Sparker Wrote:Although Kreutzer (ZOMG PLOT SPOILER!!!) is the hardest boss, she's hard in a fun way :p
Source: YouTube

boss fight starts at 4:38

Wilhelm is VERY annoying though and he's on that level as well.

I've never faced any "really" annoying boses, but Paper Mario for N64 was pretty hard to beat
a couple of other games I couldn't beat

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Actually, the PS3's CELL processor has more processing power than Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad Core CPU.  The CELL peaks at around 410 GigaFlops per module; the PS3's peaks at around 2 TeraFlops.  Intel's fastest CPU peaks at around 50 GigaFlops.  And, nVidia's G80 graphics card peaks at around 330 GigaFlops.  (note, FLOPS = floating point operations per second).
So, technically, no computer's CPU is faster than the PS3's...

Oh, another thing, SLI actually slows down your CPU...

the 2 teraflops i read in an article somewhere is just some theoretical value spewed out by Sony. And the actual true performance, taking all factors into consideration, is only something around 500gigaflops.

And also note the "peak" bit. That's probably the max instantaneous output, (as in the maximum output it can ever get to) not the average sustainable output.


And here is some proof of the opposite.  source: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25838

Quote:...nVidia spokesperson was quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800...

So un really believe that the "slightly less powerful 7800gtx" can output 2 teraflops consistently? No.

The 2 teraflops i read in an article somewhere is just some theoretical value spewed out by Sony. And the actual true performance, taking all factors into consideration, is only something around 500gigaflops.

And also note the "peak" bit. That's probably the max instantaneous output, (as in the maximum output it can ever get to) not the average sustainable output.

And that would mean that the 2x 8800gtx would rip the PS3 gpu completely. And the cell processor isn't as strong as u think either.

And just use some common sense. Do u really think that the $1000(australian price) PS3, of which a lot of it accounts for the Bluray drive, really has parts that are 4 times stronger than a $5000 power machine? Somethign worth 10 times less being 4 times stronger than something worth 10 times more? the answer is: don't listen to Sony's theoretical bullchocolate that in actual performance, doesn't even come 1/4 close to. Your paying for a "slightly less powerful 7800". not the beast gpu u imagine.

(This post was last modified: 22/07/2007 06:39 PM by Assassinator.)

Assassinator Wrote:

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Actually, the PS3's CELL processor has more processing power than Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad Core CPU.  The CELL peaks at around 410 GigaFlops per module; the PS3's peaks at around 2 TeraFlops.  Intel's fastest CPU peaks at around 50 GigaFlops.  And, nVidia's G80 graphics card peaks at around 330 GigaFlops.  (note, FLOPS = floating point operations per second).
So, technically, no computer's CPU is faster than the PS3's...

Oh, another thing, SLI actually slows down your CPU...

the 2 teraflops i read in an article somewhere is just some theoretical value spewed out by Sony. And the actual true performance, taking all factors into consideration, is only something around 500gigaflops.

And also note the "peak" bit. That's probably the max instantaneous output, (as in the maximum output it can ever get to) not the average sustainable output.

Probably, but you sure it's only ~500GFLOPS?  I believe that's the performance per module (core).  Maybe average is around 500GFLOPS - still beats Intel's and nVidia's high end CPU/GPUs.

Assassinator Wrote:And here is some proof.  source: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25838

Quote:...nVidia spokesperson was quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800...

So un really believe that the "slightly less powerful 7800gtx" can output 2 teraflops consistently? No. just some theoretical value for marketing purposes.

And that would mean that the 2x 8800gtx would rip the PS3 gpu completely. And the cell processor isn't as strong as u think either.

Take note, that's the PS3's GPU, not CPU.  The PS3's GPU is about that strong, but then, it's custom built so it's architecture would be different.
The cell processor is quite strong actually, for example, the supercomputer made from 8 PS3s: http://endlessparadigm.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=479

Assassinator Wrote:And just use some common sense. Do u really think that the $1000(australian price) PS3, of which a lot of it accounts for the Bluray drive, really has parts that are 4 times stronger than a $5000 power machine? Somethign worth 10 times less being 4 times stronger than something worth 10 times more? the answer is: don't listen to Sony's theoretical bullchocolate that in actual performance, doesn't even come 1/4 close to. Your paying for a "slightly less powerful 7800". not the beast gpu u imagine.

Ya, common sense does point me in the other direction, but I generally trust Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:

Assassinator Wrote:And just use some common sense. Do u really think that the $1000(australian price) PS3, of which a lot of it accounts for the Bluray drive, really has parts that are 4 times stronger than a $5000 power machine? Somethign worth 10 times less being 4 times stronger than something worth 10 times more? the answer is: don't listen to Sony's theoretical bullchocolate that in actual performance, doesn't even come 1/4 close to. Your paying for a "slightly less powerful 7800". not the beast gpu u imagine.

Ya, common sense does point me in the other direction, but I generally trust Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_processor

Trust wikipedia then,

I extracted some quotes for u from wikipedia:

Quote:At 3.2 GHz, each SPE gives a theoretical 25.6 GFLOPS of single precision performance.

Quote:Sony's PlayStation 3 video game console contains the first production application of the Cell processor, clocked at 3.2 GHz and containing seven out of eight operational SPEs, to allow Sony to increase the yield on the processor manufacture. Only six of the seven SPEs are accessible to developers as one is reserved by the OS

So lets do some maths together.

7x25.6=179.2 gigaflops. Less that 1 tenth of that 2 teraflops u believe. cmon, Sony chocolates on u, and u know it.

... ur still going to listen to Sony's bullchocolate? Even though now both common sence and evidence states against it?

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Probably, but you sure it's only ~500GFLOPS?  I believe that's the performance per module (core).  Maybe average is around 500GFLOPS - still beats Intel's and nVidia's high end CPU/GPUs.

No, i think i read it's everything added up. Since the 2 teraflops value is everything added up as well.

Using the previous calculation, that'll be 179gigaflops for the cpu, and the rest for the gpu.

The PS3 has a "slightly weaker 7800" and a 179gigaflops cpu. I still argue my claim that cybershot's 5k machine is twice as strong.

(This post was last modified: 22/07/2007 07:07 PM by Assassinator.)

Assassinator Wrote:Trust wikipedia then,

I extracted some quotes for u from wikipedia:

Quote:At 3.2 GHz, each SPE gives a theoretical 25.6 GFLOPS of single precision performance.

Quote:Sony's PlayStation 3 video game console contains the first production application of the Cell processor, clocked at 3.2 GHz and containing seven out of eight operational SPEs, to allow Sony to increase the yield on the processor manufacture. Only six of the seven SPEs are accessible to developers as one is reserved by the OS

So lets do some maths together.

7x25.6=179.2 gigaflops. Less that 1 tenth of that 2 teraflops u believe. cmon, Sony chocolates on u, and u know it.

... ur still going to listen to Sony's bullchocolate? Even though now both common sence and evidence states against it?

Meh.

Quote:The PS3 uses the Cell microprocessor, which is made up of a PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and six accessible 3.2 GHz Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). A seventh runs in a special mode and is dedicated to aspects of the OS and security, and an eighth is disabled to improve production yields. The floating point performance of the whole system (CPU + GPU) is reported to be 2 TFLOPS.[122] PlayStation 3's Cell CPU achieves 204 GFLOPS single precision float and 15 GFLOPS double precision. The PS3 has 256 MB of Rambus XDR DRAM, clocked at CPU die speed.

- Source: [Wikipedia]
I did misread that - it's CPU+GPU.  CPU is 204 GFLOPS.

(This post was last modified: 22/07/2007 08:07 PM by ZiNgA BuRgA.)

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:I did misread that - it's CPU+GPU.  CPU is 204 GFLOPS.

And this brings it back to the start.

So how can u really believe that a 7800 level gpu is supposed to output 1.8 teraflops when the newest 8800gtx can do less than 400gigaflops?

So how can a gpu costing u no more than AU$300 (considering that out of the PS3's AU$1000, a lot of it goes to the BluRay, and there's also the cpu, and memory, and the rest of the stuff.) be 4 times stronger than a setup that costs u AU$1500 (2x8800gtx)?

Answer is that it probably doesn't. It just way too flawed in every possible way u look at it too be true.

And it's not like Sony doesn't have a reputation for lying and doing illegal stuff.

(This post was last modified: 23/07/2007 04:03 AM by Assassinator.)

Assassinator Wrote:And this brings it back to the start.

So how can u really believe that a 7800 level gpu is supposed to output 1.8 teraflops when the newest 8800gtx can do less than 400gigaflops?

I never said a 7800GT could output 1.8TFLOPS.  The main power of the GPU comes from it's multiple pixel shader pipelines (the 7800GTX had 24; dunno about the 8800).
Still the Cell processor is faster than Intel's lead processor.  IDK how good the GPU is though.
Nevertheless, processing power wise, the PS3's 2TFLOPS peak output still beats 2x8800 + Core 2 Extreme QX6700.

Assassinator Wrote:So how can a gpu costing u no more than AU$300 (considering that out of the PS3's AU$1000, a lot of it goes to the BluRay, and there's also the cpu, and memory, and the rest of the stuff.) be 4 times stronger than a setup that costs u AU$1500 (2x8800gtx)?

Answer is that it probably doesn't. It just way too flawed in every possible way u look at it too be true.

And it's not like Sony doesn't have a reputation for lying and doing illegal stuff.

Lol.
Nah, the Cell processor is designed primarily for throughput.  The x86-64 processors today have a slightly different focus.  For example, a larger instruction set and extended instruction sets like MMX, 3DNow!  etc.  I doubt the Cell processor implements those extensions.  Also the x86-64 is more developer friendly than the Cell CPU.
This means that video encoding may run slower on the Cell processor, due to lack of ASM optimisation.
Also, the Cell favours throughput over latency, in other words, it's aimed at providing processing power rather than quick response times.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Nevertheless, processing power wise, the PS3's 2TFLOPS peak output still beats 2x8800 + Core 2 Extreme QX6700.

My whole argument for the whole time has been that it probably does not do 2 teraflops, cpu does 200teraflops, and the gpu is unlikely to do the rest of 1.8teraflops. And that's just some theoretical number, their estimation of it's power, and it's a peak estimation, emphasis on the "peak" bit.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:

Assassinator Wrote:So how can a gpu costing u no more than AU$300 (considering that out of the PS3's AU$1000, a lot of it goes to the BluRay, and there's also the cpu, and memory, and the rest of the stuff.) be 4 times stronger than a setup that costs u AU$1500 (2x8800gtx)?

Answer is that it probably doesn't. It just way too flawed in every possible way u look at it too be true.

And it's not like Sony doesn't have a reputation for lying and doing illegal stuff.

Lol.
Nah, the Cell processor is designed primarily for throughput.  The x86-64 processors today have a slightly different focus.  For example, a larger instruction set and extended instruction sets like MMX, 3DNow!  etc.  I doubt the Cell processor implements those extensions.  Also the x86-64 is more developer friendly than the Cell CPU.
This means that video encoding may run slower on the Cell processor, due to lack of ASM optimisation.
Also, the Cell favours throughput over latency, in other words, it's aimed at providing processing power rather than quick response times.

[/quote]

I was talking about the gpu...

Anyways, even if the cell is stronger, if the gpu isn't, then the PS3 wouldn't be stronger as a whole anyways.