On 2007-12-15, 7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > Of course and tools like cc don't under appreciate the massive clout behind > the numbers. > > Thats around a million Linux games units per month that Sony alone is > selling. And all these devices and numbers are set to increase > over the coming months. Wait a second...are you seriously claiming that every PS3 is being used to run Linux???

On 2007-12-16, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote: > Yup. And the gaming potential. It is a lovely piece of kit. But it's > amazing how Sony screwed up. It really isn't much more powerful, if at > all, than the 360 when it comes down to real games in the real world. I It's pretty much a toss up, for computational and graphical power, between the PS3 and the 360. Computationally, the PS3 has the Cell processor, which has 1 general purpose core with hardware support for 2 threads, and the 7 SPEs, each of which supports 1 thread in hardware. So, with the PS3, you have 9 hardware threads at your disposal. However, 7 of them are on SPEs, which are quite limited. The 360 has 3 general purpose cores, each supporting 2 threads in hardware. So you've got 6 threads to play with, as opposed to 9 on the Cell. But they are general purpose threads. So, which wins for a given application depends on whether it would be more useful in that application to have 6 general purpose threads, or 2 general plus 7 subject to severe restrictions. The situation is similar for graphics. The PS3 GPU has a certain number of pixel shaders, and a certain number of vertex shaders. The 360 GPU has a unified pixel/vertex shader architecture--it has 48 of them that can do either. The total number of pixel shaders and vertex shaders is less in the PS3, but I think they are individually more powerful. But they are fixed, so if you need more pixel shaders than they gave you, you are stuck, whereas in the 360, you get to decide which of the 48 are used as pixel shaders and which are used as vertex shaders. So, as with the CPU, it comes down to the needs of the particular application. There will be some games where the number of each type of shader is fine in the PS3, and those games will probably do slightly better on the PS3. There will be some games where they could use more of one type and less of the other type than the PS3 provides, and those games will do better, probably, on the 360. In pratice, so far, neither system has shown anything better than the other system. Those games that have appeared on both have been pretty much the same on both, other than some early inferiority on the PS3 due to software bugs, which Sony fixed in early updates.

* Tim Smith fired off this tart reply: > So, which wins for a given application depends on whether it would be > more useful in that application to have 6 general purpose threads, or 2 > general plus 7 subject to severe restrictions. What are these "severe restrictions"? > In pratice, so far, neither system has shown anything better than the > other system. Those games that have appeared on both have been pretty > much the same on both, other than some early inferiority on the PS3 due > to software bugs, which Sony fixed in early updates. An article I read in IEEE Computer awhile back indicated that the PS3 required quite a bit of learning to program properly. Anyway, this guy has his opinion: http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm Short answer: XBOX 360. Long answer: Price, performance, visual quality, game selection and online support. I think the XBOX 360 wins in every category. -- Tux rox!

On 2007-12-17, Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote: > * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply: > >> So, which wins for a given application depends on whether it would be >> more useful in that application to have 6 general purpose threads, or 2 >> general plus 7 subject to severe restrictions. > > What are these "severe restrictions"? SPEs have separate memory from system memory. They can't address system memory, and the general purpose core can't address SPE memory. They have a different instruction set than that of the general purpose core, too. So, to use them, you have to load them with a blob of binary data that is the program, DMA any data that code will need from the system memory to the SPE memory, then start the SPE. Any output you have to DMA back to system memory before you can use it.

On 2007-12-19, Johan Lindquist <spam@smilfinken.net> wrote: > The real key, if you want to pursue the treasure hunt to its bitter > end, is finding who introduced the word "uses" into the thread. Not > surprising, that was some troll named Hadron who subsequently used it > as a straw man to feed his narcissistic[1] self. You didn't go back far enough. This started with 7 trying to count every PS3 sold as a Linux box. That's as ridiculous as counting every Mac sale as a Linux box, because you *can* run Linux on a Mac, and counting every Dell sold as a Linux box, because you *can* run Linux on them all, and so on.

On 2007-12-19, Jerry McBride <jmcbride@mail-on.us> wrote: > Who said it USES linux? I just looked back over the posts and YOU are the 7

Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Yes it can. > > Under VMWare in Linux. > > Nice try. Actually, I'm not so certain VMWare will work cross platform like that. I would be curious to see a reference to the particulars if it is possible. Thad -- Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had all the ingredients on the label.

Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote: > > What is there to say? This is old news. We all know you can install > Linux on a PS3. We all also know it does not use Linux as it is > shipped. We all also know that Linux has no access to the proprietary > graphics chips. Actually, I think there was a recent breakthrough in this area, but the details escape my memory. >> You should research a little better: Vmware does *not* emulate a processor. >> So, there is no PowerPC Vmware which will emulate a x86 processor for >> windows to run in. Making your claim just another totally worthless one, >> like the rest of your claims. You know *nothing* about the things you write >> >> Nice try, *incompetent* idiot > > You're right on that point. Damn you. I didn't think that part through. I swear, sometimes reading COLA is like being the only sane and sober person at a drunken, dysfunctional family reunion. All you can do is sit back, watch the sparks fly, and enjoy the show. Happy Holidays, Thad -- Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had all the ingredients on the label.

