BlueFalcon said:
Ummm..no. The order of CPU performance for games is: Intel >> AMD >>>>>>>>> Everyone else. http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2012/test-intel-core-i7-3970x/5/ An 8-core FX8350 would destroy an 8-core IBM CPU in games without even trying. PC gamers pay $100 extra sometimes to step up from GTX670 to GTX680 or from 925mhz HD7970 to 1050mhz HD7970GE to just gain 8-10% more performance. In those situations, 10-20% difference between CPUs starts to matter. However, to if we look at AMD and Intel processors compared to everyone else, for all intents and purposes for gaming AMD is like a Ferrari 458 and Intel is Pagani Zonda/Veyron/Aventador. You go with PowerPC when you cannot afford to go AMD/Intel for a console, not the other way around. |
I agree with you... I just said the MS two choices BEST or CHEAPEST... and they choose AMD (the cheapest).
I think 1.6Ghz is low but in console you have dedicated cores to work... not like in PC when the OS uses the same cores than the games... you have no dedicade core to games... so the console can work better with low clock CPU and developers can split the tasks between cores without worrying about if the PC have 2, 4, 6 or 8 cores... in console they already know they can use 7 cores (if the NextBox have 8 with one dedicated to OS).
I think a 8-core CPU clocked at 2.4Ghz for consoles will be really strong.
For PC you have to user more high clock power than parallel tasks because most gamers have a 2-core processor.
It's all about the optimizations the consoles can give to developers.
