backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 86 comment(s) - last by erok8150a.. on Jun 9 at 10:01 AM

Image courtesy G4TV
id Software's founder not ga-ga over the Cell processor

Famed developer John Carmack sat down with G4 TV (Video) during E3 this year and gave viewers the scoop on the Sony PlayStation 3 and the challenges of its development environment. Carmack, somewhat of a legend in the gaming community, gave us really the very first FPS title Wolfenstein 3D in 1992, along with DOOM and the Quake franchise.  He was at the show this year to show off id Software's upcoming title Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.

During the interview Carmack discussed the issues with Sony’s development strategy concerning the PS3 comparing the symmetrical processing approach Microsoft took with the XBOX 360 to the asymmetric approach that Sony is using with the Cell processor developed in partnership with Toshiba and IBM.

Carmack concedes that the PS3 is a more powerful platform saying "the PS3 has more peak performance on there and that’s what Sony was looking for." However he believes that Sony made a mistake with the Cell architecture in the difficulty there is with programming for it as opposed to the 360.

To take full advantage of the Cell architecture developers must break their code in to "small nuggets" and use a different compiler for the SPEs making developing for the PS3 more difficult then it needs to be.

During the interview he speculated that the PS3 would do well because of its following and Sony’s dominance in the console market. However judging by the reaction to the PS3 in our previous article covering the console, as well as comments across the web sphere as a whole that is obviously still to be determined.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By somegeek on 5/13/2006 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 1
"Architectural cleverness is all well and good, but if AMD can't keep the clock speed up with intel, they will still fall behind."

- John Carmack, 1999




By ksherman on 5/13/2006 4:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
but they still have. true performance wise they pretty much took the cookie, as well as the cookie jar. But still, customer impression is a big factor. even both compannies have dumped the x.xxGHz from their product naming scheme, you dont see a computer description anywhere that leaves that information off. They see Intel/Pentium, they think sweetness. they see 3.0GHz versus 2.2Ghz, they say "3GHz... sweet" Now that will all change soon, as it seems Conroe/Core 2 Duo is coming back into the AMD speed range, it has still been a big part of the topic.

Was Carmack wrong? Yes, in some ways. But he was right about the MHz ratings being in the fore front of most consumers minds. Honestly, outside of places like these, away from people like us (you know, the ones that care) really understands anything beyond the one with the bigger number MUST be faster, the one with the bigger price tag MUST be better? its just the sad reality of life sometimes.

and I will now step off my soap box...


By saratoga on 5/13/2006 7:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Thats actually dead right in 1999. Had Intel ramped the P3 to 1GHz while AMD was stuck at 750MHz, we wouldn't be talking about the K8 today.

The modern AMD platform only surived because AMD managed to stay ahead of the P3 in clock speed long enough to get decient platforms (nforce) and 3rd parties on board (Ati, nvidia, gateway, etc).

Am I the only one that remembers having to buy Asus AMD boards in white boxes so that Asus could deny to Intel that they actually made an AMD based product?


RE: John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By Griswold on 5/14/2006 5:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well he was right. Or didnt the original Athlon XP fall behind the P4? Yes it did. Enter the Athlon 64 and voila, AMD was up to snuff again. Not really because of the clockspeeds, but still.


RE: John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By somegeek on 5/14/2006 8:57:49 AM , Rating: 1
"...Athlon XP fall behind the P4? Yes it did."

No, it didn't. In fact it was having trouble keeping up with the regular Athlons.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1524&p=1
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1543&p=1

The only reason the P4 ever beat an Athlon was because of the larger cache (Q3A) or SSE2 optimizations, not clock speed. Even when it was beaten, it was obvious the Athlon XP 1800 at 1.53 Ghz was a better CPU than a P4 at 2.0 Ghz.


RE: John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By Viditor on 5/14/2006 10:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, it didn't. In fact it was having trouble keeping up with the regular Athlons

It did actually...jump ahead a few months to Northwood, and the very troublesome Thoroughbred rev A, and the P4 wiped the floor with the Athlon. AMD caught up, but Northwood proved to be the pinnacle of the P4 design (it was all downhill from there...).


RE: John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By somegeek on 5/14/2006 12:01:09 PM , Rating: 1
"...P4 wiped the floor..."

