MikeB on 13 June 2009
@ Crazymann
So... a system with enough EDRam to provide free anti-aliasing in 1080P, a vastly more newer GPU with more features, and for 6 full cores as opposed to 8 memory limited SPU's (one of which isn't even used) is only on par with the PS3?
Also, how can a console on which a huge fraction of its games CAN'T run at 1080P be called a "true 1080P system"?
Also, how can a console on which a huge fraction of its games CAN'T run at 1080P be called a "true 1080P system"?
All systems are memory limited, just some more than others. You can make efficient use of the available memory, like a NeoGeo was extremely memory limited for its time or an Amiga 500 vs PCs with tons more system memory requirements for its time.
Entry model Amiga 500 vs top range PC gaming (usually multiple times the memory requirements, both regarding system memory and harddrive capacity):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETl8PhUy_E
The PS3 still has a lot of untapped potential, however game engines have matured a lot as is evident by comparing a game like Uncharted 2 to early PS3 efforts.
The NeoGeo was so powerful despite its tiny memory footprints due to fast streaming of data using cartridges, I think similarly PS3 streaming engines will play an ever more important role to demonstrate its capabilities (and Blu-Ray is most excellent for this).
Compare c64 games which only had a single load of 64KB max to later c64 games like Turrican 2, which loaded this per level. Streaming goes much further than that, you are no longer strictly memory limited per level.