Sony erects massive PS3 server cluster for Warhawk mayhem

C'mon, we all knew PS3 clusters were good for more than academia, right? Thankfully for those who are itching to jump right into a worldwide dogfight when Warhawk lands, it looks like Sony has you covered. Granted, the game will allow for PS3 owners to host and play on their own matches, but the Ranked-Dedicated servers that you may also opt for shouldn't be lacking in terms of sheer power. Constructed by the SCEA IT team, this ginormous PS3 cluster will soon be used to connect Warhawk gamers everywhere, and while we're never told precisely how many PlayStation 3s were scrounged up in order to make this happen, feel free to click on through for another shot and start countin'.

[Judd @ Aug 11th 2007 4:39PM]

Looks like Sony just doubled their PS3 sales.

[Ignatius @ Aug 11th 2007 5:47PM]

Did anyone see the title for the love of god?

Sony has a massive PS3 erection! :O

[CB17 @ Aug 11th 2007 8:56PM]

I'd like to point out that this is the EXACT reason why developers are having problems with the PS3 and why the PS3's chip is NOT a gaming chip. Go to Tom's Hardware and look at the benchmarks for games running on a Quad Xeon vs. those running on a Core 2 Quad. The Cell processor is a SERVER chip. Make no mistake about it.

[jitty @ Aug 11th 2007 10:35PM]

So I guess PC's have server's chip too huh CB17? This game is designed so that you can use the ps3 as the server. You can even host a game on your ps3. PC's have done this a long time ago. It's probably cheaper and more effective than using some normal servers that use xenon or opteron processors.

[paloooz @ Aug 11th 2007 4:39PM]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of ... oh wait.

[stigmata @ Aug 11th 2007 10:29PM]

I for one, welcome our Soviet Russian beowulf cluster Warhawk PS3 Server Overlords.

[thegrey @ Aug 11th 2007 4:41PM]

hehehe eretcs

[cg006 @ Aug 11th 2007 4:44PM]

Since they cant move the systems, they might as well put all those extra consoles to do something until things pick up :)

[paloooz @ Aug 11th 2007 6:53PM]

Wow, I can't believe you went there. lol

[Foxbat @ Aug 11th 2007 4:42PM]

But, will it Fold?

[Zeus the God @ Aug 11th 2007 4:42PM]

Oh look the PS4 prototype- oh... Wait...

[Gabo @ Aug 11th 2007 4:44PM]

I haven't seen that many PS3s on a shelf since my last visit to Best Buy

[Zeus the God @ Aug 11th 2007 4:44PM]

75 PS3s if its just a one sided rack. 150 if its double sided.

[Karan @ Aug 11th 2007 5:56PM]

More if that's just one of the rooms/cabinets.

[DickHardknocks @ Aug 11th 2007 4:47PM]

Back when the original PS1 was released, I purchased the system SIMPLY to get at WARHAWK which wowed me when I saw the commercials for it.

I am thoroughly dissapointed that #1 There is no more Singletrac and #2 that Warhawk has been deemed a MULTIPLAYER ONLY GAME. With the technology available in the PS3, Warhawk shoulda blown everyone's socks off.

Now It just looks like a Battlefield 2 clone.

I feel bad because I bought PS2 hoping for a Warhawk sequel, and then bought PS3 hoping for a Warhawk sequel, only to be dissapointed yet again.

I', looking forward to MGS4 now and a Twisted Metal sequel.

[DickHardknocks @ Aug 11th 2007 4:49PM]

Why would SONY use CONSOLES to create a massive server?

Doesn't it make more sense to simply use Computers with PS3 compatibility? This thing looks silly.

[Richard Lai @ Aug 11th 2007 4:54PM]

You have to understand that PS3s are basically underpriced computers. It doesn't even look silly either.

[Zeus the God @ Aug 11th 2007 4:59PM]

Computers would be MUCH more powerful and much more reliable as far as dedicated servers go.

[Jordan @ Aug 11th 2007 5:05PM]

They are only underpriced to consumers, sony has to pay for all the parts. And yes, it looks stupid

[Mr. Yetti @ Aug 11th 2007 5:07PM]

I'm guessing they just wanted to off load a ton of the bloody things, and this seemed like a good idea. Not like anyone's gonna miss 'em.

[Karan @ Aug 11th 2007 5:57PM]

It is curious as to why they didn't use the dev kit units, but I guess those have debug/component overhead too.

[Azsori @ Aug 11th 2007 6:25PM]

Well they need Cells to run the Servers, x86 processors (current Intel and AMD) would be much to slow for the job. A cell blade is expensive, and they are making a ton of PS3's and can adopt them as servers cheaply. The console can be a powerful server at a real cheap price, seems like a good business move to me...

[Zeus the God @ Aug 11th 2007 6:29PM]

Sorry, but the Cell processor in the PS3 is nothing compared to a full fledged server processor. Cell processors in general are a waste.

[Phi Nguyen @ Aug 11th 2007 7:28PM]

quoted "Why would SONY use CONSOLES to create a massive server?"

Hey, they have to do something with those old 20 giggers.

[Aaron S @ Aug 11th 2007 9:56PM]

uhh... isn't that what he meant by underpriced? "underpriced" has no negative connotations other than saying that it costs less than it should...

