Why are today's cpu's so weak?

[DualOwn]

when you do physics benchmarks, animation, or just an old game they just suck at it when it tries to render everything on its own.

X86 needs to go?

 

[drescherjm]

Todays CPUs are faster than we have ever had compared to most current software. If you are talking about why can't my CPU be a better or even as good at GPU tasks than a dedicated GPU then the answer is these are quite different things. GPUs are designed with much lower clocks, 100s to 1000s of cores that have fewer operations but do these in a highly parallel fashion. A CPU has way lower core count and a much larger instruction set.

How good is your GPU at running an OS?

X86 needs to go?

I do not think changing the instruction set would solve anything.

 

[DualOwn]

Todays CPUs are faster than we have ever had compared to most current software. If you are talking about why can't my CPU be a better or even as good at GPU tasks than a dedicated GPU then the answer is these are quite different things. GPUs are designed with much lower clocks, 100s to 1000s of cores that do much simpler operations in a highly parallel fashion. A CPU has way lower core count.

How good is your GPU at running an OS?



I do not think changing the instruction set would solve anything.

im only asking this after watching what IBM's Cell cpu is doing today, not the one in ps3 but the higher models.

they are rendering pretty much everything at the same time, including raytracing.

 

[needmorecarnitine]

in only asking this after watching what IBM's Cell cpu is doing today, not the one in ps3 but the higher models.

Did you even consider that they are totally different markets? What kind of Cell cpu are you going to buy for $180?


Seriously dude

 

[RamonGTP]

in only asking this after watching what IBM's Cell cpu is doing today, not the one in ps3 but the higher models.

they are rendering pretty much everything at the same time, including raytracing.

That's because it's a highly parallel processor, its far more like a GPU than a CPU. The things that x86 processors do very well it wouldn't be so hot at. That's why PC's have GPU's. Best of both worlds.

 

[DualOwn]

That's because it's a highly parallel processor, its far more like a GPU than a CPU. The things that x86 processors do very well it wouldn't be so hot at. That's why PC's have GPU's. Best of both worlds.

IBM's top Cell cpu can do over 500 Gflops where i7 975 only does 70 Gflops.

mashing IBM's Cell cpu and a gpu together can be done, take ps3 for example.

so i wont say that PC has best of both worlds, it doesnt.

you dont need to have a special desktop cpu to run internet browser.

 

[RamonGTP]

When you have a CPU and a GPU you have the best of both worlds. It doesn't matter what you call it. The PS3's GPU is a joke. If you disagree, buy a PS3, install Linux on it and be happy. And it isn't like an i7 is designed to be the fastest processor in the world. Just the fastest consumer processor.

 

[DualOwn]

When you have a CPU and a GPU you have the best of both worlds. It doesn't matter what you call it. The PS3's GPU is a joke. If you disagree, buy a PS3, install Linux on it and be happy. And it isn't like an i7 is designed to be the fastest processor in the world. Just the fastest consumer processor.

but have you seen what the ps3 is doing with that junk ps3 gpu?

im not going to lie, but there are certain games on ps3, mostly exclusives that are doing much more impressive stuff than any pc game, im talking animations, physics, etc.

i know resolution and textures suck on ps3 but there are some things that stand out on ps3, and i found out its because of the IBM's cpu.

now imagine if you paired a gtx580 with IBM's Cell?

 

[RamonGTP]

I own a PS3 the most impressive game I've seen on it is Uncharted 2. It's impressive yes, it's hardly more impressive then anything I've seen on PC.

 

[86 5.0L]

when you do physics benchmarks, animation, or just an old game they just suck at it when it tries to render everything on its own.

X86 needs to go?

lol, try doing the same benchies on a Celeron 300A, let me know how that goes...

 

[DualOwn]

I own a PS3 the most impressive game I've seen on it is Uncharted 2. It's impressive yes, it's hardly more impressive then anything I've seen on PC.

well yeah, like you said, the gpu in ps3 is garbage.

low res, textures, etc.

but the other stuff look more impressive on ps3 for some reason like animation, special effects, etc.

 

[DualOwn]

ive played Infamous 2 few days ago at my cousins house and the stuff that was going on at once during the boss battles i was amazed and at the same time feel pc's choking trying to do the same.

and its not because of the gpu, it was all pure cpu processing in realtime.

i can tell fake realism in some pc games that is done only by a gpu like in the game Crysis. Why am i the only person who finds Crysis to be very unrealistic? fake in a way? but whatever. I find BC2, Witcher 2, and some other games to be more impressive than crysis if you dont believe that textures are everything.

that was the reason why i did research on ps3's tech. i was amazed how powerfull that IBM cpu's really is and i was just wondering why is that way ahead of what intel and amd have to offer for gaming community and why we cant use it for gaming desktops.

