| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (102)

Posted: Aug 18th 2007 3:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Couple of things Curmeo. First off... Nice to see adult discussion here, so thanks for that.

The Cell processor is a consumer technology only because Sony is using it in a piece of consumer electronics. It wasn't designed with consumer electronics in mind. It was used that way by Sony to help prop up their investment in its development. It's not a bad processor, I'm sure we can all agree it is an outstanding processor, but it has a very narrow application band and suffers when forced to perform outside that band.

Also, the reasons you gave for 360 games looking better will always be valid, because the 360 will always have a year on the PS3 and the other reasons will never change. Sony will have to improve their tools to a point where they match or better the Microsoft tools, and how long that takes them is critical to them competing, because matching tool usability and power three years from now won't help Sony for the next three years. From what I've heard they are hard at work on this, and we all know that Sony will constantly improve their tools. So will Microsoft and Nintendo.

Can developers make games that look good on both systems? Of course they can. Oblivion is a good example of that. But it takes a lot more time. Part of the reason multi-platform releases don't tend to look as good is because developers aren't taking the extra time. This benefits Sony, of course, but not gamers since Sony can't afford to have every multi-platform game be a "timed exclusive" for Microsoft, but it bites gamers because they have to put up with lower quality games for Sony's sake.

As to DIRT, I disagree that the PS3 version is better, but that's opinion. Though I'm pretty sure the commercials show the 360 version, but that might be because they're marketing to the greater penetrating platform whose user base buys more software.

I also don't see the PS3 outperforming the 360 on the hardware front. Numerous technical articles have been written on the difference between actual performance of the PS3's Cell (as opposed to the full Cell) and the 360's peformance. Both CPUs have better areas of performance than the other.

We know that the 360 has the better GPU, though if you implement no anti-aliasing, and use lower resolution textures the PS3's GPU will deliver better real world numbers.

All this means is that developers can develop good looking games on either system, since both console's weaknesses are marginal compared to the other in the overall package.

As to the next generation. It probably won't even be the Cell in the PS4, though it might be a type of multi-SPE processor. We'll probably continue to see a GPU in the future consoles, though the GPU will probably be something more along the lines of a multi-specialized graphic/physics/cappucino makin' processor.

Kalroy

Posted: Aug 19th 2007 1:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
zeuz any idiot can look that up but do uoy no how powerful each individual core is. the PS3 and the 360 have very similar gpus its the ram thats dedicated to it thats different.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW