Is there any Emulator, who can play comercial games of the PS3 on the Computer??
Printable View
Is there any Emulator, who can play comercial games of the PS3 on the Computer??
No... come back in 10-20 years.
- I see your new to emulation. Emulating a system, is not as easy as one might think. A good method of thinking is you need 100X the cpu. For example a SNES is 3.58 MHz and a 350 mhz was good enough for emulation. So a ps3 at 3.2 GHz would be 320 Ghz. Now things do change and can, emulation is getting smarter, but at the current time like RockmanForte said, not for awhile.Quote:
Is there any Emulator, who can play comercial games of the PS3 on the Computer??
The pcsx2 team had discussed about it before and they will not develop it at all until 10-20 years because due to not enough powerful computer so they are focus on ps2 emulator right now so save your search and wait for 10-20 years, ok ?:)
We do not need one we allready got SNES, NES, Sega Genesis, Game Boy, Game Boy Color , Atari and arcade Emulators I think this is more than enough Look at all those systems over tens or thousands of games it would take to life times to play them all even if you was cheating maybe even longer :)
Wow! There's not a good PS2 emulator and you're already asking for a PS3 one? :confused:
yes ther is a ps3 emulator. but it is only a beta version:excl::excl::excl::excl:
What are you saying? a PS3 emulator? haha that's funny ,it has a Cell Broadband Processor
Has a whopping 8 cores that run at 3.2GHZ each
6 are for games
1 for security
one is not used.
3 times more powerful than XBOX360
Can you imagine a PC that will emulate it well right now???
I'd hate to touch that thing without a heat sinc on.Quote:
Originally Posted by leon_belmont
coding has to improve before a good emulator can be created. Example, the cell processor contains 8 cells at 3.2Ghz each, allowing it to achieve a theoretical speed of about 256 GigaFlops in speed. now the best ive seen PC's get to is 6.0GHz with a quad core. a Pc cpu is less efficient, running at about 150 gigaflops. but emulators rarely ever optimize graphics cards. a single radeon 4870X2 runs at about 1.2 teraflops, same with the GTX295. they both operate at a transfer speed of +120GB/s compared to a cell processor's 75GB/s transfer speed. though the cell processors are nice, its a new breed of processing mainly developed by IBM.
Perhaps we don't need it, but it sure would be awesome. I just know it'll be a long time until we see one, let alone one with decent compatibility or one that plays at an acceptable frame rate. On the other hand, I remember a time on this very site when people discussed whether or not it was even possible to emulate the Nintendo 64. Myself, I'm more interested in what emulators will run ON the PS3. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cibomatto2002
Hi Jay!!! Long time no see!
What you say is very interesting about emulators on PS3. It is too bad that there is no way to hack a PS3 for this kind of work. There is a way to make in run Linux but it does not work well.
Yeah, it's been a while. I'm happy to find so many regulars still around. I see we have so new ones as well. I made a new site about emulation which got me thinking about this place.
Yes, it is too bad that no hack yet exists. I bet Sony is thrilled, but it's only a matter of time. Then the emulator ports will food in. Until then, I'll have to be content with emulation on my PS2 (which is fine really).
I just think that looking forward to emulating on the PS3 is more realistic than PS3 on any x86 platform. Besides we need to support the current consoles. A least a little anyway. :)
The Apple Mac Pro has 8 cores. So has the Intel V8. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by leon_belmont
The PC has more than enough power to emulate a PS3. I was thinking using CUDA, aka the (nVidia) GPU to perform all the calculations. I was looking at the PS3 specs, and they said the PS3 is capable of about 230 something or less Giga-flops with all 8 of its cores in use (This is in theory, its max power, keeping in mind that normally, no game uses more than 2 of its cores ANYWAY....)
My 8800GT 512MB is capable of about 500 Giga-flops alone, making it over twice as fast as a PS3. (A GTX 200 class is capable of over a Tera-Flop) And that's just the graphics card. If these devs were articulate and skilled enough to code efficiently then the PC would have no problems at all. (Not to undermine their skills, but lets face it, if these guys were getting paid to do this, then the dedication and hence programming would be right to the max in a heart beat)
If your gonna make an Emulator for PS3 now, you need to make the Emulator run as OS and you need a good and fast Software. A upper class gamer PC powerful enough to pass the PS3. it's just that wen your running it through an other OS is gets slowed down, and it the PC has to use lots of it's memory and CUP on an OS you don't even use.
If your planing to run it through windows, Linux etc. your gonna haft to wait for a while.
You're all still overlooking the fact that you're talking about emulation. Comparing specs of the host and emulating machine is a pointless exercise. Its far more to do with actual architecture, running a hardware function in software is a far more intensive and complicated task.
Again, build a PC that's capable of emulating a high end graphics card (without actually having a graphics card) and you're getting closer to a reasonable example.
If you think a multi-cored processor could run a high end PC game by emulating the functions of a graphics card, you would be wrong, which is precisely the reason its currently a no no for the PS3, its just too data intensive.