No, it didn't, heres the Athlon XP 2000+ 1.67 Ghz vs P4 Northwood 2.0 and 2.2 Ghz.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1574&p=2

If you refering to the P4 2.4 vs an Athlon XP 2100+ then it's not a fair comparison, you'd have to compare it to the Athlon XP 2400+. Who has the fastest chip available is meaningless. It's who is giving the most performance per dollar that counts. Who would compare a P4EE to a Sempron?


RE: John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By Viditor on 5/14/2006 12:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, it didn't, heres the Athlon XP 2000+ 1.67 Ghz vs P4 Northwood 2.0 and 2.2 Ghz

I specifically mentioned the Thoroughbred Rev A for a reason though (your link is for the Palomino)...AMD's move to 130nm started out with a lot of pain and the XP was very limited in headroom at that time.


RE: John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By somegeek on 5/14/2006 2:45:36 PM , Rating: 1
How long did that last?


RE: John Carmack on the future of AMD (1999)
By Clauzii on 5/15/2006 10:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for reminding me why I still run a XP1800+ and a XP2400+ rig(at OC ~3000+) ... thanks :)


By Clauzii on 5/15/2006 10:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
edit: (at OC ~3000+) is recently tried out, just need a better cooler..


The PS2 was harder to program too.
By somegeek on 5/13/2006 4:36:27 PM , Rating: 1
When the PS2 was launched, people said it was hard to program. Even if it was, there were about 1200 PS2 games produced from 2000-2005 which is more than the XBox and GameCube games combined (xbox ~600, gc ~500). Also, the N64 and GameCube are both easier to program than the PS1 and PS2, but that didn't help them gain the necessary third party support they needed to beat Sony.




RE: The PS2 was harder to program too.
By outsider on 5/13/2006 4:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
If the PS3 strategy was that great, it would have been out by now. Delays show that its a more complex than neccessary architecture.
Very much alike is MS's situation with Vista. And just like Sony, MS hasn't lost any considerable market share. However, do you really think Sony can beat MS simply through its Public Relations and dev support, like MS has done with Linux and Apple? I think it stands no chance. And don't expect the turnover to happen in 2 years, but by 2015 we could see Sony where Nintendo is now.


RE: The PS2 was harder to program too.
By BenSkywalker on 5/13/2006 7:09:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And don't expect the turnover to happen in 2 years, but by 2015 we could see Sony where Nintendo is now.


Do you mean ahead of MS? Which way do you think they will be like Nin? On a global basis MS is very weak in the console market, it appears that you could rig up a calculator with some video out cables and it would sell nearly as well as the 360 has in Japan as an example :) MS does OK in the US market, Sony only outsells them by ~2 or 3 to 1, in Japan it is a much, much larger rift then that.


By Zelvek on 5/13/2006 8:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ah that was John Romero not Cramack, Carmack was working on Q2 at the time.


By Griswold on 5/14/2006 5:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
Japan? Japan is a prestige market for MS, no more.


RE: The PS2 was harder to program too.
By neba on 5/13/2006 5:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
outsider; the PS3 is partly delayed due to BlueRay specifications.


By Lonyo on 5/13/2006 6:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
You mean Daikatana, the game by John Romero?
Although it was based on the Q2 engine.


RE: The PS2 was harder to program too.
By outsider on 5/14/2006 10:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
The decision to use Blue Ray at all costs is not much smarter than the one for Cell. They both do more harm than good. After all, even if a game requres 15GB, put it on 2 Double Layer DVDs. The user will need to change the DVD only once at about half game. Not a big deal from my point of view. It'll just put the price down 50$ and make the purchase look less like an investment.
The japanese are as geeky as the americans are. While the americans will buy anything that costs less or is big, the japanese keep buying PS2s out of no logic. The most important market to tell how good a product really is remains Europe. They buy what they need.

I know, I'll get flamed for this post :)


By Clauzii on 5/15/2006 11:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
No U didn´t :)


Ummm
By shaw on 5/13/2006 1:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, Questar, John Carmack programs his games on consoles and PCs and is one of the most unbiased and well respected developers in the game industry. How does he not get it? I mean the man pretty much invented 3D gaming you stooge.