BasedCereal :
gamerk316 :
PS3 is going to be FAR harder to do then the 360 is.
Could you please elaborate on this? Why is the Xbox 360 easier to emulate?
More PC-like architecture, in that there isn't anything exotic you need to emulate entirely in software. I'd still wager we'll need at least a decade to emulate it though. [And another one to do it well].
The PS3's PPE/8 SPE architecture is going to be near impossible to handle; understand EVERY SINGLE CPU INSTRUCTION has to be handled in the exact order, the local cache kept coherent, the CPU cache and main RAM updated properly, etc. This requires a LOT of software voodoo, and the more cores your PC has, the harder it gets to emulate in software [hence why most emulators use a single thread to handle emulating the main CPU; its impossible to keep the system state coherent if you start using more threads].
Frankly, its going to be so bloody difficult, I doubt we'll ever see a PS3 emulator. I honestly don't think we'll have that much CPU power in my entire lifetime.
I highly recommend reading this: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-one-mans-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator/
Highlights the issues with emulation accuracy.
Also worth noting: The PS2 main CPU runs at
300 MHz [later models]. Running entirely in software through an interpreter, my 2600k gets 1-3 FPS in PCSX2. Even using the recompiler, there's a number of titles that fall into the 40's. Nevermind the recompiler is FAR less accurate, but is "good enough" for most titles, though I have a handful I have to switch to the interpreter to get past certain points. See the above thread for reference on accuracy.
So if we have issues emulating a 300MHz CPU, how are we going to handle the Cell PPE and 8 SPE's running at 3.2 GHz?