come on bro....these flamebaits are meaningless to me, notice I had not that much to say, I been though this already pre-PS3 release.

All my consoles have Pros and cons, take a look...

His comments are honest and pretty fair now.

(Used to make my eyes bleed, but he's proven he's at least "got a dog" in every fight in the last couple months)

he was questioning the sources of the article (none) with a sarcastic remark.

The fact that you thought he was serious is laughable.

worked on him :)

EXACTLY

all the nob jockey pseudo xboy "devs" on here and in studios who cry about the PS3 sound like this:

"what do you mean i can't make a call to my direct-x routine?? how will i handle transforms or lighting?? you mean i have to redesign the engine to work the cell?? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

crybabies all of them who have no business making games. they want to turn gaming into a second rate rehash industry like they did with american auto manufacturing. We all see where that got them against the japanese. NOw they want to ram a third rate pc in a box with a logo on it that says "xbox 360" down gamers throats. its sickening.

THE PS3 is a CULTURE SHOCK to lazy american developers, it represents Japans mindset. One of hardwork and dedication to get results. Not lazy fatasses who like to dedicated half the day to gaming on their 360's while the produce generic piece of crap games for a gimped console.

Look you plainly don't know ANYTHING about the RSX at all to say that it has more power than the 360's GPU. It plain doesn't. On paper the two GPU's are barely different but the implementation of certain graphic routines and FX just eat away at the RSX severely limiting it's fill rate capacity; an issue EA publicly announced BEFORE the console was even released. Luckily it has access to the CELL but even then that's not really helping given the immense technical challenges of making it run across multiple threads..( queue GameDevs idiotic ramblings)

GameDev there, (pfff as if), doesn't know what he's talking about either. He mocks XNA when he hasn't got the first clue what he's on about. Hey idiot. PS3 has tools which are kinda similar to the XNA platform, it's called PHYRE asshole and they don't work anywhere as near as well as Microsofts.

Games are NOT made from the ground up from scratch. Everything you play uses tools and middleware made either by Sony, Microsoft or someone else but in PS3's case they won't give their best stuff away to smaller developers. i.e The people who come up with the innovations in games..because it will adversely affect how their "flasgship titles" look.

Why?

why

Probably because people are taking a positive story about the PS3 from a site called "TalkPlaystation.com" ; as the gospel truth. Don't you think there might be a HINT of bias?

It seems the article was made just to clarify that the PS3 has 512 MB of RAM available to its GPU. The Cell has access to 256 MB RAM plus 512k of L1 cache + 1.7m of L2 cache for the 7 spes(Cell).

Its in two separate chunks. One of the XDR 256 mb is 3.2 ghz the fastest memory ever found in a console. this is dedicated to the GPU yet the GPU not only has access to this RAM it can also access the 256mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz RAM which is also available to the Cell.

-------------

The Bus on the PS3 allows for faster data travel between the ps3s components as well btw. Thats the reason for PS3's higher overall bandwidth vs the 360 and one factor as to why the PS3 does more floating point calculations per second. Ive said all this long ago its not really new.

Ultimately its up to what the devs can do with what they have. There is much power in the PS3 and argueably its the most powerfull console the market has seen. I say argueably only because there is a worthy competitor that has a gpu with on board memory which is its greatest asset, some call it the 360. 2 different beasts that carry there own unique burdens.

Its actually the other way around. The XDR memory is paired with the Cell and the GDDR3 memory is dedicated to the GPU, unfortunately! The ability of the Cell to share its XDR ram with the GPU is great but I believe the reason we dont see a major difference between the 360 and the PS3 is the fact that the GDDR3 ram is only 700 mhz. I could be wrong but I believe this is a major bottleneck with the GPU using the XDR ram. Since developers can only depend on the ram available to the system at any given time having a speed of 700 mhz, they cant utilize all of the extra speed that the XDR ram has. It just like with PCs. If you buy new ram to add to your existing ram in the old ram is slower, the new ram automatically defaults to the speed of the old ram. Now if developers can optimize their games well enough to know exactly what information is going to what type of ram, then maybe there would be a better increase in performance.

