ROFLOL...yeah, but the cellz mafia will say, "What does he know?" Anyway, in gaming, your GPU is nearly as important as yyour CPU, so this cell worship something leaves me scratching my head.

at least were useing FACT'S not some in My OPINION "MYTH" to PAD the xbox360's capability's to make it seem that the xbox360 is the better "HARDWARE" advantage no matter what advantages the PS3 has hardware wise over the xbox360. yea OPINION's are great everyone has one

WOW, did i say they can't be touched. there you go putting word's in people's mouth, and what prey tell are you ref. to with this statement?

"just that it's not this CPU that is going to deliver results that totally can't be touched"

by the xbox360?

other processor's in PC's?

because if you are talking about PC's yea, of course the Cell can be touched, hell you can put Cell processor "BACKPLANE" card in your PC right now...$400.00....

Now if you are talking about the XBOX360 that's quite debatable, why

1) you can make a game for both platform's that can absolutly choke the other's hardware. so it's Moot

2) the full system capabilities are not tapped yet on both platform's. so once again it's Moot

3) and HOW do you know what the developer's can do with the PS3 or xbox360. the developer's are not done yet so that's Moot.

so what were you ref. too?

My original comments weren't directed at you, it was to the people who beat the drum on how Cell is going to save the world...but you responded...so...

Until we see what M$ has to offer in 2009 at E3, Sony looks to have a much stronger line-up in 2009, but it has almost nothing to do with cell...imho...and more to do with content.  This can radically change in a heartbeat, but personally, I've yet to see ONE SINGLE product on the ps3 today to make me  say...I want to get the system...Imfamous is probably the only thing right now I find interesting. 

I'm looking compared to PC/360 gaming...I jsut don't have that fine an eye in comparing games.  When I play GearsOW 2...and I saw R2...I really didn't see how R2 was so much better.  I've not seen KZ2 running live, and you kinda have to see it to really judge it, imho.  The game looks great, but how is does it spiral out the concept from say a quake wars?   Graphics seems to somehow have become the end-all-be-all for some.

and why do you think that is..?

like i said before the Cell processor was unvailed in late 2004

not very many developer's had access to the development kit in 2005 ,hell some as even late 2007

so do you think the majority of multi-platform game's are getting the best result's on the PS3 if they have near to little experience with the system?

but yet the One's that have : Kojima, Ted Price and other's are getting ggreat result's, does that mean they don't need improvement...no it just mean's the time they have developed content on the PS3 has been more mature than 3rd party. for the most part unless you pay :

a PUBLISHER this time most if not all 3rd party are going Multi-platform

SE: publisher

capcom: Publisher

etc. the only time you may be able to get EXCLUSIVE'S is to invest into a DEVELOPER'S project, or the Developer want's to concentrate on one platform

The point being just because you don't see the advantages of the Cell Processor for game's does not mean they are not there.

just like any hardware..it's what you do with it and what effort you put into it.

My comments were that the buzz is about content...

I can see where you are comeing from, but that is why you have your OPINION based on what you observe. but other's may see it the other way.

example:

gear's art style is very cool in my opinion because they REMIND ME OF Warhammer 40k...the machine god want's his cog back by the way...

and quite a bit of gamer's like the result's that EPIC did with Gear's of war..me included..i like the SQUAD level combat .smile

but on the same token.there are other's that hate the art style, and think all the Gear's of war character's look like pin headed thug's in power armor with big gun's and big chain saw's.

while Killzone 2 has a artstyle inline with Gear's of war, the art style has quite a bit of response into how people's opinion which game they like best.

followed by gameplay..now not all gamer's game play is first for me..but some look at the artstyle fir's over game playability

storyline is very important to me..mainly because i Like RPG's..but some could care less as long as they can shoot thing's...:D

I agree with you on the idea that "GRAPHIC'S" HAS BECOME SO MUCH FRONT LOADED, BUT IT'S JUST HOW IT IS PRETTY MUCH DEVELOPER'S ARE KIND OF FORCED INTO THAT for the most part because Gamer's tend to compare the game's v's another Game

Graphic's

game play

network

etc.

and it's pretty silly to me because the game is to be played for ENTERTAINMENT not to cause trouble..unless that's your ENTERTAINMENT in which case that's sad

not saying you..but some gamer's in as a general statement IN my Opinion

No its not.

what that the Cell Processor : is not a CPU/GPU combo chip?

because if that's what you are saying ..you will be WRONG..WRONG...AND ..WRONG again..want to bet?

i have link's to prove it 100% it is. bring it on, because the chief designer of the Cell processor said it is.

^^ The Cell's SPEs can perform many functions similar to GPUs, but they aren't GPUs. Anyone who has ever written a software rendering engine would concur that the SPEs downright phenominal, and supremely flexible, for such an endeavor -- but they aren't going to replace a dedicated GPU when it comes right down it it. They can assist the RSX by relieving it of some work, realistically. "Preprocessing" some graphics tasks, if you will.

That being said, in terms of real-world performance, the Cell is a little more powerful than the Xenon, but the 360's GPU usually typically makes up for the difference, unless the engine is a dedicated PS3 one, because not many games are CPU-bound, they are GPU-bound.

I think the issue most people fail to understand, regarding the Cell, is that the Cell itself is not some magical phenominon that is going to change the landscape of computation -- the idea* behind the Cell is, however. Future iterations of the same concept will outperform "full" multicore architectures, from a heat perspective, from a transitor count/cost perspective, and every other perspective that matters, except a software development perspective.

And that last bit is where architecture's like the Xenon get their praise from.  In the hurried modern world, where time and budget is always in a concern, the Xenon has a fair sized advantage, and that's not to be underestimated.

* The idea is that "convenience" features of a processor, like a huge cache, out-of-order execution, full memory access, and a good branch predictor, are much more expensive, and much less worthwhile, than the extra basic cores you could put on a chip are, with the same transitor count.  More power, less heat, less raw materials.  The added performance comes at a cost to the software developer, who can no longer rely on the aforementioned crutches to allow his/her code to pass for "fast".

Yes, even the Cell, the first such processor, kicks the Xenon's ass... in the hands of a badass programmer.  The Xenon rules all in the hands of a newb <-- which describes a LOT of game programmers.