As a non PS fan, I would like to know what do you guys think of the PS3 hardware, and if you would have changed something as the Cell, memory type or quantity, and graphics chip.

It's funny, 11 votes to "PS3 was a disaster. Everything" in less than 30 seconds. One guy has too much time and knows how to use proxies.

This is a serious question to PS fans, I would like to know what they think now of the PS3 architecture.

Can't complain, it gave so many great games. I suppose since people said it needed more ram ill assume it needed that....but they say ps4 having 8 gigs is lame so who knows what is enough.

I think if the memory had been configured as in the 360 then all multiplats would have been better on ps3.

Love the system for the software it produced (and is still producing), but I have to admit its design had some shortcomings. The split memory seems to be the biggest issues based on what some people told me, but I'm not a techie so I can't confirm this.

Price and memory without a question, split memory is the cause for inferior ports at the start of the gen and later on Skyrim had problems with it.

Price because it was too expensive and slowed down adoption rate.

I think it's flawed. They should have gone with 4 full fledged PowerPC cores and never have started with Cell. It costs billions of dollars and it caused the PS3 to be harder to develop for. Also they intended to use Cell for gpu purposes aswell, causing them to switch to Nvidia to late resulting in the 360 ending up with more powerfull and modern gpu technology.

Then there's Blu-Ray. From a format war point of view a good decision, and it will probably allow the PS3 to enjoy longer support after next gen fully launches. On the other hand it was insanely expensive in the beginning and it caused the PS3 to launch later than planned.

And then there's the RAM. 256mb fixed for both system and gpu was a very stupid move, and they should have gone with a shared memory system.

All in all i consider the PS3 very badly designed, though the strength of the Playstation brand pulled it through in the end.

Was pretty much a disaster. Blu-ray and CELL both massively expensive and unnecessary (maybe you could make an argument for blu-ray, but definitely not the CELL), memory arch caused a lot of problems... if they'd replaced CELL with cheaper 360 equivalent and blu-ray with standard DVD they could of bumped up the RAM and put in a better GPU, making the console more powerful than the 360 AND a lot cheaper to manufacture.

in hindsight the architecture was a big hinderance to the PS3 - the Cell was too exotic, and both the memory configuration with dedicated ram and the GPU with dedicated shaders not flexible enough, additionally the GPU has a hardware coded anisotropic filtering method which makes textures look blurry from some angles

the Blu-ray drive was a costly addition to the mix, yet personally I have to say I enjoyed that feature quite a lot

I cant complain cause i've had great games to play ever since i've bought it in 2009, but it would've been nice if it wasnt such a headache and expensive to work with for developers. i'm glad sony is more developers focused now with the ps4 cause that will guarantee more support from the beginning.

making it easier for developers will also mean making it cheaper and it will probably mean less studios closing their doors this gen. i think thats a concern, games cant afford to need to sell millions in order to be profitable, especially new IPs.