| Scoobes said: Developer excuses or not, it doesn't take away from the fact that developers hated the architecture and that it was too dificult to develop for many devs or too time consuming to optimise properly. As Zarx pointed out, time taken for coding means a higher budget which makes it less favourable in a business sense too. It would be ridiculous for Sony to continually pump more R&D money into an effectively dead CPU that will simply result in numerous games that run poorly and disgruntle software developers, effectively damaging Sony-developer relations. The alternative is a more traditional multi-core/multi-threaded CPU that developers understand, are comfortable working with and will keep costs down for all parties. Furthermore, with companies like NVidia and AMD already pumping R&D money into GPGPU, from a business sense there are only a few logical choices at this point but Cell isn't one of them. |
I guess I wasn't clear. Cell isn't hard to program for, it never was. Design paradigms on the other hand, but that's an issue with any multi core processing (Including a quad/hex core i7). Design issues with the way they programmed shaders for Xenos and memory managed for the 360 was the problem. If they had designed for the RSX instead there would have been far less issues. And enhancing Cell would be fantastic for physics since you don't wanna hang up your GPU with them. Should Sony continue with Cell development? No, that's the rumoured APU specs are telling that the GPU in the APU unit will be for physics.