Bear in mind also that emulators cannot use proprietary functions due to copyright infringement, so they have to be reverse engineered then emulated in software using completely different methods than the host machine uses, its a massively complicated task.
For anyone that thinks its just because the programmers are lazy or crap, they obviously haven't actually tried to do it themselves.
For the record the OS has relatively nothing to do with the machines ability to emulate in terms of the resources it uses.
It's better to just go and buy the PS3 lol!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatTrucker
I'm not saying it's easy to make the emulator, or anything like that but saying that a PC's hardware isn't good enough isn't right becuz the ps3 is starting to get "old" and they don't update the hardware in it. PC hardware doesn't stop coming. it's all in the software now.
the PS3 run a doesn't run with a normal CPU, the CPU in the PS3 is almost the same as a GPU, and it's made to do mainly 1 thing: Graphic. Then if you try running something like that on a PC you'll need a GPU that's as powerful as the PS3, or you can run it with useing both CPU and GPU working together then you'll have the same speed and power as the PS3
and running the emulator through the OS DOES slow it down. There is a reason why programs runs faster on XP than they do at vista. that is becuz everything is controlled by the OS. so a slow and heavy OS makes it harder to run heavy programs. And when you use an emulator you basically just run an other virtual computer on your PC and the virtual computer is able to decode and proses ps2 data if it's a ps2 emulator
The PC is the what all the consoles are based on. the fore every console can be run on the PC system it's just a mater of how much effort you wanna put into it. work hard enough and you can basically run everything on the computer. consoles are just a cheep imitation of the PC made only for gaming, and of course that gives them the advantage they only need to focus on the gameing. but I'd say that in a 2-3 years no one uses the consoles they just use PCs for everything
Lol, people have been saying that for the last 15 years!. PC's won't replace consoles, quite the opposite is true if you look at the last couple of generations, everything is being geared towards multi-functionality and delivering full multi-media via one under the TV system. Now that big screen HD is here, its probably not too much of a stretch to see a time when the PC goes back to being the workhorse and consoles cover everything else. Demographically its a tiny number of people who actually want to have a machine that needs regular upgrades to stay current......I've been a PC gamer for years but you can't deny the logic, Consumers don't like it, developers don't like it, and retailers don't like it, with a console that has a life span of 5 to 10 years there's much more profit in software and peripherals than there is on the PC and money and accessibility always win the day.
You're completely overlooking the whole reverse engineered thing then?. As I said, like for like grunt isn't the main thing where emulation is concerned, its far more intensive for a PC to emulate what a PS3 does than it is to actually do what a PS3 does - they aren't the same thing...at all.
If someone simply adapted PS3 code to run on a PC CPU and GPU Sony would sue them straight off the planet.....you just can't do it that way.
Actually not..Quote:
Originally Posted by leon_belmont
3.2 GHz Cell Broadband Engine with 1 PPE & 7 SPEs
NOT 8 x 3.2ghz cpus!! Lol that would be insane.
My current laptop would kill a ps3 2 times over at least and it does not have 8cpu's :p
Well i would like to tell all people that in japan a computer technology is being built which is a million times faster than the normal computer.
emulation is not just hardware but also software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jale
[/QUOTE]yes lol u right ps2 emulator sucks only 1 of a thousand titles run on it.........Ps2 emulator is still in advancing state and is not compatible with games and sometimes is really really F**king Slow
The PS3 PPU is actually multithreaded, it needs to be seen as two CPUs. And the SPUs are actually more powerful than the CPU, thanks to their 128 registers. So talking about 8 CPUs is factually incorrect, but quite close to the reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by enanthate
There is no way your laptop's CPU is more powerful than a Cell. If PC games are better-looking nowadays than their PS3 counterparts, it's because PCs have more memory (the PS3 only has 256MB of RAM) so they are able to store more textures, more complex meshes, and more precomputed data, and because they have better GPUs with more memory (the PS3 only has 256MB of VRAM), allowing to render more textures, run more complex shaders, display more particles, in a higher resolution, with antialiasing etc. But for pure number crunching, the Cell outperforms any laptop CPU I know.
Now in terms of emulation, the Cell is a nightmare. The PPU is not a problem, OS X is the proof that an X86 CPU can run PowerPC binaries efficiently. But for a given SPU program, even if there is a way to do the same task on a PC, you can't simply do the task the PC way: you need to emulate code that was specifically written for the SPUs, taking advantage of the super-fast local memory and 128 vector registers.
See #24.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonym-boy
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamHocevar
I really do think my laptop is more powerfull than the ps3 :p
specs:
Intel? Core? i7-975 Processor Extreme Edition ( 8MB L3 Cache, 3.33GHz, 6.4GT/sec QPI )
Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M Graphics with 1GB DDR3 Video Memory
12GB Triple Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz - 3 X 4GB
3x 160GB Intel SATA2 Solid State Disk Drive - Raid-0
Sager notebooks :)
Ah I see you mean when working like in a collective/nr crunches like with folding at home. Im tired :P
You can't compare a PS3 hardware with laptop/PC or other hardware's specs.
