high-time they got innovating rather than giving us ever more realistic looking fucking driving or shooting games.

Consumers pay for "realistic looking driving and shooting games", so why should they care bothering to innovate? Innovation is risky!

[Ghost Rider]

Am I the only one who couldn't give a shit? You can have the shiniest graphics out there, but if you have fuck all gameplay, you've just lost yourself a customer. The Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 or GameCube, yet, the last two had games that appealed. The Xbox just looked crap in my eyes, and still does.

Differnt strokes, I still found stuff on the X-Box, PS2 and GC...though sadly my GBA FOUND MORE FUCKING USE....*sigh*

But the point is there, graphics shouldn't matter, but they do influence first impressions on many gamers.

It's high-time they got innovating rather than giving us ever more realistic looking fucking driving or shooting games.

*snort*

Aside from rare gems like Katamari, we'll likely never see them given the marketability of most of those games is near none.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Not true- consumers are stupid. These days, oftentimes, visuals are more important than scripts in movies, and visuals are more important than gameplay in games.

If you have crap gameplay, you SHOULD lose yourself customers. Unfortunately, the average gamer is not that intelligent, and buys whatever has "teh grafix!!!111one".

At least, American consumers are stupid. Japanese seem to care more about gameplay.

It is true, because I'm not a style-over-substance whore, and I won't be throwing my cash at the produce, be it film or game. Even books have an element of formulaic PR now to get customers.

Agreed. I never bought one because the only games the XBox had that interested me, I could already get on my PC. And very few of the games actually interested me.

Only a certain Bungie franchise appealed, and I've still yet to buy the original Halo for PC. Guess it wasn't that appealing afterall.

Consumers pay for "realistic looking driving and shooting games", so why should they care bothering to innovate? Innovation is risky!

How painfully true. Save for Nintendo, who may be the light now. Thanks for small mercies.

[SirNitram]

The 'CONSUMERS WILL ALWAYS PAY FOR BETTER GRAPHICS!' kind of hits a roadblock doing 60 when you realize the X-Box, the best graphics-equipped of the current(Last?) generation, scored less of a market share than the Gamecube. And the Cube was declared an outright failure.

[Praxis]

The 'CONSUMERS WILL ALWAYS PAY FOR BETTER GRAPHICS!' kind of hits a roadblock doing 60 when you realize the X-Box, the best graphics-equipped of the current(Last?) generation, scored less of a market share than the Gamecube. And the Cube was declared an outright failure.

Not in the United States though. The XBox failed miserably in Japan. It did well in the States and even outsold the PS2 a few quarters.

And actually, the XBox surpassed the GameCube's market share in 2005. XBox got 16%. GameCube got 14%.

However, your point is still valid. The PS2 sold more overall, everywhere. When it comes to games though, I see a LOT of crappy big-name games with really good graphics being advertised and considered more popular more than good games with lesser graphics. It seems companies make more money slapping a big name on the title, giving it good graphics, and shoving it out the door, rather than giving it depth.

[Admiral Valdemar]

For example, Hollywood is now fully appreciative of the gaming market and will sell licences for movies to the highest bidder to develop into a game. The number of cheap cash-in games with pretty graphics and crap gameplay trying to win customers based purely on a name is growing.

Incidentally, about the Cell processor, I thought it was going to beat the competition through new technology and processes rather than raw power. We all know AMD has made CPUs with lower clockspeeds than Intel, but have also been better able to do operations despite that setback.

[Nephtys]

Am I the only one who couldn't give a shit? You can have the shiniest graphics out there, but if you have fuck all gameplay, you've just lost yourself a customer. The Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 or GameCube, yet, the last two had games that appealed. The Xbox just looked crap in my eyes, and still does.

It's high-time they got innovating rather than giving us ever more realistic looking fucking driving or shooting games.

The real problem here, is that at the current specifications if the graphics are pretty much equal, there'll be no noticible difference in effective capabilities between the two systems. A few more doodads for PS3, and that stupid Blu-Ray drive... but that also pushes the price of the PS3 a good 200-300 dollars more. Which would you buy? Especially since PS3 won't have a good library either for another year after launch most likely.

The main reason PS2 has a wide range of games is because Japanese companies AND American companies produce for them. XBox is pretty much an American-only machine and produces games that sells well for them. It's business sense. But if Xbox 360 gets a better hold of the domestic market, it may turn some American developers away from making stuff for the PS3.

[Nephtys]

The 'CONSUMERS WILL ALWAYS PAY FOR BETTER GRAPHICS!' kind of hits a roadblock doing 60 when you realize the X-Box, the best graphics-equipped of the current(Last?) generation, scored less of a market share than the Gamecube. And the Cube was declared an outright failure.

Not in the United States though. The XBox failed miserably in Japan. It did well in the States and even outsold the PS2 a few quarters.

And actually, the XBox surpassed the GameCube's market share in 2005. XBox got 16%. GameCube got 14%.

However, your point is still valid. The PS2 sold more overall, everywhere. When it comes to games though, I see a LOT of crappy big-name games with really good graphics being advertised and considered more popular more than good games with lesser graphics. It seems companies make more money slapping a big name on the title, giving it good graphics, and shoving it out the door, rather than giving it depth.

For every Disgaea or Katamari you get, you'll also get six Dynasty Warrior sequels, the 'Battlestar Galactica' game, or Catwoman. And they sell well enough to offset the pathetic development costs. Thus, money is made and chumps are satisfied.

[SirNitram]

For every Disgaea or Katamari you get, you'll also get six Dynasty Warrior sequels, the 'Battlestar Galactica' game, or Catwoman. And they sell well enough to offset the pathetic development costs. Thus, money is made and chumps are satisfied.

To be fair, Dynasty Warriors is good.

It's just there's ten of them. And most are the same game.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's the one with Jean Reno in, right? I always wanted to try it.

[Mobius]

The one with Jean Reno is Onimusha 3;)