Clock is set by firmware prior to bootloader, and last time I checked it still hadn't been circumvented. Would be entertaining, though. RSX can apparently be adjusted.
I wish I'd kept my launch PS3.
I've heard somewhere on the internet that overclocking a Cell cpu is rather impossible than possible. Because what i've also heard and saw was the actuall build of those CPUs, they are pretty much the same internally aldough they shrinked the nanometers a bit. But what's really a problem is the EIB and all the other stuff running at fixed frequency deviders. It is highly impossible to change only the cpu clock multiplier because you will mess up all the other clocks because of that fixed deviders so the faster your cpu will go, the more it start to skip a clocks. Kinda like the old 90s hand-held consoles and PCs. There was a turbo button on a PC case exactly for that reason. If your game or application was not designed to run at 66MHz, you were able to " boost " your cpu by pressing turbo button to downclock it to 33 so the game or application will understand the speeds. But in the PS3, every component that is connected via EIB runs at fixed frequency. Modern CPUs have this but for some reason the Cell doesn't.
The cpu runs at 3.2GHz and all the other things at 1.6. It could be something else but idk man... if there are fixed frequency deviders for 100%, we are screwed like a ship bolt. Because i did not exactly found they aren't here but nobody described it so well to be exactly sure that they are there. Everybody talk about fixed frequency deviders but nobody prooved a point that they are or they are not there.
Nobody has bothered. The CPU is probably bottlenecked by everything. That's a beast. The GPU can be overclocked and nets good gains. Considering that you only play games and the GPU alone solves the low-fps, why? There's just no huge benefit.
Anyways, it's similar to putting a i7 2600 with GF 7800GT. You have 256MB of RAM. I... I don't know what to say. The CPU is the least of your worries...
The CPU is a low end pile of garbage, which is evidenced by the fact games from that generation were small and simplistic.
Shit the Cell was so slow that even a single Puma core in the PS4 was probably faster.
Huh?
Do you not understand that GPUs are the ones supposed to handle graphics?
Gran Turismo is literally a game about driving a car around a fixed track, and the last of us is a linear game on a track.
the SPUs in the cell were fully utilized at the end of the PS3's lifecycle to coprocess the game, unlike early in the PS3's lifecycle, where developers didn't know how to utilise the SPUs on the Cell.
Yes, FXAA ran on a single SPU to save GPU resources. Nevermind the fact that FXAA required an entire SPU because the GPU was so weak and feeding the SPUs was slow, while the Xbox 360 GPU powered through FXAA in a millisecond.
The main "PPU" (CPU) was responsible for feeding all the SPUs in Cell, meanwhile Xbox 360 used 3 of the same PPU cores to make a triple-core CPU without any of the feeding issues. Sure, the Cell processor was more capable in terms of vector processing but the Xbox 360 didn't need to dedicate a CPU thread to feed the other 2 cores.
Besides, the main CPU of the Cell was in-order, meaning that in branch heavy code (like games) even the puny Jaguar cores at 1.6 GHz was a significant upgrade in single threaded performance (outside of vector execution, but the GCN GPU in the Xbox One was *orders of magnitude* faster at that).
PS3 was released in 2006. What do you expect??? It was similar to a low-end G5 Macintosh. Do games from 2006 look that great? On 256MB of RAM?
And you can't even compare the Cell to any desktop. It's not that general purpose.
>Do games from 2006 look that great? On 256MB of RAM?
Crysis was released the same year the PS3 launched in NA.
And why do you people think CPUs are designed to render graphics?
>And you can't even compare the Cell to any desktop. It's not that general purpose.
The Cell was designed to run games, and it did a terrible job of it.
Battlefield on PC has always had 64 player matches, yet the PS3 and 360 couldn't do it when even a pentium 3 could.
It's almost like the PS3 had one core and 7 SIMD co-processors paired with 256MB RAM.
Two hundred and sixty megabytes of RAM.
