Valve on HL2 differences between the 360 and PS3

[sieanr]

KBG29 said:
Come on it is rediculous to start bashing Killzone 3 for no freaking reason. Why is he to blame if a dev says the PS3 has more power than the 360. Don't shoot the messenger.

@ everyone accusing Sony fanboys of jumping on graphics just because of PS3

Have you guys seen some of the stuff PS2 pulled off. Sure the chipset was weaker, and the PS2 did not have as much RAM as the other systems, but it sure did make some awsome looking games. Anyone that thinks GT4 was not the best looking racer last gen is in denial. How about God of War 2 I think plenty of Sony fans have gloated about how awsome the graphics are in that game.

What people fail to realize is that the PS2 was the best designed system of last gen. Even with vastly underpowered hardware compared to the competition it continued to stand up next to its rivals in graphics. The reason it did this is because of the design and how the EE and GS worked together. Now with the PS3 Sony has the best hardware, the same amount of Ram, and they still have the Genius design Ken Kuteragi is known for. Cell and RSX might as well be one chip, oh my god did you guys know that EE and GS became one chip in the end of PS2 life, bet I know another console that will do the same thing. The only downfall to this design is it is hard to get people to use it the right way. A lot of devs are set on putting CPU stuff on the CPU and GPU stuff on the GPU, so early games are just crap. However as you go along justa as we saw with the PS2 stuff starts to happen that devs said we will never be able to do that. And you know what Playstation fans have known this for years.

So PS guys gloating about good graphics is not this new thing to the industry. It has been around for quite a while, and it will continue and get even worse this gen, so I hope that all the KK haters are ready to bash the hell out of the people that see his geniu, because you are going to be doing it a lot over the next 8 years at least.

I just have to quote this;

The PS2 was/is a mess of a system, and the very definition of a rush job. The genuis Krazy Ken did not design the EE/GS to work together or be some sort of super chip, in fact the GS was really an afterthought. Most of the PS2 design time was put into the CPU, then the Dreamcast hit and Sony realized that they couldn't sit on their ass and wait for the design to mature and iron itself out. So, the system was pulled together as fast as possible and consequently it was very poorly put together from a design standpoint. Furthermore, this is the reason why the PS2 went through numerous, major hardware revisions after it launched in Japan but before it hit the US (just a few months)

Really, all of Kutaragis consoles have been "unbalanced" so to speak. The PS1 was designed with 3d in mind, and consequenlty had very poor real 2d performance.

But the part about the PS3 is by far the best. Originally the PS3 was going to be 4 Cell chips all tacked together, each with its own bank of RAM. This design would have the Cell act as both CPU and GPU. However, Sony realized that such a design would be neither offer the cost and performance they needed, so they went shoping around for a GPU. At first they had a plan in the works with ATI, but they weren't happy with that so nVidia offered them a reworked G70 GPU.

Cell and RSX working together as "one chip" is no different than the 360, which will also likely have a revision that places the CPU and GPU on the same die.

And last gen I always heard mention from PS gamers that the game library and quality is what mattered, and the fact that Halo had better graphics wasn't important :( Maybe you're living in a different world than me?