efd753 said:I still dont get why flanker is still throwing out paper sheet numbers. What i was trygin to say was that thoses numbers were crunched in a calculators not real performance. Remeber the emotion engine? how great is was goona be? how is was the fastest cpu in the world? Remember when they said that it was the frisrt 128 bit processor and that 128 bit was 200x greater then 32 bit? remember all the propaganda. remember that the ps2 could do 70 million and the xbox 125 million polygons per seconds? now they not even near 20 million. See and if u shut ur mouth and think about what you sayign then u will realize that thoses numbers mean shit. Is all marketing. There was an atircle about the ps3 vs the xbox360 too see who got the best hardware. in a paragraph they qouted sony and microsoft marketing saying that the xbox360 can do "at least" 1 Gflop. Then sony came out and said the ps3 can 2 Gflop. Which one is better? how u compare the 2 when the xbox360 can do at least 1. That means that it can do 2 maybe 3 or 4. But the ps3 can only do 2. Flanker dude shut up and let the fukign consoles when they come out do the talking.
and if cant understand this niether i give up.
killians45 said:As of now, the architecture is VERY effecient (in instructional execution, that is not in the time it takes to program) and like stated by others, has an incredible future when the hardware is taken full advantage of. Also, as far as it taking a long time to program, most companies are employing more programmers on a single project, thus the increase in game prices. Now, onto how long it will take for the PC to catch up. You MUST understand the architecture of this system to fully appreciate it, that includes how the cache system works in conjunction with the GPU (amazing bit of engineering), environemental synthesis, thread handling, unified shading, etc. For a PC to do this, you are looking at MANY changes having to be made. A MBD to support this architecture, the machine level instructions able to support many different developers of graphics cards, think about the problems that will arise making not just one system with such a specialized MBD, but being able to make MANY various card manufacturers communicate. The new architecture and low level languages make this a daunting task. So, not only the technological level is causing a road block for this, but the many different types of developers and making the os stable enough to handle it. Not to mention, will the major public do a complete overhaul of not just a processor, but new everything that will not be as user friendly to swap parts for as its predecessor?
killians45 said:Now, onto how long it will take for the PC to catch up. You MUST understand the architecture of this system to fully appreciate it, that includes how the cache system works in conjunction with the GPU (amazing bit of engineering), environemental synthesis, thread handling, unified shading, etc. For a PC to do this, you are looking at MANY changes having to be made. A MBD to support this architecture, the machine level instructions able to support many different developers of graphics cards, think about the problems that will arise making not just one system with such a specialized MBD, but being able to make MANY various card manufacturers communicate. The new architecture and low level languages make this a daunting task. So, not only the technological level is causing a road block for this, but the many different types of developers and making the os stable enough to handle it. Not to mention, will the major public do a complete overhaul of not just a processor, but new everything that will not be as user friendly to swap parts for as its predecessor?
[/B]
Flanker said:Haha. Dude, I wasn't flaming everyone, lol. Only those idiots that were just too **** close-minded and were like, "OMGz, PC is UNTOUCHABLE, WDFpwnzor are you talking about doode?!"