[DickHardknocks @ Aug 11th 2007 5:17PM]

I have no idea what moron ranked you highly.
PS3 is not an underpriced computer. A Blu Ray drive for a PC alone can run upwards of $400. The parts PS3 contains are way more than a sub-$800 computer.

[SteveMB @ Aug 11th 2007 5:13PM]

I counted the other day and there was a total of 75 PS3's.

http://www.gearsofwarpc.com

[safaria @ Aug 11th 2007 5:14PM]

lol, a regular server would be so much more effecient. less power usage, an enormous ammount more ram and a faster hdd.

but i have to ask, why did they use the 60 giggers? they dont need that much hdd space for a server, and they dont need wifi, so i guess they just wanted it to look chromy. i thought that since they stopped selling the 20's, they could put them to good use.

[DickHardknocks @ Aug 11th 2007 5:18PM]

That's my point exactly. Seems like it makes more sense to use computers than consoles.

As for the Wifi, would it make sense to connect Servers via wifi? Seems like alot less wire running around.

[BestSnowman @ Aug 11th 2007 10:38PM]

No, wifi would not be better. Wired ethernet is much faster and more reliable. Lets just say I wouldn't want to play on those servers if they were using wifi.

[Karan @ Aug 11th 2007 5:58PM]

Wires are faster than WiFi, and with that many you'd be bound to have some channel collisions.

[Arthur Nonamiss @ Aug 12th 2007 12:12AM]

Not to mention that if you had 75 (or 150) WiFi connections in that close proximity, very little communication would take place. Radio interference and collisions would have a profound impact on the wireless performance.

[RedBull Runner @ Aug 12th 2007 7:21PM]

and wouldnt it be a fire hazard as well? all those collisions happening in mid air... sure to be some sparks flying.

[Jonathan Worrel @ Aug 11th 2007 5:15PM]

15 per rack x 6 racks = 96 PS3s on one side x 2 =

192 PS3s total judging by that picture

[Zeus the God @ Aug 11th 2007 5:30PM]

There are 5 racks that have PS3s That last rack doesn't have any. There are 15 per rack, that means there is 75 on one side. Times 2, and that is 150. You need to look closely...

1 side - 75 PS3s
2 sides - 150 PS3s

Thats also if thats the only set of racks.

[Adam @ Aug 11th 2007 5:32PM]

How did you come up with 96 or for that matter 192?

15 x 6 would be 90 x 2 would be 180... Can you explain your calculations to me?

[Foxbat @ Aug 11th 2007 5:44PM]

To me, it looks like the back half of the rack is missing a PS3 on the top shelf, and possibly also the middle shelf, for a total of 28 PS3s per cabinet.

[fischju @ Aug 11th 2007 5:20PM]

Finally, a use for all those extra PS3s!

[Revrant2394 @ Aug 11th 2007 6:35PM]

And...it's Gaming! Irony is a cruel mistress.

[andycc @ Aug 11th 2007 5:44PM]

They did it for the 5 free Blu-Ray movies you get with each console. Take that HD DVD!

[SteveMB @ Aug 11th 2007 6:22PM]

HD-DVD gives free movies away as well, at least Toshiba for that matter.

http://www.gearsofwarpc.com

[Karan @ Aug 11th 2007 5:54PM]

Damn, if I knew PS3s were rack mount i would've asked one of the infrastructure guys to slot a few in :) hmmm, looks like we need to make a trip to our friendly electronics store come Monday! :D

[zsyco @ Aug 11th 2007 6:10PM]

So, in reading the article it looks like the only benefit of this PS3 farm over XBL is that if you don't have good pings with anyone, you'll be able to hop on one of these and play?

Gotta give credit to Sony for keeping it free, but, I'm not impressed.

[FIR3BRDRACR @ Aug 11th 2007 6:14PM]

But can it play DOOM?

[Maestro @ Aug 11th 2007 6:18PM]

That must be one hot room.

[Eric M @ Aug 11th 2007 6:32PM]

How the **** do you rackmount a grill!?

[Joshua Duffy @ Aug 11th 2007 6:36PM]

I counted 75.

[Bee Hatch @ Aug 11th 2007 6:54PM]

I'd like to step out on a limb here and say this will probably be able to play Doom.

[encore @ Aug 11th 2007 7:08PM]

lol, each PS3 uses ~ 200 watts

150x200=30,000 watts an hour
30,000*24=720,000 watt hours per day
720 KW/h's 720*365=262800 per year

262800 * $.10 per KW hours=26280
lol
$26,280 per year to run that server cluster on the low end
if it was really getting hit hard:
$~52,000
$700 (cost to sony) * 150 ps3's= $105,000

[Jake @ Aug 12th 2007 3:04PM]

It's more than that, really. They have to get that 200 Watts/PS3 out of the room, too, so they'll need to cool it. Air Conditioning is maybe 50% efficient, so add 400 Watts/ device for cooling. That triples the total energy cost.

And for kids at home, if you leave your PS3 on 24/7 to running folding at home and you need to use air conditioning in your house, that puppy will run you about $900/year in electricity.

LOL. Someone needs to do the ironic thing & make a program that helps solve Global Warming and only runs on PS3s.