bonzobanana said:
I don't get the logic of that statement, the performance level of the cell is the bit you compare and clearly at end of life many games were making fantastic use of the cell processor including GTA V. No one is arguing the cell had a history of being hard to develop for but many developers in the later years mastered it. So why would a Switch with somewhere around a third of the cpu power of the PS3 be able to run anything the ps3 can in cpu terms? In the cpu test below the wii u would likely be sub 20 dancers and the Switch sub 25 or at the very best sub 30. The ps3 exceeds the cpu performance of wii u without even using the cell processors. It's dual thread main power pc chip at 3.2ghz is about 10,000 mips slightly ahead of the 9000 mips of the wii u. People seem to have forgotten the ps3 was an absolute beast in cpu terms.
|
In raw cpu numbers sure, but look at your bench here and think to yourself is there any PS3 game which ends up looking 3x nicer than the more graphical games on the X360 such as Halo 4? Then think to yourself why was that the case.
Sheer raw cpu power is one thing the PS3 did have going for it, but there was a great deal of other factors in play in that machine which had to be wrestled with, the 256mb of system memory is now just laughable when you think of that amount of CPU power feeding into what would now be considered a joke of memory.
Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive









