[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"][QUOTE="Kevz0"] Yes. It could do it in 60 fps and 16x AA while looking better. That is, if it were on PC.juno84
you would need at least 4 quad intel i7's to pull that off, that was all cpu processing. something PC's lack since the birth of x86.
people have no idea how weak pc cpu's really are when it comes to games.
the cell can render graphics many times faster than the fastest intel cpu that's out today.
games look and behave very different when they only use the gpu and very little cpu.
its far less realistic, the ai, animation, physics, etc.
if you people only knew the truth about Desktop PC tech, you would never buy it again.
Well, it's a good thing the vast majority of the processing is done by a PC's GPU.... Cell is great at raw floating point calcs (which doesn't really mean much in the real world). However, even if you want to compare non real world performance, the cell can do ~230.4Gflops (single precision). Meanwhile, an ATI 6970 is doing 2.7Tflops. 11.7 times more floating point calcs per second. So yes, when you compare the floating point calcs of a vector processor to a standard processor like an i7 (with a 975 doing ~70Gflops), the cell seems impressive. When you compare it to modern technology also purposed specifically for graphics, not so much. This isn't to take anything away from the cell. It's great technology. You, however, are blowing smoke.the cell can also act as your standard cpu, why would there be a problem when ps3 is running that area just fine?
i think that both amd and intel are milking the desktop users, there is nothing special about their ancient tech.
for example, you can achive much more with the cell + gtx580 than a desktop cpu + gtx580 in both worlds.
Log in to comment