Comment Re:Nintendo is Amazing (impressive at least) (Score 1) 260
Uh..the PS3 consumes more power when idle than active? Is there an explanation for that somewhere?
If we're talking efficiency, it's better to talk about something like FLOPS/Watt. The Wii certainly uses less power, but how efficiently is it using that power to deliver compute performance?
The Wii supposedly has 2.9 GFLOPS of processing, the 360 has 115, and the PS3 has 218. With that in mind, the processing efficiency of each is:
Wii - 0.18 GFLOP / Watt
360 - 0.97 GFLOP / Watt
PS3 - 1.45 GFLOP / Watt
(from http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37621/128/, May 2008)
That would mean that the PS3 has the best compute bang for your energy buck. (8x the Wii's GFLOP/Watt)
The Wii really isn't in the same compute class as the other two, which doesn't mean it can't be a lot of fun, but the SNES and PS1 were a lot of fun too. I don't think anyone should be lauding Nintendo for their efficiency here when most of it is due to their tiny CPU.
If we're talking efficiency, it's better to talk about something like FLOPS/Watt. The Wii certainly uses less power, but how efficiently is it using that power to deliver compute performance?
The Wii supposedly has 2.9 GFLOPS of processing, the 360 has 115, and the PS3 has 218. With that in mind, the processing efficiency of each is:
Wii - 0.18 GFLOP / Watt
360 - 0.97 GFLOP / Watt
PS3 - 1.45 GFLOP / Watt
(from http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37621/128/, May 2008)
That would mean that the PS3 has the best compute bang for your energy buck. (8x the Wii's GFLOP/Watt)
The Wii really isn't in the same compute class as the other two, which doesn't mean it can't be a lot of fun, but the SNES and PS1 were a lot of fun too. I don't think anyone should be lauding Nintendo for their efficiency here when most of it is due to their tiny CPU.
