Interesting, but there's too much fudging back and forth to try to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. For one thing, the console has shared memory, which may be seen as a negative by PC owners used to the poor performance of integrated hardware accelerators. But in fact, dual-gated VRAM was a godsend on the early 80s micros. Graphics and program data coexist, and are immediately accessible to both the CPU and the display hardware. There can be no quicker path from rendering to the screen, when a system is designed from the ground up to use the same memory for all processors. Modern consoles, like that old Atari 800 I'm thinking of, are so designed. Also, the memory in the AMD card is DDR3 while the Pro's memory is GDDR5. I just don't see how these solutions are very comparable. And then there's the question of how does the PC version of a game compare to its console counterpart. They're two different programs.
"For science!" Yeah, well, I can see that, definitely. I guess in my day, I'd enjoy such an exercise at work too.
