| MikeB said: Squilliam wrote: You're also in the "Xbox360 can't handle a MGS4 port club as well"?
If you followed the discussion you would know I stated MGS4 can be done on the 360, but with sacrifices and workarounds. Another thing, the Cell CPU is nothing on its own. Sure you can consider it a "platform advantage". So in saying that, consider the X86 architecture vs the PS3.
Agreed but he Cell is well implemented into the PS3 design, with high bandwidth between it and the RSX and low latency XDR Ram. Agree 100% If the Xenon and Xenos were better implemented into the 360 design there would have been more potential. Actually the Xenos is implemented brilliantly, sure it could do with more ED ram so they don't have to do tiling, but its brilliant. Xenon less so but thats made up for with the ease of development. If we swapped Xenos for RSX, you'd be jumping for joy at the implications. It was designed from the ground up to be a Console GPU so with its ED RAM and programable shaders it makes me smile just thinking about the possibilities. A truely exciting combination at that. Xenos+Cell and I would pick that (with apropriate changes given architectures of course) Lair for instance would have been smooth. It just makes sense, think about it... with developers already implementing the new SPE friendly code, they could have had more flexibility in tapping those extra GPU cycles if needed as well. Integer code - PC smacks the PS3 so hard it never gets up again. One punch knockout.
Wrong, for processing integer maths the Cell's integer performance is comparable to its FP performance. Actually correct. But in saying that, the Cell does the same to a Core2 Quad in terms of floating point performance as they have different design goals. Out of order execution - the X86-64 cpu breaks apart the code to execute in the most efficient way it can then it reassembles the code back into order. A laymans definition. The Cell PPU is only equivelent to about a 1.6ghz G5 and the Core2 is much better than the powerpc line - otherwise why would apple have gone all intel for instance? Intel is an Integer powerhouse because thats whats required to run general purpose software. You can't run an operating system on partial precision even with double precision you'd get more crashes than a spyware infested Windows Me machine. Ram? PC wins.
Yes in terms of spec and being able to upgrade it's for sure. But a Windows PC also demands more RAM for non gaming purposes. Vista sucks with low RAM, it drains a lot of resources (RAM as well as CPU cycles). A console can be more efficient and software will be better optimised for it. Combined with modern streaming methods, hundreds of megabytes of RAM is huge for a console, especially in combination with a harddrive. 256mb system ram! Less if you take operating system into account. A standard PC is expected to have 1gb of ram for running XP and a game, and since XP uses less than 200mb it still leaves 3/4 of a gigabyte on the typical low end gaming pc. 3 times what is available on the PS3. Don't forget also that all PCs have hard drives too and the software to cache on that harddrive is more mature than on the PS3 most likely. Crysis port - Wow thats a lot of nerve. Its one of the most ram/CPU/GPU intensive games out there and you call it an easy port? I call it your easy delusion.
Not easy, but the PS3 is capable. Let's wait what the Crytek guys come up with themelves. Far Cray 2 for the 360 and PS3 already looks promising. Crysis was never designed for the possibility of a Console port. If so it wouldn't have such rediculous requirements. Ram Ram Ram. Its a huge problem for a game designed to run properly on 2gb of ram. |
Your method of quoting is prettier than mine. 
Tease.
