Posted Mar 24, 2007 at 03:03AM by Victor B.
Listed in:
Opinions & Analysis
Tags:
Microsoft,
Folding@Home
Ó
|
While 99.999 percent of fanboy fights end up with everyone being a loser... this battle of the consoles would benefit everyone. Xbox users and PS3 users could compete to see who could complete more Work Units faster, determining which console is superior. And at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who wins, because it would allow for many, many more people to put what is a dormant computer when not in use into an Alzheimer's curing machine. And heck, since there are many times more Xboxes out there than there are PS3s, you'll start at an advantage and this thing could really take off. |
|
|
[Via Gizmodo]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
3 Jumps
Xbox 360 Portable, by Benheck
105 Comments
|
 |
by antbing - 2007-03-24 |
|
 
|
» Folding rocks
I am running Folding on my PS3 right now and have been (except for the time gaming) since the 1.6 update. It's a neat program and a great way to take advantage of the cell processor. Hats off to Sony for a job well done including this in the PS3 features.
I am running Folding on my PS3 right now and have been (except for the time gaming) since the 1.6 update. It's a neat program and a great way to take advantage of the cell processor. Hats off to Sony for a job well done including this in the PS3 features.
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» ahem
you are partially right then may eventually turn wrong. yes there are 11 millions xbox360's worldwide, but thats because of the 1 year head start, you should compare sales by its age, hence just see how many xbox360's were sold on its 4th month on market and compare it to ps3's sales now.
about folding@home, yes this program is like torrents, the MORE the BETTER. the research would highly benefit if 360 users can also do Work Units. the answer to your wish lies to folding@home team and MS to discuss a deal and port it to 360. i use my ps3 and then tried my pc but the my pc sucks at doing folding@home even though it is a core 2 duo e6600 1gb ddr2 and gf6600/256mb. the ps3 produces more Work Units multiple times than my winxp PC.
and to really broaden the range, they should port it every computer's with internet, like ps2's etc.
you are partially right then may eventually turn wrong. yes there are 11 millions xbox360's worldwide, but thats because of the 1 year head start, you should compare sales by its age, hence just see how many xbox360's were sold on its 4th month on market and compare it to ps3's sales now.
about folding@home, yes this program is like torrents, the MORE the BETTER. the research would highly benefit if 360 users can also do Work Units. the answer to your wish lies to folding@home team and MS to discuss a deal and port it to 360. i use my ps3 and then tried my pc but the my pc sucks at doing folding@home even though it is a core 2 duo e6600 1gb ddr2 and gf6600/256mb. the ps3 produces more Work Units multiple times than my winxp PC.
and to really broaden the range, they should port it every computer's with internet, like ps2's etc.
|
Re: bobs (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» poops
hook up ur ps2's and sega saturns.
it doesent matter what it is.it just saves lives all the same.
hook up ur ps2's and sega saturns.
it doesent matter what it is.it just saves lives all the same.
|
Re: mcsiadf (Unregistered) - 2007-03-27 |
|
|
» please hook up your pc as well
Guys, they are only sending certain types of work units to the PS3s and GPUs. They do them exponentially faster than a pc does, but they still need PCs to do the general purpose calcs. Please read the FAH forums if you are confused. Don't take the program off your PC just because it's not as fast as the PS3. It is every bit as important and does nothing to hinder your use of the PC. Everyone doing this on the PS3 should have their computer running folding as well..
If only that ass clown mr common sense would run folding@home on his computer, then he wouldn't bother us with ***** posts on QJ. :)
Guys, they are only sending certain types of work units to the PS3s and GPUs. They do them exponentially faster than a pc does, but they still need PCs to do the general purpose calcs. Please read the FAH forums if you are confused. Don't take the program off your PC just because it's not as fast as the PS3. It is every bit as important and does nothing to hinder your use of the PC. Everyone doing this on the PS3 should have their computer running folding as well..
If only that ass clown mr common sense would run folding@home on his computer, then he wouldn't bother us with ***** posts on QJ. :)
|
by PTSnake (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» great
actually, it's a great article. Bring'em on!
(i think this sould be implemented onto every console, and even come pre-installed on windows/linux)
actually, it's a great article. Bring'em on!
(i think this sould be implemented onto every console, and even come pre-installed on windows/linux)
|
by PTSnake (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» oh
...and please ignore the reply's below, as it will be something in the lines of:
"OMG, COPY! HAXX!"
"MS COPIED SONY"
"OH NOES"
...and crap like that.
...and please ignore the reply's below, as it will be something in the lines of:
"OMG, COPY! HAXX!"
"MS COPIED SONY"
"OH NOES"
...and crap like that.
|
Re: mike (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» omg
shut up, microsoft is always saying how much sony ripped off them like "online was a microsoft only" or "most fps on ps2 and halo ripoffs" well finally sony dose something good and microsoft is sucking on the remaines, devil may cry, blue ray, metal gear whats next, motion sencitivity, cell profecer, free online no not free online that would make to much sence!!!!
shut up, microsoft is always saying how much sony ripped off them like "online was a microsoft only" or "most fps on ps2 and halo ripoffs" well finally sony dose something good and microsoft is sucking on the remaines, devil may cry, blue ray, metal gear whats next, motion sencitivity, cell profecer, free online no not free online that would make to much sence!!!!
|
Re: asdf (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» OMG
OMG! MS IS COPYING SONY AGAIN. I BET THEIR GONNA COPY HOME TOO.
OMG! MS IS COPYING SONY AGAIN. I BET THEIR GONNA COPY HOME TOO.
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by Blade - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» The xbox360
Wouldn't be any different that running it on your home computer. The entire reason of going thru the trouble of porting it the PS3 is because of the PS3's computational power. The 360 doesn't have that. It would be a waste of time.
Wouldn't be any different that running it on your home computer. The entire reason of going thru the trouble of porting it the PS3 is because of the PS3's computational power. The 360 doesn't have that. It would be a waste of time.
|
Re: Vecha - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» what?
the only reason the ps3 is better then COMPUTERs...is because there is no OS running in the background...
the ps3 is a GAMING console...so it can supply all cpu to folding@home
It WOULD be the same on the 360 you stupid goddamn fanboy!
the only reason the ps3 is better then COMPUTERs...is because there is no OS running in the background...
the ps3 is a GAMING console...so it can supply all cpu to folding@home
It WOULD be the same on the 360 you stupid goddamn fanboy!
|
Re: Seoulfood (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» the 360
Still has a crapload of floating point capability. Maybe not quite as high, but it is still a significant amount.
Still has a crapload of floating point capability. Maybe not quite as high, but it is still a significant amount.
|
Re: Shatterdome - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» Yeah...
There is no denying that the PS3 will out perfom the 360, as this is exactlly what cell was designed for...
However the 360 still has ALOT more power and system bandwidth then a regular computer, so it definately would not do any harm....and it would be interesting to see what the results are.
I know I would run it, I am not worried about overheating...I played Oblivion for 12 hours straight and left it idle when I wasn't playing it....and gow gets 8-12 hr sessions sometimes, so whatever....it's mainly the GPU that gets hot anyways, and this wouldn't tax the GPU that much...
There is no denying that the PS3 will out perfom the 360, as this is exactlly what cell was designed for...
However the 360 still has ALOT more power and system bandwidth then a regular computer, so it definately would not do any harm....and it would be interesting to see what the results are.
I know I would run it, I am not worried about overheating...I played Oblivion for 12 hours straight and left it idle when I wasn't playing it....and gow gets 8-12 hr sessions sometimes, so whatever....it's mainly the GPU that gets hot anyways, and this wouldn't tax the GPU that much...
|
Re: Mdubz - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» Definitely
No kidding. I've left my 360 on overnight multiple times. And thats after 8-10 hour long sessions too. Hell, I turn my 360 on when I wake up and leave it on the whole day. Even when I'm not using it. ANDD, it's a launch 360 too. Never had to send it in for anything, ever.
No kidding. I've left my 360 on overnight multiple times. And thats after 8-10 hour long sessions too. Hell, I turn my 360 on when I wake up and leave it on the whole day. Even when I'm not using it. ANDD, it's a launch 360 too. Never had to send it in for anything, ever.
|
Re: UnnDunn (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» Wrong...
Xbox 360 has the computational power to absolutely smoke the PS3 at F@H. It's called the Xenos, the graphics processor.
F@H already has a client designed to run on ATI Radeon 1900 cards, using the GPU to do all the computation. It wouldn't be too hard to port that to the Xenos, I'd imagine. And the Xenos would EASILY be 2 to 3 times faster than the Cell.
Xbox 360 has the computational power to absolutely smoke the PS3 at F@H. It's called the Xenos, the graphics processor.
F@H already has a client designed to run on ATI Radeon 1900 cards, using the GPU to do all the computation. It wouldn't be too hard to port that to the Xenos, I'd imagine. And the Xenos would EASILY be 2 to 3 times faster than the Cell.
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» fyi
wrong info boy, folding@home with graphics taxes the gpu so much that my geforce 6600 256mb barely crawls just to show how the folding graphic works. but hey it can be optimized to use less gpu if the 360 cant handle it, much like a simple command line version for windows, the one with no GUI.
wrong info boy, folding@home with graphics taxes the gpu so much that my geforce 6600 256mb barely crawls just to show how the folding graphic works. but hey it can be optimized to use less gpu if the 360 cant handle it, much like a simple command line version for windows, the one with no GUI.
|
Re: wow (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» asdf
Wow, Sony copied every other gaming industry to make the ps3.
Wow, Sony copied every other gaming industry to make the ps3.
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» @wow
is blu-ray a copied technology?
i guess common sense is not rally that common anymore even in common technology!
is blu-ray a copied technology?
i guess common sense is not rally that common anymore even in common technology!
|
Re: Advertising - |
|
|
|
Re: Shatterdome - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» Actually Dunn Dunn is right...
If you check the F@H stats you will see that per unit, the ATI GPU's are outperforming the PS3 in TFLOPS.
I read the GPU FAQ to see what they use, and only ATI cards with 48 pixelshader pipes are able to be used....and guess what, Xenos does have 48 pixelshader pipes....so it is very possible that 360 COULD outperform PS3, now that I know that....
If you check the F@H stats you will see that per unit, the ATI GPU's are outperforming the PS3 in TFLOPS.
I read the GPU FAQ to see what they use, and only ATI cards with 48 pixelshader pipes are able to be used....and guess what, Xenos does have 48 pixelshader pipes....so it is very possible that 360 COULD outperform PS3, now that I know that....
|
Re: ACE (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» computational
computational IS NOT A WORD...QUIT MAKE 'N CRAP UP! YOU...*****
computational IS NOT A WORD...QUIT MAKE 'N CRAP UP! YOU...*****
|
Re: ACE Of Spaces (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» ^^^Er hem
"computational IS NOT A WORD..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/computational
;)
"computational IS NOT A WORD..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/computational
;)
|
by Kutibh (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» Yep
The PS3's cell is no match for the 360's processor. Even MS themselves admit that...l
The PS3's cell is no match for the 360's processor. Even MS themselves admit that...l
|
Re: Lethal (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» lmfao!
That is stupid! The plain jane 3core 3ghz cpu VS Cells 8core 3ghz cpu. YOur an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is stupid! The plain jane 3core 3ghz cpu VS Cells 8core 3ghz cpu. YOur an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Re: Pyro (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» .
No, lethal, you're an idiot. The cell is designed for this type of thing, large amount of number crunching for big servers. The raw amount of Tflops it can output doesn't necessarily make it better for gaming though because It's easy to make it just crunch numbers but verry hard to take advantage of when coding for games. At the moment the 360's processor is better for games but the ps3 has more raw power for things like this.
