Why were there so few devs who didn't see the power of PS3 CELL's weirdness as an obstacle but as a challenge to be overcome?
>>109171352Look up the Newell interview and how poorly it aged. Answer? Devs were lazy cucks who didn't want to learn multicore architectures before they became common on PC so they bitched and moaned to Sony. PS3 was wholly and unironically ahead of its time. /thread
Imagine 2 cells how thats be planed
>>109171352It was not multicore. It was multiprocessor. Supercomputer type shit. Obviously nobody wanted to deal with that, it sucks ass to work with. Architecture was something you do when your CPUs are shit, but you have spare bandwidth. You just add more CPUs, but then you have to carefully sync what happens accross them and make sure not to create any bottlenecks on the bus. It's just different in general. And no, muticore is not like that. And, by the way, dual core cpus and multythreading existed before PS3 was even released, if I recall it right.
>>109171371>PS3 was wholly and unironically ahead of its timeFIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE US DOLLARS
>>109171352because in the real world where people get paid to do shit and everything has an economic cost no one could be fucked. it's a different world to the retarded sperg world where everything is reeeeeeeeee and an actual finished product that the paying market cares about is not a consideration at any point.
You need to understand that, for many third-party developers and studios responsible for ports, the juice was just plain not worth the squeeze. The PS3 was $600 as opposed to the 360's $300 back then and getting acceptable performance out of it often required reworking the threading of your game to work with the available SPUs on the CELL processor to make up for the weaknesses of both the PPU and the relatively weaker GPU. While, if you do choose to do that, it works to fantastic effect, (The Last of Us being playable on PS3, for example) it's difficult to justify changing how the entire game works if you're a small studio that is being asked to port an Xbox 360 game to the PS3 with limited development resources and time, for an audience a fraction of the existing install base.>>109171371>Devs were lazy cucks who didn't want to learn multicore architectures before they became common on PCBecause everyone thought that single-core CPU speeds were going to get faster, because Moore's Law had held up until then...? This is kind of a weird thing to shift blame onto developers for. Everyone from traditional computer scientists to the developers of Crysis 3 thought this.
>>109171352because G80 launched at the same time and its the reason Nvidia is hardware company worth trillions and Sony is a meagre media company generally programmable GPUs were the future not castrated vector engines
>>109171969this is true but by the end of the gen, third party developers treated ps3 as the flagship. gta v for exampleeventually everyone came around and realized sony was ahead of the time
>>109171352because skill never paid, if you can churn out SLOP as a game studio, you would make more money off the 10 shitty games than the one good game
>>109171480It would have been a massive failure, also the 2 cells only would have been able to do triangle setup and pixel/vertex shading, it still needed a texturing chip that Sony failed to create.
aaaa i hate these threads aaa aaaaathey make me so angry
When are indie devs going to start developing for the PS3 hardware like they already do for retro Nintendo consoles?
oh my fucking god, you need to kill yourself, OP.either get a fucking life or just end it already
Should've had AMD Turion 64 MT-40 and 512MB DDR RAM instead
>>109171371PS3's architecture is nothing like a modern multicore processor. It's more like IBM's mainframes they use to process millions of transactions per second that only huge banks or financial organizations can properly make use of. That's what Newell was actually trying to say with his criticism of PS3's alien architecture. Sure it's a decent challenge but all the skills you've cultivated to make use of its power are useless for any other platform that consumers, and especially gamers, are ever gonna use. That is unless PS3's architecture became the norm somehow which it didn't.
>>109172069From a business standpoint, Sony lost their spot as the king of consoles with the PS3. If you were alive in the 90s and early 2000s, then you know the PS1/2 was the console every gamer had. And these consoles were not even the best tech for their time, Nintendo's N64 and GameCube was better technologically. But Sony consoles were easier to work with which is why it sold so much better.When Sony prioritized technology with the PS3 they lost their crown. Not only was the PS3 way more expensive, they also abandoned the Asian market, their handhelds, and a lot of their creative games. Xbox, with its shitty rushed launch, and the Wii, with its outdated hardware and gimmicky games people played for like 2 weeks, managed to both outsell the PS3. Nowadays Xbox is no longer an actual competition and Nintendo focuses on marketing their IPs. And I think Sony now realizes what they left behind for chasing the best technology. That's why I believe it's one of the reasons they're trying to expand their customer base beyond Hollywood-esque Cinematic games with realistic graphics.
>>109173982Oops meant for >>109171969
>>109173803>Sure it's a decent challenge but all the skills you've cultivated to make use of its power are useless for any other platform that consumers, and especially gamers, are ever gonna use.I'm going to counter this.Sure, the CBE was an architecture that was unlike the other platforms at the time that would have required considerable work to optimize games for, but the result of standardizing around a couple of familiar platforms has been developers learning to be FUCKING LAZY, which is why games are all unoptimized shit now.Learning to optimize your shit is a skill that is worth having, and that skill, even if you have to integrate it in different ways, DOES carry over to different architectures.The CBE and PS3 were a platform developers needed, but didn't want.
>>109171352It's because they didn't have vibecoding. Now, it's possible to overcome, if you want.
>>109171371>Look up the Newell interviewlink it
>>109171352Are you the same retard who posted the Saturn thread? Also, obstacle and challenge are the same thing. PS3 SPUs were a solution looking for a problem, which devs had to perform great contortions to find work for them to do.
>>109171352Because it was their job not their hobby, and were hurried every step of the way.
>>109174134>t. nocoder
>>109171352It's dead Jim, let it go.
>>109175600Go fuck yourself.
>>109171352CELL (and the similarly hyperpipelined Pentium 4 too) excels at... video encoding? that's basically it. in a datacenter it was pretty good. it wasn't like any CPU before or since and it taking PowerPC instructions is basically a coincidence because IBM made it and IBM's devs would already know PowerPC asm to make use of this.however the geforce 8800 kicked its ass in GFLOPs the same year so there's that.CELL is the sort of thing AI sloppa would be running on now if it wasn't for CUDA taking the throne for datacenter compute over the years.
>>109171371>>109171535It wasn't a single core / multi core dilemma. PS3 CPU required asinine optimizations because if the code had to branch at any point, it flushed the entire pipeline. It was a Pentium 4 tier horrible chip. The Wii CPU was sometimes faster than the PS3 CPU. The 1.6GHz Jaguar cores which were the subject of mass laughter in PC builds were faster than the PS3 CPU.This has been said over and over and over in these threads, which OP is making on a regular basis here and on some other boards too.
>>109171352Complete lack of documentation on Sony's part, Naughty Dog literally had to build the bible on that piece of shit, just to be able to deliver similar performance to the 360. A similar situation happened with the original Playstation and Psygnosis.
>>109171983>generally programmable GPUs were the future not castrated vector enginesTo be fair programmable GPUs also used castrated vector engines, and especially as early as the nvidia G80 they were extremely limited to a few tasks only. Said tasks were ones that required extremely simple logic but could be spread across multiple small and slow cores. For example GPGPUs are fantastic at accelerating video encoding/decoding in hardware, and that was also one of the tasks the Cell excelled at (if you pardon the pun). There was some set top box back in the day that could run dozens of video streams simultaneously using the Cell. Same thing.This is what GPGPUs do good to this day, and this is also what the Cell was meant to do as well, it's just that GPGPUs had hundreds to thousands of cores while the Cell had 8. But to be fair the Cell was designed in like 2003.
>>109177441There is a lot of this baby duck shit zoomers worshiping x quirky technology or api that sucked absolute dick for anyone who actually used it, but they desperately want to be different and adopt some "unique" "I'm right because x thing vaguely became mainstream" mentality that lacks any understanding from having lived in that time or any real depth of knowledge of how the technology works. There are retards that think porting xp to the 2003 kernel is worthwhile because NT 5.2 is a bigger number and that means it's better to them
>>109172069This is pathetic and clueless fanboy cope, ridiculous. Some of the dumbest shit I read in a while.>gta v for exampleI would bring this up immediately for a reason why the 360 did everything right. It looks the same and runs the same but the 360 costs a lot less. Lol lmao.There's a long story why the PS3 is a bodge job hack of a system where everything ever went wrong. The 360 is comparatively a wonderfully streamlined system, absolute peak performance usecase optimization, good shit. It's basically the mold after which PCs went immediately after it, SMT and unified shaders.Unified shaders are the reason Cell died in the datacenter too, KEK.Too bad then silicon foundries FUCKED THE BOTH OF THEM with defective graphics chips so now I need to sacrifice a slim to my phat BC PS3 and I need to do that at one guy in Romania and I don't wanna ship my shit to Romania or take a trip to Romania, not yet. >>109177441But the 360 had the same piece of shit PPE, just 3 instead of 1.>>109177522I wonder if I can find the comment from YT of some retard's ARG where PS3 had 6 gorillion ARM cores instead and was LE GOOD, kek. Like this kid read a bunch of different CPU cores that existed for license and wrote his little ARG on how the console wars would have gone without understanding why having 10 Symbian phone cores together would make no fucking sense.
>>109177602>But the 360 had the same piece of shit PPE, just 3 instead of 1.Yes, and? No one is talking about the 360. But if you want to know, 360 had a better GPU, better memory subsystem, and 3x PPE is still easier to use than 8x SPE.
>>109171352It's one thing to pursue untapped optimizations on an unconventional chip as a hobbyistIt's another when you have a manager breathing down your neck because you're struggling to develop some shitty sequel before the christmas deadline
