Profcrab said:
I've always said that IBM came out much better on the Cell deal than Sony did. IBM got a great server processor out of it and Sony got a great server processor out of it . . . that can, in a far less effective role, run games. One of these companies makes servers and the other one makes game systems. When you compare relative cost benefit between two types of products, servers and game consoles, it's pretty funny that the PS3 is a much more cost effective server than a game system. As a game system it is just competitive with the 360. As a server it can, seemingly, be very effective. I give this thread a 9.1. |
You do realize that server processors are better then desktop processors right? They can be way more effective for gaming then a normal processor.