No, lethal, you're an idiot. The cell is designed for this type of thing, large amount of number crunching for big servers. The raw amount of Tflops it can output doesn't necessarily make it better for gaming though because It's easy to make it just crunch numbers but verry hard to take advantage of when coding for games. At the moment the 360's processor is better for games but the ps3 has more raw power for things like this.
|
Re: Seoulfood (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» wow
Just when I thought that THIS thread would possibily devoid of silly ass fanboys, you guys just had to step-up. Take your bickering to a different thread, you guys. Honestly.
Just when I thought that THIS thread would possibily devoid of silly ass fanboys, you guys just had to step-up. Take your bickering to a different thread, you guys. Honestly.
|
Re: MCC (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» ATI
It's not the CPU that matters, it's the GPU. Xenos is much, much more powerful than Cell for floating point ops, which is what F@H relies on. Folding on the 360 would be multiple times faster than folding on the PS3, which can't support GPU folding since it has an Nvidia chip. Get your facts straight.
It's not the CPU that matters, it's the GPU. Xenos is much, much more powerful than Cell for floating point ops, which is what F@H relies on. Folding on the 360 would be multiple times faster than folding on the PS3, which can't support GPU folding since it has an Nvidia chip. Get your facts straight.
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» still
yes the nvidia has less power for folding@home compared to ATI but that doesnt mean in cannot do it. the cell processor alone can out-compute the xbox 360 cpu and gpu combined because it is only 4 cores, 3 cpu and 1 gpu whereas the ps3 has 8 and a gpu for showing the demanding 3d graphics, yes folding@home gui version eats the GPU. believe me ive experiment and concluded.
yes the nvidia has less power for folding@home compared to ATI but that doesnt mean in cannot do it. the cell processor alone can out-compute the xbox 360 cpu and gpu combined because it is only 4 cores, 3 cpu and 1 gpu whereas the ps3 has 8 and a gpu for showing the demanding 3d graphics, yes folding@home gui version eats the GPU. believe me ive experiment and concluded.
|
Re: HM (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» Please
"...it is only 4 cores, 3 cpu and 1 gpu whereas the ps3 has 8 and a gpu... "
Don't try to get technical about things you claerly don't understand.
There's a lot of misinformation here, not just you but others, on both sides.
"...it is only 4 cores, 3 cpu and 1 gpu whereas the ps3 has 8 and a gpu... "
Don't try to get technical about things you claerly don't understand.
There's a lot of misinformation here, not just you but others, on both sides.
|
Re: Advertising - |
|
|
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» @HM
so i guess what you said is fully understood, by you! and mine is misinformation, even though i just got it from wikipedia.org and F@M official website, so i guess wikipedia and stanford university provides misinformed data.
so i guess what you said is fully understood, by you! and mine is misinformation, even though i just got it from wikipedia.org and F@M official website, so i guess wikipedia and stanford university provides misinformed data.
|
Re: Striker D (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» @Still
The PS3 + Xbox 360 CPU's both operate at 3ghz, the 360 is devided into three cores, so that's 1gh per core (simple, you see?) but the ps3 cpu is devided into 8 cores which is .375ghz per core. I have to say the xbox 360 is better for massive computations while the ps3 is good for many at once, though the size of the ps3 comps is clearly very limited compared to the 360's. Whether Folding@home needs big computations, or alot of computations is still to be seen.
The PS3 + Xbox 360 CPU's both operate at 3ghz, the 360 is devided into three cores, so that's 1gh per core (simple, you see?) but the ps3 cpu is devided into 8 cores which is .375ghz per core. I have to say the xbox 360 is better for massive computations while the ps3 is good for many at once, though the size of the ps3 comps is clearly very limited compared to the 360's. Whether Folding@home needs big computations, or alot of computations is still to be seen.
|
Re: Noobs. (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» You have got no idea what you're talking about..
No, no, no. The XBOX 360 has 3 cores, each of them at 3.0 GHz. This does not divide out into 1 GHz each, nor does it multiply to 9 gigahertz total. It means that it can run three processing threads at 3.0 GHz of its architecture's power each.
