| Phrancheyez said: You think I believe some idiot who says it can be done on 360 when his best comeback is 'just like Halo 3 could be done on PS3'....was that ever a question? Was there ever any grey area there? I dunno..maybe Halo 3 is too powerful for the PS3!....... Give me a break..this guy has no clue what he's talking about.. |
While I personally believe that the PS3 architecture has more headroom than the 360's, I don't believe the gap is that significant, overall. Due to the fact that the PS3 architecture is very different than the 360 architecture, it's very much like comparing apples to oranges.
The Amiga computer was very graphically powerful, in its day, compared to a PC or Mac of the same vintage, due to its use of custom hardware, but it couldn't do FPS games worth a darn. The underlying PC hardware allowed games like Wolfenstein 3D to be efficiently implemented, while the Amiga's very powerful, very advanced hardware was heavily tasked trying to do the same.
The PS3 has several SPEs to do some really fantastic DSP-type work, but only has one general-purpose core (although the SPEs CAN run general purpose code with a few caveats). The processor in the 360 is also made by IBM, but lacks the specialized processing engines (SPEs), while it does have 3 full-blown general purpose cores. I was really confused about what IBM tried to achieve with each processor until I read a fairly lengthly interview with the man who led both architecture groups. It's very telling and no doubt frustrating to anyone who wants desperately to believe that either processor is miles ahead of the other.
