ssj12 said:
HappySqurriel said:
ssj12 said:
NJ5 said:
ssj12 said:
Which my response was clearly ignored because I shoved your assertion back at you with Epic's history of releasing Mac based versions of their games on PowerPC CPUs.
|
But what you said was "the 360 is basically a PC on the inside" which is false for many reasons which have been pointed out. Macs have nothing to do with the conversation...
Anyway, that horse has been beaten to death.
|
Mac is a PC. 360 = PC. 360 CPU = updated Mac CPU. UT = Mac and PC franchise. So Epic = experienced with PowerPC CPUs.
|
Well, you could argue that the Cell processor is just an updated Mac CPU ...
The truth is that developing for any console is quite a bit different than developing for the PC, and after 3 years of development you should be getting performance similar to what you will ever achieve; at this point in time, most of the improvement in graphics will come from artists being able to produce better looking models and textures with using less polygons and pixels.
|
here is the problem when saying the Cell is an upgraded PPC like the Xenon.
The Cell is designed to be a GPCPU, similar to what Intel is releasing at the end of 2009. Each SPE runs similar to a stream processor versus a symmetric core. The main PPE core is based on the PPC core but overall the rest of the chip is not.
The Xenon is just a PPC with three PPC cores. Its like comparing a Core 2 Duo and a Core 2 Quad. Whats the difference? Basically nothing but to more symmetric cores.
Epic having experience coding a PPC versus a GPCPU thanks to past Mac game development meaning they had a leg up with coding for it.
|
Your comparison stinks, a Core2Quad is a Core2Duo with twice the CPU cores, the CELL is the same processor as found in the 360 with 2 of its three cores removed and replaces with the SPE`s.
Its like a Core2solo with a bunch of DSP`s.
