crumas2 said:
The 360's CPU is more powerful for general-purpose code execution (2 cores), while the PS3's CPU is more powerful when dealing with bit-blitter/DSP type operations (1 core, but 7 SPEs). The X360 has easier to utilize processors -- they aren't faster, not even for "general purpose" programming. They just don't have to jump through the hoops of streaming data and uploading jobs via masses of DMAs -- they can simply access memory and run the same code as a plain old CPU does. Having many objects on screen at once, each having it's own independent path, behavior, etc., is actually better handled via general purpose code, not DSP code. Assisting with incredible looking surfaces, graphical/lighting effects, etc., is where the Cell shines. |
I can't standby with this kind of misinformation. I just can't. The SPEs are really good at vector processing... not "bit blitting" or "DSP" code. ...and the XBox360 has three cores, not two. The 360 cores are not faster than the SPUs at general purpose processing -- they are easier to write code for, because they don't have to jump through the hoops of streaming data through and uploading jobs via masses of DMAs. Don't confuse "easier" with "faster". "Easier" u sually means the programmers have an easier time getting things running fast in short order. In the end, given development time, the SPUs are individually just as fast as the CPU cores on the 360 -- and there are more of them. ...and they are monstrously faster when it comes to vector math.
The Cell excels at everything in parallel -- everything, and especially vector math (extremely useful for animation, and some graphics operations). The SPUs can run general purpose code as fast as the PPU, and in parallel to boot. You just have to think in terms of data s treaming and parallelism to write your game to fit in 256K chunks while running in parallel. The only reason you even see bad ports on the Cell is due to the inability/unwillingness of programmers to rewrite their engine to work in that fashion.
Heck, even a lot of 360 games don't use all 3 cores for a signifigant portion of a single game frame -- again due to engine issues that can be resolved by better engine architectures. This is the reason EA's senior engineers decided that the PS3 should be their primary development platform -- engines developed on it are not only more easily down-ported to the 360, they are more efficient on the 360 as well, due to their parallel nature (because the 360 is a parallel architecture, albeit not so much as the PS3).
Honestly many games are GPU bound these days, and the 360 and PS3 GPUs are not much different. When it comes to the CPU, however, the PS3 definately has the edge -- but only given a decent development cycle. If you short the developer on time, or its a quick port from the 360 version, then the 360 is always gonna come out on top.
That being said, I honestly don't think LBP would be that hard to port to the 360, given that it obviously started out as a parallel engine -- but it would obviously require some changes. Then again, it all depends on the engine -- for all we know, MM has their own proprietary physics engine that *requires* the vector power of the SPUs.
