| rocketpig said: You do realize that IBM developed the Cell for servers, right? That is its primary purpose and that's why IBM is touting it as their new big thing in blade servers. |
Yeah, I do. What kind of servers though? You made it sound like this'd be rackmounted for Apache. The blades you're talking about are high FLOPs servers that just scream HPC. Finnancial stuff, who knows, maybe even MMOs. Not your standard server, that's for sure. But my bad, shouldn't have just jumped so quickly.Â
| rocketpig said: And while the Cell is powerful, that I admit, I think 360's three symmetrical cores and more powerful GPU is the right move for gaming. And from the reports I'm reading from most developers, they're saying the same thing. Sure, it can help in real-time effects, but at the cost of AI. So how is that a good solution for gaming? |
Yes, I think so. The little experience I have with game development, in the end AI and game logic takes very little of the processing power, certainly nothing like a third of it. So if you can offload most of what does take time to the SPEs, plus some of the knowledge you're going to base your AI on, that leaves you a "spare" PPE for that. Different games certainly will spend more or less time doing this and that.
So my only argument is that this may not be such bad tradeoffs either way. Meaning that neither the 360, nor the PS3, are significantly more powerful than the other, it just can't be measured like that. With different games, the mileage will vary. The common denominator, though, is certainly the worst option of all.
And in the end, performance means very little without commitment, as late generation games always show. I just can't see the tradeoffs made by either the 360 or the PS3 making the difference. Both winners and losers will win and lose regardless of power.
