Marvell makes a PS3 on a chip

Or at least close to:

So it's not actually there (theres no info on shaders and other stuff BTW) but its obvious that by the time the PS3 gets replaced chips like these will be at least 10x more powerful (2015) so you could have a nextgen console running on a smartphone or a very small (think WDTV) case.

 

nice post! looking fwd to that day, if battery can catch up

 

2015 = PS3 Micro

 

The power of the PS3 is the Cell though. One of the weakest areas is the GPU.

 

Well, the GPU is just there to please game developers. The cell is widely used for first-party developers in games like God of War 3, Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain,...

 

If the GPU in the PS3 was to please devs then sony made another shit job on that, since it's a crippled 7800 which by today standards is very lowend.

The CELL can unload some stuff from the GPU, but just like in the PS2 with the limited VRAM, in the PS3 is the RSX whats creating a bottleneck.

No matter how powerful the CELL is, the fact of the matter is that as long as its married to the RSX (which in the case of the PS3 is FOREVER) theres only so much it can do before it hits the graphics barrier.

But back to cellphones, yeah it sounds kinda crazy that you'll have a PS3 in your pocket soon, until you see stuff like the Epic Citadel demo

And really, we're already living in some crazy times, just look at this:


And the iphone4 isnt the highest spec'd phone out there.

 

You summed up pretty well. Most devs complained of how difficult was to use the cell (on the first kits), so they added the RSX. The PS3 was initially designed to use the CELL to do everything.

Some interesting info here: http://forums.gametrailers.com/thread/is-the-ps3-s-cell-being-bottle/1002955

Anyway, remember the lack of video ram on the PS1? Or both video and system ram on the PS2?

If i'm not mistaken, i remember reading a interview with the guys from Naughty Dog, pointing out how they used the CELL spu's for graphics, transfering most if not all GPU work to the spu's:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncharted-2-mastering-the-cell-blog-entry

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/uncharted-2-makes-ps3-shine-couldnt-happen-on-360.ars

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az0CXkyoWjg&feature=player_embedded

 

CELL actually has a lot in common with GPUs, but is not one and if used as such it cant compete with the real stuff, just like you cant use a car engine in a plane and expect the same results.

The need to offload stuff to the CELL in Uncharted2 just shows how underpowered the RSX really is.

 

not in the configuration that it is today. To have a system wholly made up of CELL you d need much more than what is cost effective for a games' console.

Kutaragi was a visionary but he overestimated the power of their designs. Both the EET/GS combo and the CELL/RSX combo are unbalanced and thus crippled designs.

Additionaly, the CELL in the PS3 isn't a powerful processor by today's standards. There's an updated version but that's used in larger and more expensive systems.

 

Exactly, and quoting one of johnny's links:

And when it comes to raytracing (since CELL is a number-cruncher) the games where Cell could give acceptable raytracing performance would have the graphics of Q(uake)3 and run at SD resolutions (640x480).

 

The PS3 was going to use a modified CELL for GPU and a CELL as a CPU. In the end they changed it for an RSX because of developer feedback.

 

I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least 8, given that the PS3 was 7.

 

From what I've heard using a CELL as GPU is akin to using a CGPU instead of a CPU: works really well in some areas, but poorly in others, and overall it isnt the same thing, which might be the underlaying reason to use a regular GPU on the PS3.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go dual 7-core.

 

I don't know why they'd need to go 7-core again, surely they've got their yields under control by now.

 

Right. It was too different for developers to support on top of the CELL CPU. Plus possibly Nvidia undercut Toshiba with their quote for the PS3 GPU.

The Toshiba design was based around this, supposedly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpursEngine

 

interesting info, never knew about that. What exactly do you mean, in factual terms, by Nvidia undercutting toshiba?

 

The only reasons that come to mind are chip yields and price.

The yield part would be ironic considering fermi's yield are awful to say the least.

Too bad, 'cause SpursEngine sounds way better than RSX