About 7 or 8 years ago, I remember when everyone was saying that all PC processors were going to go cell. In the end it didn't work that way at all, and a lot of companies had to rethink there decisions. The PS3 was so far into planning at that point that they couldn't switch it out.
The cell processor does prove to be better for gaming then PC-ing, but having to commit certain parts of the processor to certain actions must make it difficult to relearn.

footbag said: About 7 or 8 years ago, I remember when everyone was saying that all PC processors were going to go cell. In the end it didn't work that way at all, and a lot of companies had to rethink there decisions. The PS3 was so far into planning at that point that they couldn't switch it out.

Eh... what? I think you are referring to something completelly different... 

@ rubido

Personally I am more open minded towards the idea.

If the price drops the next couple of years and HDTV marketshare increases I can imagine many people becoming increasingly interested in the PS3 mainly as a Blu-Ray player.

fazz said: footbag said: About 7 or 8 years ago, I remember when everyone was saying that all PC processors were going to go cell. In the end it didn't work that way at all, and a lot of companies had to rethink there decisions. The PS3 was so far into planning at that point that they couldn't switch it out. Eh... what? I think you are referring to something completelly different...

 I'm refering to the Motorola/IBM venture that resulted in the Cell processor for the power PC.  Which at the time was billed as the worlds fastest PC.  

I would hate to see the PS3 doomed to the same fate as the PSP where it becomes more valued for secondary features (in the PSP's case: internet, homebrew, and emulation). In some ways the best thing that can happen for the PS3 at this point is for it to be desired as a Blu-Ray player if nothing else. Owning the thing will make you more likely to buy the games.

@ rubido 

Although I agree it's an important reason, that doesn't mean there aren't other good reasons. High definition 1080p/7.1 audio games use up a lot of storage. A linear 720p game like Blue Dragon already takes 3 DVDs, multi-platform developers are already complaining about a lack of space (Rockstar) and even for PGR4 graphics needed to be scaled down due to DVD limitations.

We are still at the very beginning of this Next-Gen war. XBox 360 gaming time for June in the US is still about half of XBox gaming and the Wii is even half of that. PS2 gaming time even dwarfs Wii, XBox and XBox 360 gaming time combined, and the US is by far the XBox and XBox 360's strongest market.

@ XboxSoldier12

Speaking for myself as a Nintendo DS gamer, I can say my interests in the PSP skyrocketed with the ability to connect remotely with the PS3.

And the PSP IMO performs rather well within this previously Nintedo dominated market segment. I don't think the PSP would have perfomed as well as it did if the console would be less powerful and offered fewer distinguishing features as compared to the Nintendo DS. Name me one competitive effort which performed better than the PSP performed thus far?

@MikeB

I agree with you. Ideally, I would say that blue ray is better than dvd9 if you want hd content. Texture sizes go up and you will need the extra space if you want something well done. The problem I see is with the choice at this specific point in time. I think that the ps3 could have made a huge dent on wii sales (360 would have been dust) if it was cheaper. Wii would still be great for the novelty, but the ps3 would be right up there and could even win at the end (opinion only).

I guess you are right. I might have pushed it too far with that simple statement. Blue ray does have its uses. But the ps3's price is killing it. Sony knew that the price would skyrocket by the inclusion of blue ray alone. That would not be good for the console. At the end, they stuck with it. Then, I would say that a big reason for its inclusion was the format war. I don't think that the use of the blue ray (better capable for hd textures) outweighs the negative effect of the ps3's price.

On your other comment about the Sony statement, I would disagree with you. Not that what you said is wrong. You are certainly right about what you said. But sony's statement was about the ps3 being fresh new and not in the next couple of years with a huge price drop. I found that statement to be very offensive.

What you said about the PSP though. Couldn't be closer to the truth. It was a market dominated by nintendo for ages. 20 million. Anyone thinks that is bad? What other handheld has ever sold more than 10 million against nintendos handhelds? There is no need to dominate on your first try. It is above 20 million and kicking. Will not beat the ds, but carved a space for the next iteration.