 

[jeremyshaw]

ive played Infamous 2 few days ago at my cousins house and the stuff that was going on at once during the boss battles i was amazed and at the same time feel pc's choking trying to do the same.

and its not because of the gpu, it was all pure cpu processing in realtime.

i can tell fake realism in some pc games that is done only by a gpu like in the game Crysis. Why am i the only person who finds Crysis to be very unrealistic? fake in a way? but whatever. I find BC2, Witcher 2, and some other games to be more impressive than crysis if you dont believe that textures are everything.

that was the reason why i did research on ps3's tech. i was amazed how powerfull that IBM cpu's really is and i was just wondering why is that way ahead of what intel and amd have to offer for gaming community and why we cant use it for gaming desktops.

As a general purpose CPU, Cell BE sucks. It has only (in the PS3) one actual CPU core with SMT, while the remaining 8 cores (7 accessible, 6 avalible for games) are more akin to a GPU's SIMD unit. Even as a GPU SIMD, however, it has a lot more dedicated ASIC design than a GPU SIMD would (nto the mention, the dispatch and instuction of a DX10+ class GPU would be superior in instruction handling). I wouldn't say it's like programming a GPU to run gaming tasks, however, it could be interpreted that way. Cell is not really a CPU, not really a GPU, nor can it even be considered Fusion (using the AMD term instead of the MS CGPU term).

 

[jeremyshaw]

At a fraction of the resolution. And no, it's not more impressive.

nah, he does have a point. If a game is heavily designed close to the metal on some decently unique HW deliberately designed for the task, and if there are no decent ports of said game, then it can definately look a lot better, or just have better functionality than any other game. Even so, a lot of times, people think certain games have better graphics simply because they enjoy the art style/direction of a game better than others.

 

[DualOwn]

nah, he does have a point. If a game is heavily designed close to the metal on some decently unique HW deliberately designed for the task, and if there are no decent ports of said game, then it can definately look a lot better, or just have better functionality than any other game. Even so, a lot of times, people think certain games have better graphics simply because they enjoy the art style/direction of a game better than others.

im glad you know what im talking about.

i dont know why he's calling me a troll.

 

[German Muscle]

Cell cpus arent even close to being mainstream. You wont ever have a cell yourself so this discussion is moot.

As far as saying the PS3 has better graphics than a PC your way off. Lets at least make it an apples to apples comparison. Find any games that are on both PS3 and PC and test them both at 1920x1080. Guess which one will have higher FPS and look better? Its not the PS3 because it cant to Anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, or tesselation like a PC can.

Making games on a console is easy. Your hardware is 100% consistent and you always know your limits and boudaries. PC developers have to ensure compatibility with thousands of different configurations. So the code isnt going to work as well as it will on a console but at the end of the day the PC still runs it better because the hardware is far superior.

Also IIRC Cell is a total PITA to develop for. Its fairly proprietary.

 

[TehQuick]

OP's fallacy is his preoccupation with certain benchmarks. It may well be that general purpose CPU may lag behind GPU or GPU-like CPUs (cell) in certain benchmarks but tables are reversed in many other respects.

 

[DualOwn]

Cell cpus arent even close to being mainstream. You wont ever have a cell yourself so this discussion is moot.

As far as saying the PS3 has better graphics than a PC your way off. Lets at least make it an apples to apples comparison. Find any games that are on both PS3 and PC and test them both at 1920x1080. Guess which one will have higher FPS and look better? Its not the PS3 because it cant to Anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, or tesselation like a PC can.

Making games on a console is easy. Your hardware is 100% consistent and you always know your limits and boudaries. PC developers have to ensure compatibility with thousands of different configurations. So the code isnt going to work as well as it will on a console but at the end of the day the PC still runs it better because the hardware is far superior.

Also IIRC Cell is a total PITA to develop for. Its fairly proprietary.

i was strickly talking about IBM's cpu vs Desktop cpu and here you are strickly talking about GPU's. I never said ps3 has better graphics than the pc the way you are saying it.

stay on the same track please.

 

[mannyman]

Cell cpus arent even close to being mainstream. You wont ever have a cell yourself so this discussion is moot.

As far as saying the PS3 has better graphics than a PC your way off. Lets at least make it an apples to apples comparison. Find any games that are on both PS3 and PC and test them both at 1920x1080. Guess which one will have higher FPS and look better? Its not the PS3 because it cant to Anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, or tesselation like a PC can.

Making games on a console is easy. Your hardware is 100% consistent and you always know your limits and boudaries. PC developers have to ensure compatibility with thousands of different configurations. So the code isnt going to work as well as it will on a console but at the end of the day the PC still runs it better because the hardware is far superior.

Also IIRC Cell is a total PITA to develop for. Its fairly proprietary.

Also don't forget the PS3 has no direct x support.

The OP is also forgetting that no current Console game is running 1080p, Most are 720p and up resed.

