PS 3 chip faster than Intel or AMD
Comments
-
regardless of how you interpret the original comment, my whole point was it doesn't make any sense to even make the comparison in the first place. the processors are completely different architectures which means differences in clock speeds are useless information by themselves. more importantly, the architectures are SO different they can't even run with same code without recompiling.
the comparison is purely sensationalism at best. if the person reading it is someone smart enough to know that it doesn't mean squat, then its just useless information. but if the person isn't aware, then it is misleading and I was just trying to clear that up.
whether or not people make intelligent choices/comments about microprocessors might not mean anything to you, but it does to me (you could say i have a vested interest
). i'm sure you would defend Polk speakers from people making unclear comments that could put Polk in a bad light to those uneducated in audio matters. that's all i was trying to do here, not get into a pissing contest. i hope you can understand that. -
Originally posted by PhantomOG
whether or not people make intelligent choices/comments about microprocessors might not mean anything to you, but it does to me (you could say i have a vested interest ).
AHAAA! You're trying to discredit the competition. I remember the press release when AMD announced their 1GHz chip and beat Intel to the punch. They did it at midnight on, I forget what day, and by 12:05 the late night Intel geeks were making your same arguement you're making, and so on.
Regards,
PT
*Everything I've posted today about this has been in good fun, I'm sure we probably agree on everything computer related. -
i wasn't trying to discredit anyone. there are pros/cons to everything. call me weird but i personally just want people to make informed decisions and comments about computer related items. i'm not trying to say that one is better than the other, just hoping to prevent people from *assuming* that based on the irrelevant comparison. there are people who *assume* Bose is better than Polk just based on sticker price. i'm sure anyone here would be first in line to enlighten those people of their mistake.
-
Here's the last two paragraphs of the article that the link posts to:
"Regardless of what gaming platform youre talking about, Cells ability to offer an array of cores to handle sophisticated physics and AI processing is the future. AGEIAs announcement of the PhysX PPU (and the fact that its been given the thumbs up by Ubisoft and Epic Games) lends further credibility to Cells feasibility as a high performance gaming CPU.
The need for more realistic physics environments and AI in games is no illusion; the question is will Intels forthcoming dual and multi-core CPUs (with further optimized SIMD units) offer enough parallelism and performance for game developers, or will the PPU bring Cell-like architecture to the desktop PC well ahead of schedule? The answer to that question could very well shape the future of desktop PCs even more so than the advent of the GPU." -
the real question (also discussed in the article) is to what level software makers are willing to increase their development times in order to boost performance. in the past they have shown negligible interest at doing this and forced hardware to make all the gains. this will have to change in the future, but makes having multiple chip architectures a burden on the industry. at the same time, competition is what has driven improvements and we would not be where we are today without it.
it will be interesting to see how it all pans out in the end. -
Originally posted by PhantomOG
it will be interesting to see how it all pans out in the end.
Exactly. It may never even make it to the home market. -
-
Damn Sony and their stupid proprietory media formats.
They can go screw themselves if they hope to make the PSP and PS3 'need each other' like Nintendo did with GB and GC. -
Originally posted by Shizelbs
Damn Sony and their stupid proprietory media formats.
They can go screw themselves if they hope to make the PSP and PS3 'need each other' like Nintendo did with GB and GC.
I think I heard somebody on NPR call it vertical integration on Sony's part...
THe problem with your last claim is that they don't really need each other. I never needed a Gamecube to play gameboy advance
-
Need schmeed, you know what I meant. Alls I know is there were a lot of games that to get the whole experience out of them, you needed both.
Vertical integration? I'll integrate my foot with their ****. -
Wow, great thread.
I disagree with some of you about Nintendo. They were never dying and will continue to stay. The Game Boy is the best selling platform. The video game store I visit is doing very well in Nintendo sales. GC and GB.
One thing that will keep the game cube kicking is some of the killer exclusive titles. The Zelda and Metroid series being an example. And it's not a kiddie console. Take a look at the new Resident Evil game. GC exclusive.
I own all 3 consoles and I'll admit, the XBOX is my favorite, but all three are winners. I like XBOX the most because it has the kind of games I like. They appeal to different crowds and the Nintendo fans are very loyal.
Now about PS3. I won't believe anything until I see it in action. Sony hyped up the PS2 like mad. When people finally started playing, they realized a lot of it was BS. I was one of the 500 000 people who got a PS2 on the first day. Skipped school and lined up for hours in front of the store. It's a great machine but not as good as Sony claimed it would be.
Aaaaah, that's enough rambling for me. I'm gonna go play one of the greatest game ever right now......... "Super Metroid" on my Super Nintendo.
Maurice
