Blue3 said:
This is console gaming, not computer. Games = graphics/physics/enviroments/animation/artificialIntelligence/gameplay. Cells capability is greater then Xenons. |
Fail, for thinking processing is somehowdifferent on PCs game consoles. Sorry, but the rules of processing are the same on any system. It's just the components and firmware that are the difference.
As for the Cell, you all bought a bill of goods from Sony, in that the Cell's power supposedly trumps everything else in the system. Real time graphics don't work that way. In things like CGI and folding@home, the Cell is great, but those don't have constant, and usually rapid, input from the user, that happens with real time. In real time the CPU is just one like in a chain. So the hype for the Cell is pretending that the strongest link in this chain is the most important.
So since a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, or this case the fastest bus, then every part has to be considered. So since every other part is comparable to the 360, then the system's power is comparable to the 360, no matter what the Cell can do on its own. It still depends on the rest of the system to process and store the Cell's calculations.
Now there are some things in real time that can bedone primarily by the processor, such as physics, shading, and lighting (even though the latter two can be done though the RSX's firmware, as a developer fallback). Yet those are just three parts of the big picture. Beyond those, the Cell is dependent on the power of the rest of the system, and that simply isn't far enough ahead of the 360 to make the PS3 the most powerful system, no matter how much it is hyped to be so.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs