>256 MB RamWhat did they mean by this?
you don't need ram when you have the power of the cell
Eh it's not that bad. The GPU has its own pool of ram as well. 256+256 total
>>100324934>bluray playerBased, incels were crying while PSchads were popping a bluray disk and had sex with women
>>100325035It was incredibly bad compared to the 512MB unified GDDR3 on the 360, and the reason most third party ports on PS3 were dog shit.
256+256MB was plenty to play Telladega Nights
>>100324934who needs ram when you have the strongest cpu ever made, it's still the fastest cpu designed
>>100324934When you're in an inCell you don't need more memory.
Games were better and only needed 256M RAM while now shit games need 12GB VRAM and 8G RAM
>>100325077ps3 won thoughever
>>100324934Utterly stunning how this thing ran GTA V while there are still no phone ports for it yet.
>PS1 has 4mb of RAMHow?
>>100325077Yet the exclusives were perfectly fine? Makes you think.
>>100325077It's the same reason most PC ports these days suck compared to their console counterparts. Retarded devs can't code for shit.
>>100324934It was the style at the time.
>>100325230Is this a meme?How much potential did cell architecture have?Mark Cerny mentioned cell in the PS5 videoCell had something huge behind it but the industry couldn’t let it happen
>>100325077The reason ports sucked for the PS3 is because devs are fucking monkeys that couldn't learn how to program for the Cell processor, actually there must still be Youtube videos where they admit this
>>100326386It's enough for 240p
>>100326836256MB in 2006 was a lot.By 2010 it was already a cheap shit laptop.Now you can say "but the PS3 is cheaper than a high end computer" but this shit sold at AUD$1000 (2007 A$) on launch and from memory the PS5 sold at A$749 (2020 A$).Now you might be thinking:>Why AUD? Why is that important?>Why did the price go down?The answer comes down to the US losing a fuck tonne of value post GFC to the point where A$1 was $1.30US for like 2 months (and I was in the US for that kek, amazingly cheap shit everywhere compared to Aus prices).But even still with that, the PS3 was overpriced garbage in the end. It was too overpowered for it's time and they cashed in on the popularity of the PS2.They were lucky Xbox live still made it a choice for some, though if they were like my family - your kid was getting a Wii, not a PS3 or Xbox 360.Anyway, by 2010 512mb was bare minimum for most PCs. I got a desktop with like 4gb of ram in like 2010 and that wasn't high end, though it could play Cities Skylines with decent settings in retrospect. I could even emulate ps2 and psp with ease.
>>100325040>PSchads were popping a bluray disk lets get real, no one bought or buys blurays. ITs been 20 years and DVDs are still more popular.
>>100327694Err.. you know that games used blu-rays after than generation right?Many people use blu-rays. I thought what you thought once, until I checked and asked around and found out more people were buying blu-rays than I thought. Ironically it makes more sense today than 10 years ago because of streaming being so shit quality and piracy chewing up so much HDD space and requiring so much bandwidth to be useful.
>No meymor>No gaemsAll according to keikaku.
>>100325077Considering that PS3 exclusive titles always shat on any of the 360 exclusive titles, or even crossplatform titles, says volumes about how untrue this is.The Last of Us showed what the PS3 was capable of and has been capable of since its release all the way back in 2006.The cell processor was too convoluted and new for most developers to understand though, and it also forced developers to multi-thread all of their code whereas the 360 titles were mostly single threaded. Porting from 360 to PS3 was a nightmare purely because they have vastly different architecture and ways to program for them.Most people targeted the 360 by default because it was half the price of the PS3 and more people owned it for the first half of that generation.
>>100327888Yeah but thas not what you were talking about. Aint no bitch coming over to watch MGS4 cut scenes. Sony gimped themselves with the licensing so no one pushed BLurays to consumers. The consoles were the only saving grace and digital sales have been eating at that for a decade.
>>100327694My whole 500+ film collection is in Blu Ray. DVD is standard definition crap brother. Most movie fanatics I know have a pretty big blu ray collection.
>>100327524512MB split memory left more or less exclusive to run games isn't that bad. In actuality I think the OS took about ~80MB during gameplay but that's still more than enough to hold objects and textures in line with the generation and only REALLY shit code (like Bethesda's saving every moved object in direct memory) actually gave it trouble. Keep in mind this was stepping up from the PS2's 32MB unified with only 4 for video. With the PS3 you were still looking at an architecture that actually resembled a game console, not a shit computer sold at a premium.
