My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[sieanr]

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.

It was in relation to the Sony nvidia deal.

Seperate paragraph =/= seperate subject

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.)

The Cell wasn't rushed, its just being used in a role it wasn't exactly intended for.

If you just look at the Cell design, the similarities between the SPUs and Sharder pipelines in a GPU should immedietly jump out. The Cell was designed to perform many functions a traditional GPU can - why would they do that if they always intended to use it as just a CPU.

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.

The fact that you claim Sony never seriously considered a Cell GPU solution implies that the current GPU arrangment was not rushed.

If Sony had never seriously considered using the Cell for everything, then what was the intended GPU? Since you offered no alternative, I assumed that you meant Sony always planned on something from Nvidia or Ati, and thus had planned as such from the outset.

[edit: just to clear up any possible misconceptions, I am not defending MikeB's constant use of Amiga analogies -- I take no position on it. But your statement sarcastic irony that I quoted proves nothing at all.]

Congradulations on understanding something I wrote