Remember when Sony said the PS3 would render at 120 fps? Forget it, 240fps

[Groucho]

NJ5 said:

Groucho said:

NJ5 said:
I posted two links from authoritative sources which support my claims. You posted a sarcastic comment. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

You're statements qualify as "nit-picking" in my book, and I don't feel like wasting my time digging for backup, when I know I'm right, except for a few irrelevant circumstances?

 

How is posting a source which contradicts your claim nitpicking?

If you say SPUs are better at branching than the PPU, you need extraordinary proof for that, considering that the PPU has special hardware to improve branch prediction that the SPU doesn't have. Are you suggesting that the PPU's branch predictor is a contrarian indicator due to bad design?

Your statements qualify as "wrong" in my book.

 

NJ5,

Let me throw you a bone.

You are correct, in your nitpicking, in that a single SPU is, in some operations, slower than a single PPU thread (which is only 1.6 GHz, not 3.2 GHz).  I was thinking (sadly not the same as typing) in terms of.. multiple SPUs, but I can see that, from my wording, it is easily interpreted as though I was suggesting that one SPU was absolutely the supreme champion of the processing universe, when compared to the PPU.

I was oh so wrong.  

Good thing I have 6 SPUs to run general purpose code on, independantly of the PPU threads, eh?  I hope I have soothed your ravenous nitpicking for the day, because who knows what other insignifigant-to-the-discussion points you may be able to drudge up otherwise.