has sony done a bad job in integrating the cell processor in the ps3

Ok sony has made a next gen console that has graphics comparable to an xbox 360 and high end pc.

However i think sony has done a bad job in that the ps3 cell uses cores for speed.

The ps3 uses 7 of the 8 ps3 cores (look it up on wiki) and in todays cpu world the software isnt optimized for cores.

A good example of this is with intel cpus.
A 8 core 3ghz xeon when benchmarked turns out to be only twice as fast as A 2 core 1.80ghz core 2 duo mobile.
Although talking about a different platform the rule still applies. i believe that if sony focuses on making their platform. We will see some truly next gen games.

i don't have a PS3, cus i think the games are better for X360 (don't have that either:p) and i don't think the devs can make any better graphics than what we can see in current games.

the thing is imo, that the PS3 have un nessesary awesome hardware so the devs can't make games that makes a good use of the parts, come on unreal tournament 3 runs in 40+ FPS on MAX settings on my computer on the map "Torlan" (one of the worst maps in the game for the GPU i think, see my sig for hardware specs:thumbup:) and that's one of the best graphics i've ever seen so far on any game.
just look at the water in UT3, just friggin awesome (it almost looks real)

and all i need is 2 processor cores..

so why have 8?
maybe sony thought they would make money, but the PS3 is too expensive and it's equal to X360 graphics so far so we don't need that good hardware just yet..

well, anders, currently, the xbox 360 is doing fine, but eventually the games are going to get a lot more superior and i think that only ps3 could handle said games (just like what happened near the end of the last gen with ps2 and xbox)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eviltaco64

well, anders, currently, the xbox 360 is doing fine, but eventually the games are going to get a lot more superior and i think that only ps3 could handle said games (just like what happened near the end of the last gen with ps2 and xbox)

---

*shakeshead*

By the time games get that complicated, the new consoles will have been released. And note though, that Crysis is impossible to play on 360 or PS3. So the truth is they are not very far off from each other when it comes to hardware.

As is actually fairly obvious, seeing games that have been released.

Isnt crysis that game that required the ridiculously expensive graphics card?

if i remember correctly sony had to remove some things from the original design of the system to cut costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eviltaco64

Isnt crysis that game that required the ridiculously expensive graphics card?

---

i can play it on max settings on my graphics card.

i got a XFX Geforce 8800GT 512MB Alpha Dog Edition:)

i haven't played it on my computer, but my friend who has the same hardware as i plays crysis on max settings just fine.

i don't think my GPU was that expensive, it does its job perfectly on every game:)

Crysis just eats CPU badly. Thats the problem with most computers.

No, the PS3 isn't 8 core at 3GHz. A 3GHz quad core costs around $1000 alone. It has one main core at 3GHz and 7 more cores for processing other things. The PS3 has a pretty nice GPU in it too.

And yes, Crysis is a hog when it comes to GPU and CPU power. Awesome game though, if you have the computer for it.
A computer that will run Crysis well will cost $1000-2000+, if you build it yourself.

The true potential of the ps3 hasn't been touched yet. This is partially the devs fault (Its more expensive) and partially Sony's the ps3 devkit is horrible from what I have heard. The games will get better and mark my words the PS3 will be triumphant but for now it is hardly being touched.