It's only a part of the story as well. 
FAO Those who own a PS3 AND a 360
- Thread starter redspoony
- Start date
Own both, and I prefer the 360 by a mile.
The PS3s a great console, a very reliable and generally great piece of kit, something I wish the 360 was. BUT in terms of games the PS3 doesnt do it for me at all, I've only really genuinely enjoyed one exclusive game for the PS3, the others just dont do it for me - but hey thats just me, I generally prefer the titles on the 360 and quite frankly I dont think Ive got my moneys worth with the PS3....yet.
Even though its no longer becoming too much of a factor, just pick which exclusives you'd prefer playing.
The PS3s a great console, a very reliable and generally great piece of kit, something I wish the 360 was. BUT in terms of games the PS3 doesnt do it for me at all, I've only really genuinely enjoyed one exclusive game for the PS3, the others just dont do it for me - but hey thats just me, I generally prefer the titles on the 360 and quite frankly I dont think Ive got my moneys worth with the PS3....yet.
Even though its no longer becoming too much of a factor, just pick which exclusives you'd prefer playing.
Own both but my ps3 is mainly just collecting dust, where as my 360 is constantly feeling over worked. ps3 is a great piece of kit mind, but in terms of just pure fun and gaming pleasure the 360 is just leagues ahead in my opinion, especially for online play.
Check and mate.
All games I could possibly want on the 360 are put on the PC as well (sometimes it can take a few months) so I have absolutely no use for one.
Can you say the same for the PS3? Uncharted, Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2? None of these will see a PC, hence why I prefer the PS3, not to mention it's just a vastly superior piece of architecture.
Oh, and arguing with Weaste is retarded, he wins.
That's highly subjective, and if it's collecting dust, then why don't you sell it? It's the same old same old Smashed and bullshit IMO.
I bought the PS3 on launch day.
For me, the joypad is a big thing. I prefer the PS3 pad. I also liked the idea of having a 60gb hard drive on board.
I also went for the PS3 because of the blu ray player and HDMI.
I have thought about getting a Xbox because I fancy playing Gears of War.
For me, the joypad is a big thing. I prefer the PS3 pad. I also liked the idea of having a 60gb hard drive on board.
I also went for the PS3 because of the blu ray player and HDMI.
I have thought about getting a Xbox because I fancy playing Gears of War.
I just prefer my 360 for pure gaming fun, of course it's subjective- that's why I said in my opinion. Never really got too atatched to my ps3, and their are no games out for it that I really, desperately want. Hence why I haven't used it in months. Not denying it's a fantastic piece of kit and the technical aspects are better than the 360, but stuff like that is of no interest to me. I don't care what games look better on what console, I just enjoy playing my xbox more tis all. I like the control pads more, I prefer the layout and content of XBOX Live to PS3's version, little things liek that really.
I own both, and I use my PS3 much more than the 360. One of the reasons for this is that my PS3 is in the living room with my bigger TV and Surround Sound for when I'm watching films etc. The 360 hasn't been used since I moved house, which was in April and I haven't missed it one bit. Everything the 360 can do, the PS3 can do it just as well or better some instances in my opinion.
I'd say if your more into films and blu-rays then obviously the PS3 is much better in this department but both for me are equal in terms of gaming, with only the joypad being the major difference for me.
If you've already got a 360 like the OP then I'd ask why you want to a PS3? If its because you want the Blu-Ray playback or maybe there's some PS3 exclusive games you want to play then I don't see a reason not to get one.
Its going to be around for a long time so you'll no doubt get your moneys worth and there is some good games out there which are exclusive to the PS3 worth playing if you're a fan of gaming.
If you have the spare cash then why not get one? There's some good bundles out there at the moment too so shop around if you do decide to get one.
I'd say if your more into films and blu-rays then obviously the PS3 is much better in this department but both for me are equal in terms of gaming, with only the joypad being the major difference for me.
If you've already got a 360 like the OP then I'd ask why you want to a PS3? If its because you want the Blu-Ray playback or maybe there's some PS3 exclusive games you want to play then I don't see a reason not to get one.
Its going to be around for a long time so you'll no doubt get your moneys worth and there is some good games out there which are exclusive to the PS3 worth playing if you're a fan of gaming.
If you have the spare cash then why not get one? There's some good bundles out there at the moment too so shop around if you do decide to get one.
