My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[Final-Fan]

Ahem. On Page 5 alone, here are some of the disputations between us in which you have made an argument, I have presented my counterargument, and I never heard back with either acknowledgement or rebuttal:

NUMBER ONE:
I said:

I would like to point out that that developer's entire point boils down to "PS3 is harder to develop for but has Blu-ray and Cell; 360 has the better GPU; 360 has been out longer and therefore has more and better games; RRoD is not my problem."

None of this is even remotely controversial; MikeB has stated his agreement with all the things I have said above, except for the "better games" which is only true until LBP/MGS4 hit anyway.

Tell me something the developer really said not covered by my above interpretation AND that isn't sheer opinion.

You said:

PS3 cant do AI as well as the 360, due to the Cell

I riposted,

Except he DIDN'T SAY THAT. Anything else? or was that all you had?

You have not responded to that question. If you like, you can simply answer "Yes, I have more" or "No, that was all", or, if the answer is "Yes", you can explain in further detail anything I missed in my summary.

NUMBER TWO:
We have had a lengthy exchange regarding what aspects of the PS3's design may have been rushed. Your last post on this subject was as follows:

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.

I responded,

I merely assumed you were aware of your own post in which you stated:

Relativly late in its design cycle Sony came to the realization that 4 Cells would be too expensive and not offer enough performance for graphics. So, Sony went to ATI to ask for a graphics solution. For a while, it looked like they were going to have a deal, but things feel through.

Sony then went to Nvidia, who offered them a quick and dirty solution.

I made it clear that I was rejecting the idea that Sony seriously considered a 4-Cell design beyond the early concept stage, while remaining at least open to the idea that the rest of your information (namely, botched deal with ATI) was accurate.

That scenario, if true, would take care of the "rushed GPU" very nicely without any mention of a multiple-Cell design. Did you assume I was just too stupid to remember what you posted, or were you the forgetful one?

You have not responded to that question, but I'll let you off the hook as it was pretty rhetorical.

NUMBER THREE:
You raised a question:

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.

I responded,

I am (and have been) aware of the Cell-GPU similarities, but this in no way implies that it was meant to substitute for the GPU in the PS3.

This last does not actually require a response, but it is a point that I made which you have neither acknowledged nor rebutted.

On another note: I was aware of the Neo-Geo, but it wasn't a major system the way the NES, PS1, and PS2 were/are. Thanks to Brazil, the Sega Master System, depending on how you count it, either lasted for 14 years as well, or is up to 21 and counting! But I don't think that really ought to count.

(Wikipedia says that it was discontinued there in 2000, and yet "is still in production today". I believe they mean that games are no longer produced but the system itself (with built-in games as well as a cartridge slot) is still manufactured and sold.)

[edit:  And then there's the Atari 2600...]