>>100324934what a time to be alive it was
Yet it had the best graphics. And was fast as fuck. Truly the sporty man's choise
>>100328206>oblivionMy beloved.
>>100325040During that era I was running gentoo and playing bzflag with the girl I lost my virginity to.
>>100326889As far as I can remember Cell was very much like modern ARM, or more specifically Apple's M-series processors. Basically generic CPU cores supported by a ton of very specialised cores that handled AI or environment maps, or certain types of shading, shit like that. So in theory it could have been very powerful with more modern architecture and cores, but going x86 made for the simpler bet.
>>100328113Blu ray is at most 720p if not less. It can't hold lossless data of real 1080p
>>100328302Nigga that is so far from true I am laughing out loud, physically. Don’t make up lies about blu rays to someone who literally dumps his own blu rays to his computers.Any blu ray pressed after 2008-2009 was a 1080p guarantee unless you were watching something independently produced.
>>100328113I mean, this is another side of things but BD is still pretty popular among weebs, most series or movies these days are in special editions that have a ton of extras though for added value, at least those interested in collecting things.
Saying no one buys blu rays is like saying no one buys vinyls.
>>100328113Thats nice, your still a minority who was forced to take a shitty product that made the market shit for so long low quality streaming took over because Kusony didn't want to share royalties. If Sony wasnt being fools we would have more Blurays now for cheaper and the tech would have probably been improved to remove the shitty compressions.
>>100328379Vinyls don't have the retarded java based DRM.
>>100328355According to statista, 52% of Americans between 30 and 65 own Blu Ray players, that doesn’t count the people who who watch blu ray on their consoles.
>>100328379Modern vinyls are a low volume niche product to appear to consumers who dont know better. Thinking their music is higher quality just because its on vinyl even though it was made from a digital image just like a CD. vinyl might sell more now, but neither is of a significant volume, the markets have shifted to streaming. So yes, no one buys vinyls. they are a niche product closer to a band T-Shirt especially considering 50% of people who by a vinyl record dont even have a record player.
>>100328650Not gonna lie, I've come really close to buying Vinyls a bunch of times and have no intention of using them beyond mounting it in a frame. Honestly if I could buy art in the same form factor it'd be fantastic.
>>100328082I wasn't that dude kek.I never bought them either because they scratch. But nowadays I see more issues with HDDs than blu-rays because of longevity issues with data on them.
>>100328650>>100329115I have 100s that I never listen too. Many I bought to support the local scene. But I do that because I like the scene and interact with them.
switching away to x86 was a mistake
>>100329472What's worse is that generally things like Video Games actually look no different or worse than they did in 2011. The memory usage change has been for little benefit. I swear games stopped looking any better after the PS3. The difference between PS3 and PS5 is rather minute and most people can't really tell that much. You're not talking the change from primitive 90s 2D/3D to ps2/xbox era 3D to finally the more curved looking ps3/360 era 3D. You're talking maybe some lighting changes, slightly more resolution that doesn't really matter that much to most or just some minor performance changes. I look at PS5 games and there's next to no difference to PS4 games. Game devs are chewing up more and more resources not for better quality either, it's just general bloat for laziness. At least with the PS3 the memory increases made sense.
>>100326324It ran at 20 fps and looked like shit.
>>100329817PS3 GTA V player here. Wrong. I played that port until I got sick of the game because it run at a stable 30 fps and the next gen graphics upgrade was laughably small, at best.
>>100329877Take off your nostalgia goggles.https://youtu.be/_fbYyMq4cGU
>>100325077I still remember how the PS3 version of GTA 4 only had 640p resolution and ran at like 20fps yet people only bitch about how the PC port was shit.
For me it is beauty! Think about what they are achieving while using these 256MB!
>>100329933Honestly looks better at that framerate.It's like Zelda OoT at 30frames instead of 25. Looks strange.
>>100330386It's literally bloat still. 256MB was considered bloat back in the day.
>>100324934I was more upset at the absolute dog shit AA.
>build parallel processor>midwits can't into parallel>get shit on for being superiorWhat did Sony mean by this?
>>100331728All fax no phone
>>100326012Xbox put up a good fight with it's 50 percent failure rate and console banhammers causing people to have to buy more than one system to replace a broken one.
