26-07-2005, 05:55 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
| Xbox 360 Addict
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 675
|
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Grindstone Dangit, I meant teraflops, not terabytes (maybe next generation console, eh?). And yes, that is why I said that the supposed 2.18 teraflops were not necessary. Thanks for your breakdown, although could you explain a little more on the loss of teraflops for the two systems. Seems like you need to make a thread about this. We'll stick it to PS3 on multiple levels: teraflops, bandwidth, HD drive, etc...
Information is power. | They counted the teraflops if the consol is running at 100%. The PS3’s system architecture will never allow for full 100% efficiency, it’ll only run at around 50 to 70 % tops. So that means that the teraflop count posted is over exaggerated. Like I said before and I’ll say it again, PS3 is all hype. Or just 99.9% |
|  |