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

Reader Comments (60)

Posted: Aug 25th 2008 6:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tephion

Posted: Aug 25th 2008 6:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@tephion...... so in the next 3 or 4 years once lazy ass 3rd party devs learn how to take full advantage of the cell processor for gaming you truly think the xbox stands a chance? oh wait in that time period Microsoft will have come out with a new system that you will have to buy, while ps3 owners will still keep going with their "fud" of a processor. Plus I like my 32 player online matches in R:FOM and Warhawk that i pay diddly squat for every month, where on Live you pay monthly fees and still get crazy amounts of lag on COD4 and Halo. To each his own i suppose, for me even if the systems were dead equal(which they arent) the free online and blu-ray player is the clincher for me.

Posted: Aug 25th 2008 7:27PM Tephlon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So your argument is that this "awesome cell processor" is the reason for your 32 player games?
Sorry, but that is simply wrong. You're ability to play large scale multiplayer games does not hinge on your processor's ability to crunch numbers.
The main reason you can play 32 player 'whatever' is because of the lack of restrictions Sony puts on the their online network. That can be seen as duel edged sword, because laying all the responsibility on the developer to make their P2P or company-hosted server based multiplayer game work well is their own responsibility. If the dev is good and committed to keeping servers/matchmaking up, this is a good thing. But if the dev doesn't, it could be bad. Although admittedly I'd say so far it has served them for the better than for the worse. Time is the real challenge for this model.

But again, you didn't read closely enough. I'm not arguing that the Playstation doesn't have lasting power... I'm not even trying to make the argument of value (blu-ray), yadda yadda, this that or the other.

I'm simply saying that the machine itself (notably the 'cell') is NOT what is delivering Sony their success, period. I'm not sure what you guys have been reading about this processor (or maybe NOT reading, is the case?), but having some crazy CPU does NOT give you automatic rights and abilities to have '32 player' games. Other notable outside factors are at work.

The playstation will age well because of its developer support, not because it's hardware 'has all this crazy room to grow'. The RSX in the PS3 isn't as capable as the ATI card in the 360. And the cell simply doesn't outclass the 360's cpu enough to present games that the 360 simply couldn't do. It just doesn't work that way.
I'm starting to think people mis-understand the processor's place in computing.

I will step in quickly to refute your claim of 'paying for a laggy service', as I have never had lag be a problem for me on XBL, but I won't get into the argument of why you may have had lag during your experiences, or why i don't... it's simply not worth it to me.

Regarding your last statement, I have no qualms or arguments there... you certainly have the right to have the free online play and blu-ray player be 'the deciding factor' for you if you so want.
I never said Sony's overall strategy doesn't have merit, or that they don't have strengths.
But don't let the marketing and hoopla surrounding the cell be a basis for your reasoning. It's unfounded. The cell won't bring you the Second Coming of Christ.
Reply

Posted: Aug 25th 2008 8:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
wow tephlon sounds like an angry kid who realised his pecker won't grow anymore, let alone his limited understanding of how modern multicore cpus work. haha at least no one mentioned rrod to him yet. haha trolling a troll who offers nothing but waht big billy is offering him - wtb! NINTY 4EVA!!!
Reply

Posted: Aug 25th 2008 9:14PM Extinction said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tephlon

Yes processing power does effect how many players you can have.
Reply

Posted: Aug 25th 2008 11:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That doesn't make sense.. the 360 CPU has a what? 3? 4 cores within the processor? Why wouldn't he know? Also, it's true that the number of players comes from restrictions and limitations of an online service lol. I mean look at Huxley for the PC and 360.. the game supports 60v60, with 100 simultaneous battles and 5000 players per server. So you obviously cant say something along the lines of how the 360's CPU limits the amount of players within a game =P
Reply

Posted: Aug 26th 2008 12:09PM Tephlon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok, yeah, way to not look at the big picture people (thank you Arnon FOR seeing the big picture)

Look, it is simple. I made a long rant about how I'm tired of the cell being heralded as the messiah, Nick refutes with the statement that the cell is more superior and then gives the reasoning that the cell lets him enjoy 32 player gaming on the PS3.

My statements simply argue that that assessment is complete shit. YES, while the CPU is involved in driving the engine that's managing the locations and actions of all spawned entities, the structure of the cell does not give it an inherent HUGE advantage over the 360's cpu to do so. The delta is JUST not that big. Read documents. Understand gaming engines. It just isn't. I'm not saying that isn't used to manage those players... I'm saying that the reason he's playing 32 player games on the PS3 ISN'T because of the damn cell... it's all the other factors causing it.

Everyone freaking out needs to calm the hell down.

Posted: Aug 26th 2008 7:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@tephlon

first off you dont even know what your talking about and i dont see how you streched how little you know in how ever many paragraphs that was.....

First off the Xbox360 has a dual core processor each core capable of running 2 threads per core while the ps3 has one SPU capable of running 2 threads and 6 SPE's capable of running 1 thread each so by pure raw power the Ps3 overwhelms the Xbox

As for the GPU the Xbox uses the Xenos while the Ps3 uses the RSX and contrary to what many people say they are pretty evenly matched......the Xenos may have the advantage on the number of transistors but the RSX has double that when used in combination with the Cell also the RSX is alot faster than the Xenos but the Xenos can shade a couple of giga pixels faster so they trade off on certain areas but they are over all both at the same level but since the cell its not a ordinary CPU it can act as a GPU of sorts so thats another thing in favor of the ps3

the only real thing that holds the ps3 back is the dificulty of coding for it

the xbox can run a whider variety of calculations and is relatively idiot proof it trows out bad code so that makes it a little bit easier on the developer while as the ps3 is substantially faster it has to be coded specifically and is not so forgiving when it comes to coding errors

Nice try next time do some research..........

**THAT IS ALL**


Posted: Sep 3rd 2008 12:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's a 3-core processor :x
Reply

Posted: Sep 2nd 2008 6:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
when will these shooters use the GONCON 3?!?

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW