NJ5 said:
There's really no surprise to be had there if you know about processor architectures. The fastest processors for folding are GPUs (they beat the PS3 by far), but they're hard to code for, and that peak performance can only be achieved in certain kinds of work units which are suited for GPU algorithms. Then you have the Cell, which gets you lower performance than a GPU, but at a broader range of tasks. That's because the Cell was designed as a hybrid architecture - it can perform general computing tasks, but its SPEs are optimized for parallel number crunching (though not as much as GPUs). At the other end of the spectrum, you have general purpose CPUs such as the 360's, which are easier to program with, and give you good performance on about every computable task. However, they won't achieve as high performance as a GPU or a Cell processor on certain tasks which involve lots of number crunching. Being (mostly) a software company, Microsoft went with ease of development over raw performance, and they supported it with a superior OS (having a smaller memory footprint), and great development tools. Being (mostly) a hardware company, Sony came up with a new architecture, which not only programmers have to learn from scratch but also is inherently more difficult to use than a generic CPU (being asymmetric). It's really the same route that they took with the PS2 - developers hated the architecture, but they had no chance but to stick with it since the console was so successful.
|
In general, any special purpose processor is less expensive, easier to develop for and more powerful in what it was designed to do. No one has really focused on producing a videogame specific CPU, but the same basic rules applies to creating a custom architecture for game development.
