gekko plays PS3 in T-35 days

[MuGen]

to add a rebuttle to crash's little slew of words..... what I truly believe is that the graphical difference between the ps3 and the xbox 360 will probably be little to none. But that doesn't say the ps3 won't be more powerful. IF, and thats a big IF..... IF the Cell processor is capable of doing what they intend to have it do, you could have a lot more going on in the game at the same time without a sacrifice of frames or lag. You may have the same game visually between the ps3 and x360 but the key to winning the console war (via MGS4) is the Cell processor.

In any case, if CELL is what Sony claims... that is the obvious difference maker in the 2 consoles. Other than that, your right... PS3 and Xbox 360 could possibly be on par with each other in terms of graphical power.

[gekko]

Yes, but the more things going on in the game also leads to longer development time, and higher costs.

And to add on to my earlier statement, just found out Sony is promising dual-monitor 1080p at 120fps. This has to be good!

[MuGen]

Sony also promised Toy Story graphics with the ps2. I take Sony's promises with a grain of salt.... in the end I'm just hoping PS3 will be able to deliver the graphics shown in tech demo's. With the added bonus of dual monitor 1080p 120fps of course...

still.....................

[Professor S]

PS3 has its Cell processor, while the 360 runs 3 provenly sick-ass processors concurrently. Thats the way that NASA structures its supercomputer. Even if the Cell does what it says it can do, I'm starting to think the difference will be small.

As for the dual screens, who really cares about that? How many people do you think will actually be setting up two monitors to run games? To consider that a selling point is absurd to me.

I still think that the PS3 will be the superior system in the end, unless any last minute cost cutting measures are made. But I also don't think it will be the end-all of gaming or even close to photo-realism.

[Jonbo298]

Sony says that to make their e-peen this much larger ----------------------------------------3> Its called hype

[MuGen]

Originally Posted by Professor S

PS3 has its Cell processor, while the 360 runs 3 provenly sick-ass processors concurrently. Thats the way that NASA structures its supercomputer. Even if the Cell does what it says it can do, I'm starting to think the difference will be small.

As for the dual screens, who really cares about that? How many people do you think will actually be setting up two monitors to run games? To consider that a selling point is absurd to me.

I still think that the PS3 will be the superior system in the end, unless any last minute cost cutting measures are made. But I also don't think it will be the end-all of gaming or even close to photo-realism.

I'm sorry but if NASA is built around 360's DUAL-CORE processor, not 3... then I highly doubt their Supercomputers are super at all..

Unless you do you research and find out that NASA's Columbia supercomputer has 10,240 Intel Itanium-2 chips racking up a whopping 36 teraflops.

The supercomputer, provided by SGI of Mountain View, Calif., consists of 20 tethered SGI 512-processor Altix systems. It runs a total of 10,240 Intel Itanium 2 processors and has 20T of memory. The system will use a 440T SGI InfiniteStorage storage area network.

Article: http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27745-1.html

...pwned