What is this the resurgance of PC elitist's?

I figure console gaming went to hell the moment it started going the route of PC.

If people want to keep seeing 'deep immersive' graphics then they should get a PC and pay the extra 400 USD a month to keep up with marathon that route requires you to follow for 'deep immersive' graphics.

Instead of being cheap about it and want developers to 'push' the system and then complain when it's not perfect in every other area.

w/e I know without a doubt 1993 issue developers just moving from the dominant bitmap works and someones saying we were playing games at 1080p in 1995 on PC alone.

... I blame Sega!

Either you're pointing out a more important truth (that most PCs sold today are laptops in the $500 to $1000 range) or you're completely delusional.

The Cell processor will have similar performance to processors that were released using a similar process and have a similar number of transistors, it will have certain advantages and disadvantages compared to other processors but you can not break the fundimental laws of physics simply because you're designed by Sony. It is likely that the Cell processor will soon be outperformed by CPUs that are available in laptops simply because the move towards a 45nm or 32nm process allows more transistors to be put on a processor and the processor to be run at a higher clock speed.

Beyond that the GPU in the PS3 is similar to a Geforce 7800 which will soon be worse than most budget graphics cards, and soon after that will be worse than integrated graphics cards.

Moore's Law doesn't stop because Sony says so ...

Expecting older generation PC graphics hardware to run games at the same quality as PCs but at a higher resolution than most PC monitors is just retarded. Neither the 360 nor the PS3 are able to deliver better graphics than a current midgrade graphics card and people expect them to run at 1080p?

Take this "resolution based performance meter" concept out of your head.  1080p is not a goal that you reach where all games will then look beautiful. What people are looking for with powerful consoles are games that look great and have better quality graphics and textures. This does not mean higher resolution. Don't look at next generation as the golden 1080p generation either. Do you want better looking games next generation or do you want games that always run at 1080p so can justify to yourself the extra money you spent on your TV. In fact, if you demand that of game makers, you are barking up the wrong tree.

HD resolutions have become console fanboy e-penis measuring sticks. Get over it guys.

You honestly believe that in a few years the PS3 will outperform Crysis rigs sold today?

Wow. Sony really must be developing for 4D because given the specs on the PS3 right now, that kind of performance would have to involve wormholes and time manipulation, both of which will still probably require more than 512 megs of RAM.

Yea, well with all the time people have had to program for my Pentium III, I think Crysis II is going to run at 2160p in a couple years . . . seriously, did I miss the memo that said all of a sudden the world flipped around and better technology can be predicted using a new formula [Morre's Law]^-1?

Plenty of research documents show you are plainly wrong. In terms of raw processing power the Cell can perform multiple times faster than commonly sold x86 desktop CPUs today at all optimised software tasks. The x86 CPUs carry around lots of legacy garbage and non-crucial (note I am not saying useless to everyone) features. I look at the Cell as a processor adopting the philosophy of achieving elegance trough simplicity.

I think you should look up the definition of elegance and simplicity

You are dillusional. 50GB is tiny in PC terms, as PCs already have TB drives available. Storage limitations for PCs are much higher than those for the PS3.

Secondly, the Cell is what I'd like to describe as "fucking slow" by PC measure for gaming. Intel is releasing 6-core processors this year, each core faster than the Cell's one PPE. The SPEs on the Cell can be used to do some things efficiently and some things inefficiently, but those 6 Intel cores will all just be blazing fast.

Oh, and the PS3 still has 256MB video memory and 256MB system memory. Welcome to 2003.

The Cell is great at theoretical peak numbers, though, but as anyone who knows anything about high performance computing will tell you, theoretical peak numbers and even benchmarked peak numbers are shit, and mean nothing.

If the Cell was any good at all, Toshiba would be putting it in

(1) its own high end computers and

(2) licensing to all high end computers

Instead, they're putting them in Toshiba TV sets. Because, as you know, the Cell is good at decoding MPEG streams. And it's cheap. And owned by Toshiba. It's not good enough for computers, but it is well suited towards being in mainstream TV sets.

And, as we've seen, only makeshift cluster efforts even try the PS3.  Why?  Because it is asinine to run high performance compute clusters out of PS3s.  

I already addressed this many times, the PS3 from a technical perspective provides great technological benefits as well as shortcomings compared to modern gaming PCs. These advantages relate to Blu-Ray disc (7.1 lossless audio and graphics data streaming) and the Cell processor. Disadvantages relate to non-upgradeable system memory, GPU performance and the fact that PC games are usually entirely stored onto the harddrive.

Other long term PS3 related advantages is a fully standard basic hardware configuration with probably a decade of shelf space, which means developers will exploit and optimise for every bit of juice they can pump out of the hardware in course of time. Secondly for multi-theaded games one CPU core on a Windows box will usually be entirely dedicated to the host OS due to Windows being very inefficient draining CPU cycles (and system memory, which makes its system RAM advantage far less significant than total numbers would suggest).

 The cell processor was designed to be a next generation workstation/server chip by IBM.  Gaming applications are altogether different.  Games are not designed the same way as most office and commercial apps.  The true statement is that most of the power of the Cell is untapped.  The ugly underside of that true statement is that games don't need most of what the Cell has to offer.  Sony further handicapped it by giving a small amount of memory dedicated to it.  Games on the PS3 will improve as developers use it more efficiently but what must be understood is that it is not a gaming processor.  The games will not improve as dramatically as you believe.  This vast untapped potential it has is better used in a server farm.  This is why people have looked at the PS3 for those applications.