Meanwhile, the Cell has 7 cores (yes, only 7 in the PS3, one is disabled), each running at a similar frequency. Hopefully by know you know that clock frequency doesn't mean *****, and that a Cell clocked at a tiny fraction of a Xenon would still destroy it due to its architecture designed for floating point calculations.
The thing is that the 360 contains an R500 GPU, which is currently being folded on by PCs. This contains a massive number of shader processors, 64 in the X1900XTX, each designed for floating point calculations. This completely trounces the PS3.
So please, STOP talking about stuff you don't know about.
No, no, no. The XBOX 360 has 3 cores, each of them at 3.0 GHz. This does not divide out into 1 GHz each, nor does it multiply to 9 gigahertz total. It means that it can run three processing threads at 3.0 GHz of its architecture's power each.
Meanwhile, the Cell has 7 cores (yes, only 7 in the PS3, one is disabled), each running at a similar frequency. Hopefully by know you know that clock frequency doesn't mean *****, and that a Cell clocked at a tiny fraction of a Xenon would still destroy it due to its architecture designed for floating point calculations.
The thing is that the 360 contains an R500 GPU, which is currently being folded on by PCs. This contains a massive number of shader processors, 64 in the X1900XTX, each designed for floating point calculations. This completely trounces the PS3.
So please, STOP talking about stuff you don't know about.
|
Re: .... (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» xche78x
You're not serious, are you? Have you bothered to think about what the GPU is made of? They're completley architecturally different. ATI's R500 cards have dozens of shader processors running in parallel that are optimized for floating point calculations. Guess what? The 360 has an R500 in it.
So take the Tflops that are being turned in by GPU users and divide that by how many GPUs are contributing. Do the same to the PS3s, and you'll see that the GPUs are turning in many more TFlops per contributor.
You're not serious, are you? Have you bothered to think about what the GPU is made of? They're completley architecturally different. ATI's R500 cards have dozens of shader processors running in parallel that are optimized for floating point calculations. Guess what? The 360 has an R500 in it.
So take the Tflops that are being turned in by GPU users and divide that by how many GPUs are contributing. Do the same to the PS3s, and you'll see that the GPUs are turning in many more TFlops per contributor.
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» @Striker D
nice info man, what you said is not available anywhere, not on wikipedia, ibm sony or anywhere on the net. and heck both systems runs at 3.2 ghz and not 3ghz like you mentioned. xbox360 cpu has 3 cores all are double threaded for a total of 6 threads, ps2 cell has 1 ppe and 8 spe for a total of nine cores but 1 spe is locked out for non-sony developers (maybe its used by the OS hypervisor), the cell ppe can do 2 threads and the 7 spe's can do single threads for a total of 9 threads. and i personally thinks each thread runs at a full 3.2ghz clockspeed, meybe i'm wrong but hey, who knows? as for the article, bring em on MS, these xbox360 users are also eager to help with folding@home project, it really doesnt matter which console can calculate better what matters is humanity must achieve something on these experiments because a lot has been involved/spent already. no more alzhimer's anyone?
nice info man, what you said is not available anywhere, not on wikipedia, ibm sony or anywhere on the net. and heck both systems runs at 3.2 ghz and not 3ghz like you mentioned. xbox360 cpu has 3 cores all are double threaded for a total of 6 threads, ps2 cell has 1 ppe and 8 spe for a total of nine cores but 1 spe is locked out for non-sony developers (maybe its used by the OS hypervisor), the cell ppe can do 2 threads and the 7 spe's can do single threads for a total of 9 threads. and i personally thinks each thread runs at a full 3.2ghz clockspeed, meybe i'm wrong but hey, who knows? as for the article, bring em on MS, these xbox360 users are also eager to help with folding@home project, it really doesnt matter which console can calculate better what matters is humanity must achieve something on these experiments because a lot has been involved/spent already. no more alzhimer's anyone?
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» oops
there was a typo on my previous post above,
its supposed to be PS3 when the typo struct and ps2 was written, QJ dont have EDIT option i wonder why?