PS3
1) Cell (according to developers is vastly faster than 360 CPU)
2) XDR (much faster than the RAM in the 360)
3) Double the RAM bandwidth of 360
4) Far more cache
5) Standard Hard-Drive (according to a couple of developers)
6) Blu-Ray (according to Rockstar, developers of GTA series)
7) RSX (devs say that PS3 can handle far better textures than 360)
8) Hardware HDR support (360 lacks true hardware HDR)

Xbox360
1) Easy to max out because of simpler design
2) EDRAM reduces the bandwidth disadvantage (but not the latency issues)
3) EDRAM reduces AA hit as long as resolution is not too high
4) Scaling chip does a great job hiding low resolution of some games
5) Common and easy platform for online features

So to sum it up,

360 is easy to max out and has a lower game development cost while the PS3 is a much more advanced and powerful machine that's very difficult and expensive to make games for. This is why multi-platform games are first made on the 360 and then ported to the PS3 with teams of just 5-10 developers without proper reengineering to take advantage of the unique PS3 architecture.

It's like the past few days we have gone backwords wit these flamebaits...

I remember this before...like 2 years ago.

Yah, these arguments where made back when the PS3's specs where released before it even launched lol.

Yup, it seems like everything keeps repeating itself over and over again. I still don't get why these arguments still pop up.

I mean it's understandable like you said if it was in 2006. But it's already been almost two years and the PS3 has already proven itself if the developer sit down and optimize it, they can get great results.

I'd crap my pants if I see an article "why the PS3 cant do the 360's graphics"

well i can beat them both.

http://img172.imageshack.us...

Yeah - A WHOLE 50 BUCKS MORE!! OUTRAGEOUS! lol Cry some more

Q:...
A: I WANT THAT SPRAY!!! AH AH HA HA HA HA !!

but i think that is not the objective of this article. This article is just claiming in laymans terms that the PS3 RAM is not inferior as some are claiming. As for Devs i don't know. Perhaps the problems thay faced had more to do with tools than actual physical specs which is what this article is based on.

I'm thinking the most developers are having a hard time with the Split Ram. Sure it's 256mb of XDR RAM that is faster, but it's still split. While the 360 has the 512mb of RAM all packed into one. But there are other advantages in the PS3's hardware.

"In short, the very nontraditional setup of the PS3's Cell chip is capable of vastly out powering the traditional multiprocessor setup of the X360, mostly due to successfully eliminating memory latency."

That was a quote from an old forum poster back when people were studying the PS3's architecture. Other interesting things I found were that it's not as easy as

SPE 1 = AI
SPE 2 = Physics
SPE 3 = ...

"Instead picture the main CPU going through a normal game loop (simplified here)
Step 1: Update positions
Step 2: Check for collisions
Step 3: Perform motion caluclations
Step 4: AI

At the beginning of each step the main CPU farms out the work to the SPE's. So, you have a burst of activity in the SPE's for each step, then a lull as the main core figures out what to do next."

So again in basic terms, the CELL's main CPU is the one that delegates the tasks to the individual SPE's in the core. Then after the calculations, it goes through the memory controller then to the RAM to transfer the data to what we see. A the same time, the GPU is streaming data to and from the CELL essentially talking to one another.

Here's an illustration
http://www.blachford.info/c...

This website put's it best

"Cell is a revolution, a completely new microprocessor architecture which, while it may take some time to get used to, promises a vast performance boost over today’s systems. GPUs can already run 10 times faster than desktop CPUs, Cell will not only bring similar performance but will do so for more applications and it’ll be easier to program."

"Many people do not like change, to them Cell represents a threat. For others it represents an opportunity.

Lets see how many take the opportunity, and what other opportunities the other CPU vendors come up with in response."

Gabe Newell see's it as a threat, which is why he regards the PS3 as useless. While others like Insomniac who is clearly pushing the boundaries of the processor is always finding new ways to use it. And the results show.

Source: http://www.blachford.info/c...

