The PS3 not performing as bad as some claim?

[Stromprophet]

Here's where I stand on this. I've always been a playstation fan and probably always will be. Though I was a nintendo fan first. The PS3 has the goods. Why would you want a system that always takes the same approach to game development? I don't want to see the same thing, I want something that pushes new ideas. Almost every single developer said the PS2 was harder to develop for than all the other systems (DC, Xbox, GC). Developers like Hideo Kojima prefer that because they know they can create something unique on that system, it's harder to develop for but has more rewards for the work. http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=22858 There is an excellent link on what is in the PS3 as compared to the closest competitor (hardware wise) which would be the 360. The PS3 is introducing a new concept in programming which is actually more efficient. Is it harder? Yes it is because you have to program in parellel instead of thinking of programs in a series of steps. 360 has 3 traditional style CPU cores where as the PS3 has 1 CPU core and 6 SPEs that are capable of doing very powerful calculations. A lot of people would say the threading is better on the 360 along with a better graphics card. That is debatable right now. What is interesting is the SPEs can take loads off the CPU and the Graphics card, thus allowing those to focus on heavy lifting and on more specific tasks. For instance the graphics card doesn't need to do remedial graphics calculations and may use all of its power for rendering graphics, meanwhile the SPEs can do those calculations running in parallel at the same time. The 360 is actually the system with the bottlenecks and not the PS3. The PS3 ram is split and some people think that automatically means it doesn't have as much. The bottleneck in the 360 is due to the fact that its bandwidth is not additive because it is in series, where as the PS3 bandwidth may actually be used in parallel which actually has an additive effect. It's a good read. You should all look at it, because the PS3 truly does pack the good. Why otherwise would Sony sell a system at a 250 dollar loss? Because the equipment inside is so good and so expensive. Why otherwise would M$ come out with a new system? (Featuring HDMI and 120GB hard drive). IMO a mistake to do so because they are pissing on everyone who bought a 20GB premium at 400 dollars. The cell is still going to offer the superior computing power years down the road, at roughly 2 to 1 or a little bit more. The PS3 IMO is the longer lasting system. IBM, Toshiba, and Sony created the cell jointly and it is a beast. You can see it in the fact of a game like Motorstorm, which makes Gears of War look like garbage considering the small levels, limited activity on screen, and lack of environmental interactivity. The in game motorstorm looks like freaking movies. And that's just a few months after launch. Long term the cell will be able to be exploited much further than a simple tri-core will be. Adding the BD player added a lot of the cost difference you see. BUt hey, IMO that's worth is too. Because in Hi-def movies, Blu-ray is where its at. And anyone who has seen Hi-def TV would more than likely be interested in Hi-def movies. It's about the same difference going from DVD to Hi-def as it is going from TV to HDTV. Sony also has something the 2 competitors don't long term. Hi-def graphics with Motion. 360 doesn't have motion but has Hi-def, and Wii doesn't have Hi-def but has motion. I just think long term it gets the job done.