[geRV]

How can anyone say "this > that" when the damn things aren't even released yet. oOo:

If people are buying into that utter shite about the cell cpu being the be all end all of cpu's i suggest they go check the anandtech article which basically shows it for what it really is. As for the graphics chip in it, its nothing more than a speeded up 7800gtx. The xbox360 aint all its cracked up to be either.

The article was yanked from the site ut you can read it here

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.mar ... extgen.txt



[quote:a769c]Shimpi's article also made the bombshell claim that "the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox," and that the next-gen processor is nowhere near the power of, say, a modern Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 desktop processor. Shimpi even went so far as to say, "not a single developer we've spoken to thinks that [the multi-core design of the PS3 and Xenon CPUs] was the right decision." These are stunning claims, especially in light of the lofty CPU performance claims made by both Sony and Microsoft.
Was Microsoft's triple-core CPU gamble a bad move?


So what was Shimpi trying to say? That Sony and Microsoft made a huge mistake when they went with a multi-core CPU design for the PS3 and Xbox 360? That the processing power of each system would ultimately prove to be disappointing to gamers? And is the Xbox 360's CPU really only "twice that of the 733MHz in the first Xbox?" The article raised eyebrows across the 'net.

The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.

[/quote:a769c]



So there ya go, instead of developing a cpu their consoles would have been better designed going with a dual core pentium 4 or athlon64.