Sharky54 said:
Um I am fairly certain you are wrong, because my old quad ciore PC couldnt even run UT2004 with full physics and everything. So I am fairly certain you have no clue what you are talking about. Nice try though. :] |
No, 1337 Gamer is correct. He is correct for the wrong reasons, but he is correct. A quad core + modern gpu would stomp all over the Cell processor and the same modern GPU. A Cell + modern GPU is reduntant. They will both compete for the same tasks. If you compare a Cell processor to a Core 2 Quad in terms of number crunching, the Cell processor will whip the Core 2 Quad. Compare the Cell to a modern GPU at number crunching, and the GPU will humiliate the Cell with over 5X the performance.
The reason the Cell + RSX is a good idea is because RSX uses old technology. Modern GPUs (including the one in the Xbox 360) can be used for GPGPU. So it's essentially a Cell processor with 7 cores VS a GPU with 800 tiny stream processors made to crunch numbers.
The Core 2 Quad also has a heck lot more cache, OOO Execution, advanced branch predictions, and many other goodies which would really benefit modern games.
The new Cell processor will most likely not be that much powerful than the current one. Why invest precious silicon into a high number crunching CPU when the GPU does it so much faster? In fact, think of Larrabbe as what the Cell was suppose to be. The Playstation 3 wasn't even suppose to have a GPU, just 1 or 2 cell processors that would render everything via software. However, the Cell wasn't anywhere near as powerful as Sony expected and they ran to Nvidia for a last minute GPU. Sony has a lot of time to decide their hardware, they won't make the same mistake again. Expect either a modest bump in the Cell and a good GPU or a different architecture. Monster cell + monster CPU is redundant and a monster CPU + weak GPU is stupid.
Good news Everyone!
I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!