So anyway, it was like, 10:04 CET Dec 20 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah, Hadron was all like, "Dude, > Johan Lindquist <spam@smilfinken.net> writes: >> So anyway, it was like, 20:55 CET Dec 19 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah, >> Hadron was all like, "Dude, >> I do believe I went back far enough to see who started the silly >> word games, thanks. Maybe you think I'm trying to make a point >> regarding the PS3 when I'm just trying to "keep Hadron honest". > > You're getting worse by the minute. You know full well what was > being implied. If you didn't read the latest posts from PK. Implied, schmimplied. You're arguings semantics like a true Funkenbusch and you just don't like getting called on it. I know you love to pull the "but you're missing the context" card lately, but we both know that's just your favourite way of covering your tracks when you argued your way into a corner with your clever use of words. -- Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> * 10:46:20 up 24 days, 18:59, 2 users, load average: 0.58, 0.57, 0.54 Linux 2.6.23.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

[H]omer wrote: > Another Hardon Quirk classic, along the lines of 'Also, no one calls > it PCI-X even though that's the "official " shortening of the much > more commonly used "PCI Express".' That's NOTHING compared to your idiocy: "Half of Europe has just dumped Windows."

On 2007-12-15, 7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > Of course and tools like cc don't under appreciate the massive clout behind > the numbers. > > Thats around a million Linux games units per month that Sony alone is > selling. And all these devices and numbers are set to increase > over the coming months. Wait a second...are you seriously claiming that every PS3 is being used to run Linux???

On 2007-12-16, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote: > Yup. And the gaming potential. It is a lovely piece of kit. But it's > amazing how Sony screwed up. It really isn't much more powerful, if at > all, than the 360 when it comes down to real games in the real world. I It's pretty much a toss up, for computational and graphical power, between the PS3 and the 360. Computationally, the PS3 has the Cell processor, which has 1 general purpose core with hardware support for 2 threads, and the 7 SPEs, each of which supports 1 thread in hardware. So, with the PS3, you have 9 hardware threads at your disposal. However, 7 of them are on SPEs, which are quite limited. The 360 has 3 general purpose cores, each supporting 2 threads in hardware. So you've got 6 threads to play with, as opposed to 9 on the Cell. But they are general purpose threads. So, which wins for a given application depends on whether it would be more useful in that application to have 6 general purpose threads, or 2 general plus 7 subject to severe restrictions. The situation is similar for graphics. The PS3 GPU has a certain number of pixel shaders, and a certain number of vertex shaders. The 360 GPU has a unified pixel/vertex shader architecture--it has 48 of them that can do either. The total number of pixel shaders and vertex shaders is less in the PS3, but I think they are individually more powerful. But they are fixed, so if you need more pixel shaders than they gave you, you are stuck, whereas in the 360, you get to decide which of the 48 are used as pixel shaders and which are used as vertex shaders. So, as with the CPU, it comes down to the needs of the particular application. There will be some games where the number of each type of shader is fine in the PS3, and those games will probably do slightly better on the PS3. There will be some games where they could use more of one type and less of the other type than the PS3 provides, and those games will do better, probably, on the 360. In pratice, so far, neither system has shown anything better than the other system. Those games that have appeared on both have been pretty much the same on both, other than some early inferiority on the PS3 due to software bugs, which Sony fixed in early updates.

* Tim Smith fired off this tart reply: > So, which wins for a given application depends on whether it would be > more useful in that application to have 6 general purpose threads, or 2 > general plus 7 subject to severe restrictions. What are these "severe restrictions"? > In pratice, so far, neither system has shown anything better than the > other system. Those games that have appeared on both have been pretty > much the same on both, other than some early inferiority on the PS3 due > to software bugs, which Sony fixed in early updates. An article I read in IEEE Computer awhile back indicated that the PS3 required quite a bit of learning to program properly. Anyway, this guy has his opinion: http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm Short answer: XBOX 360. Long answer: Price, performance, visual quality, game selection and online support. I think the XBOX 360 wins in every category. -- Tux rox!

On 2007-12-17, Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote: > * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply: > >> So, which wins for a given application depends on whether it would be >> more useful in that application to have 6 general purpose threads, or 2 >> general plus 7 subject to severe restrictions. > > What are these "severe restrictions"? SPEs have separate memory from system memory. They can't address system memory, and the general purpose core can't address SPE memory. They have a different instruction set than that of the general purpose core, too. So, to use them, you have to load them with a blob of binary data that is the program, DMA any data that code will need from the system memory to the SPE memory, then start the SPE. Any output you have to DMA back to system memory before you can use it.