NJ5 said:
kaneada said:
NJ5 said:
Only in MikeB's world would the PS3 be on par with a console with a Shader 5 GPU and 1 GB of RAM.
|
Well I must be in MikeB's world (who is that anyway?) becuase the Cell will still have it beat on physics despite its limitations. If the physics are good then the animation possible on the system will be better. Don't see that happen with a six core whatever (unless someone is implying the Cell is going to be in the nextbox.) You can have as detailed models graphically as you want, but realistically if your high polygon models with shader whatever support don't move in a lifelike manner then your graphics are crap. If M$ really is releasing a new console then they would do well to make sure their new CPU can handle better physics rather than higher res textures and lighthing.
M$ is a little scared if they are releasing a new console this soon, but based on the specs I would compare it to the Sega 32X. It most likely won't do as well, but of course I think the specs listed are fake.
|
Most games use the GPU to its max but not the CPU. That's why 360 and PS3 games look quite similar, their GPUs are almost equally powered. That's also why the best upgrade you can do to a gaming PC is upgrading its GPU, upgrading the CPU will yield almost no benefit for most games.
Modern CPUs including the Cell, the Xenon and Intel CPUs have more than enough power to calculate the physics of as many objects as a GPU can handle.
What's more, a fast GPU can also be used to accelerate physics processing without hogging the GPU too much. Ever heard of PhysX?
Having said all that... do you have any practical example of a game with "crap physics" due to an underpowered CPU when the GPU is quite powerful?
|
In my old machine the cpu was the bottleneck in Medieval total war 2.