Of course it's opinion. However, if it's collecting dust, then there is little point in having it other than actually having it. The online play thing is a myth other than it being slightly more complicated to organise online play with your freinds on PSN than it is on XBOX Live. HOME should change this - PM me your PSN ID and I'll invite you into the first CAF clubhouse, maybe from their you can organise your games a little better - when software actually supports it
It's the myths that irk me, such as many in this thread saying that XB360 has the better games. I think that if we looked around at the past year in terms of exclusives, we would find that it's actually the PS3 that has the more diverse and higher quality and even in terms of numbers of exclusives. This shouldn't be surprising however, as Sony's own studios are larger than those of Microsoft and Nintendo combined. If you don't like what they put out, that's a different matter, but a lot of people here are talking about having a machine that collects dust. Well it will do if you don't buy games for it, but the noton that there are none is bollocks - there is a very broad range of titles to suit everyone - from Singstar to MGS4 to Wipeout HD to Siren to Little Big Planet to Ratchet to Buzz.
Of course it's opinion. However, if it's collecting dust, then there is little point in having it other than actually having it. The online play thing is a myth other than it being slightly more complicated to organise online play with your freinds on PSN than it is on XBOX Live. HOME should change this - PM me your PSN ID and I'll invite you into the first CAF clubhouse, maybe from their you can organise your games a little better - when software actually supports it
It's the myths that irk me, such as many in this thread saying that XB360 has the better games. I think that if we looked around at the past year in terms of exclusives, we would find that it's actually the PS3 that has the more diverse and higher quality and even in terms of numbers of exclusives. This shouldn't be surprising however, as Sony's own studios are larger than those of Microsoft and Nintendo combined. If you don't like what they put out, that's a different matter, but a lot of people here are talking about having a machine that collects dust. Well it will do if you don't buy games for it, but the noton that there are none is bollocks - there is a very broad range of titles to suit everyone - from Singstar to MGS4 to Wipeout HD to Siren to Little Big Planet to Ratchet to Buzz.
Oh I agree, I think the PS3 is a brilliant piece of kit, its just when there is a game out on both consoles I always pick up the 360 version. I'm not saying the 360 has better games, just that I tend to lean towards the 360, I am just more comfortable with it I guess and as I'm not really too fussed about graphics or the technical aspects I just go with whatever console I am more comfortable playing. I've never really explored PSN so that's probably one of the reasons.
But as long as it looks better on the 360, no one will care as to why though. I don't think we'll see the true potential of the ps3 for a few years yet (3-4 years).
To the thread starter, if you already have a ps3, then buying a 360 (if you can afford it) is a no brainer really...........GET ONE. It'll be your primary console for the next few years (until the ps3 takes over but as you already have one then it shouldn't be a problem).
Of course it's opinion. However, if it's collecting dust, then there is little point in having it other than actually having it. The online play thing is a myth other than it being slightly more complicated to organise online play with your freinds on PSN than it is on XBOX Live. HOME should change this - PM me your PSN ID and I'll invite you into the first CAF clubhouse, maybe from their you can organise your games a little better - when software actually supports it
It's the myths that irk me, such as many in this thread saying that XB360 has the better games. I think that if we looked around at the past year in terms of exclusives, we would find that it's actually the PS3 that has the more diverse and higher quality and even in terms of numbers of exclusives. This shouldn't be surprising however, as Sony's own studios are larger than those of Microsoft and Nintendo combined. If you don't like what they put out, that's a different matter, but a lot of people here are talking about having a machine that collects dust. Well it will do if you don't buy games for it, but the noton that there are none is bollocks - there is a very broad range of titles to suit everyone - from Singstar to MGS4 to Wipeout HD to Siren to Little Big Planet to Ratchet to Buzz.
It's not a myth. Xbox live is a VASTLY better experience online than the psn network. Any game that relieves heavily on multiplayer action is always going to be favoured on xbox. An example would be fifa 09. I run into the same opponents over and over again on ps3. on xbox I rarely ever see the same player twice. It's the same for all games because if you're paying to use live you're damn well going to use it. And sony doesn't have better games than 360 that's just opinion. both have exclusives and both have 90% of each other's collection. They both look the same graphically because even you know weaste that the gpu is limited physically on the ps3 because sony engineers designed it drunk at 1am.
