disolitude said:
While I really don't want to contribute to the PS3 vs 360 graphics war flame, as they both are pretty limited and even by todays standards, I do have to ask... How did Sony screw up the PS3 performance like this? A year in R&D development is an eternity. A year is the difference between 3DO and PS1. Dreamcast and PS2. PS2 and Xbox... Even if we consider PS3 and 360 a graphical draw, which I think they are with their individual strenghts and weakneses, I have to see this as a failure on the Sony side. All they had to do is buy a 360 in 2005, and say to their engeneers..."Look at what this is capable doing, and make sure PS3 does it better." |
Not going into techno-babble, but it's simple in my opinion:
Cell, only serves for great lighting in regards to game graphics, otherwise it's just not a suitable architecture for games, fortunately some devs have learned to cope well though, RAM is another key issue, they would have been better going with one 512mb stick than their two 256mb's. And well the GPU was never stellar and just implemented way too late when they figured two Cell CPU's just wasn't going to work.
Overall just a too exotic plan for a machine that didn't need to be.