>>100329817Idk about IV but V ran fine for me and looked reasonably well. Only huge issue were the loading times for online.And the fact it ran at all on such shitty hardware is crazy.
someone post the hello world code for the Cell
>>100329993Because the PC port needed at least 3+ cores in times when 2 were mostly the norm and it was basically impossible to max out the viewing distance. And it generally didn't look good for its requirements. (fucking Crysis came out a year before, looked better and ran much better)
>>100324934It means every fighting game on a sony platform will have more input delay compared to every other system and sony still refuses to fix this issue while holding a monopoly on fgc eventsFuck sony
>>100329586>some minor performance changes.modern games supposedly do more but have such bloated hardware requirements and are incomptently made so they're to use shit like upscaling instead of being made to run well native no fsr/dlss/etc all while having less TECHNOLOGY than older games
>>100332661What's the point of using the butthuge textures if they do upscaling anyway?
>>100326324If you got snapdragon, it can using wine emulator (winlator) at HD res @ 30fps lockedAlso someone is cooking unofficial port.
Reminder that the PS3 was going to have 2 Cells, the cost was massive so they just hack taped an nvidia gpu
They were just proving that you don't need more. The truth is modern software is incredibly inefficient. Our systems can be 100x faster at no extra cost if the software was actually made right.
>>100329378>One guy with blu-ray never had problems>millions of people who use hard drives have them fail>Blu rays don't go bad as often
>>1003263863.5MiB actually2MiB of work ram (what people refer to when talking about "ram")1MiB video ram512KiB audio rampeople like to say the n64 came with twice the ram since it has 4MiB vs. 2MiB, but that's not accurate, the N64 uses that 4MiB as a shared pool for everything, including video and audio, so it's more accurate to compare it to the combined 3.5MiB the psx has
>>100326012The Wii won, actually.PS3 recovered very late in it's life
>>100327444that picture is for the ps2, those numbers add up to 4MiB, which is how much vram the ps2 has, the psx has 1MiB of vramalso, the picture is describing 448i, not 240p
>>100330485oot ran at 20fps (ntsc) or 16.7fps (pal) (60/3 vs. 50/3)
>>100324934It had separate DRAM and VRAM, the 360 had a common pool of 512MB, which turned out to be the better choice.
>>100333040Sick
>>100328296That's a big misunderstanding of what the Cell is.It's Alder Lake if Alder Lake only had 1 P-core and the E-cores can only do additions, multiplications and moves. The SPE isn't specialized, it's limited. Specialized is when it's actually useful for the job. Limited is when it's mediocre at it's job but it can't even be used to do anything else.
>2kB+2kB RAMHow?
>>100335260graphics and code are stored in rom and mapped into the cpu's address spacethe work ram in the nes itself is only used for variables that need to change during gameplay. they work fundementally differently to more modern stuff (meaning around 5th gen and up) where software is loaded from the distribution media into work ram, so the work ram needs to be much larger in that case
>>100335260>>100327524>>100324934you have to remember that a byte of data is enough to address 256 things, which means if you have a fixed memory location in rom to address then referencing that far easier than copying that data to rom, so a single screen on the NES for example doesn't need all 256 × 240 pixels populated in memory, a simple 8x8 or 64 bytes is enough to map out all the data, and there is more shit going on to make that even smallerthey didn't forget shit like this when they made the PSX, PS2, PS3, etc, they used all kinds of tricks to make what you would think of as alot of data be stored in a small space, textures would be stored in a single large sheet on memory, but "large" only in the sense that it wasn't a single texture but a set of textures in different spots on the same map, they would just reference that pixel by pixel, meaning you didn't even need to reference the data per pixel, but as a trignonomic function of a small set of vertices, each vertex could use only a few bytes of data each, meanwhile these days we have vertices made up of dozens of components each 64 bits long, and instead of having a few hundred vertices per screen (like the PS1) these days we have several billion per nosehair, not to mention instead of the texture resolution of 16x16 or 32x32 RGB we use textures that are made up of dozens of layers, light maps, normal maps, etc at resolutions of several thousand per side, with thousands of times more models in any given sceneso yeah, if you wanted to make something that only used a few kilobytes of ram today it's possible, and trying to do it would make you a better programmer because it would force you to learn how to git gud
>>100324934how the fuck did that run gta 5
>>100335490very carefully
>>100324934it has decent operating system, winxp ran fine with 256MB, it could work 64MB as long as there were 128MB while installing
>>100335455the psx could do 90,000 polygons (triangles) per second with all the effects (textures, lighting, and shading), several times more as just a plain colourtextures went up to 256x256 i believe, though they of course vary in size depending on the requirements of the gamepic related, emulators can show you the entire 1024x512 video memory, textures and all. the textures aren't necessarily in the same format as the framebuffer, which is why they don't always look correct viewed this way
Unrelated but Sony just got buck broken by PC chads
>>1003354901. The game was heavily cut down2. The Ps3 gpu isn't too weak, it's a beefed up 7950gtx or something3. All of the heavy cpu work was offloaded to the SPEs somehow. With heavy guidance and work on sonny's part they successfully utilized as many as 6 SPEs at once for much of the gameplay, which gave the single ppc general computing core a chance to try to tire it all together just in time to send out each frame.I think the biggest trick was that they were compressing the data in ram and using a SPE to fucking on the fly decompress and recompress data to read from ram. Iirc the gpu had an additional 256mb of ram.
>>100328302dawg, there's 4K bluray now
>>100326386>tranime>dumb postalways
>>100336326Good morning beautiful
>plays at 1080p 60fpsnothin peronnel kid
>>100327379It was pretty shit for games in general.
>>100324934how this shit ran mgs4 and last of us?
>>100327524>256MB in 2006 was a lot.Pretty sure I had a PC that had 512MB RAM prior to 2006 and I’m a 3rd worlder
>>100339058back in 2005 3,5GB would have been a lot, you maybe mistaken by decade
>>100327379How powerful is that compared to a PS4? The PS4 can run Cyberpunk somewhat with the latest uodates that somehow make it run at 20~30fps.Could it be possible to port it using tons of efficiency tweaks and shit? Would the RAM be the limiting factor over the Cell?
>>100339058i bought new pc parts in 2006 (mobo, ram, cpu, gpu), i had to skimp on ram initially because i didn't have too much to spend, so i got only 512M, that was the minimum that made any sense in 2006. "a lot" was more like 2G
>>100328113>DVD is standard definition crap brother.Yet there are many movies that are only on DVD and there are many movies which look better on DVD than Blu-ray because the Blu-ray transfer is shit.
>>100330485Kys cancer
>>100332586Crysis barely ran on top hardware in 2008
>>100339452i played the demo on mid-end hardware i got in 2006, while far from high settings, it was playable
>>100324934that is a bunch of ram if your games are written in actually good code and not oop slop
>>100327524>256MB in 2006 was a lot.if we are going to compare with PCs it was almost unusable by then and virtually no new computer was sold with that little>By 2010 it was already a cheap shit laptop.you are thinking of 1GB retard. maybe even 2GB.
>>100327524>256MB in 2006 was a lot.Nah, it wasn't. Pretty sure the PC I was using at the time had like 1.5GB of cobbled-together RAM. Next year in 2007 I built a new system with 4GB RAM, which I do remember being quite a lot for the time since Windows XP 32b was still common due to Vista being considered shit and it couldn't even use all the system memory available.
>>100324934>256MB Ram>still sold at loss during its first few yearssemiconductor company sisters... we just can't stop winning...
>>100325077>Devs threw bitch fits when having to make Wii games>Devs threw bitch fits when having to make PS3 games>They cheered and rejoiced when Sony announced the PS4 would use the same infrastructure as the Xbox one and are still so laughably pathetically incompetent that even porting between nearly identical machines is just too hard nowWestern game devs are actually just entitled whiny bitches, Cliffy B raging over making a Wii game will never not be fucking hilarious
>>100327379Even Gabe Newell thinks Cell processor is retarded for gaming.It's 2024 and games that could do multithreading well are the exception, not the rule.
>>100339030turns out if you actually have competent programmers in your team instead of a bunch of retards pasting templates and using barely optimized engines they don't understand 256MB video RAM and essentially 7 128-bit cores all clocked at 3.2GHz is decent enough to get games running
>>100339030PS3 could run MGS V. The devs are basically wizard.The Last of Us? The graphic ages like milk.
>>100340068Guess the real Moore's law was the average code monkey's inability to write multithreaded RISC instructions.
PS3's CELL BE is still much faster than any x86 CPU released 10 years after.We're like Germanic savages gawking awkwardly at Roman Aqueducts.
>>100340037There is a huge diff between a Unix-like system (BSD) with OpenGL and a Modded Windows with Direct X.Nowadays with Vulkan things are beautiful, but OpenGL was always a bitch to deal with.just because both ran on x86_64 CPUs doesn't mean they were similar to work with.
>>100340154no it's not. it's absolute garbage these days.
>>100339522the can it run crysis meme isnt "can it run crysis on low"it is meant to be tested on high or very high. crysis on medium or low uses a different rendering engine and significant cutbacks, playing on low is basically equivalent in graphics to Lego Island. I recently put together a meme machine with a phenom 980BE and a ati 4670 AGP gpu and that barely played high at like 25fps. playable by 2008 standards but not really nowyou needed at minimum a gtx 480 or ati 5870 to really enjoy some crysis sloppa
>>100340318forgot my image
>>100328113And every single one is a Marvel flick.
>>100329933NTA but that's at launch and probably without the faster, cooler cech-2100 that was lithographied on a smaller process.I remember playing GTA5, especially online, on the PS3 slim at 30fps with dips at hectic scenes. Mostly I had problems with pop-in.
>>100339627i had a linux box with 128mb ram in 2007 and it was able to perfectly run kde 3.5
>>100340133Ummm sweaty first of all its not multithreaded, its multiprocessor second of all you had 2 different assembly languages one for the main CPU and one for the MPUs(or whatever theyre called) and then you had to manage transfer rate using the bidirectional ring bus IE some transfers took less if you sent them clockwise since the other core would be closer.Its not something you can do straight away in C or C++ since that is too high level which was a problem IBM had at the beginning since not even they understood really well how to program their own CPU so they didnt really have proper libraries to do shitIt still happens today, new architectures take time to really understand them and their intrinsic way of programming that not even their inventors have grasped completely, pic very much related
>>100340582Yeah, well, that shit was fine on a Pentium 2 with 192MB as I remember it. Try running a browser with that shit. 512MB was standard for a mid-low range PC in 2005.
>>100340643It's always going to be true. C++ std::vector doesn't really reliably generate AVX/AVX2/AVX-512 in any meaningful way. You either have to write in raw intrinsics or rely on a vector math library that was written in intrinsics. C++ is harder to auto-vectorise compared to even shit like Fortran and it's why x86 manages to hold its own in most workflows despite having anaemic vector instructions.
>>100340736>C++ is harder to auto-vectorise compared to even shit like FortranHow come, aliasing?
>>100325077Both were inferior to my 2007 God machine Toshiba Satellite x200 with an overclocked nvidia 8700m. Fallout 3 at max settings for hours on end until thqt massive heatsink finally got hot enough to crash the game. Just quick save and let it cool off for bit.
>>100340643I'm actually kind of curious how devs dealt with some of these issues. Did they make their own libs for multiprocessor calls and share them around or something? I remember it's about 2008-2009 that game development stopped sucking less for the PS3.
>>100340857Aliasing doesn't help, but it's everything. Like Fortran has a way to simply mark a loop for parallel execution and it'll vectorise and thread appropriately. A C++ for loop can't because it's hard sequential and there's no way for it to know that it isn't doing something like writing to a shared file or socket that requires the bytes to come in a specific order. Even for (auto foo : bar) can't for the same reason.As a result, you want vectorised c++ code you have to use code that's specifically built to do it or liberally sprinkle non-standard compiler specific #pragmas around that give the compiler hints.
>>100341339Most devs made do with the Sony libs, shaders and C++. That was true in any generation, most didn't write their own PS2 vector code, they used what Sony gave them and complained that it wasn't magic. But any decent company will build its own library of reusable code and other teams at said company will pillage the company source control for bits of stuff they can use on their own projects. Over time it develops into a very performant and very useful resource only available to company employees. Cross pollination happens as devs leave for other companies and remember how to do certain clever things. Other companies fail when they sack everyone at the end of a project and force everyone onto Unreal.
>>100341339Basically they all had to make their own libraries or program using both assemblers, you can watch an entire course on CELL programming on yt>https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2C11836D4EEFB8F4It goes in depth and you can see some student projects in the final videos including (a fairly slow) raytracer.
>>100341442Sounds about standard for game development but still pretty cool.>>100341576Especially this. Thanks for the playlist, I wonder if this type of architecture will ever make a comeback. You could probably normalize it with some compiler optimizations.
>>100341823They kinda have to since most performance has been struggling with the power wall which is why most manufacturers are going to ARM and multicore but not as involved as the CELL
>>100336326>newnigger>as fuck
>>100341339SEX WITH PICTURE????
