MikeB said: When did I mention the processors splitting memory? And when did I claim that was only with the PS3? I only mentioned the frame buffer, which is not a processor, but a chunk of the RAM. Actually the PS3 approach potentially allows for more data to be pushed from main memory towards the GPU as both memory types within the PS3 are seperate. How can it have its own approach, if it has to split its memory "as well"? I'm not putting words. That would making stuff up. Those of us on that thread know what you stated. If you feel the need, you are free to quote me and link to the original thread for context. If you can't be bothered to recall an argument you made, that means you don't really think through your arguments, since they |
And that thread is not really relevant to this now anway. The point is that the PS3 and 360 don't have large frame buffers, and processors can't magically change that. So they have to have lower resolutions than PC games to fit all the textures, polygons, mapping, shading, and effects of their PC counterparts. Both have just a little over 512MB. The 360 has the EDRAM, and the PS3 can utilize the Cell for greater bandwidth, but at the very best that ups the potential RAM to 640MB.
So both systems have to limit their memory, and the best way it to limit the resolution. That is my point.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs








