[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Canada2113

Im now convinced that very few people understand how the ps3 works. And fewer understand how emulation works.

I bow down to your overpriced god machine. It pwn$ 4ll pl0xz.

Originally Posted by canadianshitface

edit: spartacus, I highly doubt you have two quad-core's running. Unless you have a mac, which you don't because you wouldn't have those cards, or a server which I doubt it. And you don't add up cores processing power you dumb shit. If you have 2 quad-core at 2.2ghz, you don't add 2.2ghz 8 times. You have 8 cores at 2.2ghz not one processor at 17.6ghz.

How the fuck would you know, amd has like 3 dual socket boards that support phenom chips. 2.2ghz quads are like 199.99 right now brand new. And the boards are roughly 200$~. Oh and I said add up the clocks to get an idea of the speed since it is a TRUE quad core, compared against the ps3's shitty 7 cores when added up equals a "cell" 3.4ghz!!! And when the fuck did I say I had one process consisting of 17.6ghz, either you like to make shit up to try to prove a point as shitty as it is now, or you're:

Retarded - relatively slow in mental or emotional or physical development;

[master1love]

well guys i'd just like to thank you all for your input and information about a ps3 emulator. No wonder i joined this forum. theres alot of people here who know thier shit!

[canadianbacon]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

And when the fuck did I say I had one process consisting of 17.6ghz

(You mean Processor? Dumbass...)

You said

Originally Posted by Spartacus

(add up the clocks, just do it.)

You just contradicted yourself. You're telling us to add up the clocks to make it seem like it's that amazing. When it has no real advantage, and tell me one thing that can take advantage of 8 cores, let alone 4.

And you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. The cell doesn't have cores, it has SPE's.

Oh, and no card on newegg.com from ati, with 512MB and 128-bit is GDDR4 memory, nice one buddy.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...8&name=128-bit

2 phenoms at 2.3ghz (highest they have btw, no 2.4, dumbass.) = $480

Assuming since you have the only 512MB 128bit card that is GDDR4 I had to substitute with this:
2 Radeon HD 3870 512MB 256-bit GDDR4 cross-fire ready cards = $470.

Thats what, $950 (without S&H and tax)? I couldn't even find a motherboard that could hold two phenoms; yet you got this all under $1000? Really, so what did you get a case, psu, ram, harddrive, dvd drives, and still the mobo all for $49?

Next time you brag over the internet, please make sure you don't make yourself look like a fool, so please G-T-F-O.

[Canada2113]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

I bow down to your overpriced god machine. It pwn$ 4ll pl0xz.

What does that statement do other than prove to everyone that you are an ass who cant carry on a conversation without turning it into an immature bitch fight?

Originally Posted by Spartacus

compared against the ps3's shitty 7 cores when added up equals a "cell" 3.4ghz!!!

Each core of the ps3 runs at that clock speed. Its not a cumulative total.

If you think your computer is really that fucking awesome why dont you go ahead and write a ps3 emulator. Hell, i'd like to see you finish pcxs2 running at full speed on your system. Then come back here and talk shit. Until then gtfo, nobody in this thread takes you seriously anymore.

[talltexan]

Spartacus, its no longer about the processors speed, its about how efficient the processor is.

[Baiame]

Originally Posted by canadianbacon

When it has no real advantage, and tell me one thing that can take advantage of 8 cores, let alone 4.

I may have misunderstood you, but if 4 or 8 general-purpose cores confer no advantage (they do), of what POSSIBLE use are 7 coprocessors that are only useful for floating-point calculations?

The cell is only impressive in terms of floating-point performance, and anyone who programs knows that float operations end up being a small minority for most programs (yes, including games). My ~$900 C2D 6850 w/ 2 GB of DDR2 800 RAM (cl4) and a stock 8800GT w/ 512 MB of VRAM PC is in practice a more powerful machine than the PS3. Of course, that's not to say it could come close to emulating the PS3.

[canadianbacon]

Originally Posted by Baiame

I may have misunderstood you, but if 4 or 8 general-purpose cores confer no advantage (they do), of what POSSIBLE use are 7 coprocessors that are only useful for floating-point calculations?

The cell is only impressive in terms of floating-point performance, and anyone who programs knows that float operations end up being a small minority for most programs (yes, including games). My ~$900 C2D 6850 w/ 2 GB of DDR2 800 RAM (cl4) and a stock 8800GT w/ 512 MB of VRAM PC is in practice a more powerful machine than the PS3. Of course, that's not to say it could come close to emulating the PS3.

The other SPE's can handle AA, and lighting, because of the lack of shared ram, and because the RSX cannot handle AA. While the others can be used for everything else (loading, etc.)