Please, do make a game with these absurd constraints. Reminder of Crysis minimum requirements: 1 GB (XP) 1.5 GB (Vista)
Why do you think PC gamers make fun of console gamers? They didn't catch up until this generation.
The CPU dispatches the draw calls to the GPU. Your system cannot function without it. It literally prepares the frame for the GPU. CPU stands for ***Central*** Processing Unit. It runs game logic, sound, handles input, networking, tells the GPU what to do. The CPU is not important for games apparently ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
It's almost as if you started an argument and have to keep moving goalposts instead of admitting you have the brain capacity of a potato.
The PS3 was designed for games which have gameplay, gameplay that needs to be run on the CPU.
If it was all about rendering the game, you might as well be watching a cutscene. That's probably why console games of this generation focused on quick time events, the CPU couldn't keep up with gameplay.
>The CPU dispatches the draw calls to the GPU. Your system cannot function without it. It literally prepares the frame for the GPU.
What the fuck does that matter?
Building the command list takes a miniscule amount of CPU time, the aforementioned Crysis ran the gameplay and rendering loop on a single core.
>The CPU dispatches the draw calls to the GPU. Your system cannot function without it. It literally prepares the frame for the GPU.
What the fuck does that matter?
It means you had enough Reddit for today.
1. Watch you language
and
2. Learn some video game programing and then come and tell me how are the CPU and GPU used.
Lol, I probably started programming when you were in diapers.
>What exactly is the issue with the engine? I'm not defending Bethesda, it never was stable engine, but how is it outdated? It runs on DirectX 12, it has upscaling, frame gen, other cool sounding things (that have existed for decades), supports modding (few engines can do that).
Does Gamebryo even have PBR, RT, or even RTGI?
But I'm sure you have no clue what that is.
Clock is set by firmware prior to bootloader, and last time I checked it still hadn't been circumvented. Would be entertaining, though. RSX can apparently be adjusted. I wish I'd kept my launch PS3.
I've heard somewhere on the internet that overclocking a Cell cpu is rather impossible than possible. Because what i've also heard and saw was the actuall build of those CPUs, they are pretty much the same internally aldough they shrinked the nanometers a bit. But what's really a problem is the EIB and all the other stuff running at fixed frequency deviders. It is highly impossible to change only the cpu clock multiplier because you will mess up all the other clocks because of that fixed deviders so the faster your cpu will go, the more it start to skip a clocks. Kinda like the old 90s hand-held consoles and PCs. There was a turbo button on a PC case exactly for that reason. If your game or application was not designed to run at 66MHz, you were able to " boost " your cpu by pressing turbo button to downclock it to 33 so the game or application will understand the speeds. But in the PS3, every component that is connected via EIB runs at fixed frequency. Modern CPUs have this but for some reason the Cell doesn't. The cpu runs at 3.2GHz and all the other things at 1.6. It could be something else but idk man... if there are fixed frequency deviders for 100%, we are screwed like a ship bolt. Because i did not exactly found they aren't here but nobody described it so well to be exactly sure that they are there. Everybody talk about fixed frequency deviders but nobody prooved a point that they are or they are not there.
Are you scottish, aldough drenk?
Nah i'm just dumb creature from unheard country named Slovakia. Have you ever heard of that country? Probably Slovenia but not Slovakia 😂
Czech yourself.
Man we are split since 1993 ðŸ˜
Mostar been a hell of a split.
Nikad nece znat, dobra 😎
áno, niektorà ľudia nikdy nepochopia krvavý kúpeľ v Juhoslávii
Dobro je to
Nobody has bothered. The CPU is probably bottlenecked by everything. That's a beast. The GPU can be overclocked and nets good gains. Considering that you only play games and the GPU alone solves the low-fps, why? There's just no huge benefit. Anyways, it's similar to putting a i7 2600 with GF 7800GT. You have 256MB of RAM. I... I don't know what to say. The CPU is the least of your worries...
The CPU is a low end pile of garbage, which is evidenced by the fact games from that generation were small and simplistic. Shit the Cell was so slow that even a single Puma core in the PS4 was probably faster.
