Adinnieken said:
Pjams said:
Two cells no GPU was the plan. It was too far ahead of its time like much of what comes out of Sony R &D. It would have gone two ways if they stuck with that architecture: complete failure or it would have forced MS to already have introduced a new console.
The cell that is in the PS3 is old and outdated, the current versions are much more powerful and efficient (obviously). |
Yes, that's it. Too far ahead of its time.
The reason why Sony didn't go with two Cell processors was the exorbitant cost. The machine with one Cell was expensive enough, had it included two you'd likely have been looking at the $800-$900 price range for a PS3.
|
The two cells no GPU approach is philosophically parallel with what John Carmack has recently preached and what AMD is developing, in that respect too far ahead of its time.
Yes, cost was the reason, that was never a mystery. (and because of cost, publishers threatened to not develope for the console, which was what ultimately created the compromise)