If you google raytracing (highest from of rendering) you can see that via the cell processor only they can render things in linux. Given time, the cell processor can utilize it's SPE's to producer higher rendering in combination with the RSX card, maker higher quality games, while still using the SPE's for AA, and loading. Producing higher quality games, and faster loading times.

Your pc, graphics wise is more powerful, but if it came down to raw computing power the cell would beat it.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by canadianbacon

(You mean Processor? Dumbass...)

You said

You just contradicted yourself. You're telling us to add up the clocks to make it seem like it's that amazing. When it has no real advantage, and tell me one thing that can take advantage of 8 cores, let alone 4.

And you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. The cell doesn't have cores, it has SPE's.

Oh, and no card on newegg.com from ati, with 512MB and 128-bit is GDDR4 memory, nice one buddy.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...8&name=128-bit

2 phenoms at 2.3ghz (highest they have btw, no 2.4, dumbass.) = $480

Assuming since you have the only 512MB 128bit card that is GDDR4 I had to substitute with this:
2 Radeon HD 3870 512MB 256-bit GDDR4 cross-fire ready cards = $470.

Thats what, $950 (without S&H and tax)? I couldn't even find a motherboard that could hold two phenoms; yet you got this all under $1000? Really, so what did you get a case, psu, ram, harddrive, dvd drives, and still the mobo all for $49?

Next time you brag over the internet, please make sure you don't make yourself look like a fool, so please G-T-F-O.

Oh my bad simple typo, thats all the shit you have against me, and once again big fucking deal I was trying to get the point across that it was simply better so stop breaking my balls for simple little shitty phrases.

One, the ps3 is consisted of cores, google > PS3 specs, and it even fucking shows you.

Two, heres my cards. Which is exactly what I have been talking about. You Fuck-Tard.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127303

Three, so lets add it up fuck tard, 150 x 2 (cards) = 300, 110$ on the ram,80 on the case, 400$ on processors 200$ board,100$ .5tb HD, and the grand total is just over a grand noticing how I went from 1 processors to 2 in about a month or 2 in between. So fuck off, and dude before you tell me that my card exists maybe if your dumb ass would actually know what Im talking about, you might beable to find it, and BTW FYI I have 2 cards at 850mhz each added up 1700mhz core clock, and the PS3 has a 550mhz. Once again I win. How could you say a PS3 is faster then what designed it.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Canada2113

What does that statement do other than prove to everyone that you are an ass who cant carry on a conversation without turning it into an immature bitch fight?

Each core of the ps3 runs at that clock speed. Its not a cumulative total.

If you think your computer is really that fucking awesome why dont you go ahead and write a ps3 emulator. Hell, i'd like to see you finish pcxs2 running at full speed on your system. Then come back here and talk shit. Until then gtfo, nobody in this thread takes you seriously anymore.

I was only talking to you how you were talking to me, its only fair pl0xz..

It is its "grand total" of cores, or atleast thats what I read. And once again, why would I make a program thats inevitably not capable of being done, its like trying to emulate crisis or halo on a windows 95 pentium 2.

Are you aware of the speed of a PSP? The only thing I could see being emulated would be a PS2 just because the psp's core is faster but the biggest problem would be the space of the games and L2 R2 combo.

Yew just g0t pw3nd pl0xz haha. Now cut it out, you know im right, the information is right infront of you just look.

Originally Posted by talltexan

Spartacus, its no longer about the processors speed, its about how efficient the processor is.

Well when you think of it true and false, the pro speed comes in a big place with this, its sorta AMD vs Intel. But they have their ups and downs, Intel is for multitasking as AMD is for gaming, simple. Effecient yes but any "cell core" versus even 1 true quad core its a no brainer.

[Canada2113]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Are you aware of the speed of a PSP? The only thing I could see being emulated would be a PS2 just because the psp's core is faster but the biggest problem would be the space of the games and L2 R2 combo.

Th psp is not powerful enough to play ps2 games. You cant run an emulator if the hardware is slightly better. My pc has a 1.8ghz processor and 768mb ram (i know, its old as hell...) so in your theory it should be able to run a ps2 emulator at least 3x as fast as a ps3 right? No. Emulation is about making software do what hardware normally does. The general rules is that the device doing the emulating needs to be 3x as powerful as the device being emulated. This way there is enough overhead to run the processes required to 'trick' the game into thinking its running the the actual hardware.
The psp is powerful enough to run ps2 games that have been ported to run natively, but its not powerful enough to run the emulationsoftware as well as the game itself. This is why the xbox cant emulate a ps2. It has more power than the ps2, but its not powerful enough to run the emulation program and the game at the same time.


