The Cell processor in the PS3 is outdated compared to the superior version used by IBM. My dad's 2004 Lotus is outdated compared compared to my 2008 Lotus. His 2004 Lotus may be able to smoke your 2009 Mustang, but compared to other versions of itself, it's outdated. 

The Cell in the PS3 is not outdated compared to today's x86 processor, far from it, however, it is outdated compared to newer Cell processors. That is why it can complete in the marketplace, because it's not outdated compared to other chips, however, it is outdated in its class. That is the point I was making all along, I'm sorry if you thought I meant it was outdated compared to today's x86 CPUs.

But ... no, that's not what I thought you meant.  If some people choose to use the PS3 Cell solution due to its cheaper price, and feel that that's a fair tradeoff even for certain big, important projects, can you really call it "outdated"?  That's what I'm saying. 

The B-52 bomber has been in use by the USAF since 1955.  They keep extending its service because it's so goddamned useful.  The latest supposed expiration date is 2040.  Its technology is certainly not comparable to the B-1, but it hasn't been replaced by its superior successor.  Is it "outdated"? 

"That is why it can complete in the marketplace, because it's not outdated compared to other chips, however, it is outdated in its class."

I guess I could be wrong here, but isn't it competing in the same arena as the Cell supercomputers?  Please correct me if that's not the case. 

Of course it is. If someone wants to use a 2Ghz Core Solo solution due to its cheaper price, and feel that it's a fair tradeoff even for certain big, important projects, can you really call it "outdated?" Yes, of course you can. It is definetely outdated, there are just people that feel like they can use it for something useful.  Something outdated can still be useful. 

We can go back and forth on this all night. What I consider to be outdated isn't what you consider to be outdated. Lets just agree to disagree.

Btw, that above example is true, I use a few Core Solo machines to do some pretty important things that don't require too much processing power but are still very important.

Just one last thing -- in your example, you have the cheap processor because you aren't actually using it for the processing power, so ANY processor will do.  With these supercomputer calculations, though, it's ALL about the processing power, that's the entire POINT (right?).  So although your example is interesting, I don't think it's really on point. 

Now, if you were using that Core Solo processor to do something that would take a week for it to crunch (completely made up timeframe) for the cost savings over a processor that would take two days to crunch the same job (made up again), and the cost savings was a fair trade for you, then that would be an equivalent situation IMO. 

But I'm OK with letting the argument itself drop, I just had a side issue with the last example you put forth. 

I'll add this final note then end this argument: The Playstation 3 is limited in what it can do as each system only has 256MB of memory available to it. There are tasks that don't require much memory and instead require many simple calculations done over and over again. This is something which the PS3 can be used for. However, why bother with a 200Gigaflop PS3 when for the same price one can buy a 2.4 Teraflop GPU with 800 stream processors? There are tasks which GPUs are not fit for but most of the PS3 projects I've seen involve tasks which a GPU can do much more efficiently for much less.

I don't know if you've read what I posted, but at work we skipped the Cell processor in favor of GPUs for our project. Each of our servers has a theoretical performance of 4.8 Teraflops with 2 dual GPU cards. The $400 dollar GPU provides around 8X more performance than the PS3(We were actually using IBM Cell blades so it would have been much more expensive.)

Perhaps this is why I am not impressed by the Cell processor that much. It is an amazing processor, I won't deny it, but I feel that it's been eclipsed by GPUs already. Now, if Nvidia and AMD would finish those improved GPGPU architectures, my life would be complete.

So you're saying the people using PS3 clusters are just ignorant?

Not at all. Like I said, GPUs are not fit for every task and there are times when a PS3 cluster would be more efficient and effective. However, GPGPU if fairly new to a lot of people and they may not know too much about it/don't have the funding or time to sit down and relearn everything again. Instead, they decide to go with a familiar system, even if they have to get accustomed to the Cell processor.

Please stop putting words into my mouth.

This doesn't make much sense to me.

In a TPS like Uncharted or GeOW I'd estimate that the main character has approximately the angular size of a human caught by a camera floating between 2 and 10 meters behind them (further in some scenes, closer up for over-the-shoulder shooting etc).

Thus we can optimize for _this particular model_ to be _very_ detailed, but it is rare for any other model to be much nearer to the camera than the main character, because camera moves away or the interposing object is faded to avoid occlusion.

In an FPS when you're crouching behind cover or peeking from behind a wall you're like 40 cms away from the surfaces.

Being a coder I trust that you are familiar with the explosive nature of the tg(x) function involved in the projection, thus you know that 0.5 meters is a world and half different from 2 meters, whereas 2 meters is not that different from 8 meters (4x factor each time).

This means that in the FPS you're incredibly more exposed to texture resolution and geometry details issues.

Maths aside (sorry but it's my own field of expertise), the proof is in the pudding:

- look at say 30 screenshots from various TPS and the same from various FPS, then try to find let's say a vertical surface 1.5 meters high and look at the view angle (=>pixels) that is necessary to represent them at various distances

- take the example of Uncharted, that is a _beautiful_ game, but that swapped highly detailed model of Drake for a less detailed one when transitioning from cut scene (on-screen sizes closer to those of say a Heighast in KZ2) to TPS gameplay. This was declared from Naughty Dog themselves, btw... can't look for source right now.

- look for really near (FPS-like ie 1 meter away) close-ups of some GeoW enemies: again a beautiful game, but in those close ups the texture work with an "etched" style made to simulate low-poly geometry becomes apparent, with texture distorsion and blur.

Very good read. Those are both beautiful games, and I think the only people trying to downplay either one are probably fanboys.

^^Thats not what the OP said. the OP has clearly said that KZ2 has better graphics and the ps3 is more powerful