@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou You always come out with heavy wording, nomatter right or wrong (usually wrong in such cases). Quote: Really, you don't know what you are talking about. There was no dual-Cell idea Here a summary of an old Japanese interview why the dual Cell approach was dropped: "- A 2-Cell PS3 was considered - one acting as a GPU, one as a CPU. But Cell's nature as a CPU eats away at its efficiency for graphics relative to a dedicated GPU. So they've married Cell with a specialised GPU.

bolded text should read: But it was a stupid idea...

Quote:

- Cell, however, can be used for graphics tasks. Cell and RSX have direct access to the results of each other's operations. Kutaragi specifically mentions displacement mapping as a sample workload the SPEs could take on. I think he mentions something about harmonising floating point rounding errors between the CPU and GPU to further ease data exchange between the two. Seems like they focussed quite a lot on harmonising communication between the GPU and CPU, and binding them quite tightly together." http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51518

The fact that their is a floating point rounding error difference between the components should scream to you: NOT HARMONIZED!
They are 2 different beasts thrown together in a box.

Quote:

I believe it was 2003 when Ken talked about the dual Cell idea for the PS3, however soon afterwards in early 2004 Sony partnered with nvidia to design a GPU to go hand in hand with the Cell processor. Please be more humble when talking about things you seemingly don't know about.

LOL @ Krazy Ken! Where's my dual HDMI, 3 gigabit ports, 120fps PS3? Why if Ken was designing a PS4, it would surely have no less than 1 MEEEEELLION Cells in it!

On the C64, I used to use the 6502 to bit shift memory to simulate smooth scrolling on the screen, what makes Cell so special for aiding in graphics tasks other than you might have a spare SPE to dedicate to it that can do the same repetitive task to many pieces of data in parallel? Most of what's done is pre-rendering as it's time-consuming to pass data back to Cell from RSX vs. the other way.

As for the consideration for a dual-Cell PS3, it was an idea. An idea is not even a prototype. Reality proves that a Cell cpu fails at being a gpu unless their goal was PS2 graphics. Then their was the cost factor.

I'll tone down my wording when you tone down your exagerations of the PS3's real world capabilities.

Nintendo has an idea for a football-shaped controller. They even patented it. Doesn't mean it exists...or will ever exist. Stop dealing with "the potential" of Cell/PS3 and start dealing with the reality of a system hard to get the most out of when compared to the 360 and then you'll be just fine.