fillet said:
The PS3 isn't 7 core at 3Ghz, it has 7 processing elements at 3Ghz, those processing elements aren't full processors, they don't have full cache and they are nowhere near comparible to a "core" on the Xbox 360 CPU. Theoretically the PS3 CPU is faster however, getting efficient use from 6 (1 thread is for the OS) threads is kinda...impossible. They don't even achieve efficient use of 4 cores on x86 based CPUs which have been targets for mainstream games development for the past 10 years. The Sega Saturn wasn't "dual core". It has 2 CPUs however. It wasn't more powerful because addressing 2 threads that were performaing the same task back in 1996-1997 in an efficient manner was nigh on unheard of. The extra CPUs on other games consoles were designed for specific tasks like audio. It wasn't actually more powerful anyway, the 3d hardware inside the Saturn was serverely lacking and which is why PS1 games looked better. Much like the days of when 3D cards came out for PCs. You could have say a 400Mhz Intel Pentium II with no 3d card and an old Intel 166MMX with a 3dfx card or powerVR and the one with the 3D card would look way better and run way smoother in games that can take advantage of OpenGL or Direct3D. The processing power of a console has nothing whatsoever to do with it's succsess and history hasn't shown any truth at all in what you are saying. The processing power is simply an incedental statistic, for example a console released later on in the generation will have a lower chance of being successful but a higher chance of being more powerful than other consoles in that generation - of course because over time hardware can be made more powerful due to process shrinking and reduction in price of components, it obviously is also less likely to be a sales success due to starting late. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have conveniently forgotten to mention the Sega Genesis Vs SNES. The SNES was more powerful than the Genesis and yet sold more by end of generation. |
Super Nintendo Entertainment System CPU 16-bit 65c816 Ricoh 5A22 3.58 MHz
Sega Megadrive Processor: Motorola 68000 16/32-bit processor @ 7.67 MHz (MC68HC000, CMOS version)
From just a pure 100% focused on the main cpu of the console! which was solely what my list includes the megadrive had a faster cpu, now to say that the snes didn't have a lot more gpu tricks up it's sleeve is the same as how the GC and Xbox don't mention all of their post processing affects which obviously can make a game look nicer. But from a CPU point, the megadrive was stronger, and sold less.
Edit - added a line to make where the new post was since you managed to write your post inside your quote of mine. also as for the specs being wrong, are you disputing the order of power in consoles that the ps3 has a more powerful cpu in terms of gflops of power? and are you saying that the wii with double the sales is anywhere near as powerful?
I know you are basing the playstation to saturn comparison on what people ended up doing with it, but if you look at some of the saturn games like the saturn versions of wipeout 2097 or tomb raider alongside their psone counterparts the machine was capable of a lot more... saying that it does appear a trend that more complex more powerful doesn't work out well as it's costly to get the most out of a system like was seen at the beginning of the ps3s life and the entirity of the saturns short rather sad life.
Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive
