It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IBM Uses PlayStation Chip For New Supercomputer

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormrider
As to how much is necessary let me point out that there are very few people in the world who need more than 500 megs of hard disk space but that doesn't prevent computer makers putting 200 gig hard drives into the most basic of pc systems. If you build it, they will come.

Heh, sorry I couldnt resist commenting on this


Windows XP itself uses up more than 1gb of hard drive space, twice what you said few people need. I've got 750gb of hard disk space and im running out. It's very easy to do nowadays. Some recent pc games install to over 6gb alone.

Whether we want to acknowledge it or not (xbox groupies), Cell is the future in processor technology. It's potential to turn every home into a processor farm is absolutely huge. Being able to call upon your PS3, HDTV, DVD-player etc when they are not being used to boost your processing power is a phenomenal leap in efficient computing.

Nice thread




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RiotComing
This smacks of disinformation. The Playstation 3 chip is no more powerful than my grandma's tennis swing.

I find that difficult to believe, the CPU itself delivers a total floating point performance of 218 Gigaflops. This is the kind of technology that is used in high end servers and Toshiba, Sony and IBM claim that this will be the future for CPU's in multimedia systems.

"It's an insanely complex chip with about 250 million transistors (compared with 125 million for Pentium 4) that runs at more than 4GHz. With just the right conditions Cell can crank through 256 billion floating-point operations every second, according to IBM."



Originally posted by RiotComing
Then you look at both consoles and my 2-year old pc is already outperforming both by quite a significant margin.

So you still think the CPU in your system which is TWO years old is still more powerful than the Cell processor?


Originally posted by RiotComing
The Xbox 360 is only a 3 core 3.2ghz machine and already it's a better-performing system than the PS3 - look at F.E.A.R. screenshot comparisons for instance.

I don't think you can take ONE game and make a fair comparison between the two consoles as to which is better. Until the PS3 is finally released there won't be any way to compare which is the better console although on paper the PS3 is far more advanced. Also note that these games are in development and in no way represent the final product.


Originally posted by RiotComing
2) the true holy grail of high definition gaming is 2560x1600 - on a PC! TWICE the resolution of 1080p

Well duh of course but you find me an average television set that has a higher resolution than 1080p and doesn't cost an arm and a leg for your average consumer.
Computers will ALWAYS be ahead of the curve when it comes to technology for consoles. Why? There is a far bigger market and companies invest a lot more in Research and Development. This was never a discussion about whether computers are more powerful than gaming consoles, we all know that. The bigger question is which console will deliver better results.


Originally posted by RiotComing
And then we get this so-called "news" that the CELL processor will be used in some IBM supercomputer?

Where? What news? It's the first I've heard of this. IBM do make processors for super computers but this is very much a commercial development of their work.


Originally posted by RiotComing
I doubt IBM would be mucking about with a console chip that was outpaced by pc technology in the middle of last year.

Care to back that up with facts? Read up on this link, you might find it useful:
www.gamasutra.com...


Originally posted by RiotComing
It also makes you wonder if PS3 will actually get to market. Massive Bill of Materials problems, problems with the blu-ray player, problem with CELL yields, decreasing list of exclusives, I think Sony are in big trouble.

If Sony Computer Entertainment is in such big trouble than why do they control 50% of the global market in gaming consoles? There are an estimated 100million Playstations worldwide, and that was just the first one.

www.scee.presscentre.com...

The Playstation 2 has about 62 million units in place worldwide.

In regards to the Playstation 3...

"By 2010, the PS3 will hold slightly more than 50 per cent of the market, In-Stat predicts..."

www.itweek.co.uk...

Still think Sony got problems?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Simo, that quoting was a headache to consume, but sounds like you're buying into the Sony propaganda machine, where they consistently overpromise and underdeliver. Remember the "emotion engine"? (lol). The CELL chip is proven to be too overcomplicated for its own good. Developers like John Carmack have said they won't touch it with a barge pole.

I'm not ruling out buying a PS3 if they actually do bring out some better games, but that won't be til late '07 at the earliest. But I'm confident my pc will still confidently cope with the same games PS3 will bring out (AMD 4000+ w/ 2gb ram - only a single core machine but nobody has yet been able to successfully implement a practical advantage to using multiple cores in games as yet - and that's why Carmack is saying the PS3 is a real pain in the behind to program for). This news story comes across as a PR exercise for Sony.

And whether Sony "leads" or not, I couldn't really care. Xbox 360 is not really coming out with great titles and Wii could be the dark horse in the pack. I'd be more likely to get a Wii than a PS3 and leave the HD goodness to the pc. For pure gaming fun, the Wii could be the way to go. But we'll see



[edit on 12-9-2006 by RiotComing]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
My apologies for the quoting that looked like a dog's breakfast, I can see your point of view for gaming developers having trouble making games for multicore processors but I think the potential with that processor is definitely there to offer some serious performance. I myself still prefer playing most games on the computer compared to the consoles but Sony's original aim for the PS3 was not for it to be just a gaming console but for it to function like an entertainment hub for the living room linking HiFi sound systems and televisions while streaming live content from the internet. I saw conceptual screenshots for Singstar on PS3 and from what I could see it allowed digital content to be downloaded onto the PS3. How long before Sony offer movies on demand? I think it offers a very real alternative to Intel's ViiV service. As for Wii, I think it will perform quite well, at a recent gaming conference in Auckland the biggest buzz wasn't surrounding PS3, it was Wii stealing the limelight. In one of the articles I posted it claims that Microsoft will lose market share to Nintendo. But yeah, I guess we'll see by next year where the game manufacturers are at. Sadly the PS3 has been delayed until March '07 here in New Zealand which sucks since we've taken plenty of pre-orders from now pissed off customers expecting it in a few months.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Here's the way I see the games market: I think the market is hungry, I think the market is thirsty. I think most consumers wanted the Playstation 3 even long before Xbox 360 hit town. The Xbox 360 has failed to satisfy consumers as a "next gen" machine. I'm an owner of one, and I find it sad that it hasn't captured the imagination and hearts of people. I play a couple of really fun games, Burnout Revenge, Fight Night Round 3 and the Table Tennis.. the others, well look better on pc or I can download the demos on the Marketplace. People have wanted this Playstation 3 to be here right now and delivering. You know, that game Guitar Hero would have to be one of the most fun games I've played in a long time, and there's nothing like that on Xbox 360. I'd expect to see more interactive stuff like that on Wii. There's just this huge gap in the market aching to be filled, and nobody's delivering. Hence why I'm so skeptical of all the news coming from the console makers right now.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Well, I have always preferred the console when it comes to gaming; I have only been forced to play games on the pc when my son absconded with my PS2. I don't really want to invest another $200 just for the use of a console that wil be obsolete in less than a year. But threin lies the problem. Have you all noticed that finding new or even used PC game titles at the retail levelis a real pain. They're scarcer than hen's teeth.
[url="http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/1/22/2616"]read this to see what I mean[url]

I guess there's no other choice but to buy another console but I hate having to buy another one when the PS3 comes out.


[edit on 9/12/2006 by Stormrider]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I think Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony have a mutual (no say) pact to hold back.
I think they could do a lot better but they are just holding back for proffit gain.
They're just gonna milk the people because they know they can. After all, they are the only console companies there are.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormrider
Have you all noticed that finding new or even used PC game titles at the retail levelis a real pain. They're scarcer than hen's teeth.
[url="http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/1/22/2616"]read this to see what I mean[url]

I guess there's no other choice but to buy another console but I hate having to buy another one when the PS3 comes out.


[edit on 9/12/2006 by Stormrider]


Where do you live? In the UK, PC games are easy to come by. There are new titles coming out all the time. In fact, the best games are all on PC. Can't say that the consoles.

As for future proofing, it's far easier to have a games PC and upgrade it every few years for alot less than forking out for an entire new console which would cost 4 times more.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Stormrider
Where do you live? In the UK, PC games are easy to come by. There are new titles coming out all the time. In fact, the best games are all on PC. Can't say that the consoles.


I live in the states and here all of the major retailers are phasing out pc games. The only way you can be certain of getting a title you want is to order it online, which means paying shipping and handling fees and waiting for it to be delivered.
Apparently, were not as civilized, here, but then you knew that already, right?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormrider
I live in the states and here all of the major retailers are phasing out pc games. The only way you can be certain of getting a title you want is to order it online, which means paying shipping and handling fees and waiting for it to be delivered.
Apparently, were not as civilized, here, but then you knew that already, right?


Thats a shame, our retailers do have larger sections for the consoles, but PC Games are still nice earners for them. Online isn't so bad, I find it cheaper, even with shipping. The only draw back is waiting
!

Lol, I will remain diplomatically quiet on the "civilised" comment... I don't want to invite the flames



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
The main consumers of this technology will be the gov't and the military; those that can afford it. Meteorological modeling also uses quite a bit of cpu cycles, as well as other commercial applications.

As far as storage space in general - remember who it was that said that 640 Kilobytes was enough for anyone? None other that Bill Gates.

The advances in computer technology never cease to amaze me. Hopefully, we'll start seeing more software advances that keep pace with the hardware.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
As far as storage space in general - remember who it was that said that 640 Kilobytes was enough for anyone? None other that Bill Gates.

He was talking about ram not storage space, but good point



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by jsobecky
As far as storage space in general - remember who it was that said that 640 Kilobytes was enough for anyone? None other that Bill Gates.

He was talking about ram not storage space, but good point

True, and I did mention that I was talking about storage space in general.

And disk is merely "rotating memory," after all.

It brings to mind another infamous quote, this one from Ken Olsen, DEC president/founder, who completely ignored and thus missed the PC revolution. To paraphrase him:

"There is no reason why anyone would need a computer in their home".



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join