Sony says PS3 only console powerful enough for Killzone 2

[jetrii]

ssj12 said:

numonex said:
XBox 360 has a better graphics card than PS3. I will take Gears of War 2 over Kill Zone 2 any day of the week.
Sony PR again and they are lying/misleading gamers once again.

 

A GPU doesnt make a system... and the GPU and extra few mbs of ram doesnt make much difference. The PS3 is stronger, just only slightly. The CELL can perform video decoding just like its GPU as it was originally designed to be a CPU/GPU hybrid with the original design of the PS3 having two CELLs. So while the 360 has a better GPU the PS3 has a CPU/GPU and a GPU.

The CELL is a pain in the rear to code, this is why Killzone 2 is probably nearly the best we will see for a year or two.

Also your comment on what you would take doesnt matter. Its just fanboy speech. Frankly If you want to go there Ill take every PC TPS out there over Gears and have a WAY better experience.

 

Negative. The cell processor was never designed to be a CPU/GPU hybrid. From day one, it was designed to be CPU with an unprecedented ability to rip through floating point operations. Remember, IBM planned to sell the Cell CPU on servers and supercomputers. Having it be a GPU hybrid would have made it more expensive to produce without any real benefits. Although CPUs suck at rendering, Sony hoped the Cell processor would be so powerful that although it's extremely inefficient at rendering, it could handle the task without breaking a sweat. If you remember, the original Cell processor patent had over 16 cores and was clocked at 5Ghz. Even if the original plan worked, the Cell wouldn't be able to compete with a modern GPU at the time. Sony made a bad business decision and it bit them in the ass so they had to turn to Nvidia for a quick GPU.