You don't know what you're talking about. Graphically it's pumping out all it can on some really shit designed bottleneck hardware. Why do people post completely wrong random shit.
I'm going to throw my Xbox out the window and buy a PS3, because Weaste told me too.
Sony will have his commission cheque waiting.
Aside from the PS3 being better anyway, Microsoft are the axis of evil with a console that worked a maximum of 2 weeks for me, when they replaced it they sent me a console with a broken up front, sent that one back and got the same one back again. There tossers. And Lives a rip-off.
Well, having checked my finances today, this will have to wait a couple of months, but is still very much in the pipeline.
I'm certain I will get the 360, like I said the range of games is very attractive.
I'm certain I will get the 360, like I said the range of games is very attractive.
How do YOU know that exactly? Am I the only one who sees the irony of that post.Weaste; put this man in his place
Owned a Xbox 360 for about 2 years now and decided to purchase a PS3 on Saturday, always been a great fan of the 360 (its not a bad purchase especially for the price) but i've had two days of playing the PS3 and that's all it took for me to realise after all this time the PS3 is the better console of the 2 in my opinion! Just seems so much better game wise and the added extra of a Blu-Ray is always a persuader!
Yet it's always handy to have a 360 because of the vast game collection, but saying that the PS3's is building up rather nicely
Yet it's always handy to have a 360 because of the vast game collection, but saying that the PS3's is building up rather nicely
Pray tell me why the RSX is any more physically limited than Xenos. I'd like to know. Really, tell us!
Weaste; put this man in his place
Because it's my job to know these things. Any and all new tech that could have certain future implications passes through my office
Come on then, tell us.
R/W you already know the details. I'm certainly not going to go over something i've posted months ago and don't care all that much about.
This is some basic comp 101. A machine is only as fast as its slowest part and the cell is compensating for a severe brain freeze by someone over at sony.
I'm not quite getting you. For a start, Sony didn't design RSX. As for Read/Write performance, RSX has about 23GB/s to GDDR3 and 18GB/s to XDR (shared with Cell) or there abouts. Xenos has 23GB/s access to GDDR3 (shared with the XCPU) and 32GB/s to the embedded 10MB EDRAM which contains the 8 ROPs (RSX has 8 ROPs), with the ROPs and some other logic having access of 256GB/s to the EDRAM. What does that tell you?
RSX and Cell are both part of the PS3 graphics system as it was designed. Cell is not compensating for anything, it's part of the system. Maybe it would be better if you clarified your statements, or if you don't care to the point of not being able to back up your statements, don't comment at all?
I'm no technical genius but I assume that means the GPUs are very similar? I'd always assumed the nVidia on the PS3 was better.
If anything, the GPU in the XB360 is slightly better (especially at doing AA), but there isn't much in it in terms of overall performance. The real difference between the two machines is what Cell can bring to the table.
"The original design of the Playstation 3 called for the used of TWO Cell CPU processors–each with two Threads that could Send signals to the SPE subprocessors.
However, when Sony saw the design of the Xbox 360, and they saw how much better the Xbox 360 was, then Sony was forced to redesign the Playstation 3 very quickly in a way that hurt the PS3 system. This is nearly identical to what happened with Sega and the Saturn. Sega saw how much better the original PS1 was, and they were forced to quickly redesign the Saturn in a way that used parallel processing that was difficult to work with and was more expensive. This is EXACTLY what happened with the Playstation 3.
Now from all Sony's press releases and statements I know this dirty little secret is entirely true.
The original design of the PS3 was not even supposed to used a GPU, because it was going to have two of the Cell CPU processors. But when Sony saw the revolutionary ATI GPU in the Xbox 360 that was Custom designed for the Xbox 360, and was 1.5 years ahead of its time (since the PC didn’t see similar Unified Shader technology until January 30, 2007), then Sony was forced to removed one of the Cell CPUs in the PS3, and instead add a Nvidia GPU. But there was NOT time to custom design the GPU, so Sony was forced to included a four-year old generic GPU in the PS3. That is why people often point out the vast superiority of the Xbox 360 GPU.
