I kinda always thought the Cell was the modern day Blast Processor. Over hyped thing for games.

XboximusPrime

Cell is great for what it was made for,graphics and video processing.:)

It is not mentioned because the way you descibe it is not allowed. Game sharing is meant for you downloading it to 5 different PS3 that you alone own.hiryu3

No that is not true and several games have the feature block Warhwak for example can only be play on 1 active PS3,if you actually want to play it on another you have to dissable the other account on your PS3.

It doesn't matter the PS3 can be weaker for all i care,that doesn't change the fact that PS3 exclsuives look better period.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

The cell is like communism. Looks great on paper... but falls short in real-world applications.

XaosII

For what is was build hardly and is more cost effective that most PC CPU are dude reason why it was use not only by Mercury but also by the army.

No it wasn't. The billions spent on R&D will never be recopued. It would have been much cheaper to simply purchase a CPU design contract of a more traditional architecture.

Yeah that i the reason why the army bough so many PS3 to use with linux because it wasn't cost effective.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]

hooray you acknowledge it doesn't blow 360 out of the water, this is what we have been trying to tell you all this time, the difference is not massive. how come cows say KZ2 and UC2 >>>>>any 360 game graphically, yet lazy devs are to blame for RDR not looking as good on PS3. like one of the other contributors said, a lot of this is down to time and talent. if KZ2 and UC2 are so great looking and PS3 is so ultra powerfull, how come every game on that console doesn't look as good as them. answer = time / money / talent.

sts106mat

But uncharted 2 and killzone 2 >> the complete library of xbox 360 games is not fanboysm,it actually the true,many people here even dare to say Halo Reach look better than Killzone 2 no it doesn't,hell Halo Reach has a cartoony look to it while Killzone 2 has a more realistic feel,i know i play both.

And while some games like ME2 and Gears 2 may seen close,it is the atention to detail animation,lighting and many other things some small some biger that set the gamne apart.

I never stated the PS3 blew the xbox 360 out of the watter but there is a marked difference,and games like KIllzone 2 and Uncharted 2 show it,come on Uncharted 2 a beuty is just over any 360 game easy.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ces-09-killzone-2/44150

Look at that trailer that is something you will not find on ME2,gears 2 or Halo Reach,is a set of rag doll physics second to non,on Killzone 2 enemies react vividly to where they are hit,the animation is outstanding,the lighting system in incredible.

Killzone 2 is a complete pakage,while some games like Gears 2 and ME2 look close on the pure graphics side,they don't port those kind of details.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/sony-gamers-killzone-2/34200

The problem with multiplatform developer is that they will not invest tons of more cash to put both version on par when the 360 version will sell the best for sure,also developers have a time frame to get things done,i agree that more time allow for more refinements,but that was the case with Killzone 2,but what about Uncharted it took sony 2 years to make it more or less what Gears took and was graphically more impressive than gears,in fact Gears landed on 2006 1 year after the 360 was launch,uncharted landed on 2007 1 years after the PS3 was launch,so it doesn't actually take 4 years to make eveyr single games,Alan wake to many years to make and it has one of the most gimped resolution on an HD console,and doesn't actually beats uncharted 2 or KIllzone 2,now the game looks good but in sertain areas,and has good lighting.

You see those videos and you can see easy,that the level of detail Killzone 2 ports is basically unmatch yet and Killzone 3 look way better.

No dude what i admit is that the fact that sony has a better looking games doesn't actually trasnlate into the PS3 is more powerful,and that is true sony will exploit any hardware to the max period.

If funny what do you want me to tell you.? oh wait you want to hear that Gears 2 look better than Killzone 2.? maybe that ME2 look better as well,or maybe that Halo Reach look better than Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2.

Man i can't tell you that because is not true non of those games look better than Killzone 2 let alone Uncharted 2 which is even more impresive,i can't tell you that because they don't look better if you can find a 360 game that look better with proof not a bullshot,i may play the gamne and tell you my experience,i own Gears 2 and Killzone 2 and the difference is there to see.

I have posted videos link and many stuff and people won't even look at them and claim i am wrong.

Like i admit to the other dude the fact that sony make a better looking game doesn't translate into the PS3 is more powerful,but i can't admit is that ME2,Gears2,Alan Wake, and Halo Reach actually top the best the PS3 has to offer because they don't.

[QUOTE="ToScA-"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

you know what? Lems and p.c. elitist's just can't admit that the ps3 is alot more powerful than the 360.

theuncharted34

Or it's rather cows who can not even begin to accept the semi-contrary.

EVEN though both John Carmack and Dave Shippy (who helped develop the processors in BOTH consoles) have issued statements saying that the differences are marginal or even non-existent. Who else do you lot need to hear it from? God? :lol:

Dang, perhaps Sony themselves :shock:

at the end of the day I let the games do the talking, heck people say the xbox was much more powerful than the gamecube but the prime games and resident evil 4 looked just as good as anything on xbox without fanboy goggles on. Are you saying the games on 360 and ps3 look even? No. ps3 games are much better technically.