rubido said: I find it funny when someone talks about a game using only 30% of the "theoretical power" of the ps3 like if 100% is achievable. I guess I am not going to waste my time trying to explain parallel processing speedup and algorithms to a target audience that will just ignore everything I am saying basically because they don't want to hear it. Whoever understands this knows that it is not possible. Specially with the way that each core processes information, which makes the gap between its theoretical performance to usable performance larger. Anyway, my first point in this is that the Cell processor is less than ideal for gaming. If I could guess, the 360 might even be more powerful than the ps3 on the long run. But this is just a guess and should not be taken so seriously. I am not investing my time to discover their true potential and it doesn't even matter. They both have a lot of power. If I could guess why the cell was used for the ps3, I would say 2 reasons. The main one is for bragging rights. They wanted to show theoretical power specs to get hype. The second one is because they weren't just interested in gaming. They were interested in the media integration. The cell has enough power and versatility to solve any problem that could show up. I am not saying that the cell is underpowered. But for gaming, I believe that it was a bad choice for a processor. Not that it is bad. But because it could be so much better and cheaper. Everyone knows why the blueray was chosen. The format war with hd-dvd. So not much needs to be said. I also believe that Sony's statement about the 5 million people buying the ps3 even without games was an insult to its user base. I see no other reason for this than stating that its users are drones and a failed attempt to hype the system. This does not mean that ps3 users are drones. But it was what sony said in that statement. Is there any sony fan here that can tell me that they are proud sony made that statement?

Haha, I was just thinking the same thing

Cell will NEVER reach 100% "theoretical power" its not possible. And so people don't think we are dissing the PS3... Xbox will never reach 100% theoretical power either... although it will be closer because the number of cores is smaller.

I spent a few years programming for heterogeneous clusters and know a thing or two about parallel processing. I wish i knew the forumula off the top of my head but i don't... Every processor you add to a system will increase its "theoretical power" drastically but the actual power only goes up a fraction of that amount. And that is for a algorithm designed for parallel processing... games which are not remotely parallel at all I would imagine drops that fraction much faster.

However, I definately will not venture to guess which system is more powerful...

Again thanks for bringing that up.... most people do not realize that and its VERY important

MikeB said: @ XboxSoldier12 would hate to see the PS3 doomed to the same fate as the PSP where it becomes more valued for secondary features (in the PSP's case: internet, homebrew, and emulation). In some ways the best thing that can happen for the PS3 at this point is for it to be desired as a Blu-Ray player if nothing else. Owning the thing will make you more likely to buy the games. Speaking for myself as a Nintendo DS gamer, I can say my interests in the PSP skyrocketed with the ability to connect remotely with the PS3. And the PSP IMO performs rather well within this previously Nintedo dominated market segment. I don't think the PSP would have perfomed as well as it did if the console would be less powerful and offered fewer distinguishing features as compared to the Nintendo DS. Name me one competitive effort which performed better than the PSP performed thus far?

I'm afraid there are no condolence prizes for comming in second palce in the foray of the global market. Just because a console did as well as it did in spite of insurmountable odds doesn't make it any more of a success or an asset. Certainly its not a bad piece of hardware but its software sales are abismal and i fear you may just be simply looking at hardware sales alone in your summation of the PSP's value.

The DS also has remote connectivity with the Wii and outdid the PSP not with an overwhelming foot in the door (via GBA) but earned its own market next to the PSP through its own achievements by out doing any other handheld prior, even its own kin. People wanted to jump ship on a Nintendo handheld, people were ready for an alternative, but Nintendo not only gave them a reason to come back, but the PSP game them ample reason to remain hesitant. The PSP was ultimately a squandered venture by Sony that could have done much better, almost ignored by Corporate from the start as if they expected it to take off on its own and the third party developers to manage it for them. UMD movies like Blu-Ray on the PS3 seemed to be a feature they banked on the most, but unlike Blu-Ray, UMD failed. Internet however was the key to the PSPs continued limited success even when its games stop holding the appeal of its owners.

Your ideology of giving the PSP recognition as if some sort of unnofficial second place award really has no sound basis outside of a personal philosophy and is not something you can support with argument. Fact remains that what sales it has garnered in these recent years of its life are due largely to its secondary feature appeals, not its primary feature of playing games. This is a fact, even supported by your own excitement of using it for its connectivity with the PS3, not as a portable gaming device. And no amount of rationalizing its status is going to make it anymore of a worthwhile product than it already is just as no amount of rationalizing will make the Xbox or GC anymore worthwhile then they were last gen. They did as well as they did for whatever the reasons or obstacles that culminated in their sum achievements but in the end were still outdone by the PS2, and that's all that needs be acknowledged. This isn't grade school where we give runner up rewards for the slow kid who did his best but still came in last.