That my friends is why Nvidia was able to hold Sony to a ransom with the RSX. Sony paid more than double the price for this GPU compared to what MS paid ATI for similar functionality. Nvidia were performing more of a repair job and were able to command a premium. Why has no one else questioned by Sony who have always designed their own chips belatedly announced a PC based part a mere year before launch whereas MS announced they were working with ATI from the start?
Now that the PS3 only has one 3.2Ghz Cell CPU, it means that the PS3 has only two Threads capable of Sending signals to the six SPE sub-processors running parallel. Each of those six SPE processors is capable of Receiving a Threaded signal; however, the PS3 CPU is only capable of Sending two Threaded signals. This is where the hardware “bottleneck” of the PS3 reveals itself. Programmers often say that the PS3 has two arms (CPU Threads) that are trying to juggle six balls (SPE sub-processors). Obviously, that is NOT possible, and that is why the Playstation 3 hardware is such a BIG disappointment.
This is why Gabe from Valve (and also John Carmack in lesser terms) described the PS3 as a waste of everyone's time.
With the Xbox 360, Microsoft used a much newer and better form of technology. PCs often brag about their “dual-core” CPU design. The Xbox 360 actually takes that to the next level and used a “tri-core” CPU design, with each CPU using the most developer-favored videogame processor available–the PowerPC.
The Xbox 360 is literally the exact opposite when compared to the Playstation 3 in terms of hardware design and efficiency. The Xbox 360 has three 3.2Ghz CPUs, each with two Threads capable of Sending instructions. But the Xbox 360 doesn’t the outdated parallel processing environment of the PS3. There are no “sub-processors” to worry about with the Xbox 360. The signals can be focused on CPU and GPU commands. This literally means the Xbox 360 has six arms (CPU Threads) that are being asked to juggle only two balls (GPU and CPU functions).
In summary.
THAT is why the developers absolutely LOVE the Xbox 360 and can design games so much more efficiently for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why games are released so much earlier for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why the overwhelming majority of Xbox 360 games offer better graphic and online performance on the Xbox 360.
THAT is NOT going to change!"
However, when Sony saw the design of the Xbox 360, and they saw how much better the Xbox 360 was, then Sony was forced to redesign the Playstation 3 very quickly in a way that hurt the PS3 system. This is nearly identical to what happened with Sega and the Saturn. Sega saw how much better the original PS1 was, and they were forced to quickly redesign the Saturn in a way that used parallel processing that was difficult to work with and was more expensive. This is EXACTLY what happened with the Playstation 3.
Now from all Sony's press releases and statements I know this dirty little secret is entirely true.
The original design of the PS3 was not even supposed to used a GPU, because it was going to have two of the Cell CPU processors. But when Sony saw the revolutionary ATI GPU in the Xbox 360 that was Custom designed for the Xbox 360, and was 1.5 years ahead of its time (since the PC didn’t see similar Unified Shader technology until January 30, 2007), then Sony was forced to removed one of the Cell CPUs in the PS3, and instead add a Nvidia GPU. But there was NOT time to custom design the GPU, so Sony was forced to included a four-year old generic GPU in the PS3. That is why people often point out the vast superiority of the Xbox 360 GPU.
That my friends is why Nvidia was able to hold Sony to a ransom with the RSX. Sony paid more than double the price for this GPU compared to what MS paid ATI for similar functionality. Nvidia were performing more of a repair job and were able to command a premium. Why has no one else questioned by Sony who have always designed their own chips belatedly announced a PC based part a mere year before launch whereas MS announced they were working with ATI from the start?
Now that the PS3 only has one 3.2Ghz Cell CPU, it means that the PS3 has only two Threads capable of Sending signals to the six SPE sub-processors running parallel. Each of those six SPE processors is capable of Receiving a Threaded signal; however, the PS3 CPU is only capable of Sending two Threaded signals. This is where the hardware “bottleneck” of the PS3 reveals itself. Programmers often say that the PS3 has two arms (CPU Threads) that are trying to juggle six balls (SPE sub-processors). Obviously, that is NOT possible, and that is why the Playstation 3 hardware is such a BIG disappointment.
This is why Gabe from Valve (and also John Carmack in lesser terms) described the PS3 as a waste of everyone's time.
With the Xbox 360, Microsoft used a much newer and better form of technology. PCs often brag about their “dual-core” CPU design. The Xbox 360 actually takes that to the next level and used a “tri-core” CPU design, with each CPU using the most developer-favored videogame processor available–the PowerPC.
