Whoops. I guess that's what I get for not paying close attention. Normally I double check the older posts if I'm responding to an ongoing discussion.

Taken by itself, the post in question could easily sound the way I interpreted it; I didn't obtain the right context.

How could I miss a thread with FAIL of such epic proportions for such a long time?

This has probably been said a million times but here it goes:

The specs you gave that Crysis ran at are ridiculously greater than what the PS3 pushes, even in pure pixels alone. You can cut that PC down a ridiculous amount and cut the cost to something extremely cheap if you wanted to match the PS3's specs. Not to mention other background apps that run like Windows and DEFINITELY Fraps.

And you know what's the kicker? In about a year and a half or two I would be able to buy that same PC for about as much as I will be able to buy a PS3. So really, who here loses?

You're saying in 18-24 months that PC power will be available for $300 or less? Because the PS3 is eventually getting a price cut.

Eventually yes. Although eventually that PC won't be even thought of as a powerful PC. I remember back in the day of '98 I got a PC for 300 which lasted me until WC3 came out (whatever year that was).

A quote for you to read and process:

The PS3 is so much more difficult to program than the 360. In a sense it is designed similar to multiprocessor systems used by specialized customers such as NASA Ames Research Center. The concept is based on the principle that there is a very large amount of repetive mathematical data that can be performed in a parallel or a segmented sequential fashion (ex. one core multiples two arrays of 10000 numbers and then passes the output array to another core which performs divides on individual elements in the array which will pass the array to another core which performs some other operation on the data, etc. After the first core finishes its operation, it will acquire more data and perform the same operation).

Like the 360, the application would initially be developed using the PPE core. Next you would think that the PS3 (just like the 360) would be able to segment the game control plus AI code into one core and the graphics rendering code into another core. However that is not possible. Since the total application code may be about 100 MB and the SPE only has 256KB of memory, only about 1/400 of the total code can fit in one SPE memory. Also since there isn't any branch prediction capabilities in an SPE, branching should be done as little as possible (although I believe that the complier can insert code to cause pre-fetches so there may not be a big issue with branching).

Therefore the developer has to find code that is less than 256KB (including needed data space) that will execute in parallel.

Even if code can be found that can be segmented, data between the PPE and the SPE has to be passed back and forth via DMA(Direct Memory Access) which is quite slow compared to that of a pointer to the data like the 360.

If we assume that enough segment code was found that could use all  6 SPE cores assigned to the game application, now the developer would try to balance the power among the cores. Like the 360, some or all of the cores may have a very low utilization. Adding more hardware threads are not possible since each core has only one hardware thread. Adding software threads probably will not work due to the memory constraint. So the only option is an overlay scheme where the PPE will transfer new code using DMA to the SPE when the last overlay finishes processing. This is very time consuming and code has to be found that does not overlap in the same time frame.

The full post can be read here:

http://on-mirrors-edge.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=38256

You're quoting theoretical maximum throughput figures like they can be constantly achieved.  If you honestly believe that then you're a fool.  The small chunks of data that you call next gen programming techniques are a limitation of the SPE's not a benefit to the system at all.  The cell isn't ahead of its time at all, it's just not designed as a general purpose processor, I can't believe you're so blinded to see it.

Also if the best defence you can come up in debate is to call people sad and name call then I pity you.  You still didn't answer my question if the PS3 could run Crysis on high at 720p.

...
I'm not talking eventually like the distant future, I'm talking eventually like sooner than 18-24 months, the timeframe you mentioned before.  So if, by that time, a $400 computer is as powerful as the computer outlined above, it will no longer be as cheap as the PS3. 

Are you saying you'll be able to get the same performance for $300 in two years? because that's what the PS3 will cost (at most) by then.  Maybe that's a reasonable position to take; I don't follow things closely enough to make that kind of extrapolation. 

And ... you got a computer in 1998 for $300 that could play WarCraft III?  Tell me more.  I mean, my family had a computer from 1998 that (I think) could play WarCraft III, but it cost more like $1300.  Retail bought, but still.  (It had a 400MHz P.II, which happens to be exactly the minimum required by WCIII.)

Well it RAN WC3 and with about 20 FPS oneverything on min at lowest resolution. Wouldn't say played too much. We had a friend of ours build one since no one in the family had ANY idea how to make one. I have no idea where or how he got the components from, but I didn't know much about computers back then to actually know or care. I wass just a kid. But again, it was 300, we got an old monitor from some other friends and voila.

Also in 2 years current power PCs will start being the lower end of the "budget PC" bracket.

$300 or less, two years from now, performance equal to or greater than the PC detailed above, yes or no please

The answer is no and the PS3 will be closer to $200 or less two years from now.

Not less than $200! More like $250.