The PS3's Cell prepared devs to start utilizing GPGPU without it being too alien to them. It had a very familiar setup, but now it is used regularly from PC to PS due to the tools maturing and the years of experience with that setup.
You really just don't know how quotes work.. he's paraphrasing the entire road to PS5.
Sony has literally admitted it was hard to program for.. with that bizarre Kaz quote:
.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&width=1200)
www.cnet.com
No shit, nobody is arguing it wasn't hard to program for, but that is also what made them grasp GPGPU on the PS4 more easily. Similar ways of coding that they finally figured out through the PS3 generation.Sony has literally admitted it was hard to program for.. with that bizarre Kaz quote:
Sony: PS3 is hard to develop for--on purpose
The Japanese electronics powerhouse is making it hard on developers to create games for the PlayStation 3, and believe it or not, the company is fine with that.
Cerny was adamant that they had changed their attitude.. making the PS4 far more easy to program for.
Huh?
Sony has literally admitted it was hard to program for.. with that bizarre Kaz quote:
Sony: PS3 is hard to develop for--on purpose
The Japanese electronics powerhouse is making it hard on developers to create games for the PlayStation 3, and believe it or not, the company is fine with that.
Cerny was adamant that they had changed their attitude.. making the PS4 far more easy to program for. Since then Cerny has continued to stress ease of development..
Which doesn't mean the PS5 won't see lots of optimization.. potentially more than XSX over time.. but we have no clue to which extent, or which console will see more optimization.
Do you know how words work?My god!
I never once claimed that.
These sarcastic posts you make feigning sympathy are Whats pitiful. The I/O being discussed is the biggest difference between the systems. It's also the one area that hasn't been utilized in a console until now. If "tools" are still being worked out on the x side, then it's safe to say I/O is as well. Now, they both utilize it in their architecture, but PS5 has twice the potential and its the biggest discrepancy between these 2 systems.
I never actually even said that
Let's see the Sony version of VRS then, they chose not to go the AMD route but even on their own hardware and first party software we haven't seen any sign of it. Ever wonder why?
GPGPU is very familiar to the Cell with how you code for it. So after working 8 years with the Cell, they were able to take advantage of said feature without ignoring it completely (if the PS3 never existed in its form at all.) My statement is simple, you are reading too far into it.
Matt Hargett, one of the engineers behind PS5 has talked about functions that are equal or better than VRS in the Geometry Engine. Activision lead artists have said it has capabilities similar to VRS.
Like I said.. I get what you MEANT now.. it is not what you SAID because the subject of those sentences was the PS3... I get that you meant "so the PS4 wasn't alien to them, it had a familiar setup" but you missed actually mentioning it lol
I literally mentioned it in the first sentence.
But anyways, we are on the same page now.
That's kinda wild.. I hope 3D Mark or AMD comment on this test and why even the base performs so poorly on RDNA 2.Mesh Shader test. 6800 all the way below the 1050. It seems this test favors the Nvidia cards because even with Mesh Shaders off, the shittiest nvidia cards are outperforming the best AMD cards. The percentage difference is what we should look out for and the performance increase with Mesh Shaders on seems to be roughly on par with the 2080 Ti.
GPGPU wasn't introduced until the PS4, then later made it's way into desktop parts shortly after. It was one of the AMD partnership customizations along with FP16, checkerboard rendering, and others.
I guess I just wasn't aware of the acronym; isn't that what CUDA is for the nVidia GPUs?
CUDA is their API similar to GPGPU, but I don't believe at the time they offloaded CPU tasks when the PS4 launched. They may do it now as tools grow. But also, CPUs are more powerful than ever so it's not needed as much compared to running Jaguars which were already less performant than the Cell. It was a good procedure to get around a lot of the Jaguar's anemic performance, but both console makers had no choice jumping into the APUs at the time, since they were diving in for the long-term roadmaps. Growing pains.
Well at least that explain the PS5 coil whine... ^_^
Mine must be running at 50%
I searched and found Cerny making a statement; but he's talking about the familiarity devs had w/ X86 + GPU, and he seems to be suggesting the opposite of that being familiar to the CELL. (although the article is paraphrasing a bit and not directly quoting him about the Cell being "unfamiliar")
No no, it went down.
Hearsay about the Bluepoint acquisition by Sony being a done deal, but not sure about when the announcement will happen
So uhm....what are they saing?
Ya it does seem likely that Sony buy them.
Something like that.
You are right about physics, but I thought that didn't come until after they made their PhysX cards and API. Once they did away with them, they did CUDA.I searched and found Cerny making a statement; but he's talking about the familiarity devs had w/ X86 + GPU, and he seems to be suggesting the opposite of that being familiar to the CELL. (although the article is paraphrasing a bit and not directly quoting him about the Cell being "unfamiliar")
The only parallel drawn to Cell in that interview/article:
Not sure what you mean by CUDA not offloading CPU.. one of the first big uses of CUDA was offloading physics from the CPU w/ PhysX... which got popular years before the PS4 released.
segmentnext.com
