@ HappySqurriel

The Amiga 500 was based on the high end Amiga 1000 released 2 years earlier, so developers had some time to play with Amiga's custom chips as well (small utils, programs and tech demos showed off the Amiga's potential, but not full game engines). Resistance 1 was impressive with the amount of things going on screen at once, 7.1 lossless audio and solid/free 40 player online battles. Just compare Resistance 2 with Resistance 1 (which used a heavily modified PS2 game engine, the jump from PS2 to PS3 tech is huge and a lot of work) and you will notice immense gains.

Early PS3 dev tools weren't that great (development software just like game engines take a while to adapt to new hardware), this has greatly improved. Most devs got them in 2006.

"I am not comparing 360 and Wii with the PC because we all know which console has the best hardware,please no fanboys."

I stopped reading after this.

The 360 and the PS3 are close together in their hardware performance. When the 360 loses against the PC, the PS3 does it as well

Oh, it's because he can't. Trolls are usually so single-minded. -_-;;

1) PS3 is stuck with 512 Ram, because of this "The Power of TEH Cell" will never trully be shown in the ps3.

2) PS3 is stuck with a fixed graphics card. PC gamers now have the option of cards far more powerfull than the RSX.

3) The Power of the Cell!!!!

As for my personally. Console gaming > PC gaming... for me anyway....

"There have been developers entirely devoted to the cell processor for nearly 4 years and it hasn't really broken away from the performance of the XBox 360 or a 3 year old PC. Its about time that you admit that the Cell is not a magical, law of physics breaking, processor and it is very similar in performace to the other processors. Certainly, there will be improvements over time as developers work with it, but it isn't a cutting edge gaming system anymore and it never will be again."

I know its all about the games. And the 360 isn't a cutting edge gaming system anymore because after Gears 2 it is basically done. With Microsoft set to debut their new console at the 2009 GDC. They will be shifting their development dollers predominantly over to their new console as well so during the majority of 2009 and leading up to the launch of the next xbox in the fall of 2010, we will also be seeing far fewer cutting edge games making their way to the 360 with Star Ocean, if it can remain an exclusive, being the last one.

However, much as the PS2 did, the PS3 will continue to have most of the best games on the market  developed for it, and by Christmas 2010 it will take away the majority of the current gen console marketshare from Nintendo's Wii as the shortcomings of the Wii will become more and more noticable over time.  Compared to the Wii, the PS3 will always be a cutting edge gaming machine and as the market sees more and more of what the PS3 can bring to its games which the Wii can't due to storage constraints and last gen graphic tech more and more people will become interested in purchasing the PS3.

     The PS3 will continue its dominance through 2011 much as the PS2 did through its lifespan with a drastically superior game library and a much cheaper price than the Next Box which will probably come out with a $700 to $900 price tag in November of 2010; and the PS3 will reign right up until the time Sony replaces the PS3 with the PS4 in 2012, and then the cycle will begin again.

This thread is seriously moronic... Its been a long time that I had read such a stupid thread. Dont you ever know the technicalities? You dismiss xbox 360 without second thought though it has a much similiar architecture but you dont mind at all comparing oranges and apples aka pc and ps3!!! 8 spus??? 1 is not even activated 1 or 2 reserved by the system! Be more carefull with the technicalities and dont you be a fanboy yourself! Also the main difference between PC and PS3 is about the graphics chipset and memory limitations, not the processor!

Fair enough... let's say the price is $500 to $600, What combination of Motherboard, Processor, RAM, Video Card, Sound Card, Blu-Ray player and Hard Drive (With a legal version of Windows), outperforms the PS3... I'm checking the combinations i can do, because it's interesting to do that with a limited budget...

 Using the logic that Onyxmeth applied to this challenge, why is it fair that we include the price of the Operating System, because Sony doesn't. Also, can we include the $2bn of R&D that Sony had?

For 480 dollars(+25 shipping) you can buy a prebuilt and videocard that vastly outperforms the PS3, and comes with Windows Vista on it.

Acer sells a customizable 3ghz equivelant rather awesome duel core, 3 gigs of ram, 300gb hd, DVD drive, and Vista pro for 400 bucks.

As for the card, here ya go:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161249

Here is that cards review:

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15559

With that setup, you're playing Crysis on high, with lesser resolutions, granted, but it's still quite a machine.

You can play Crysis at medium on a medium resolution setting with an ATI 3650, and it only sucks up 45w of power, even under stress, so you could stick it in any rig with a 250w power supply and it'd still at least equal the PS3, assuming ram and CPU are up to snuff.

Subtracting the ATX case and OS which I already have, I'm looking at spending between $500 and $550 (including S&H and taxes) on my new PC hardware. I've selected a 500GB Hard Drive, 2.2GHz Dual Core Processor, GeForce 8800 GS, 2GB DDR2 RAM, a reliable 500W power supply, a good CPU fan, a good DVD burner, and a mother board to support it all. My PC should easily outperform the PS3 in any game and provide more storage and superior multimedia capabilities. I haven't checked the prices on Newegg yet, I might be able to shave $50 or more off of the price.