MikeB on 29 December 2009
@ nordland
As for the Cell, I feel it is a wash. They could have made a system just as powerful using a simpler architecture
Which processor would you been thinking of?
The reason the Cell is harder to develop for is:
1) Reduction of manufacturing cost, chip size and power consumption. Thus non-essentials which do however simplify the need of expertise were removed. IMO this is mainly an issue for inefficient non-expert coders and 3rd developers who rely on their legacy game engines.
2) IMO having to deal with 8 processors will always be harder to code for than a dual or quad core system, just like it's harder to utilize thousands of colors in a game vs on a system which can only have 16 colors max, or single tasking system vs multi-tasking system, or a system supporting surround sound vs mono sound, etc. IMO developers which had enough foresight of where technology is moving towards will today not need to worry about obsolete gaming engines (IMO Crytek for example is a company with foresight)
The aim of the Cell was to make a processor with an insane amount of processing power at minimal costs. I think for the long run this approach will prove itself beneficial to the consumer.