(For the record I am not claiming to be some expert or anything. This is all just my comprehension of what I've been reading. Feel free to "smash" or correct me. )

Pretty good all around, but a few corrections.

the reason many developers don't like the PS3's ram is because it's split. Plain and simple. It makes it harder to put things where you want them. In the case of ID with RAGE/Idtech 5, they dislike it because they designed it to use textures in very creative ways.

In the case of the cell, most of the case against the cell in the PS3 comes down to the fact that it's not the ideal place to launch the hardware. It's not nearly optimized yet, it still has a couple of inherent bottlenecks, and people didn't know how to program for it. By the time people are taking advantage of the cell, there's nothing stopping M$ or even Nintendo from releasing a console with a new CPU that takes advantage of the cell's concepts and builds on them to make an easier to develop for, more general purpose, and more powerful processor.

or take them to this page http://www.rambus.com/us/pr...

Really maybe you would be interested in researching some articles on DDR vs DDR2, or DDR2 vs DDR3 benchmarks.

You might be surprised to see what type of realworld performance you can expect by doubling you memory bandwidth....

really, how do you know, show me proof, when there is evidence that you are talking out of your ass. why dont you go get a top to cover it, it stinks of xbot Sh*t.

(that's why no PS3 game can run in HD with AA.)

look who's talking how's Gaylo 3 640p? Flop Gaiden 2 585p?

GT5P & MGS4 both can run at 1080p that something you're poor 3fixme can't handle ... i know the truth hurts

QueefyB we need a spray over here

SHUT THE F*CK UP.

Seriously, do yourself that favor for once in your miserable self-centered life. For a 360 muppet, you have got to be THE dumbest one on this site.

The PS3 has always been graphically superior to the 360. Numbers don't lie and my eyes sure as HELL don't lie.

Come back when you have factual evidence and you're not acting like a f*cking n00b on acid.

talk out of your ass much? here dumbass, do reserch next time http://www.rambus.com/us/pr... stop talking out of your asshole before you end up like this:

NEED A WARNINGO N THAT PHOTO LINK OMG NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

Another f*cktard muppet talking out of his ass.
Unless you have factual evidence to back up your claims, then shut the hell up.

And HOLY MOSES pwnsauce! I nearly threw up dinner seeing that! Naaaaaasty!

Don't get it twisted that was not PS3 fan's that was someones comment they do not speak for me :D I think they were just trying to say that RAM is not the only factor. If you look at what God of War 2 did with the tiny amount of RAM the PS2 had you can maybe see from there perspective. That was before Texture streaming was used in console games as well. The cell does have its own cache memory too its not magic its just cache.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gam... Procedural Texturing is also a way to eliminate a need for so much RAM. Both the 360 and PS3 are capable of this. The 360 @ 4mb per second and the PS3 @ 6mb per second.

Sure it would be nice to have more RAM in any system that can support more. Yet we already made a leap this generation in terms of RAM and its not cheap. 8 bit, 16,32, 64, 128, we skipped 256...now were at 512.

bits is an old measurement that was used to pinpoint the precision of the cpu's registers.....if ps3 or 360 was to be measured in..."BITS" i think it would be in the thousands.

Yah your right its different for that era. But for PS1 through PS3 era it shows we keep expanding in RAM from 32 mega-bytes-128mb-512mb right? Im just saying its not feasible to make such an enormous leap in RAM size from 1 generation to the next due to a cost factor.

bit, kb, mb,gb it all started at bits.

eDRAM makes up for 360's lack of bandwidth. It has just 25.6g/s vs 48.6 g/s on ps3

ever wonder why x360 never outputs at 1080p native?
it is because of slower ram

256mb XR alone>>>>> 1 gig GDDR3

oh wait x360 has just 512mb of slower GDDR3 ram

So does the 360, whats your point?

Your first statement shows you know **CK ALL! PS3 does not use DX9
LOL direct x is microsoft YOU CLOWN.THEN THE SPE'S one disabled to increase yield at fabrication but the rest still available have a look at KZ2 videos 4-5 spe's used NOT ALL running 100% of the time OK!
Then you talk about the edram bandwidth have a look at this for bandwidth

Element Interconnect Bus (EIB)

For the sake of quoting performance numbers, we will assume a Cell processor running at 3.2 GHz, the clock speed most often cited.

At this clock frequency each channel flows at a rate of 25.6 GB/s. Viewing the EIB in isolation from the system elements it connects, achieving twelve concurrent transactions at this flow rate works out to an abstract EIB bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s.

LINK TO EIB
http://www.ibm.com/develope...

Also keep in mind all bandwidths quoted are the theoretical max they don't usually get to the limit ALTHOUGH a lot off sites state that the Cell gets closer to its max output than others do!

Re price drop of xdr & rsx LOL AGAIN when they sell more and reduce fabrication size for RSX which they have it gets CHEAPER more yield lower price SIMPLE economy of scale MATE so cut the bull and do a little more research OK!

mmm well in terms of (doing the math) yes... 256 x 2 = 512...

but here the thing...
The xbox 360 has 1 x 512 MB GDDR3 (700 MHz) + plus 10 MB embedded DRAM (eDRAM) frame buffer... technically that's not 512MB .. that's 522MB...

PS3 has 1 x 256MB GDDR3 (700MHz) + 256 MB XDR RAM (3.2GHz)...

now the PS3 XDR Ram is a lot faster... but the xbox 360 allows developers to not worry about where to put the game assets they are going to use... with the PS3... developers have to decide where it make sense to put their game... now... Faster does not mean more... if what developers are trying to do requires speed but not a lot of it... the PS3 will perform better than the xbox 360... but no matter how you put it the xbox 360 has more memory.. and this is not including the fact that the PS3 OS footprint uses more of that ram...

http://www.onthexbox.com/fo...

Almost 2 times more than the xbox 360...

also include other features like The standard on-screen keyboard still requires 7MB of memory.

Now I don't want to get into what's better More Ram or faster Ram.. because it depends on the developers... some developers (Depending on their game) would like more ram and the DDR3 (700 MHz) that the PS3 has 256MB and the xbox 360 has 512MB... other would like the speed.... get where I am going with this? Don't think for a second that DDR3 (700Mhz) is a bad thing because is not...

Also take under consideration that not having a unified consistent memory to work with adds complexity to the development... developers need to know when loading assets what goes to the DDR3 and what goes to XDR failure to do so will result on games like EA makes on the PS3... Think of the PS3 memory as a PC ram and the memory in your GPU... somethings are better on the video card others in the PC Ram...

Keep in mind that though PS3 256 + 256 is not just 512... have you try mixing DDR2 + DDR3 or Ram of different speed? PC perform on the lower common denominator.. in order to prevent errors and what not... now that does not happen on the PS3 since developers have control to where they want to put data.. but don't think that they can do it randomly without caring where it goes... memory in the PS3 is different...

If the game holds up to the videos, Little Big Planet is going to blow everything out of the water texture-wise.

bullshit? like the bullshit your spitting out right now till your intestines drop out?

For the love of F*ck POG!

Why dont you do some research? like seriously tho,instead of just browsing through the comment section talking about how it's all bullsh!t,If anything thing is BS it's these anti-sony Articles all poping up right before E3.You sicken me.

Ironic picture actually,that's kinda like you after you take it up the ass from M$ and still keep a smile on your face.

I might have to agree with POG, I think I saw Sony slip some funds to these guys...didn't you see it on YouTube?

if the ones that didn't know what they were talking about stopped talking. Dead serious, I would like sony a lot more if so many people didn't defend them so ignorantly.

Anyone with a decent knowledge of both systems knows the theoretical performance of both is more similar than you'd expect. Yet I still have to deal with fanboys that don't understand the concept of the whole not being the same as the sum of its pieces.

I'm sure next week there will be articles about the quality of the plastic in the PS3's case being better thus negating the 360's GPU.

In before the first "lazy developer" comment.