The Xbox 360 is literally the exact opposite when compared to the Playstation 3 in terms of hardware design and efficiency. The Xbox 360 has three 3.2Ghz CPUs, each with two Threads capable of Sending instructions. But the Xbox 360 doesn’t the outdated parallel processing environment of the PS3. There are no “sub-processors” to worry about with the Xbox 360. The signals can be focused on CPU and GPU commands. This literally means the Xbox 360 has six arms (CPU Threads) that are being asked to juggle only two balls (GPU and CPU functions).
In summary.
THAT is why the developers absolutely LOVE the Xbox 360 and can design games so much more efficiently for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why games are released so much earlier for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why the overwhelming majority of Xbox 360 games offer better graphic and online performance on the Xbox 360.
THAT is NOT going to change!"
To the OP. Sorry I thought you had a 360 and was debating about buying a PS3, I seem to have got it the wrong way round.
The same still stands though really, if there's some 360 exclusive titles that you fancy playing then it might well be worth it, they're so cheap now that if you have the available money I don't see why not.
Alternatly, you listen to the fanboy GAngel fight it out with Weaste and then decide. Its always amusing.
The same still stands though really, if there's some 360 exclusive titles that you fancy playing then it might well be worth it, they're so cheap now that if you have the available money I don't see why not.
Alternatly, you listen to the fanboy GAngel fight it out with Weaste and then decide. Its always amusing.
you're calling me a fanboy when i own both and rarely ever even post in this forum
Jesus Christ on a honey coated stick. I'll slowly try to take that on bit by bit.
you're calling me a fanboy when i own both and rarely ever even post in this forum
Irregardless, this is going to be interesting and fun. If only studying was like that. Ever thought of being a lecturer Weaste?
I'd agree with that. Weaste is very good at making you think.
Weaste, will it be possible for the next Microsoft console to use Blue-ray? Or is it copyrighted?
My head is actually melted reading this
Ok, step by step. Firstly however I must ask where you copied this from? I certainly hope that you did not write it yourself, because it's so flawed on so many levels it's untrue.
Unless you can find me an exact quote from somebody knowledgable on the matter, then this has to be filed under F for fantasy. In fact the sentence itself does not make sense. I can accept the idea that when the PS3 was in the early stages of its general architectural design, they may have considered the idea of putting together a custom GPU based on the SPUs in not too a disimilar way to say Toshiba's SPURs Engine. Lets say for fantasy's sake that it would have been 16 SPEs, 8 ROPs, and some hard wired texture processing. Doable? Yes, but somebody probably at some early stage pointed out the fact that it was overcomplicating things for the sake of overcomplicating them. You have no clue either way, so file that thought under F.
Quote the said press releases then. I call it bullshit, because you have no proof, and this is entirely the work of people that should probably be filed under F for feckwits or fools, which ever one you prefer.
Again, file under F if you have nothing to back this up with.
There is little about Xenos that is revolutionary apart from the unified shader arcitecture itself. However, a unified shader architecture in itself doesn't really mean much other than providing the software the ability to choose how many it is going to use for vertex and how many for pixels. It give flexibility, yes, but I think that you will find that for the most part it's probably a 33/66 split, which incidentally is how the RSX is set up. It's all very well and good quoting optimal shader performance when all 48 (is it 48?) of the shaders are doing vertex work or pixel work, but in both of those cases you would end up with a black screen.
nVidia stated in late 2004 that they had been working with Sony for at least a year on a then unspecified project. Most people assumed that it was something for PSP. Well, it wasn't, it was RSX.
As for the age of RSX, it's based on the 7800/7900 architecture and is far from generic. Read "based", it actually has quite a bit of custom logic and things that a PC GPU from nVidia based on the same technology does not have. It certainly was nowhere near 4 years old technology when PS3 was supposed to be released, it was top of the range.
The bolded part is not worth a response, because it's total bullshit.
You have no clue how much Sony has paid nVidia for RSX. If you have some concrete facts please share them. A repair job? A repair job on what? On the thing we have already filed under fantasy, fools, and feckwits?
They most likely went down the standard GPU path because doing anything else would most probably have overcomplicated the machine for the sake of overcomplicating it. Developers whinged and whined at how the PS2 worked, and Sony probably took notice. Why not use a powerful PC based technology when it makes sense? You're trying to invent things in your mind here.
