If you played LBP and attempted to create a complex level or object, you'd know that the PS3 is a physics computing beast! You can literally stack thousands of blocks in mid air and every single time will it act naturally when it falls. Rewind and change a single bit of block and the entire outcome changes by that one single piece very realistically.

Speaking of LBP, I can't wait for the online coop build mode.

"It only does...
EVERYTHING! "

Except make Aaron Greenberg a decent person.

LBP only does EVERYTHING lol. This really reminds me of the physics in LBP. Sony is made of win right now.

Another example as to why the playstation brand has, and always will be leader, the of the pact.

source engine did this years ago

@siyrobbo

WTF you don't understand?!

1. it's a physics library rewritten for the cell, so physics calculations are less demanding for the CPU. We know such physics libraries already exists but they were not optimized for the cell. now developers have access to physics effects that are less demanding for the PS3.
and btw: I've never seen rope effects in the source games

this is last-gen pc gaming...

You said it does everything. I havent seen it around here anywhere, but since you declared it, it seems that it is mmy right to specualte that the ps3 has done your mom, dad, and all parts of ur family, fatso :)

Last gen PC gaming already had physics libraries that were re-written for the Cell even before the PS3's development?

Interesting. I need to start using last gen time machines so I can rewrite physics libraries for the PS4 before it's even in development.

*RockLeeX leaves to use that last gen time machine*
*RockLeeX returns with knowledge from the future*

With my knowledge from the future, I know evrfighter will eventually reply to our comments towards him with his usual, "You guys are putting words in my mouth" or "I don't own a 360, only a PC"

But I wouldn't really trust that last gen time machine. <_<

largest library of games, ps2 (check)
largest number of games above 70 ps2 (check)
best live exprience, should be online. pc pwns live(check)
cheapest sku with the arcade to start gaming. ps2 still cheaper (check)
best Motion controls, natals not even released (check)
very good number of exclusives, so does the ps3 (check)
Best version of the multiplayer games pc (check)

360 is awesome, but your trolling is pathetic.

edit: @ above agreed, well said

Yeah, the PS3 could have benefited hugely had it waited a couple months. Nvidia probably would have had the G80 GPU ready by then and the PS3 would look a lot better than it does today. The difference between the Geforce 7xxx series (PS3) and the 8xxx series (PC, around the same time as the PS3) is enormous.

OH Panda... Lol Panda..

BTW I didn't say anything about Crysis.... LMAO.

And Apocaly... Talk this Bullsh!t when 360 gets a game even half as decent looking as Uncharted 2...

"OH Panda... Lol Panda.. "

What's that supposed to mean.

Nothing Panda... Just reminds me off all the past "Crysis is the best" posts from you......

I have a gut feeling that even this argument was made by you keeping Crysis in mind... Thats all..

BTW I agree Crysis is great looking...

Why are you bringing Crysis into this?

Well... For one, it's the only game that is not possible on the current console (these are your words)... And is probably the only game that require those specs you posted.... Cause frankly, Uncharted 2 looks better than most games (should I dare say, it only second to Crysis)....

Frankly, PS3 doesn't need those specs you posted... I am happy with the way it is... Waiting 6 months more is what I wouldn't want.... I can put up with not having a Crysis kind game on the PS3... KZ2 looks great as well and suffices my needs....

Edit:Besides, there is a Crysis post so Njoy... Oh already the first post nice....

PS3 is just entering it's 3rd year with graphics and physics that no other current system can touch. If anything, it is the other system *cough cough* that was released FAAR too early.

BTW Those are just demonstrations that show how fast the cell is able to process. The PS3 has plenty of room for future growth. They are just now scratching the surface of what it is capable of.

No one knows the specs of the RSX. Sony nor Nvidia gave specs out. It is a custom-built GPU with the Cell in mind, made in Sony's fabs.
Cell/RSX needs to be looked as a whole with the Cell doing the bulk of the work.

Actually the RSX specs are quite easy to find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

It's based on the Geforce 7800.

Those are not official lol.

Yes they are. Those are the specs listed at E3 2005 and at a Sony press conference in 2006.

Look at it again, then look at wiki. Sony nor Nvidia gave specs out. If you knew the history about the whole RSX clout you would know that those wiki RSX specs are speculation and nothing more.

The RSX is custom-built. No specs were given.

Holy Shrek! 14 disagrees with the truth! PS3 fanboys are so fragile!

RSX: 24 pixel + 8 vertex shaders. Built off the aged nVidia 7 Series, an architecture which no longer is used, as all modern GPUs have gone unified. RSX can't handle physics since its pipelines are dedicated. It's also nowhere near as efficient as Xenos is at load balancing and keeping the pipeline full. This is why developers have to migrate most of the graphic workload off the much hindered RSX to the CellBE.

Xenos: 3 16-pipeline shader arrays in a 48-way dual parallel unified shader core, plus Xenos's daughter die which comprises of 192 pixel processors and additional logic for high bandwidth needs (antialiasing, buffer blending, tile rendering). Built to be compliant with Direct X 10.1, since it has a tesselation unit. New dev kits will ship with the X Engine, which extends the API to utilize Xenos's previously locked features (since they limited the API to be compliant with a subset of D3D 9.0c).

DirectX 10.1? What the hell are you on about? The Xenos was designed way before DX10 was even getting heavily into production. The Xenos has a tessalator and unified architecture which was common for ATI graphics cards of that time.

And to the b1tches complaining because it's Wikipedia, look at the fricking source. It's a PDF file that was released at E3 2005.

All those stats must be why 360 has games looking like Killzone 2, Uncharted 1 & 2, and GT5. If all those numbers are true, and I'm not saying they're not, certainly your fanboy mind can come up with something else to show how the PS3 is hurting because of the vastly underpowered RSX. The RSX does exactly what Sony wants it to. They planned for the Cell to perform all the physics, among other things, and RSX to perform specific tasks its tailored for. If Xenos was soooo powerful certainly 360 would have something to show for itself to match what's on the PS3. It must be so awkward for you to be caught with an underpowered console. Truth stings.

all the old GPU debates are nearly pointless...as this video shows that the PS3 does things with its CPU that the 360 cannot...all physics are done on the 360's gpu...the cpu in the 360 simply runs instructions, and the GPU does all the rendering...

so even if the 360 gpu is slightly faster, it doesn't matter...because the PS3's gpu does not have to be taxed nearly as much...the only real difference between the two machines gpu wise that you regularly see is that the PS3 usually does a cpu based AA, and the 360 does gpu MSAA because of its extra 10megs of EDRAM...some prefer one over the other...I don't care, you can only really tell a difference in screen shots...you seem them in motion; both systems could use more ram for better AA and resolution...the negative part is that most multiplat developers do not handle the PS3 that way...they use a standard system where the gpu does nearly all the work load...and when the ps3 is handled like that, it is DEFINITELY weaker than the 360...but when a developer handles it like 1st party studios do, its a totally different machine...

but the proof is in the games...thats all that matters...the 360 is the king of UE3 screenshots...but a static screen shot will show you the best parts of the games...you see a screen shot of a PS3 game like killzone 2...and it looks great, but its not even half of whats so impressive...you see it in motion, with all the physics, ridiculous lighting, and volumetric particle effects...and there isn't a 360 game anywhere near it...and GG stated that the cell can render up to 40% of a single frame when things get intense...the 360 does not have a cpu capable of that...and its exactly why Sony kept saying how the cpu and gpu compliment each other entirely...its not a 'pc' like architecture where the gpu does almost all the rendering...

I fukced Sony and Sony Fanboys are the result.