Facts you should know about PS3

  • Thread starter Thread starter tha_con
  • 82 comments
  • 3,695 views

tha_con

(Banned)
Messages
1,656
Before making absurd assumptions:

Controllers:

- Design is not finalized, however, it is extremely possible that the DS2 design will not be used. While no official comment has been made, it is clear that sony is headed in a new direction, and change is coming.

- The are rechargeable with ANY USB cable on ANY USB connection. What has not been said, however, is weather or not rechargeable batteries will be available off the bat, or if the will have to be purchased. This does, however, confirm that if they trickle charge off of a USB connection, that they will be able to be played wired to the PS3 via USB connection. This information was gathered from the Sony Press conference at E3.


Power:

Many people have believed that the PS3 is powerful, yet they do not believe that it will be capable of what was shown at E3. To keep away from confusing numbers, I will provide references and examples to compare and come to your own conclusions.

Processor/GPU Relation:

PS2:

The Emotion engine ran at roughly 300mhz, and communicated with the GPU via a 64bit 1.2GB/s bus.


PS3:

The Cell Processor runs at 3.2Ghz, and communicates with the RSX via 35GB/s bus.
That is a huge difference.

Video Memory:

PS2: 4MB

PS3: 256MB of VRAM (running at 700Mhz) with the other 256MB of Main memory (running at 3.2Ghz) accessible.

Again, the difference is apparent.


Now, this is not a console war, however, with the release of the apparently biased Xbox 360 comparison chart on IGN, there are numbers that need to be addressed, as they were never mentioned in the "report".




Xbox 360 has 1MB of L2 cache, and they mention this as a strong point because PS3 has only 512KB of L2 cache. However, they forget to mention that each SPE (8 of them) is loaded with 256KB of it's own cache, and if you count them all together, including the L2, that's 3.5MB of total processor cache. Go figure.

They also comment on the memory bandwidth etc, however, the bus speeds on the memory are not mentioned...funny.

X360 rocks a solid 512MB of shared system memory between the processor and the GPU, running at a 700Mhz bus.

The PS3, on the other hand, has a different approach. It has a set of memory, two different 256MB memory sets. Their main system memory is 256MB XDR, however it's running at an incredibly fast 3.2GB/s bus. The other, is a 256MB GDDR3 (Running at 700Mhz). This is PURELY Dedicated to Video applicatoin, THAT is one of the main differences in the two consoles, and a reason I believe PS3 is capable of such like the Killzone trailer.

Also, keep in mind that that the 256MB of XDR is not dedicated, and it can also be used by the GPU instead of being used purley by the core processor.

Dot Product Operations:

So, Microsoft says "hey, we can do 9 billion dot product operations". Sony says they can do 51 billion.

Here's the whole truth.

Sony combined their GPU and CPU dot product operation performance to come up with 51 billion. However, Microsoft ONLY told you how many the CPU was capable of. With the GPU included, the X360 is capable of 33.6 billion dpo's.

:) Gotta love the way you can stretch truths.



Cell processor quickies:

Okay, a lot of people don't exactly understand what the Cell processor "does".

So, to make it easy, here is a quick anology.

You have The boss (the core) who basically handles a few operations here and there, but mainly delegates to the 7 other workers (the SPE's). These 7 workers all have individual tasks that can be assigned to them, and they will carry them out, working together as a team. Then you have the 8th worker, who does "redundancy" operations. Basically, he cycles through things that happen over and over again, so that the other 7 need not worry about it.

Practical application to video games: That 8th SPE handles those little redundant calculations that will always happen, i.e. let's say you're playing a tennis game, well the physics for the tennis ball need to be calulated, and the behavior of it is quite redundant, i.e. the speed it travels, and the force it is hit, these are redundant calulations, done over and over, and instead of forcing the other SPE's to take on this job, it is dedicated strictly to one SPE, so each time the action happens, it is quickly processed by the 8th spe, this prevents the other SPE's from straying away from their task at hand.


That's just a quick "run down" and not at all as in depth as the processor is, but it should give those with doubt a little more of an idea of exactly how the Cell works.



I will edit this post later, but I dont have time right now to talk about each and every little specification and all of the analogy's I can come up with to make it easier to grasp, lol.
 
