Originally Posted by Nestersan
This argument is on the same line I proposed.
Now I see your point
-PS3's Nvidia graphics fell short to the Xbox graphics
-The original cell is a failure because it does not reach 99% of its potential during the life of the PS3?
-XBox is better than PS3 because games are prettier, whether or whether not the potential of PS3 superceeds the XBox?
My view is
-An additional graphics card was part of the ps3 spec when I was researching its developement, and I researched it more than the "last minute". The ps3 was delayed for some time after that due to lack of dev tools and blu ray. The graphics card was also bleeding edge at the time, just like the xbox360's. Which one is better? I am not getting into but I am happy with the specs of the PS3's one.
-The original cell still is in development and unfortunately may not reach full potential before PS4. Its really a software problem and not hardware, and as I said before, the processor is a step forward. Conventional multicore processors are steps sideways no matter how many cores they have. Better performance can be acheived when software is custom written in fine grain for cell rather than just multithreaded. Well that is my view maybe I am wrong. In that view it cannot be a failure, supercomputing is one use of it. (I have a plan to get a PS3 and write a simulation for it. 1. do it on windows to get the maths correct. 2. Port it to cell to get the speed and scalability. 3...nuff choices).
-Xbox has the advantage because it is easier to code. PS3 is however more pumped with potental
Could I get a link to this article, por favor
Kojima say that the Cell DONE OUT and he is unsatisfied with MGS4 becasue the PS3 could not do what he wanted
I wonder if he is saying the PS3 was wicked but not as wicked as him did expect. I also wonder how difficult he found it.
nzxt 210 elite 2x2TB, 2X3TB, Dirt2