>>100329586I swear everyone that says this pays absolutely no attention past the closest shit to the camera.Halo 4 compromised it's level design to push it's looks compared to Reach on exactly the same hardware. This is why games "look the same" now, because you aren't looking in the right place.>>100340154Emulating hardware is a task that takes more power than the original hardware to accomplish, and yet modern x64 still do it. Read the requirements for RPCS3. It requires 1 thread for every core in the PS3, and AVX at minimum, and AVX-512 makes it fly. Hm. I wonder why. Maybe that's because SPEs are just SIMD Vector co processors that are greatly accelerated by equivalent instructions on a different platform.AVX-512 was/is still laughed at in it's day for taking up too much die space, pumping up energy consumption, and being too complex to correctly program for except in very specific workloads that average programs will never use.>>100341339Seems like there's some SPU manager and Altivec to SPU intrinsics going on within the GTA V leak. There's also referenes That's what I've gleaned so far.
>>100343436>It requires 1 thread for every core in the PS3, and AVX at minimum, and AVX-512 makes it fly. Hm. I wonder why.I can't tell if you're arguing for or against here. Sure there are x86 CPUs that are more capable than a cell but other anon said 10 years, which IMHO is rather conservative since in 2016 only the toppest Xeons had AVX-512. You buy a Ryzen7 or i7/9 today and it ain't gonna have AVX-512. The 7950X3D does, but it's a half width double pumped version and not the full fat one. Still faster than emulating it with AVX2 but it shows how far ahead Toshiba/IBM were looking with the design.
>>100341339uoooh now I got horny, fuck these kids man
>>100324934And they still got games like God of War: Ascension and Metal Gear Solid V to run on 2005 hardware.
>>100343614not that anon.It needs AVX,not AVX-512. AVX-512 just lets you get stupid high frames. There were processor that could kill it in SMID instructions in 2016. AVX is 256bit wide allowing it to take two SPU operations. SPUs were 4 32bit instructions stapled together to make a 128. on the other end of the performance spectrum the integer performance was shitty even when the PS3 came out. The Cell processor was about 5 years ahead of the curve on making heavy use of 128 bit SMID.
>>100340069>essentially 7 128-bit coresNo.
The fun thing about the PS3 is that even though it was PowerPC based, like the Xbox 360, you couldn't just port games from 360 to PS3 because the CPU architectures were so radically different.360 had three cores while the PS3 had a single core plus 8 (7 available) SPEs that were severely limited in comparison to the main core.So you couldn't take the main thread of a 360 game and put it on the main core of the PS3 and run the other threads on the SPEs, it just doesn't work. It has to be built again from the ground up to utilize the SPEs when appropriate.
>>100328302BDXL which is used in UHD Blurays goes up to 128GB
>>100328302>losslessit certainly can't hold lossless 720p either
>>100333380448i is just 224p so no issues
>>100349430no, it isn't, the ps2 actually does support native interlaced rendering, as in, instead of rendering a 640x448p image and outputting 448i, it can render just the two 640x224 fields and output them as a single interlaced image, with each field on alternate lines, this is in contrast to 224p where each 640x224 picture would be full frames drawn on the same lines
I'll preface this with saying that I'm a brainlet. The Cell BE interests me and I like l;earning about it. Half the people here say that it's still faster than a modern Intel CPU, the other half say that it became garbage 10 years ago. What's the deal? Is the Cell still as fast as modern CPUs (specifically in floating point math due to the SPUs?) or not
>>100349430>>100349558i made an example, top is interlaced 640x224, and bottom is progressive 640x224 (you will want to view the video at it's original size otherwise you will get scaling artefacts)
>>100333322>MiBMiggaBytes????
>>100349998>MiBmebibyte. Because computers use base 2, the correct way is 2^x. Eventually, you'll get to 1024, 4096 etc. etc. We only use kilo, mega, giga etc. to fit in with SI units. If you want to be ultra pedantic about things (but objectively correct) then defining memory in the context of programming with base 2 is the right way.