@.... why are you flagging the xbox 360 GPU, do you want F@H to use the ATI made 0.5ghz GPU on the 360 as the main processor for Folding@Home for xbox 360 instead of the well ventilated and specifically functional 3.2ghz tri-score (6 thread) power PC CPU named Xenon? on the ps3 F@H just uses the RSX for graphics interface but the cell does the work, not the GPU. what you are saying is possible but is it Practical? if it is then by all means, notify MS of your ideas.
there was a typo on my previous post above,
its supposed to be PS3 when the typo struct and ps2 was written, QJ dont have EDIT option i wonder why?
@.... why are you flagging the xbox 360 GPU, do you want F@H to use the ATI made 0.5ghz GPU on the 360 as the main processor for Folding@Home for xbox 360 instead of the well ventilated and specifically functional 3.2ghz tri-score (6 thread) power PC CPU named Xenon? on the ps3 F@H just uses the RSX for graphics interface but the cell does the work, not the GPU. what you are saying is possible but is it Practical? if it is then by all means, notify MS of your ideas.
|
by Lethal (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» lol
If the Xbox 360 had folding@home then every 360 would melt and die. Can you imagine having your 360 sit for hours running the cpu at 100% It would melt.
If the Xbox 360 had folding@home then every 360 would melt and die. Can you imagine having your 360 sit for hours running the cpu at 100% It would melt.
|
Re: spencer (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» no.
Its's an Intel chip.. it would throttle itself before it melted. Besides, the 360s are about to get a die shrink which will cut down on heat significantly.
Its's an Intel chip.. it would throttle itself before it melted. Besides, the 360s are about to get a die shrink which will cut down on heat significantly.
|
Re: expert01 (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» Moron
You're retarded, as are half the people in this thread. The 360 has a POWERPC processor. By IBM. Not an intel. And the r500 is putting out a lot more power in F@H than a normal processor, and that's with it showing it on the screen. Maybe some of your guys's computers suck and you have old graphics cards, that doesn't mean the GPU is worse for folding. And just because the PS3 can handle 9 threads at 3.2GHz and the 360 can only handle 6 threads doesn't mean the 360 is worse. The 360 and PS3 were designed to process in different ways. I think the 360 would be about the same, or in the same ballpark, as the PS3
You're retarded, as are half the people in this thread. The 360 has a POWERPC processor. By IBM. Not an intel. And the r500 is putting out a lot more power in F@H than a normal processor, and that's with it showing it on the screen. Maybe some of your guys's computers suck and you have old graphics cards, that doesn't mean the GPU is worse for folding. And just because the PS3 can handle 9 threads at 3.2GHz and the 360 can only handle 6 threads doesn't mean the 360 is worse. The 360 and PS3 were designed to process in different ways. I think the 360 would be about the same, or in the same ballpark, as the PS3
|
by Warrior (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» True
I have Folding@Home on my PS3 and it's very interesting. I can't wait to see the results in a years time. Now to the article, does the 360 have the power to fold proteins like the PS3? Maye but the process will surely take longer. The PS3 is the console of choice for this. Stanford University would have picked the 360 to do the folding because of the amount of units in the market but they didn't. That's probably enough said.
I have Folding@Home on my PS3 and it's very interesting. I can't wait to see the results in a years time. Now to the article, does the 360 have the power to fold proteins like the PS3? Maye but the process will surely take longer. The PS3 is the console of choice for this. Stanford University would have picked the 360 to do the folding because of the amount of units in the market but they didn't. That's probably enough said.
|
Re: xche78x - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» finally
a person with common sense, unlike someone who lurks around murmuring BS about sony. ya all know the most hated person MR.C.S. is his initials.
you warrior is a rare kind here, please register and join, so we can really call you buddy! ^_^
a person with common sense, unlike someone who lurks around murmuring BS about sony. ya all know the most hated person MR.C.S. is his initials.
you warrior is a rare kind here, please register and join, so we can really call you buddy! ^_^
|
Re: HM (Unregistered) - 2007-03-25 |
|
|
» No
"Stanford University would have picked the 360 to do the folding because of the amount of units in the market but they didn't. That's probably enough said."
There will be numerous reasons, and not just technical. Xenon offers about half the floating-point power of Cell, so it's certainly up to the task. Maybe they haven't approached MS, maybe they have but MS don't feel it's a suitable use for the 360. Who knows?
It would be interesting if it does make it to the 360 eventually, because we'll get a rough idea of how the two compare for floating-point power in a real world app.
"Stanford University would have picked the 360 to do the folding because of the amount of units in the market but they didn't. That's probably enough said."
There will be numerous reasons, and not just technical. Xenon offers about half the floating-point power of Cell, so it's certainly up to the task. Maybe they haven't approached MS, maybe they have but MS don't feel it's a suitable use for the 360. Who knows?
It would be interesting if it does make it to the 360 eventually, because we'll get a rough idea of how the two compare for floating-point power in a real world app.
|
by Dean (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» well
I am running fah on my ps3, at first, I was weary, but since the disk drive isn't running at that same time, Im ok with my ps3 running hot (my laser on my ps2 went out after 6 years) But if this comes out for the 360, there is no way that I am going to run that on mine. I am lucky and have had my 360 for about 9 months w/out a problem... besides freezing, and do not want it to go the way of my friend's xboxes
I am running fah on my ps3, at first, I was weary, but since the disk drive isn't running at that same time, Im ok with my ps3 running hot (my laser on my ps2 went out after 6 years) But if this comes out for the 360, there is no way that I am going to run that on mine. I am lucky and have had my 360 for about 9 months w/out a problem... besides freezing, and do not want it to go the way of my friend's xboxes
|
by lawl (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» I agree, saving lives is way more important than fanboyism.
Tell MS to hurry up.
Tell MS to hurry up.
|
by [BOT] Bob - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» It would be interesting
My PS3 completes a work unit in 8-9 hours, my friend's E6600 takes a day an four hours. So the CELL is about 3.4 times faster.
My PS3 completes a work unit in 8-9 hours, my friend's E6600 takes a day an four hours. So the CELL is about 3.4 times faster.
|
Re: dean (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» um
about 20-30x faster. the size of WU is different
about 20-30x faster. the size of WU is different
|
Re: Jasper1605 - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» don't compare it by time in days
Just look at the frames per second. that's the best way to compare things. my PS3 hasn't been slower than .07 seconds/slide whereas my computer runs at the blazing speeds of 35 seconds/slide lol. so my PS3 actually runs about 600X faster than a computer
Just look at the frames per second. that's the best way to compare things. my PS3 hasn't been slower than .07 seconds/slide whereas my computer runs at the blazing speeds of 35 seconds/slide lol. so my PS3 actually runs about 600X faster than a computer
|
by cell (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» cell
the cell is the way of the future.... 360 is the past
the cell is the way of the future.... 360 is the past
|
by Blade - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» Idiots
I wasn't trying to say the 360 is inferior to the PS3 or anything of that sort. My comment was only to state that running folding@home on the 360 would be inefficient and a waste of time. The 360's processor is no different than that which is found in your home computer. So using all that extra power and taking the time to make this happen would be of no point when it is just as simple as downloading the software on your computer that is already there to produce the same results.
I wasn't trying to say the 360 is inferior to the PS3 or anything of that sort. My comment was only to state that running folding@home on the 360 would be inefficient and a waste of time. The 360's processor is no different than that which is found in your home computer. So using all that extra power and taking the time to make this happen would be of no point when it is just as simple as downloading the software on your computer that is already there to produce the same results.
|
Re: ha (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|
» .....
what do you mean waste of time?. if xbox had this it can help significantly.. i mean think about it hardcore HaH helpers can run FaH in their pc and their xbox..
what do you mean waste of time?. if xbox had this it can help significantly.. i mean think about it hardcore HaH helpers can run FaH in their pc and their xbox..
|
by Raj Vachhani (Unregistered) - 2007-03-24 |
|
|