My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[Final-Fan]

sieanr said:

Final-Fan said:

sieanr said:

Final-Fan said:

Darc Requiem said:
It isn't speculation. The PS3 was originally going be powered by multiple Cells. Sony did go to Nvidia in the middle of the PS3's development for GPU. That's common knowledge.

The video card thing I don't doubt is at least somewhat true, but as for the "original" Cell design, I really, really think that what you refer to is an extremely early idea -- probably one of many -- that was discarded for obvious (cost) reasons very early in the design process.

Prove me wrong.

The deal with nvidia happened in December of 2004, and months later the "final" PS3 specs hit at E3. Keep in mind that this deal happened when Sony was heavily hinting at a late '05 launch.

Given that the Cell began development in 2001, hand in hand with the PS3, I'd say the deal was quite late.

I already said that I was inclined to believe you on the thing you provided evidence for, and I said I disbelieved the thing you declined to provide evidence for.

(March 2001, five and a half years before PS3 launch, =/= rushed design. Especially when the 360's Xenon processor wasn't under development until at least 2002 -- giving it two years or 40% less time from conception to market than the Cell had. If you base this supposed lack of development, as your post implies, on the fact that other aspects of the PS3 were also under development then, that only proves that Sony was MORE forward-thinking, not less.)

Will you concede that the Cell design was not rushed?

Learn to read

I never said the Cell was a rushed design, just that the entire PS3 design was changed relativly late in the design phase. This is based off the fact that the Nvidia deal for the GPU didn't happen until the PS3 had already had years of design under its belt.

Changing the design around completly and adding a traditionaly GPU to the mix a year before your targeted window is the very definition of "rush job"

MS caught Sony with their pants down, launching long before they expected. Sony had to come up with something, especially when they realised that the Cell wouldn't perform well as a faux GPU. Then they ran into other issues, possibly related to the RSX being shoehorned in.

Having a console in development for 5 1/2 years before launch, yet failing to have mature dev kits available speaks volumes about the state of the PS3 at launch. You'd think that if they had things finalized long before then that that sort of thing wouldn't be a problem.

Did you get all of that; or was it too hard to comprehend?

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2004/12/07/sony-nvidia-partner-on-playstation-3-graphics-chip - maybe your inclinded to believe this instead of spending five seconds to find hundreds of google hits for stories identicle to this. Whoops!

"Learn to read"? How about: you learn to write.

I thought that when you wrote

Given that the Cell began development in 2001, hand in hand with the PS3, I'd say the deal was quite late.

you meant that the Cell "deal" between Sony, IBM and Toshiba in 2001 was quite late. Keep in mind that the above quote is an ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. Perhaps I should have realized that you meant the "deal" in late 2004 for the graphics card, but this was an honest mistake.

Moving on: In your earlier post, which was a response to back-and-forth about whether PS3 design was "rushed", you mentioned that "The PS3 was originally going to be powered by multiple Cells." I decided to say that I doubt very much that that design was ever seriously considered beyond early concepts; I also spent one sentence saying that the GPU decision was at least somewhat rushed.

In my second post to you, I spend one sentence, again, saying that I am not arguing that the PS3's GPU was not rushed, and spent the rest of my ENTIRE POST explaining why the Cell was not rushed.

Where are you getting the idea that I ever, EVER argued that the PS3's GPU was not "rushed" into the PS3's design? I defy you to show where I have said such a thing. You are attacking me for disagreeing with something I didn't disagree with. Admittedly, I had a similar misconception about you, but I had a much better reason for my misunderstanding, and was never insulting or condescending -- until now.

"Learn to read", indeed.

P.S. Oh, and may I presume that you agree to the question I posed at the end of my previous post? (Assuming you comprehend the question I am asking here, of course.)