The i7-975 provides 55.36 GFLOPS in double precision (intel.com figures), which means about twice as much (111 GFLOPS) in single precision (my personal estimation, I couldn't find any figures, but that's usually how it works).Quote:
Originally Posted by enanthate
Both the PS3's PPU and SPUs provide around 25.6 single precision GFLOPS. Ignoring the hypervisor SPU, this accounts for a theoretical max of 179 GFLOPS.
There is no denying your video card is far better than the PS3's, your laptop will multitask better, and will humiliate a PS3 trying to do double precision number crunching. But what most games do is single-precision computing, and as of now the PS3 is better at that.
Hi,
I just got a PS3 and it looks and works great. Too bad there are not real games yet which will pull me away from Halo3...
Using it basically as a blu ray player and dvd upscaler (which it does surprisingly well, better than my denon upscaling dvd player)
I am just wondering if anyone knows if the PS3 can read and play burned blu ray disc, ie. movies?
I know that basically no one has a blu ray burner but I can see in a year or two that they will be cheaper and more mainstream. Then I can see how pissed the movie heads will be when they figure out that blu ray isn't hack proof.
Thanks in advance
This is an emulation site, not an information portal for people that want to rip off commercial goods. The links in your sig also breach the forums AUP. Take it elsewhere please.Quote:
Originally Posted by soleda26
This Thread seams old but i think i can shed a little light. PowerMacs have the Same CPU Architecture as the PS3, PowerPC. Now there are some PowerMac G5 floating around on Ebay that have 3.0 ghz and quad CPUs.... not sure if it will work but its an Idea... hope this helps a bit
i think one of the big things missing in this is..who cares about the hardware!!!!! This system untill a few days ago hasnt even been partially cracked. thats 3 years of hundreds if not thousands of ppl trying. and they still dont have it fully opened up and the hard part is ahead..10-20 years is right...but we arnt talking for hardware to catch up. :)
So has nothing to do right? Then Why IBM used RISC Processor for their AS/400 OS instead of CISC? The only reason why Windows exist is because of CISC and Vice versa. Even thoug, like I said before, CISC architecture is not 100% exploded due to Windows philosophy, and yes Linux makes CISC faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by FatTrucker
Its still got no real impact on the systems ability to emulate or not. Are you saying that an equivalent system running linux will magically improve its number crunching abilities by the significant amounts needed for faithful emulation of current gen hardware?....of course it won't. Why muddy the waters and try to confuse people?. If you want to champion Linux, or any other kind of software environment then go right ahead but lets not make it out to be something its not eh?.Quote:
Originally Posted by PCGAMINGRULES
FatTrucker
I am shocked with your statements. First of all, absolutely, software affects the output of your hardware, there is a basic: garbage in, garbage out. That is why tools like AMD Fusion for gaming exists, (and just for the record it has nothing to do with software like Game Booster). AMD Fusion maximizes the good usage of every bit in your hardware by shutting down services, policies, and processes that adds no value (garbage) to the specific purpose of gaming. So if a simple tool can do that imagine what a whole different software can do. Even in windows you can see that difference in a 32-bit version vs. a 64 bit. What good could be to have 64 bit hardware if software is only using 32 to transfer data?
Also let me tell you that I trying to help people who has questions about how software and hardware works and how they interact each other without going too into detail and technical. They gotta do their own home work and decide what is best for them since there is a world of software and hardware that you can put togheter in several ways.
So who ever wanting to get the maximum out their system for emulations purposes, needs some understanding of using different combinations of software and hardware.
That is why some people go the overcloking-tweaking way (for maximum performance). Some people go with factory settings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCGAMINGRULES
Thats Great my Mac Can run that 2... Its called Grand Central Dispatch, Which AMD got the Source from Apple Because Apple made it an Open Source Project
I did not know that. It is a little bit hard for me to believe it but I will research on it since AMD Fusion for Gaming was designed primarily for Dragon Platform, meaning their hardware which still is ruled by Windows (mainly) but Mac (Thanks God for Mac) is based on Unix, pretty much like Linux. Thats is why a Mac is so powerful even compared to a higher system based on Windows. PS3 emulation would work smoother and stable on Mac than Windows.If a Mac would not come so loaded with software that you can get for free but is charged for your Mac, I will probably buy one expecting to have a cut on the price by the cut on the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravernomina
My Laptop
Core 2Duo T6600
4GB DDR3
400GB
NVIDIA GT230M with HDMI
E/Sata Port and FireWire
Price (New): $700 You see what I mean?
yes there is a emulator which can play ps3 games
Yes it would, but dont count on seeing a playable ps3 any time soon.Quote:
PS3 emulation would work smoother and stable on Mac than Windows
- You could try yellow dog.. and recompile the os yourself. It increases the os by at most 25% even better if you tweak it.Quote:
If a Mac would not come so loaded with software
