OF course it can. MikeB is in no way a fanboy and is always right.

Hmm, I need to add the word "magically" to show my tone on the matter.

Yeah, I'm surprised by this too.....PS3 was supposed to be THE graphics machine...Yet, you can find more 1080p games for Xbox 360....Well as another fellow Vgcharter said, they need to use the memory for other, more better things....

lol

But they eliminated 2 CELL CPU's in favour of the RSX because the total package would be more powerful ...

This has nothing to do with ease of development because you could (and most likely would) create a software based OpenGL impelmentation which (for 95% of interaction with the GPU) would be identical regardless of whether you were using two Cell processors of the RSX.

We're rapidly approaching the 18 month point and the PS3 has yet to demonstrate anything dramatically better than the XBox 360 (and it is rapidly losing ground to the PC); don't you think it is about time that you accept the fact that the Cell's processing power is mainly a marketing gimick, and that you will never see the kind of improvements you have been preaching for all these months?

 Yes, more XBox360 games will display in 1080p...probably (I'm not sure on the exact numbers).  But they are NOT native resolutions.  It's as if I took a 1280x720 picture and stretched it to 1920x1080.  The same thing is happening with the hardware scalar in the XBox360.  In terms of games that use 1080 pixels of vertical resolution, the PS3 has more.  If you turn off 720p in the PS3, I believe Uncharted uses a 980x1080 resolution.  GT5 Prologue uses 1280x1080 resolution.  GT-HD used a 1440x1080 resolution.  Super Stardust is 1280x1080 I believe.  There are probably more, but I can't think of any at the moment.  There's a lot more to this than Microsoft simply writing "1080p" on the box of their game boxes.  It means it supports 1080p output, and not necessarily 1080p rendering.

I think ps3 and 360 owners should be content with the fact that (with the exception of crysis that needs ridiculous pcs) no pc game is looking decisively better than uncharted/ratchet/cod4 on the consoles. And this although the superior horse-power of the pc is always mentioned. Ps3 and 360 games look ridiculously good actually. And this for a price of 280$ for the 360 and 400$ for a ps3 with included bluray player. I would really like to know how many of the people complaining about lack of 1080p support actually have a 1080p tv

@Kyros: I'm one! (but I'm not really complaining that much...my 8800gt does a good enough job for 1080p gaming...it's not as if 720p looks horrible or anything.)

you do know that the CELL was designed to be able to heavily assist the RSX with graphics, infact the PS3 was enitially going to have 2 cells CPU with on of the cells doing the graphical work but this was scrapped because it would cost more than just having a dedicated graphics chip.

From what I've read on tech forums where real developers post, one thing they do allot of with CELL is back face culling, in essence the algorithim removs all non-visable geometry from the scene before it's sent to the GPU to be rendered, this takes allot of redundant strain from the GPU, which frees up GPU resources to allow more graphical effects to be rendered on screen.

So in this regard the CPU is indeed helping with graphics, and this is what the RSX+CELL combo were designed to do.