I have to agree with the dude you quote,Sony can deliver incredible games on pretty much any hardware,the fact that they makes games much better looking than anything on 360 doesn't automatically mean the PS3 is a much more powerful console,how ever i do see that games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 surpass quite easy anything on 360 period there are things that should not be devated i thinks Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 are some of those.

Now what i think here is the real difference is Cell and i don't agree with Carmak on the coment that they are about equal,it has been show pretty much every where that Cell is a much powerful CPU than the Xenon is,Cell wasn't a made in a rush CPU like the Xenon was to meet a launch date,Cell not only took time to develop it was build by people who use to work on GPU's and was build with graphics and video processing in mind,which is why Cell is able to handle allot of taks the Xenon just can't.

Even if the xbox 360 is more powerful it doesn't matter it will never show,and PS3 exclusives look better.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]I know the the PS3 doesn't blow the 360 out of the water,i just think there is a big enough difference to be notice,but maybe you are right after all the PS2 was much weaker than the xbox and sony make God of War 1 and 2 on it.

sts106mat

hooray you acknowledge it doesn't blow 360 out of the water, this is what we have been trying to tell you all this time, the difference is not massive. how come cows say KZ2 and UC2 >>>>>any 360 game graphically, yet lazy devs are to blame for RDR not looking as good on PS3. like one of the other contributors said, a lot of this is down to time and talent. if KZ2 and UC2 are so great looking and PS3 is so ultra powerfull, how come every game on that console doesn't look as good as them. answer = time / money / talent.

But uncharted 2 and killzone 2 >> the complete library of xbox 360 games is not fanboysm,it actually the true,many people here even dare to say Halo Reach look better than Killzone 2 no it doesn't,hell Halo Reach has a cartoony look to it while Killzone 2 has a more realistic feel,i know i play both.

And while some games like ME2 and Gears 2 may seen close,it is the atention to detail animation,lighting and many other things some small some biger that set the gamne apart.

I never stated the PS3 blew the xbox 360 out of the watter but there is a marked difference,and games like KIllzone 2 and Uncharted 2 show it,come on Uncharted 2 a beuty is just over any 360 game easy.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ces-09-killzone-2/44150

Look at that trailer that is something you will not find on ME2,gears 2 or Halo Reach,is a set of rag doll physics second to non,on Killzone 2 enemies react vividly to where they are hit,the animation is outstanding,the lighting system in incredible.

Killzone 2 is a complete pakage,while some games like Gears 2 and ME2 look close on the pure graphics side,they don't port those kind of details.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/sony-gamers-killzone-2/34200

The problem with multiplatform developer is that they will not invest tons of more cash to put both version on par when the 360 version will sell the best for sure,also developers have a time frame to get things done,i agree that more time allow for more refinements,but that was the case with Killzone 2,but what about Uncharted it took sony 2 years to make it more or less what Gears took and was graphically more impressive than gears,in fact Gears landed on 2006 1 year after the 360 was launch,uncharted landed on 2007 1 years after the PS3 was launch,so it doesn't actually take 4 years to make eveyr single games,Alan wake to many years to make and it has one of the most gimped resolution on an HD console,and doesn't actually beats uncharted 2 or KIllzone 2,now the game looks good but in sertain areas,and has good lighting.

You see those videos and you can see easy,that the level of detail Killzone 2 ports is basically unmatch yet and Killzone 3 look way better.

NO game sharing on PS3 is legal developer can chose to block it,but they don't you have to wonder why,either way is a move that venefict os the consummer,who each day are charge more for game related stuff,and that this gen had been paying $10 more for games since 2005.

To play all the games you will other wise miss if you did not own one.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

OK for all the people saying the difference is marginal.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=22537

This^^ is actually marginal now that is what i consider marginal the difference between Killzone 3 and anything on 360 is not astronomical like some fans want to make it see,but is a well marked difference,is not just a patch of grass of a few more jagies,is allot more than that,marginal is the difference between multiplatform games which many people here actually dare to insinuate is huge when is not.

ToScA-

Uncharted 2 did not take 4 years and the first one didn't either,Killzone 2 took allot of years those other games did not,but you have to know that to imply that what happen to talent,could actually been take as a downplay to many developers out there which are as talented as sony ones.

I know dude there are games on PS3 that look incredible and other look down right sad,but on PC even that some games look better than others,all games are geared to different specs is not the same as consoles where theres is a close environment with just 1 set of specs for every one.

I know what you are trying to say,and maybe you are right but there is so much going for 360 on paper that is difficult to actually believe that it could be less powerful or even the same by papers,but you see the PS3 games and it make you think if it really is even on par.

I know the the PS3 doesn't blow the 360 out of the water,i just think there is a big enough difference to be notice,but maybe you are right after all the PS2 was much weaker than the xbox and sony make God of War 1 and 2 on it.