Because the Cell was designed to use XDR RAM and the RSX they slapped in there was designed to use GDDR3.

Actually Carmack has said several times that the PS3 is overall slightly more powerful than the 360 and the standard HDD and blu-ray storage is a boon. It's just that the 360 has a faster GPU and the architecture (unified RAM etc) and dev tools make it far easier to utalise it's power. As he saidin the past the PS3 may be more powerful on paper but even if the ceiling may be higher on the PS3 you can reach the 360s ceiling faster so given the same dev time a multiplatform game will almost always be better on 360. Only since devs started giving the PS3 extra attention has multiplats become almost always equal, and also why exclusive PS3 games look better as they get to spend longer optomising for the PS3.

haven't written a scrap of c in years so I can't for the life of me remember if I need to include anything but

int main()

{

printf "hello world"/n

}

What the fuck with some users here? You isnt suppose to program the same way on PS3, we all know that. Some were just stating the obvious. That being said, I totally understand ID software didnt to customize their engine to that extend, hence why Sony did a bad move with the cell processor.

I'm not disagreeing with what he said, I don't think many other people are either, it's how he is making excuses for his own shortcomings and obsessing over it. It's damage control and he is taking it out on the PS3 (which doesn't make sense considering the console versions are very close).

He talked up how great the graphics were, he had trouble with the PS3's architecture, failed to deliver, and now he is slagging off the PS3 and making veiled, trollish comments on a weekly basis. Especially his "Xbox 360 is the greatest console ever made" comment, don't know how you could miss that one. I thought by now you would have learned that developers talk a lot of shit, you were very quick to dismiss Crytek's claims about how good Crysis on consoles looked.

As for Kowenicki's post...Seriously? 

Since when have developers slagged the Xbox 360 or the PS3 off and people have always sided with the PS3? I don't know how this thread gives you the right to start defending the Xbox 360 and insulting anybody who opposes Carmack's statement, including me, but the Xbox 360 has nothing to do with this thread, trust you to bring it up.

This thread is full of teh Lolz...

Nope. Most of the games these people worship are linear as fuck, and heavily scripted but locked at 30 FPS. But hey they look pretty, even if they aren't doing half as much as other more impressive games.

I'm sure the children badmouthing John, know a lot more about programming then he does.

Crysis 2 does look better than killzone 3. Killzone hides in darkness, while Crysis bathes in light. Many reviewers said Crysis 2 on the xbox 360 is the best looking console game.

I wonder how much sony pays their online defenders.

Seems I must assume id/carmack defense position again.

The PC version was a mess up because of the rubbish drivers that AMD put out. All I will say is that:
1.) The PC version played perfectly at QuakeCon.
2.) Developer drivers aren't the same as release drivers.
3.) Carmack said they worked closely with AMD before the launch of Rage but in the end, drivers on launch day were a screw up. Even AMD acknowledged they messed up the driver.

As for the PS3 "issues"... I am endlessly amused when people pull out Naughty Dog as their slam-dunk example of PS3 = Christ.

Uncharted:
-33ms game tick
-Repeating tiled-texture system.

Rage:
-16ms game tick
-unique streaming texture system.

The texture pop-in visible on the PS3 is the BEST they can do. Uncharted doesn't have to do these jobs:
1.) Isolate texture pages based on player view
2.) Check blu-ray disc and hard disk install (Sony only allowed id 8gb) and temp cache visible textures and stream from disk cache.
3.) Transcode texture pages into system memory/disk cache/video memory at mutliple mip levels.

PS3 limitations:
1.) Slow(er) buffered IO reads.
2.) Less available memory than Xbox 360
3.) Smaller max tile size (Carmack said it himself. Max texture size smaller on PS3). Shhhh. Don't tell anyone, but this forced them to go with the smaller tex size on both consoles. Shhh.
4.) Forced to stream at least two thirds of the data from the very slow blu-ray drive on the PS3.

id tried all they could to make the experience the best it could be on PS3:
1.) They said that the cell is allocated texture page transcoding jobs constantly when available.
2.) They twisted arms to get 8gb out of Sony for an install (when the full 22gb would be ideal).

And the end result... a fantastic looking game that doesn't quite keep up to speed with other platforms but is still a great technical achievement.

Carmack said at Quakecon as far as physics heavy scenes go, the PS3 pulls ahead of the X360. But (some) PS3 fans don't want to hear faint praise for their console. They literally want a spunk load, or nothing else.

Seems people will ignore all the facts and just cry "Waa waa waa. Naughty Dog! Killzone! TEH CELL!"

PS: I have a PS3 with 60+ games and no Xbox 360. Take from that what you will.