@ChronotriggerJM: I agree that Sony is much closer to bringing 3D movies, games, everything to the PS3 than MS is to the 360. This 360 3D thing at CES is just a PR stunt -- its nothing special or interesting.

They're just trying to convince the less technically-minded consumers that the 360 its on its way towards the "Next Big Thing" as well... and it is, albeit in a half-done manner that any other platform will also accomplish.

I don't blame them for it, but... I wouldn't be holding this up as some sort of "candle of hope" for the 360 either.  It really is a bland event.

@Groucho so does anyone know why it's rumored to be connected to the 120hz signal? Or is it all speculation still?

Are you just guessing? Why wouldn't the X360 be able to do it if the PS3 can! I believe you are just guessing.

I think you should read the article because if this would run on any 120hz HDTV, why would they need to mention 3D ready TVs in the article.

It may be that the 3D images alternate, rather than get combined. On a LCD or Plasma screen, this wouldn't cause flicker. Most 120 Hz screens use image blending to achieve "fake" frames that aren't actually present in the image data from the movie/TV signal, etc. I imagine this tech could be adopted to allow 2 images to be superimposed on each other, over multiple frames, making for an apparently smooth 3D image.

I suppose, from that perspective, the 360 might be able to render 3D games, given the right rendering process, but it'd have to spit out images pretty fast to do so without flicker. That's probably was GT5 and Wipeout HD were chosen -- their framerate is stellar.  It may just be that there aren't any 360 games readily available to run at 120 Hz, and that's why MS didn't show anything.

It may also be that lower framerate 3D may only be achieved on the PS3 for the multiple render targets reason -- the PS3 may need to spit out 2 images per frame to feed those TVs, and the X360 may just not be able to produce more than a single image per frame, which would be fine at 120 Hz, but wouldn't work at lower framerates.  I'm just speculating though.

@Slimebeast if it's at all based on processing power, the PS3 dwarfs that of the 360's :x I have no idea though. All I know is Sony's already got 3D gaming on the PS3. I wish I knew how though >

Please, not more of this mumbo jumbo PS3 cpu power dominates 360's.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=50025

This has very little to do with the Cell, and much more to do with the memory architecture of the two machines.

And the Cell is more powerful than the Xenon.  Don't get me started on how naive that above article is.  The 360 GPU is better than the PS3's, as a standalone unit, but as a console, the PS3 is most definately more powerful.  That GPU flexibility, and ease of development (which is a huge deal), is what the 360 has going for it -- and that's often enough to make it appear on even footing with the PS3.  

Claiming that its raw, and not merely its effective, power is on par with the PS3 is a long way from the truth, though.  We all know that effective power is what matters in the end, unless you have years to work on tapping the raw power.

The main reason I posted this was not to get into the "this console is more powerful than that console" cr@p but to show that most probably by the looks of things sony and ms next gen(I really dont see it happening in a big way this gen if at all") are going to be using 3d as the next step in gaming.

@Nightsurge I believe Selnors topic was debunked pretty early in on that one :x Everyone has "facts" about what each processor can and can't do. We know for a "Fact" that the 360 has 3 3.2 ghz cores, and the the PS3 has 1 3.2 ghz core, and 7 SPE's each running at 3.2 ghz. Lets just go with the obvious statement that we know which will outperform which in terms of CPU power. If you take a look at both of the "theoretical peaks" or the fact that everyone uses PS3's for insanely stupid calculations and not the 360, or that the PS3 has more 1080p games, or that it's exclusive titles boast some incredible prowess.... etc etc etc etc. it's fairly obvious without being to blinded :/

I was merely stating that the PS3's cell is know for oustanding computing power (whether or not it's usable), and that the Cell was also built to work with the RSX (whatever that means). IF this method is achieved using the PS3 architecture, then it would be obvious why the 360 couldn't do it >_>