Most multiplatform games have teams of 50-60 develop on the 360 for a couple of years then have a second team of 5-10 port it to the PS3 in a few months. Just ask any industry insider. You can find them (from a variety of companies) on Beyond3d.com

It's not because of "laziness" it's because of cost. It's a lot cheaper to hire 5-10 people to do a quick and dirty "port" than to have two seperate development teams of 50-60 develop for two different platforms. The reason why they start on 360 is because it came out a year earlier and developers know how to max out the hardware.

but they`ll never be able to max out the harware of the ps3..Thats for sure

because Prologue it's just a demo? a demo that beats Forza 2 ass... wow.

There are some 1080p games; real 1080p not upscaled like the x360 ones.

"8 times high-end PC power"? Well for its time even the x360 was more powerful then any high-end PC two years ago but man, almost every month comes a new GPU or something to upgrade computers. that's why consoles > PC

120fps; sony just said that it could be possible. "That it could be..."

"Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps"- http://www.gamespot.com/new...

i don't see sony promising anything.

"why proud of GT5p if the cars are "invincible"??? how about you guys ask SONY to add "damage system" like forza 2?? then we'll see about the graphics again..."

because polyphony was not allowed to do realistic damage to real cars, car companies before saw this as a bad thing, they would not be able to market their cars. Now they are allowing it. Polyphony has a very tight relationship with car companies, its so tight, they have access to everything that Forza doesnt have. you dont read up on history or research do you?

It's a myth that they weren't allowed to do damage to the cars in Gran Turismo. An absolute flat out lie. They couldn't do it at the time on PS1 because there wasn't enough power under the hood to make it do deformations; all of it was used to drive the simulation and it was a f**ing excellent simulation at that. By the time they got to hardware that COULD do deformations it just never got put in there.

There were/are plenty of other games that came out with Ferrari's and Porches and every other marque you can think of that allowed them to get scratched, battered and smashed. Polyphony never bothered until now because no one had mentioned the car deformation until the lack of such FX were criticised in GT5P. As if having a damaged Ferarri would somehow lessen the exclusivity of the marque and damage sales; puh-lease....

For what it's worth. Destruction Derby on PS1 did do deformations in game but obviously it didn't have the physics of GT. What it did have though was Ken Kutaragi moaining that the lazy British developers didn't leave debris on the track; an impossibility given the technical specs of the hardware at the time.

How?

14 of those disc would be just cutsceens

lol.. do not talk about load times when trying to make the PS3 seem better than the xbox 360.. because it has nothing to do with Ram... there is a reason why 90% of the games now require installs for the PS3... and in most cases the games load same or better on the xbox 360..

90% are you sure and there is roughly 168 released PlayStation 3 titles. 90% of 168 is 151.2 / 151 of 168 games for the PlayStation 3 requires an install, wrong. The only reason why developers are installing the game because they aren't streaming the game properly from the Blu-ray disc to the PlayStation 3. With exclusive I think it's due to the fact that they still need to learn more about the architecture.

While the XBOX 360 is using old technology the PlayStation 3 is using new technology. If Blu-ray was on the XBOX 360 loading time would be so horrible because it isn't designed to read fast enough. It's like 480i, 720i, and 1080i vs. 480p, 720p, and 1080p. Progressive is the better technology but people still don't have enough tech to make it mainstream. Interlace is the XBOX 360 and Progressive is the PlayStation 3.

By a large margin.

Why?

PS3 has 24 texture units.
360 has 16 texture units.

Developers have stated that the only thing keeping them from using far better textures on the PS3 is because they have not started using CELL to compress textures. The ones that do use CELL for texture compression get ridiculously good textures. Both these games have much better textures than any game on the 360.

Uncharted: Some of the best shading, shadows and textures ever seen
http://youtube.com/watch?v=...

MGS4: Most sophisticated lighting and shadows on console
http://youtube.com/watch?v=...

That's not to say the Xbox360 doesnt have it's strengths. While it's hardware isn't as powerful, there's a potentially more potent advantage in that the world's most successful software company, Microsoft, does a fabulous job helping developers make games. This reduces development cost and hence reduces risk and enables even smaller developers (who might have an innovative new idea) to make games on the 360. As a result I'm sure we will continue to see more 3rd party games on the 360 and perhaps even more innovation as long as Microsoft is able to get 360 sales back on track.