And the parting piece is when has a PS3 ran a minimum of 3 monitors at resolutions far beyond 1080p?

The new AMD bulldozer with its intigrated graphics will be better.

 

[DualOwn]

mod, close this thread please.

it has derailed due to hardcore nvidia/amd fanatics that i never even spoke of.

pathetic fanboys.

 

[jeremyshaw]

i was strickly talking about IBM's cpu vs Desktop cpu and here you are strickly talking about GPU's. I never said ps3 has better graphics than the pc the way you are saying it.

stay on the same track please.

However, Cell isn't just a CPU, is it? You cannot really call it a CPU, just like llano & zacate, aren't really just a CPU. I mean, it was Sony's original intention for Cell to be both the CPU and GPU, before Sony's higher ups realized Ken was shooting far short of what MS already delivered, so they went to nVidia and basically begged for a GPU at the last minute (with all of nVidia's glorious lic requirements, and whatever else nVidia wanted).


So in a sense, the Cell Broadband Engine isn't really a CPU, and even though it's not really a GPU, it does have certain elements of it. As a result, one really cannot compare it to another CPU - because it's not only a CPU. Not in the traditional sense. It's not even Fusion/CGPU/APU. It's a wierd development point preceeding them.

 

[DualOwn]

its labaled as a CPU, if you dont like it then call IBM/Toshiba/Sony and ask them to change it because you dont agree with it.

 

[German Muscle]

i was strickly talking about IBM's cpu vs Desktop cpu and here you are strickly talking about GPU's. I never said ps3 has better graphics than the pc the way you are saying it.

stay on the same track please.

You never said much specifically other than todays CPUs are garbage then went straight into boasting the Cell CPU which is a modern CPU. You never stated what benchmarks or anything. It seems like your just looking for people to agree with you.

Your trolling basically.

 

[jeremyshaw]

its labaled as a CPU, if you dont like it then call IBM/Toshiba/Sony and ask them to change it because you dont agree with it.

lol. I can call my balls CPUs. They process, store, and output genetic data via a central position, after all.

Fact is, YOU are calling it a CPU. IBM calls it the "Cell Architecture," never a CPU. Sony names their PS3 processer as a "Cell Processor," and not a CPU. No one but you. If you want to get hooked up on semantics and wording, then I'll believe you are a troll, too. At this point, it doesn't look like you are caring about an actual discussion. Goto b3d or whatever if you wanted to know more about cell.

 

[DualOwn]

lol. I can call my balls CPUs. They process, store, and output genetic data via a central position, after all.

Fact is, YOU are calling it a CPU. IBM calls it the "Cell Architecture," never a CPU. Sony names their PS3 processer as a "Cell Processor," and not a CPU. No one but you. If you want to get hooked up on semantics and wording, then I'll believe you are a troll, too. At this point, it doesn't look like you are caring about an actual discussion. Goto b3d or whatever if you wanted to know more about cell.

lies.

its called "cell microprocessor" [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Cell"]Cell (microprocessor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/Fileeter_Hofstee.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Peter_Hofstee.jpg/220px-Peter_Hofstee.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d1/Peter_Hofstee.jpg/220px-Peter_Hofstee.jpg[/ame]

ibm, toshiba, wikipedia > you

you just keep lying, it wont get you anywhere.

 

[Cheetoz]

Too get an idea why, check out Intel's Itanium architecture, and why it ended up losing to AMD64 for the future x86-64 architecture.

Yeah x86 very old and heavily modified, but its hard to convince everyone to jump ship to a brand new thing and dump all their old stuff.

 

[jeremyshaw]

lies.

its called "cell microprocessor" Cell (microprocessor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ibm, toshiba, wikipedia > you

you just keep lying, it wont get you anywhere.

great, now it's pulling up wiki links in an attempt to look smart. Quick, before he realizes CPU was a designation given by a random wiki content creator, and not Sony, Toshiba, and/or IBM

EDIT: this edit is just to ward off any attempt by certain posters to simply copy+paste words others have already said in this thread in an attempt to pervert them to their own needs

 

[DualOwn]

great, now it's pulling up wiki links in an attempt to look smart. Quick, before he realizes CPU was a designation given by a random wiki content creator, and not Sony, Toshiba, and/or IBM

EDIT: this edit is just to ward off any attempt by certain posters to simply copy+paste words others have already said in this thread in an attempt to pervert them to their own needs

http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/cell_chip.html

let me know if you want some more?

they all call it a microprocessor/processor

if you believe its a gpu, go ahead if it makes you feel better.

 

[evanisthecoastie]

This is the most childish thread I have read in a long time.

 

[LAiN_OfTheWired]

I love the lack of objectiveness in this thread.