You say emulating the ps3 on your "'awesome pc'" is like running Crysis on win 95.... but i thought your pc was more powerful than my wimpy ps3.... duplicity? yes.

[canadianbacon]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Oh my bad simple typo, thats all the shit you have against me, and once again big fucking deal I was trying to get the point across that it was simply better so stop breaking my balls for simple little shitty phrases.

One, the ps3 is consisted of cores, google > PS3 specs, and it even fucking shows you.

Two, heres my cards. Which is exactly what I have been talking about. You Fuck-Tard.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127303

Three, so lets add it up fuck tard, 150 x 2 (cards) = 300, 110$ on the ram,80 on the case, 400$ on processors 200$ board,100$ .5tb HD, and the grand total is just over a grand noticing how I went from 1 processors to 2 in about a month or 2 in between. So fuck off, and dude before you tell me that my card exists maybe if your dumb ass would actually know what Im talking about, you might beable to find it, and BTW FYI I have 2 cards at 850mhz each added up 1700mhz core clock, and the PS3 has a 550mhz. Once again I win. How could you say a PS3 is faster then what designed it.

It has SPE's, you dumbass.



$306 + $480 + $110 + 80 + $200 + $100 = $1276, you forgot $80 for the processors, a $277 difference between under a grand. Big difference, that's not including PSU, or dvd drives, and no proof for prices of mobo, etc, and you probably picked the cheapest of products to make it work, anyway you're still wrong.

Again, you don't add up the MHZ, dumbshit. Go play with your 16.8GHZ processor.

We all know PC's will still be better then consoles. But stop acting like your PC is Jesus' pc. And notice how you're comparing, at least, a $1,300 computer to a $400 console? LOL you bk. If we took the other $900 for upgraded ram, and a better video card, your PC would be shitting on your chest in fear.. The actual raw computing power of your PC will never beat the PS3, your graphics will but, that's not the argument.

You will never win, just leave it. Your graphics could handle more then the PS3, but the cell processor > your PC, go google raytracing on the PS3, your PC would take a big shit on your chest and slap you across the face if you tryed doing that.

G-T-F-O,
love canadianbacon.

[xSBx]

There are tons of computers out there that are way better then the PS3. The PS3 isn't anything special. And you won't be seeing emulation of the PS3 in about 10 years.. no joke.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Canada2113

Th psp is not powerful enough to play ps2 games. You cant run an emulator if the hardware is slightly better. My pc has a 1.8ghz processor and 768mb ram (i know, its old as hell...) so in your theory it should be able to run a ps2 emulator at least 3x as fast as a ps3 right? No. Emulation is about making software do what hardware normally does. The general rules is that the device doing the emulating needs to be 3x as powerful as the device being emulated. This way there is enough overhead to run the processes required to 'trick' the game into thinking its running the the actual hardware.
The psp is powerful enough to run ps2 games that have been ported to run natively, but its not powerful enough to run the emulationsoftware as well as the game itself. This is why the xbox cant emulate a ps2. It has more power than the ps2, but its not powerful enough to run the emulation program and the game at the same time.


You say emulating the ps3 on your "'awesome pc'" is like running Crysis on win 95.... but i thought your pc was more powerful than my wimpy ps3.... duplicity? yes.

Im really not trying to make my computer sound god like, Im simply saying its better then the PS3. And comparing the PS2's 300mhz core vs PSP Slim 333mhz core, then I didn't mean by emulating the PS2 as more as I meant to mean as if you could simply convert ps2 iso's into psp readable format and had enough MS space it would run it, Not as much as emulation if you get what I mean.

Originally Posted by canadianretard

You will never win, just leave it. Your graphics could handle more then the PS3, but the cell processor > your PC, go google raytracing on the PS3, your PC would take a big shit on your chest and slap you across the face if you tryed doing that.

Lol isn't the only true purpose of a PS3 as a console is to play games and graphics? Once again, how can a product from a PC be more powerful then it lol. I don't think you are thinking right m8, and if your processor specs is the only shit you have on me, well then you need some more, Because once again I win.

[Canada2113]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Im really not trying to make my computer sound god like, Im simply saying its better then the PS3.

You computer is not more powerful than the ps3. You may have a better video card setup, but pc's have always been ahead of consoles in that department. I can guarantee you that your processor is not as powerful as the cell. If you are up for a bet ill install ydl on my ps3 and you do the same on your computer then well both run cpu benchmark tests and see who wins.

[Spartacus]

But still like I said, the only real purpose of a PS3 or any console is gaming right? Well whats a good game without graphics, and don't say SMB3 or Pong lol. But do you get at what I am stating?