My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[sieanr]

Isn't this effectively putting the CPU's workload on the GPU? This is indeed a nifty trick, but it seems to be at the expense of putting extra work on the shoulders of the Xenos, and when the time comes that the GPU will be pushed to its limit just doing its ordinary duties (as will inevitably happen a few years down the road), the crutch will be pulled away, the technique will become useless/counterproductive, and you'll be facing the same bandwidth limitation. (Supposed bandwidth limitation? Either make your counterargument or concede the point please.)

I don't see whats hard to understand about this. Its an extra part of the hardware that can do one thing and one thing only. It doesn't put any extra strain on the GPU outside of using a part that would otherwise go unused.

In the OP MikeB refers to a well-known diagram of the 360's design which shows that its entire 512MB of RAM is connected to the GPU, and from there to the CPU, at 10.8 up/10.8 down. Is this not in fact the case? And if it is the case, is this not a significant disadvantage the 360's CPU faces, and in fact a greater bottleneck for the ENTIRE amount of memory than is true of HALF the amount of memory available to the RSX and Cell? It's therefore true that the 360's GPU will be able to utilize the entire amount of memory very quickly, but its CPU will not be able to utilize ANY of that memory at comparable speed.

I can post charts that slant and overstate numbers too.

EDIT; another funny pic that takes numbers out of context

Thats right, the Cell can write memory at 4gbs and read memory at a whopping 16mbs. Not a typo