The problem for Microsoft is that they are trailing the PS3 in 2008 sales by over 33%.

Of course, if I decided to start a gaming software company for consoles, I might just skip both PS3 and 360 and go after the Wii. It has an install base that's not only larger but growing twice as fast as the PS3's and three times as fast as the 360's. The hardware is simple and well known. It has an awesome and easy to use controller that anyone can use.

Seriously. If I hear one more stupid remark about sales figures I'll go mental. Want to hear something about Sales?

Overall, PS3 is STILL 6 Million units behind the install base of the XBOX 360 and if they continue to ONLY outsell 360 by their current margins they'll never actually catch up. I think its 10k units a month between them now.

Furthermore, in terms of Software sales, the 360 trounces the PS3. Firstly let's look at the multi-platform games:

COD4 on 360 = 6.1 Million Units Sold.
COD4 on PS3 = 3.3 Million Units Sold.

GTA4 on 360 = 5.6 Million Units Sold.
GTA4 on PS3 = 4 Million Units Sold.

Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on 360 = 1.57 Million Units Sold
Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on PS3 = 670K Units Sold

After a week

Battlefield Bad Company on 360 = 332K Units Sold
Battlefield Bad Company on PS3 = 145K Units Sold.

It's a continuing trend where all multiplatform games are just tearing the ass of PS3's sales figures. For all these supposed hardware sales increases, the software sales still lag WAY behind.

Still don't believe me? Let's look at the "exclusive titles"...the supposed system sellers and the games that people love to say "blow everything away". Take for example, two of the arguably biggest franchises on each platform:

Metal Gear Solid 4 - After 3 weeks of sales figures = 2 Million Units Sold.
Halo 3 - After 3 weeks of sales figures = 4.9 Million Units Sold.

Ooh how about these two big exclusives.

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue - After 29 Weeks = 1.8 Million Units Sold
Gears of War - After 29 Weeks = 4 Million Units Sold.

----------------------------

So it begs the question. If Sony are selling machines at a rate greater than Microsoft. Why isn't their software sales reflecting this?

2 Reasons.

1) Alot of people own both systems; multi-platform games invariably are bought on 360. They're always better.

2) People are buying PS3 but not for games. Rather they're buying it as an inexpensive BluRay player.

----------------------------

As for the PS3's technical capabilities. It's not a problem with RAM but the over-complexity of making games on it. That's why it's taken so long for companies like Naughty Dog and Guerilla are taking so long to get their games out. Luckily for them, they have the "backing" of Sony who've paid top dollar for their exclusives. However most studios are reluctant to commit to PS3 development because the sales just plain suck...

PS3 is less than 5 million units behind 360 for worldwide install base (according to Microsoft), and Metal Gear Solid 4 passed the 3 million sold mark a long time ago. Most of the figures are for North America only, which is why we see the 2:1 ratio in multiplatform sales. It's because the install base for 360 to PS3 is (you guessed it) 2:1 in North America. Why you chose those titles though is beyond me. You could have just as easily said that Devil May Cry sold about 800K more units on the PS3 than the 360. But whatever.

Install base is one factor, but Achievements on XBL are another. This is why Sony rolled out their Trophy system. It's a way of drawing in people to purchase the PS3 version over the 360 version of a title. And there's no reason to keep lying. Multiplats are completely identical gaming experiences now that devs have had enough time with PS3 and 360 hardware.

Oh, and the "PS3 is only a blu-ray player" comments are a few years old. Learn something new. PS3 isn't that much more difficult to learn than the 360. It just launched (and was finalized) about a year later. Naughty Dog got their flagship title out within one year, and Guerilla pushed back Killzone so that Killzone and Resistance wouldn't eat into each others' sales. Both games have huge online components, which is where the fear stems from. I know I stopped playing other titles for about 4 months after Call of Duty 4 came out.

tell them joeynox.. you seem to know what you are talking about.. bubbles!

This is incorrect. The 256 GB/s is not a part of "system bandwidth". In fact, it doesnt even add to GPU bandwidth.