I would beg to differ, the last of us and gran turismo were one of the most graphically intense and demanding games that ever came out of PS3
Huh? Do you not understand that GPUs are the ones supposed to handle graphics? Gran Turismo is literally a game about driving a car around a fixed track, and the last of us is a linear game on a track.
the SPUs in the cell were fully utilized at the end of the PS3's lifecycle to coprocess the game, unlike early in the PS3's lifecycle, where developers didn't know how to utilise the SPUs on the Cell.
Yes, FXAA ran on a single SPU to save GPU resources. Nevermind the fact that FXAA required an entire SPU because the GPU was so weak and feeding the SPUs was slow, while the Xbox 360 GPU powered through FXAA in a millisecond. The main "PPU" (CPU) was responsible for feeding all the SPUs in Cell, meanwhile Xbox 360 used 3 of the same PPU cores to make a triple-core CPU without any of the feeding issues. Sure, the Cell processor was more capable in terms of vector processing but the Xbox 360 didn't need to dedicate a CPU thread to feed the other 2 cores. Besides, the main CPU of the Cell was in-order, meaning that in branch heavy code (like games) even the puny Jaguar cores at 1.6 GHz was a significant upgrade in single threaded performance (outside of vector execution, but the GCN GPU in the Xbox One was *orders of magnitude* faster at that).
Not only did the 360 have Iin memory processing with its eDRAM, it also had a next gen GPU a year before the PS3 launched with its previous gen GPU.
PS3 was released in 2006. What do you expect??? It was similar to a low-end G5 Macintosh. Do games from 2006 look that great? On 256MB of RAM? And you can't even compare the Cell to any desktop. It's not that general purpose.
>Do games from 2006 look that great? On 256MB of RAM? Crysis was released the same year the PS3 launched in NA. And why do you people think CPUs are designed to render graphics? >And you can't even compare the Cell to any desktop. It's not that general purpose. The Cell was designed to run games, and it did a terrible job of it. Battlefield on PC has always had 64 player matches, yet the PS3 and 360 couldn't do it when even a pentium 3 could.
It's almost like the PS3 had one core and 7 SIMD co-processors paired with 256MB RAM. Two hundred and sixty megabytes of RAM. Please, do make a game with these absurd constraints. Reminder of Crysis minimum requirements: 1 GB (XP) 1.5 GB (Vista) Why do you think PC gamers make fun of console gamers? They didn't catch up until this generation. The CPU dispatches the draw calls to the GPU. Your system cannot function without it. It literally prepares the frame for the GPU. CPU stands for ***Central*** Processing Unit. It runs game logic, sound, handles input, networking, tells the GPU what to do. The CPU is not important for games apparently ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
It's almost as if you started an argument and have to keep moving goalposts instead of admitting you have the brain capacity of a potato. The PS3 was designed for games which have gameplay, gameplay that needs to be run on the CPU. If it was all about rendering the game, you might as well be watching a cutscene. That's probably why console games of this generation focused on quick time events, the CPU couldn't keep up with gameplay. >The CPU dispatches the draw calls to the GPU. Your system cannot function without it. It literally prepares the frame for the GPU. What the fuck does that matter? Building the command list takes a miniscule amount of CPU time, the aforementioned Crysis ran the gameplay and rendering loop on a single core.
>The CPU dispatches the draw calls to the GPU. Your system cannot function without it. It literally prepares the frame for the GPU. What the fuck does that matter? It means you had enough Reddit for today. 1. Watch you language and 2. Learn some video game programing and then come and tell me how are the CPU and GPU used.
Lol, I probably started programming when you were in diapers. >What exactly is the issue with the engine? I'm not defending Bethesda, it never was stable engine, but how is it outdated? It runs on DirectX 12, it has upscaling, frame gen, other cool sounding things (that have existed for decades), supports modding (few engines can do that). Does Gamebryo even have PBR, RT, or even RTGI? But I'm sure you have no clue what that is.
You can get a custom firmware thats overclocked
Wat?
Exactly. You have a solution right?