Juice476
Thats what there telling you they have i might not be what they have

I like this guy. He's rather funny.:lol:

tha_con, thanks for the breakdown.
 
tha_con
I'm just waiting for later when Code get's online and see's what this guy say's, should offer some good humor :)
Damn right, :lol:.
 
"Xbox 360 has 1MB of L2 cache, and they mention this as a strong point
because PS3 has only 512KB of L2 cache. However, they forget to mention
that each SPE (8 of them) is loaded with 256KB of it's own cache, and
if you count them all together, including the L2, that's 3.5MB of total
processor cache. Go figure."

That is not how cache works...it's like you saying adding all the cores on the 360= 9+ghz since they all run at 3.2ghz. You cannot add them up they will or diffrently. Only 1 core is used for gaming.
 
cobragt
"Xbox 360 has 1MB of L2 cache, and they mention this as a strong point
because PS3 has only 512KB of L2 cache. However, they forget to mention
that each SPE (8 of them) is loaded with 256KB of it's own cache, and
if you count them all together, including the L2, that's 3.5MB of total
processor cache. Go figure."

That is not how cache works...it's like you saying adding all the cores on the 360= 9+ghz since they all run at 3.2ghz. You cannot add them up they will or diffrently. Only 1 core is used for gaming.

Okay cobra...whatever you say.

Xbox360 is not rated at 9.6Ghz because it doesn't run that fast, it runs a 3.2Ghz on each core, you do not add that all together as processor speed.

Just like each SPE on the Cell operates at 3.2Ghz, however they are still a collective unit, operating at 3.2Ghz.

The cache, however, is a different story. Because each SPE has it's own personal 256KB cache, you can say that it does in fact have 3.5MB of cache TOTAL, but it still has a 512KB of L2 cache.

Relating processor speed and cache or two different things, and these are two different kinds of technology. The individual processors still work at the CORE speed, so it's not "faster" same applies to the X360 processor, those three cores run at the main core speed, they just say "each" because they do, however that specific wording would give the impression of enhanced performance.
 
Very good write up tha_con :) 👍

Very good explainations on how everything works......I do hope the controller is changed thou.....
 
If the controllers plug in by USB does that mean we can use existng USB hubs as multitaps?

They had better come with USB cables, or the USB cables had be cheap, or it is going to be one major rip off buying loads of batteries.
 
I'm sure it will include at least one USB cable for hooking them up.

I fail to see why it would need a multi-tap, though. The thing supports seven controllers out of the box. And wireless, to boot.
 
Presumable the PS3 would scan for them and automatically connect, so I'm guessing you'd have to designate you're controllers first time you connect to them. Either way, it won't be complicated, it doesn't have to be and it'd be bad for Sony if it was.
 
The PS3 will be quite a powerfull machine.Maybe too powerfull.I believe that the full potential of the PS3 won't be reached for a long time.Everytime i try to picture it i just can't comprehend it.PS2 uses ancient hardware(not counting the EE,though that also is quite old).Yet when you look at the games that are beign produced today i find it very impressive to see what a 5 year old machine can do.

Now we have the Cell and the RSX and those incredible speeds at wich everything communicates with eachother.I just can't think of a single game that will require such computing power.I can't even imagine it.The RSX might be pushed to its limits if the games would look like that Killzone demo but Cell won't be.I have been following the developmet of Cell and have read just about every bit of info that is available and going just by the numbers,the Cell would outperfom a system with 10 P4 @ 3,2Ghz processors.That is extreme performance and one that won't be required for a very long time,i think.


For the above reason alone i can't grasp the fact that people still believe that the X-Box 360 will be a more powerfull machine than the PS3.Don't buy into the hype of MS or Sony.Make your own judgement.Use logic.I'm starting to sound like a Jedi here,heh.
MS uses 3 cores,Sony uses 8(or 7 however you want to look at it).Now what makes you think that a 3 core processor can be stronger than a 8 core processor?That's right,it can't.
Details of both ATI's and nVidia's GPU's are still a bit vague,so i can't comment on that.But if the numbers tha_con posted turn out to be correct then the PS3 will have the upper hand in just about every departement.


That is enough for now.
 
Tha_con, you get a gold star.

That was an awesome write up and very informative, eventhough I already knew most of it :).
 