>>100349753they aren't as fast as modern cpus, but for their time they were monsters at floating point performance, like the cell has twice the flops at the ps4's cpu (but half as much as the ps5) (peak single-precision)of course, this doesn't mean that the ps3 is twice as powerful as the ps4, the ps4's gpu is way more powerful than the one in the ps3. from what i remember the cell was originally going to act as the gpu as well, which would better explain why it has such overkill floating point performance, but the cell we got in the ps3 didn't quite reach the quality they were aiming for, it was a notoriously difficult chip to produce
>>100329586This happens because the devs, instead of tastefully selecting where to put the higher res textures and reducing polygons on assets we won't see 99% of the time, they just get pajeet durgesh to model and texture their assets while they spend time in the office either doing fuck all or feature bloating the game, and the end product looks like a high poly count Skyrim and still looks decent, but needs 10x the processing power at the same resolution.Yes, I'm talking about Stargield, what an embarassing piece of software.
>>100350180Sounds like the thing was so specialized in one area that they forgot to make it general purpose.
>>100351183it can be great if the game is specifically designed around how the cell works, this is why there's a huge disparity between ps3-only games and ported-from-360 games, since as far as straight porting goes, the 360 has 3 general purpose ppc cores, while the ps3 has just the one, you can't just put the other two threads on the ps3's spu's, since they aren't general purpose, or ppc, this means the game has to be at least partially rewritten to make good use of the spu cores to take load off the ppc corenot to suggest sony was bad for doing this, consoles being basically the same architecture wise was something that only happened after that generation, all generations before the ps3 has consoles of wildly different architectures, so this was nothing newthe ps2 for example wasn't even that dissimilar, it had a cpu comprised of a single mips core alongside two vector processors which served similar purposesfunnily enough if you go back another generation, if you compare the psx to the n64, it's the other way around, the psx has a rather traditional architecture, while the n64 is the weird one, with its' unified memory architecture, and microprogrammable rcp (graphics processor), kinda like an early form of shaders (few games defined custom microcode for it and instead used the reference implementation, but the ones that did make their own stood out)
>>100351456Conker's Bad Furday is one of them and if you listen to the dev commentary they talk about how their lighting model is custom and that broke the game's emulators for a long time because they were writing a custom command list to an encoder that sent it to the then undocumented/secret SPU(? whatever it's called)
>>100351503I mean their custom microcode made it impossible to emulate Conker properly for a long time until people reverse engineered what was going on.
>>100351514yea, early emulators only emulated the stock nintendo microcode behaviour, which meant you couldn't properly run the games that used their own custom microcode such as conker and star wars: battle for naboo
>>100324934ps3 is a retro console
>>100340335i played crysis on my ryzen 5 3600x + 1080 and i still couldn't get a smooth experience at timesi cant remember the fps i was getting but it would sometimes dip at sub 60 (the final boss manages to bring it down to 5 fps even on lowest settings for some fucking reason)
>>100351456>consoles being basically the same architecture wise was something that only happened after that generation, all generations before the ps3 has consoles of wildly different architectures, so this was nothing newThe difference was the growing codebase of games.Back in the old days the craziest ports were done by small teams in tight time limits but that was because there wasn't that much code to the games and all the logic had been done. Imagine doing that for a PS3 or later era game, though.
>>100351456Hmm, these custom architectures sure are interesting, but now I can see why they moved away from them and just use something more standard like x86 now.
>>100352366you're not wrong, the older you go, the more different ports become, because systems were so different, you generally couldn't just keep it all the same, systems differed in more ways than even the ps3 vs. 360like from the 6th gen you might see differences in texture resolution, polygon counts with certain models, draw distance differences etc, but generally it's the same engine and they look and play more or less the samebut with 5th gen games, the engine may not be the same, models, textures, and audio may need heavy modification or replacement, levels rearranged or trimmed, etc. as a good example check out rayman 2 and how it differs a lot between psx, n64, dreamcast, and pc, it's at least still fundamentally the same gamebut once you get to 4th gen and below, games generally need to be made from the ground up for different platforms, sometimes ports were done practically or literally "by eye", in many cases games may share only a name and may be entirely different games on different platforms
>>100340729old khtml was very light on resources you could browse bbs forums, news sites, wikipedia, google, yt, etc with zero issues on a system with 128mb of ram
>>100339156PS4 used shitty mobile x86 cores (AMD Jaguar) that weren't faster than the PowerPC in the PS3 but it had 8 of them instead of 1.
>>100341371https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AutoParInGCC>Automatic parallelization distributes sequential code into multi-threaded code. It automatically generates parallel (multi-threaded) code for specific loop constructs using the gomp library. It kinda works.
