Do not mention the speed of X360/PS3 processors as a measure of their performance, please. Also, never multiply the core speed with the number of cores. Those processors are very different in terms of architecture compared to desktop processors. The Cell processor in the PS3 runs at 3.2Ghz, has one main core which is IBM PowerPC based, and has 7 individual SPE's (Cores) which are in-order, hence instructions have to be fed to it in a sequence, not randomly. The Cell is a great CPU for certain tasks, ie pure number crunching, hence its used in some IBM blade servers, so in workloads where relatively simple processes can be assigned to the 7 individual SPE's (cores) it is very fast, but ideally that never happens in games, and will
never happen. During random workloads (ie games), the efficiency drops to <50% and to put it simply, its much slower than a Core2 Quad regardless of its Ghz and cores
The X360 processor (Xenon) is basically 3 PowerPC derived cores running at 3.2ghz with SMT (Hyperthreading). PowerPC is, again, much slower compared to, say, a Core2 Quad processor for gaming(look around the web, i cant bother typing another paragraph), even though you have 3 cores with HT running at 3.2ghz with the Xenon.
Games perform well even in the relatively poor hardware compared to the PC is simply because the game developers only have to make sure the game runs fine on one or two types of consoles. Not the 1000's of CPU and GPU's in the PC. Hence, they can devote their time to optimising their games for the consoles for a long time..
Edit: wanted to add that, while the games perform well on consoles relative to the hardware they have, keep in mind that the PC allows for much higher resolutions, while the X360/PS3 are limited to 1920x1080 the PC's can easily push 2560x1600, or 7680x4800 with 3x Eyefinity
About DX10 to DX11, its a giant leap. There are many, many new effects and visuals introduced in DX11. Current DX11 games dont show it simply because less than 15% of the DX11 features are being utilised now. However, compared to the transition from DX9 to DX10, DX10 to DX11 will be much, much faster. DX9>DX10 took many months to start after DX10 GPU's got released, but DX10>DX11 already started. Games utilising much more DX11 features should be out by the end of
this year, not 2012 or Windows 8 and all that misinformation posted in this thread
Edit: Also, DX10 itself is not buggy. It maybe caused bugs due to a mistake in coding by the developers when writing the game in the DX10 codepath. Its not the fault of the API itself
As for the opening poster, get a 4890 simply due to the much higher performance and similar price. Otherwise, get a 5770 over a 4870 any day
Re: Suggestion needed:4890 vapor-x or 5770
Originally Posted by Mazhar
Do not mention the speed of X360/PS3 processors as a measure of their performance, please. Also, never multiply the core speed with the number of cores. Those processors are very different in terms of architecture compared to desktop processors. The Cell processor in the PS3 runs at 3.2Ghz, has one main core which is IBM PowerPC based, and has 7 individual SPE's (Cores) which are in-order, hence instructions have to be fed to it in a sequence, not randomly. The Cell is a great CPU for certain tasks, ie pure number crunching, hence its used in some IBM blade servers, so in workloads where relatively simple processes can be assigned to the 7 individual SPE's (cores) it is very fast, but ideally that never happens in games, and will never happen. During random workloads (ie games), the efficiency drops to <50% and to put it simply, its much slower than a Core2 Quad regardless of its Ghz and coresami to joke korsilam... but XBOX 360 FTW for Halo series and GOW2... and also add upcoming Alan Wake.
