| Adinnieken said: The problem with this blog post is it doesn't acknowledge the differences we know of in the GPU. While it talks about the frequency the GPU is running at, it doesn't mention the potential benefits to the PS4 that the number of shaders could have. My big problem with this article is that unlike with the last generation, no one technically knowledgeable has looked at the specs and in technical terms, spelled out how each one will perform based on what we do know. What we have is people looking at specs and saying "This number is bigger, therefore this is better!". The Cell processor could smoke the Xenon processor in the PS3 and Xbox 360, yet the technical superiority of one over the other was made moot by differences elsewhere in the console. I don't know if it's because there is no one capable of providing the rundown like we saw last generation, or if it's simply a matter of not having enough data. I would much prefer though having a clear understanding of what the capabilities of each system as a whole operating unit are rather than what one has which bigger specs. This blog post does nothing to placate that, nor does it advance the discussion any further than it has already been. |
The Cell had power, but the rest of the console was one big joke. 512MB of memory and essentially only 256MB of it was allowed for the graphics. The 360 had more available graphics memory and in some multi platform games that showed to help it. The graphics chip and memory bottlenecked the cell. It's all about bottlenecks. I could put a couple titans into my system, but in the end my Athlon II x4 2.8ghz would bottleneck the graphics chips. I'd need to upgrade into a faster processor to see frame increases in some games. See why consoles have 8GB of memory now? They don't want to run into the terrible bottleneck. Even in 06 systems dedicated for gaming were getting 2-4GB of memory. So putting 512 in was flawed from the beginning. Especially when they planned a 7-8 year console cycle.