GTChamp2003
MS uses 3 cores,Sony uses 8(or 7 however you want to look at it).Now what makes you think that a 3 core processor can be stronger than a 8 core processor?That's right,it can't.

lol

I thought you said you were going to use logic...?

Of course a 3 core CPU could outperform an 8 core CPU. Get the 3 core CPU to perform a one's complement 1 million times on a 32-bit number and get the 8 core CPU to perform a floating point division on a double precision number 1 million times ;)

You seem to be concentrating on this 8 core CPU thing. Basing your thinking on something like this could be dangerous, just like saying "Of course that 3GHz CPU will outperform that 2.5GHz CPU, cos it's faster", which is very often not the case. Put an FX55 up against a 3.0GHz Celeron and you'd see what I mean.

There are many factors contributing to the performance of a single CPU, nevermind multiple CPUs running in parallel. Factors such as the instruction mix, the CPI and the number of instructions. Compiler technology is incredibly important; changes in compiler alone can change the performance of a system by as much as 20%. Object code compiled from the same source code using two different compilers can run at vastly different speeds on the same hardware.

Marketing divisions often try to confuse the public by reporting benchmark scores or hardware specs which are misleading. Benchmarks such as the Peak MIPS of a system are totally misleading, as they report an unattainable level of performance. Both the PS3 and the xbox 360 are very powerful machines, there's no doubt about that. Debating which is faster seems to be rather pointless, unless when you buy your console you're just going to try to play top trumps with the hardware spec list. The most important benchmark for these consoles is one for which there may never be a comparison made: the games. Talk of CPU clock rates, cache speeds/capacities and main memory is all well and good, but at the end of the day, if the system can't deliver a high frame rate in a game then it's all pointless.

Real-world performance is the only benchmark worth listening to when talking about consoles.
 
Indeed,games are the benchmark.And yes,it depends how easy it is to program for a console wich defines it's succes.From what i know,MS has developed XNA wich would make it easier for developers to get the most out of the X-Box 360.Sony have also developed a similar tool wich would simplify programming for the PS3. However,good hardware is neccesary and as of now it seems to me that Sony has the upper hand with the PS3.

Back to the multi-core CPU thing,sure in a (very unlikely) scenario a 3 core CPU could outperform an 8 core CPU.What are the odds of that happening with the next-gen consoles?I'd say close to zero.If Sony could get the same performance with a 3 core CPU they wouldn't have bothered with building one with 8 cores.It will be a while before the PS3 arrives so why not kill some time discussing it. :)
 
GTChamp2003
Indeed,games are the benchmark.And yes,it depends how easy it is to program for a console wich defines it's succes.From what i know,MS has developed XNA wich would make it easier for developers to get the most out of the X-Box 360.Sony have also developed a similar tool wich would simplify programming for the PS3. However,good hardware is neccesary and as of now it seems to me that Sony has the upper hand with the PS3.

Back to the multi-core CPU thing,sure in a (very unlikely) scenario a 3 core CPU could outperform an 8 core CPU.What are the odds of that happening with the next-gen consoles?I'd say close to zero.If Sony could get the same performance with a 3 core CPU they wouldn't have bothered with building one with 8 cores.It will be a while before the PS3 arrives so why not kill some time discussing it. :)

My point was not "How likely is it that a 3 core CPU could outperform an 8 core CPU", I was simply questioning how you could tell people to use logic one second and then immediately say that of course an 8 core CPU is better than a 3 core CPU since 8 is more than 3...

The reason that the Cell chip has 8 cores is that it wasn't developed purely to be a CPU for a games console; it was developed with partners with the intention of performing well over a range of tasks (including servers). In server applications, throughput is generally the greatest desire, thus having 8 cores for computation is very desirable. In a gaming application, a mix of throughput and response time is more important, and in this case, having 8 cores might be a disadvantage since intercommunication between cores takes time. Obviously flight time is short but Grace Hopper's wire wasn't that long.

A point about the cache discussion too...again, it's a little narrow-minded to simply focus on the size of the cache. Increasing the cache size does not necessarily increase the performance of the machine, it can actually be detrimental in some instances. Compulsory misses obviously will not decrease with an increase in cache size, no matter how big the cache is. Access time can also be increased when the cache size is increased. Other details such as the associativity, block size, miss penalty, miss rate and write policy are extremely important. Discussion on these points with any real values of the PS3 or xbox 360 is difficult (if not impossible) since I don't believe any values for these have been released, but it's worthwhile bearing them in mind when discussing them and understanding the concepts, rather than just stating "X is better than Y since X has a bigger cache/faster clock".
 
amp88
I was simply questioning how you could tell people to use logic one second and then immediately say that of course an 8 core CPU is better than a 3 core CPU since 8 is more than 3...
Well it is pretty logical,choosing 8 over 3 cores,the more the better right?
 
GTRacer4
Well it is pretty logical,choosing 8 over 3 cores,the more the better right?

Heh, it's not as simple as that when you're talking about computers though...

If the CPUs were the same, then it would be fairly safe to say that 8 is faster than 3, but it could be the situation that the 3 are used more efficiently than the 8, or they're more specialised and suited to the task...

To make an analogy, it's possible to tune a 6 cylinder car to have a higher output than a 12 cylinder car, or it's possible to have a car which only revs to 6000rpm but has a higher power output than an engine that revs to 10000rpm...
 
I got a question for what tha_con said,

tha_con
Dot Product Operations:

So, Microsoft says "hey, we can do 9 billion dot product operations". Sony says they can do 51 billion.

Here's the whole truth.

Sony combined their GPU and CPU dot product operation performance to come up with 51 billion. However, Microsoft ONLY told you how many the CPU was capable of. With the GPU included, the X360 is capable of 33.6 billion dpo's.

:) Gotta love the way you can stretch truths.

What is a dot operation? Is that like the buget for the systems?
 
amp88
Heh, it's not as simple as that when you're talking about computers though...

If the CPUs were the same, then it would be fairly safe to say that 8 is faster than 3, but it could be the situation that the 3 are used more efficiently than the 8, or they're more specialised and suited to the task...

To make an analogy, it's possible to tune a 6 cylinder car to have a higher output than a 12 cylinder car, or it's possible to have a car which only revs to 6000rpm but has a higher power output than an engine that revs to 10000rpm...

Good analogy, however, you said it yourself.

It's possible to tune a car.

It's up to the programmers, and in many cases, if taken advantage off, the Cell can outperform the 3 core processor that the XB360 uses.

Also, everyone needs to realize that technically, the Cell does not have "8 cores" it has 8 SPE's. Rather, smaller processors that work off of the single core.

This is advantageous, however, because they work co-operitavely, and independantly at the same time. Also, each having it's own cache is extremely advantageous to this type of technology because each SPE can use it's own cache, rather than borrow from the core.

This is really a different kind of technology, and you have to throughly understand a lot of it. It's not basic multi-core technology where things are shared.

The Cell is designed to different jobs at once, each job working "independantly" from the other, and that information being sent to the core, etc etc.
 
Anyone notice the PS3 has no sound processor? Is one of the SPe's going to handle the task? In the Leaf demo Phil harrison said there can be over 1000 audio chanels yet the other guys sytem can do 256. Overkill?

People keep saying its all about the games but these hardware venders dont think so. Soon the next gen conlsoe are going to be like PC graphic cards. See a benchmark buy the card. The games will be virtually the same graphic quality. I can bet there wont be a visually difference to say which system is better(Becides the 1080p). however PS3 is far more capable with other things that make it better.
 
One thing that I do like about the PS3 is that it's geared toward the future rather than the "now".

By this I mean the Wi-Fi, the Gigabit ethernet, all the media interfaces. It makes for good business and hopefully when technology picks up in the next few years we'll see some awesome online gaming.

Gigabit ethernet>you.
 
Bluetooth connection???
Maybe we can put a GPS system on the PS3, to navigate around the tracks when we get lost.
 
tha_con
One thing that I do like about the PS3 is that it's geared toward the future rather than the "now".

By this I mean the Wi-Fi, the Gigabit ethernet, all the media interfaces. It makes for good business and hopefully when technology picks up in the next few years we'll see some awesome online gaming.

Gigabit ethernet>you.

I agree. That was always what held the PS/PS2 back a bit was it was behind the times in the departments you mentioned. They finally got a hardrive! Man that took forever.
 
Back