Our current gaming machine CPU+GPU combo works great. I love my 2600K and my dual Radeon 5770s (soon to become dual Radeon 6870s). I'm pretty much assured it will run whatever I throw at it without a hitch. This is all nice and dandy

BUT

anybody that has run Linux on a Sandy Bridge CPU and a PowerXCell 8i will tell you immediately that you're effing retarded if you prefer the Sandy Bridge CPU. It's actually pretty astounding how much better PowerXCell 8i runs the OS and applications with 2GB of lowly DDR-RAM. So, purely as a desktop processor, cell is superior. Does this mean it would kick the shit out of the Sandy Bridge CPU in our typical environment? Absolutely not.

 

[jeremyshaw]

http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/cell_chip.html

let me know if you want some more?

they all call it a microprocessor/processor

if you believe its a gpu, go ahead if it makes you feel better.

great, so you cannot find where they said CPU? You pushed CPU, not me. Even your thread title, which you cannot edit, says.... CPU.

Keep on replying, if you believe it's only a CPU. You're the one stuffing words, here. I never said it's a GPU.

 

[spugnor]

when you do physics benchmarks, animation, or just an old game they just suck at it when it tries to render everything on its own.

X86 needs to go?

Yes, x86 is a patched together nightmare, and it's limiting performance in a lot of ways. The opcode situation is a nightmare, and can require up to 3 memory reads for a single instruction. I.E. It reads an opcode, that basically tells the CPU that the instruction is an "extended" instruction and to go ahead and read the next couple of bytes for the actual instruction. Which itself may be an "extended" opcode.

The x86 instruction set is crazy big, and that in and of itself is not a bad thing, but they need to streamline the opcodes, so that it doesn't take several tries to load an opcode.

As to what you seem to really be asking, modern CPU's are not designed for the types of things that today's graphics need. Today's graphical systems require massively paralleled operations, which will ALWAYS run faster on many parallel cores running together. Which is why we have GPUs. If you really knew computer architecture, there are actually quite a few processors inside any given box. Your keyboard has a processor in it, and has had one since the original IBM PC. Your HDD has a processor in it. If you have a high end sound card, you have a processor on that as well.

 

[RamonGTP]

its labaled as a CPU, if you dont like it then call IBM/Toshiba/Sony and ask them to change it because you dont agree with it.

Architecture and what it actually does is far more important than a label. Either way I really don't see what you're seeing. I've played and/or owned the games you're talking about and have not seen effects that were better then on PC nor have I seen proper gaming machines struggle with such things either.

 

[Freezebyte]

A couple of you are going to be on week long vacations methinks

If I can explain it lamens terms as I understand it:

A CPU is a pretty much a number crunching, complex math machine.

A GPU is a dedicated processor for video rendering use


Using both compliments the others lack of "features" so you get the best of both worlds. Its been that way since the late 90's when CPU's just couldn't keep up with the visual demands of gamers, so a video card was then "upgraded" from a simple digital to analog convertor to a peice of hardware that crunchs video data and renderings instead of the CPU doing it.

How hard is this folks?


Or I could be so far behind the tech times I'm just talking outa my ass. If so, correct/ignore me

 

[thefreeaccount]

A CPU is a pretty much a number crunching, complex math machine.
A GPU is a dedicated processor for video rendering use

I don't think that's right - as soon as programmable shaders became available, GPUs could be considered general purpose processors.

 

[AQ_OC]

when you do physics benchmarks, animation, or just an old game they just suck at it when it tries to render everything on its own.

X86 needs to go?

GPUs are highly optimized for a very limited set of tasks. CPUs are not as they need to perform a wide variety of tasks. CPUs are not weak, nor do they suck. Most of what most people do barely takes any advantage of what modern CPUs can do. Obviously, gamers play games and GPUs get used to make that happen, because that is what they are intended for. GPUs can also be used for certain tasks in computational science because those tasks can take advantage of the inherent parallel operation of the GPU.

 

[Nightbird]

Comparing GPU and CPU is like comparing a train and drag car. The performance depends on the weight of the cargo.

 

[pxc]

Current CPUs are not "weak". They are just not optimal for certain tasks.

 

[lostinseganet]

IBM's top Cell cpu can do over 500 Gflops where i7 975 only does 70 Gflops.

mashing IBM's Cell cpu and a gpu together can be done, take ps3 for example.

so i wont say that PC has best of both worlds, it doesnt.

you dont need to have a special desktop cpu to run internet browser.

Maybe one day they will make a cell gpu with 1024 spe's

 

[Salavat23]

I don't think that's right - as soon as programmable shaders became available, GPUs could be considered general purpose processors.

Which is called a GPGPU, which is just a derivative of the basic concept of a CPU.

I don't understand why you guys are arguing over terminology. The Cell is the central processing unit of the PS3. Who cares what else it can do? Just because its not like your fancy 2600ks doesn't mean it is not a CPU. It it the hub of all processing in the unit.