Considering its of the opinion of several people in this forum that the PS3 is FAR EXCEEDING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE XBOX360, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent to extract this performance as was said earlier in the thread. Why haven't we seen it yet?

Perhaps the reason is the whole architecture around the Cell doesn't adequately support it?

You can buy an 8800gt 256mb or 512. Both are wickedly fast units, but to extract the real performance out of it you need that extra ram to support the GPU otherwise the performance is crippled. Its the same with the PS3 - The GPU isn't strong enough and there simply isn't enough ram to REALLY take advantage of that performance. Its an unbalanced architecture.

Which is why we have killzone 2 looking better than anything on consoles "technically and visually".

@Leo-J right now there is nothing out that shows either one to be better technically. They seem the seem in graphical capabilities. And no the cell when running gaming applications isn't more powerful than a pc cpu. There are many things that makes a pc cpu better such as executing out-of order, more efficient architecture,etc. Also most games don't even use heavy cpu applications, and rely on the gpu more. Anyway I hope you at least acknowledge my post, and think about it.

Wow, you certainly like to pout don't you ...

Your (initial) argument was that Sony always puts the best CPU and GPU into their console, and it has been demonstrated by FJ-Warez that this couldn't be the case (because the RSX is a downgraded version of the 7800GTX which was available late 2005) and can be argued simply by looking at how games like FEAR and Oblivion perform worse on the PS3 than they do on PC hardware that was available in 2006.

Does this mean that the PS3 is junk? No, but it does discredit your argument why the PS4 would be bleeding edge hardware. Certainly, Sony will claim that their hardware is bleeding edge, but that is part of the PR game to seperate you from your money more than anything else.

Let's wait until it comes out, and then we'll see how it is... Until then, KZ2 is just speculation.

Your comparison of NGS and NG2 are a bit unfair:-

1) NGS was a modded port for the PS3 and not a game built from the ground up to really take advantage of the PS3 unique hardware

2) NG2 was built from the ground up for the 360 hardware

@jake_the_fake1: I said that in my comparison, and it wasn't me who brought Sigma up.

By the way, Team Ninja doesn't play around, and I have a hard time believing they could make a 720p 60 fps PS3 game without taking advantage of the Cell's SPEs.

In any case, I'm open to comparing any other PS3 60fps game to NG2...

If that were true, and the PS3 can barely do any better visuals than FEAR or OBLIVION, we wouldnt be having UNCHARTED, MGS4, OR KILLZONE 2 completely destroy those games visually.

you have to understand that the PS3 has a very different CPU than any PC. Sony was about to release the PS3 without a GPU.

Wow, im blushing.  Thank you!

Im really disapointed you didn't try to include any numbers so it'd look like this "@$%^"

Shift holding FTW.

Seriously now - I didn't say that the PS3 is less powerful. In fact I don't think I ever have seriously said it, I mean serious as in not a joke or to rile you or someone else up.

So was Lair before we found out that it had massive frame rate issues ...

It is (amazingly) foolish to argue how a game demonstrates the power of the console when we haven't seen the released version of it yet. Many companies in the past have used PC hardware to release videos of games for consoles in the past, and when the game was actually released it didn't look or perform nearly as well; I'm not claiming that this is what is happening with Killzone 2, but without seeing the released version it is foolish to claim how great it is.