Well, it seems everyone is dancing around the real answer and giving you half of an answer. So, the Reverend will provide you with the whole truth. In short, the EE will kick any Pentium\'s ass when it comes to 3D graphics. Why? Well, the EE was built from the ground up to process massive 3D graphics. However, when it comes to running business applications, the Pentium\'s kick the EE\'s ass. The truth is that the EE is like a fish out of water when processing business apps and the PIII is like a fish out of water when it comes to 3D graphics. Can the EE run business apps? Sure, but it will do no better than a x486 processor (to you younguns, that\'s before the Pentium I ). Can the PIII run 3D graphics? Sure, but not better than the EE.
The Emotion Engine is an awesome chip and it\'s power has yet to be fully tapped. However, one cannot assume that just because the Xbox uses a Pentium III that it won\'t be as powerful or much more powerful than the PS2. The fact is that the PIII isn\'t the "star" of the Xbox. The NV2A is. That\'s where the bulk of Xbox\'s massive specs are coming from. This is no mere Graphics Accelerator like the PS2\'s GS, this is a full blown Graphics Procesing Unit (GPU). This puppy does it\'s own job and it does it better than anything else. So, I don\'t know whether the guy that started this topic wanted to compare the PIII to the EE directly or compare the Xbox to the PS2 by means of the PIII and EE. For the former, the EE wins hands down, but for the latter a comparison is useless since the PIII won\'t be the work-horse of the Xbox like the EE is for the PS2. If you wanna compare chips, let\'s have some fun with the EE vs. the NV2A. Then we\'ll have a firm grip on the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms.
As far as developers getting the hang of the EE, it\'s not like having a sophisticated weapon and not reading the manual...it\'s like having a sophisticated weapon and no manual at all. Two different beasts, my friends. You see, I\'m a firm believer that two 32-bit chips are more powerful than one. Won\'t you agree? Well, that was the case with the Sega Saturn. You see, the power was there, but it\'s just that no one knew how to use it. The trick was not getting the full power of the processors, the problem was getting those dual Hitachi SH-2\'s to work in parallel. That was a bitch for developers. If the developers had given it time, the Saturn would have exceeded the PSX in graphics. It had more power and it had more RAM, so of course it should have. However, this is the key point, with the PSX easier to develop for and it\'s CPU and Geometry Engine easily accessible, they went the path of least resistance. The question I\'m raising is a legitimate one: Will developers want to struggle to untap PS2\'s potential once they have two more powerful and easier systems to work on? In light of the shipping difficulties and the meager software sales, will developers devote their time and money in something that\'s not such a sure thing anymore?
The PS2\'s potential is awesome. So was the Saturn\'s. I\'m not comparing both systems, but it\'s really unnatural for developers to be busting their butts and wallets on harder, less powerful hardware. It just doesn\'t make sense to me. Maybe Kojima-san and Naughty Dog will surprise and impress me, maybe they\'ll be some break-throughs in the future. Maybe. I fell in love the EE when I first saw it, but then I realized that what seemed like a huge step forward was really a jump backwards. I\'m coming from a RISC background and the EE is a representative of the RISC processor. However it defies the RISC philosophy! It\'s supposed to be small and fast, with a simple instruction-set. However, that was sacrificed for more power. I expected this kind of thing from Intel or AMD, not Sony. Enough of my bitchin\', I hope developers won\'t get discouraged when GC and Xbox come around.
