Right, but wouldn't you run into portability issues with this in multiplatform games anyway?
I realize that the multi-core system is in place partially to compensate for this issue, but either way, it's not as though you're getting 3 processors 3 times as "powerful" as the Rev processor out of this. Sure, overall, it may be up to twice as "powerful," but I doubt it'll be more than that.
Is it just me, or are they completely ignoring that the Gamecube had a PPC chip, and Xbox had an x86 chip?
On paper clock speed doesn't put the Revolution between the Gamecube and Xbox. It easily puts it above.
Also, if I recall correctly, the 360 and PS3's processors need to be passed data sequentially, and because of that it makes it much harder to avoid bottlenecks and lag in code, whereas the Revolution's does not.
It could just be me, but looking at stats on paper mean nothing when you're comapring different architectures and chipsets.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but wouldn't you run into portability issues with this in multiplatform games anyway?
I realize that the multi-core system is in place partially to compensate for this issue, but either way, it's not as though you're getting 3 processors 3 times as "powerful" as the Rev processor out of this. Sure, overall, it may be up to twice as "powerful," but I doubt it'll be more than that.
Is it just me, or are they completely ignoring that the Gamecube had a PPC chip, and Xbox had an x86 chip?
On paper clock speed doesn't put the Revolution between the Gamecube and Xbox. It easily puts it above.
Also, if I recall correctly, the 360 and PS3's processors need to be passed data sequentially, and because of that it makes it much harder to avoid bottlenecks and lag in code, whereas the Revolution's does not.
It could just be me, but looking at stats on paper mean nothing when you're comapring different architectures and chipsets.