[QUOTE="lesner87"]

High tech games are ALL shifting towards multi-quad core optimization.A game optimized for a general purpose cpu can kill the cell,i agree.But what about games like Crysis or Far Cry 2 ? If i am not mistaking those are the future of gaming,right ? And when it comes to core optimization the cell literally crushes quad core or any other general purpose cpu out there.Thats exactly why devs didnt want to make games for the ps3 in the past because of its optimization.But now with the changing trend alot of developers (including Ubisofts and Cryteks) are happy with the hardware of PS3 ! Infact if i am not mistaking, hasnt the CEO of ubisoft already declared his next basis for future development ?

blackdreamhunk

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/22926.html

pc gaming will always be cutting egde there bud!

even Blizzard is working with amd these days too. You will see the up rise of pc gaming after jan! console are old and they are old news!

http://www.stardock.com/vidplayer/vids/dg.html

I am well aware of that game.To be honest Crysis looks better.And in terms of open land details Far Cry 2 will.With a fully real time open 50 sqr km world streaming at once WITHOUT any loading times i am pretty sure that if consoles can handle that they can pretty much handle everyhting :).

This POLL should be other way around.PS3 has finally stopped piracy(atleast for now).Devs dont want to risk any more PC exclsives.Look at the HUGE library of Xbox 360.And look at the huge upcoming library of PS3.

The article was pulled because anandtech didn't want the devs who spoke out to get in trouble, I remember a discussion about it. Why these articles are relevent and those saying that cell is 5x more powerful than a quad-core arn't is quite simple: This is anandtech, a very reputable source, they don't put bull**** on their site. The cell might outperform OoO desktop CPUs in highly parallel tasks, but a decent OoO CPU will destroy it back and forth in game code, that was the emphasis of those articles. Besides with CUDA, it has been shown that a good G80 GPU will perform those parallel tasks quite well. We even have simple realworld proof of PC superiority, a PC with a mid-end dual core and an 8800GT will run circles around the PS3 and 360 put together, and output graphics far better than the PS3, @ higher resolutions, with better FPS. muscleserge

High tech games are ALL shifting towards multi-quad core optimization.A game optimized for a general purpose cpu can kill the cell,i agree.But what about games like Crysis or Far Cry 2 ? If i am not mistaking those are the future of gaming,right ? And when it comes to core optimization the cell literally crushes quad core or any other general purpose cpu out there.Thats exactly why devs didnt want to make games for the ps3 in the past because of its optimization.But now with the changing trend alot of developers (including Ubisofts and Cryteks) are happy with the hardware of PS3 ! Infact if i am not mistaking, hasnt the CEO of ubisoft already declared his next basis for future development ?

[QUOTE="lesner87"]

[QUOTE="skullgangs"]with component cables on ps3? Ifso whats the purpose of HDMI Large_Soda

Component cables max out on 1080i not p.For progressive resoltuions you need HDMI cable.Theres alot of difference between the quality and purpose of HDmi is basically to deliver you FULL HD 1080 picture.

They do not max out at 1080i, they are capable of delivering 1080p just fine.There are however other restrictions that keep the PS3 from sending a 1080p signal via component.

I own one you cant view 1080p on component av cable.