PlayStation 3 - Two Question's about it's Technical Specifications

My First Question

According to Ken Kutaragi the PS3 is capable of running games at 120 Frame Rate Per Second in the future.

Website: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12629

Sorry if this is old news to most of you's :|

But this is sort of new to me.

1. Is there any other reliable sources that supports Ken Kutaragi claim, besides from Sony? If there is please list the sources.

Example: Hardware companies [TV's], Game developers, etc... Any reliable source saying "yes" the PS3 could or has the cell processing power to run games at 120 frps or it doesn't have the power?

My Second Question

Sony [PS3] claims that their product [PS3] is a superior game console with incrediable cell processing power.

PlayStation 3 Specifications

CPU
Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU
RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

2. Is there any reliable source apart from Sony that have or can prove the PS3 could do all the things that Sony [Ken Kutaragi] say they can do or proof that the PS3 can't do all those things?

Microsoft have released a comparison chart

Website: http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Which they claim that the Xbox 360 is superior. Since it's from Microsoft i think it maybe biased so i would like to find information from a unbiased source.

This topic is not to debate about which console is better.

I would like to say "thank you" in advance

No way in hell they could run games at 120fps! Exactly like the guy above me said they would have to take things away like:

grahics decrease, lack multiple thing happening at the same time and some other stuff!

I think it will only reach 60fps max, as they will use the power of the PS3 to do other stuff like better grahics, more happening on screen, real time physics, etc!

Fact: Games only need to be 30fps, as movies are like 23 or 27fps or something! The hard thing to achieve is a constant frame rate, you'll notices in heavy situations the fps will drope and result in choppy actions on screen!

I wasn't trying to compare which console has more power i just wanted to know if what Sony said was true or not.

Thanks alot for you help

BTW how do achieve a constant frame rate?

Anything is possible, but then you have to look at weather your TV screen can display that quickly. Most LCDs and Plasmas refresh at 60hz. With the newer TVs on the way with 120hz refresh rate this is looking closer to reality.

The following link pertains to video feed but is basically the same thing for video games.

Link

Actually some of it's true some is not true. The PS3 wasn't going to come out as soon as it did. But Microsoft kind've forced the jump this generation by cutting the Xbox1 life so short and rushing X360 to the market. So in order for Sony to compete they had to cut a lot of the specifications to get the PS3 to a reasonable price. The cell originally was going to have many more cores than it does now, infact the "original" PS3 design was not going to have a videocard and the cell was going to do everything itself. In the end Sony had to add the RSX processor and trim the PS3 down. Ken wanted PS3 to be crazy powerful originally.

Edit: About the X360 link you posted. The GPUs are about equal in power. What they don't tell you is that the cell processor can be used to offload some of the things the GPU would normally do, like lighting, particle effects, etc leaving the actual GPU to do more. It basically works out like this Processor much faster on PS3, Memory is much faster on PS3, GPU are about equal.

PS3's RSX is similar to the nVidia 7800 card, if not more powerful
the 7800 could do upto 2xx or 3xx fps (forgot the exact framerate), but at lower resolutions
so my guess is thatthe PS3 can probably do 120fps in 720p

second question, i don't know anything about it, but one thing is for sure, the PS3's got a higher throughput than the 360

Actually some of it's true some is not true. The PS3 wasn't going to come out as soon as it did. But Microsoft kind've forced the jump this generation by cutting the Xbox1 life so short and rushing X360 to the market. So in order for Sony to compete they had to cut a lot of the specifications to get the PS3 to a reasonable price. The cell originally was going to have many more cores than it does now, infact the "original" PS3 design was not going to have a videocard and the cell was going to do everything itself. In the end Sony had to add the RSX processor and trim the PS3 down. Ken wanted PS3 to be crazy powerful originally.

Edit: About the X360 link you posted. The GPUs are about equal in power. What they don't tell you is that the cell processor can be used to offload some of the things the GPU would normally do, like lighting, particle effects, etc leaving the actual GPU to do more. It basically works out like this Processor much faster on PS3, Memory is much faster on PS3, GPU are about equal.

EmperorSupreme

Except for the 360's superior memory architecture.

And since Microsoft has the better GPU it is easier to make a great looking game on 360 than it is on PS3; ATI really did their homework with the costless anti-alliasing. This is not to say that the PS3 cannot make great looking games (exhibit A: Killzone 2) but it won't be as easy.

Of course the talented (and financially well endowed) developers can work wonders with the Cell to boost graphics beyond the 360's ability, as stated above by the previous poster. The biggest advantage in, my opinion, that Sony has is the Blu-ray drive and the fact that they are willing to slowly realize the machines full potential through firmware updates (unlike MS which can't update the 360 into a full blown PC for fear of taking some of the Windows Media Center market).