"The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth."

EDRAM bandwidth (256 GB/s) is essentially internal to the GPU and neither the GPU nor the CPU can read data from it. Hence it cannot store textures, vertices, or other game data. To be able to contribute to "system bandwidth" it has to be able to store graphics and game data.

In fact, all that the tiny 10MB EDRAM is good for is raw uncompressed frame-buffer tiles. It's not an effective design, which is why it hasn't caught on for high performance graphics cards.

It does somewhat compensate for the lack of system bandwidth in the 360 architecture by reducing the GPU's write-to-RAM requirements. However, there's little it can do to compensate for the limited CPU bandwidth available.

I'll address the comment about the CPU comparison.

Your post mirrors the "article" by Major Nelson.

According to IBM, who designed both the CELL and the 360 CPU and don't give a crap about PS3 vs 360 flame wars, the CELL is vastly more powerful in both graphics and general processing.

Just go to IBM.com and read what their tests have revealed.

It's great that Sony made PS3 an open platform so we can run Linux and use any brand accessories but I wish they would enable atleast limited access to the GPU in Linux. I can understand they don't want people hacking the PS3 but even if they gave us limited access, where all requests run through the hyper-visor we could do amazing things.

I have reached my limit for responses to this article so I apologize for not being able to continue to clear things up for you guys on this topic.

yeah, i kinda agree with you on that but not in a direct sense. I have both systems and to be honest barring great visuals on both systems ive been pretty disappointed with this gen.

Maybe i just been a gamer to long, but i get real bored with most of the games nowadays i always feel like ive been there done that and worn the T-Shirt.

Same copied ideas over and over again barr a few innovations, enough with who's got the most power give me game play for a change.

The profile of many gamers like myself -
I am a programmer of around 20 years experience - not in the console indutry though - but I always loved tinkering with the insides of the machine that I buy. I bought the PS3 to run Linux on it...

Many console owners are technology enthuisiasts... and the PS3 really is interesting for that portion of the crowd...

Since then though, just about every multiplatform title is equal on both platforms. A few are superior on PS3 (GTA IV, DMC, Burnout), but devs try pretty hard to keep the platforms even.

God, your comment just wreaks of stupidity. The more people like you talk, the worse you make all PS3 owners look. Hopefully your PS3 burns down your house with your 13 year old butt inside of it.

Pornflakes I need some links that proves everything that you just said is true =/

Hmm I think you make it too simple, and your statement is too old, the Playstation 3 is more than a Blu ray player.

The Xbox360 came out when the world economy where good, now it´s pretty bad, the Playstation 3 came out at the end of the good cycle.

Another thing is, when, and before the Playstation 3 came out, Sony still have focus on Playstation 2 and still have, and 1 year before the Playstation 3 came out Sony introduced PSP.

The Playstation 2 have sold over 100 mill

PSP over 20 mill

You are also forgetting that the competition is much harder today, than years back, Microsoft is paying much more to get gamers attention, and the Wii where introduced nearly the same date as Playstation 3

Xbox360 also have a year head start.

But you can hang me up on this, Playstation 3 will pass the Xbox360 in sales next year, you can be sure about that.

Why Sony doesn´t release Killzone 2 this fall is because of Resistance 2 and Gears of War 2 is coming this fall, that´s why.

Yeh it's simple. And it's the truth.

Arguing that the world economy is different now so, therefore, PS3 games don't sell as much is retarded when you're quite happy to quote that PS3 outsells 360 every month. Similarly, if the global recession were a factor you'd see a similar slump in 360 games sales and you don't. By your logic I could argue that 360 will sell more than PS3 again once the recession has passed. Not happening. Those sales figures aren't going to change and at that rate you're talking THREE YEARS before getting anywhere near the 360's numbers. Bear in mind, people haven't just stopped buying Microsofts box.

And yeh the PS3 IS more than a Blu Ray Player; it's also a poorly supported console. A good portion of the people buying it are doing so FOR blu ray. How else can you explain a console user base of 13.8 million and such low software sales?