If I were you I would stop talking about threads and signals, because it's total nonsense what you have written here. Are you confusing threads and signals with the PPE having two threads like each XCPU core does? There are also 8 SPEs in the Cell, one disabled for yield purposes in PS3, 1 used by the PS3 OS, giving 6 SPEs for exclusive use by the developer.
The SPEs are not co-processors or sub-processors and should no be treated as such. Get this out of your crazy head. They have their own RAM, they run their own code, they have their own data. They cannot access RAM on their own, or any other subsystem of the PS3 without a DMA request (they can feed RSX however). The SPEs are part of the CPU, the Cell in its whole is a CPU. You keep going on about Cells as if a Cell is a PPE.
Now we will go on to the silly juggling comment. The PPE doesn't juggle anything other than provide each SPU with tasks. That's called task management. It doesn't need 6 arms to juggle six SPEs, as the SPEs work on their own once told what to do. I suppose that your boss at work has 6 arms to tell six people what tasks they are doing for the day does he/she? However, you say that programmers say these things. Again, quote them or it's more bullshit.
On a final note here, if Cell is so weak, could you tell us all why IBM use them in the most powerful super computer in the world instead of a 3 or 4 core run of the mill Power processor? They designed both after all. Also, why are these IBM Cell processors only produced with single PPEs? I thought that you said they were broken? Well, the PPEs in the IBM chips would need 8 arms to juggle their 8 little balls.
Carmack never sain that PS3 was a waste of time, he said that he didn't like the way it works. My thoughts on Gabe Newell are well known.
The Cell is based on Power architecture. The PPE is basically an XCPU core. Again, why are IBM not using this in the most powerful supercomputer yet made? Why are IBM not producing any of their own products with this type of CPU? They must be fecking stupid!
PS3 has 8!
6 threads vs 2 threads and 7 cores? I make that 9!
Are you seriously saying that the asymmetrical parallel processing model is outdated in comparison to the symmetrical one?
I'm getting very tired of this now and am starting to think that you should be filed under F for fail. What the feck are you talking about with "signals"?
Where the feck did you copy this shite from?
Unless you can find me an exact quote from somebody knowledgable on the matter, then this has to be filed under F for fantasy. In fact the sentence itself does not make sense. I can accept the idea that when the PS3 was in the early stages of its general architectural design, they may have considered the idea of putting together a custom GPU based on the SPUs in not too a disimilar way to say Toshiba's SPURs Engine. Lets say for fantasy's sake that it would have been 16 SPEs, 8 ROPs, and some hard wired texture processing. Doable? Yes, but somebody probably at some early stage pointed out the fact that it was overcomplicating things for the sake of overcomplicating them. You have no clue either way, so file that thought under F.
Quote the said press releases then. I call it bullshit, because you have no proof, and this is entirely the work of people that should probably be filed under F for feckwits or fools, which ever one you prefer.
Again, file under F if you have nothing to back this up with.
There is little about Xenos that is revolutionary apart from the unified shader arcitecture itself. However, a unified shader architecture in itself doesn't really mean much other than providing the software the ability to choose how many it is going to use for vertex and how many for pixels. It give flexibility, yes, but I think that you will find that for the most part it's probably a 33/66 split, which incidentally is how the RSX is set up. It's all very well and good quoting optimal shader performance when all 48 (is it 48?) of the shaders are doing vertex work or pixel work, but in both of those cases you would end up with a black screen.
nVidia stated in late 2004 that they had been working with Sony for at least a year on a then unspecified project. Most people assumed that it was something for PSP. Well, it wasn't, it was RSX.
As for the age of RSX, it's based on the 7800/7900 architecture and is far from generic. Read "based", it actually has quite a bit of custom logic and things that a PC GPU from nVidia based on the same technology does not have. It certainly was nowhere near 4 years old technology when PS3 was supposed to be released, it was top of the range.
The bolded part is not worth a response, because it's total bullshit.
You have no clue how much Sony has paid nVidia for RSX. If you have some concrete facts please share them. A repair job? A repair job on what? On the thing we have already filed under fantasy, fools, and feckwits?
They most likely went down the standard GPU path because doing anything else would most probably have overcomplicated the machine for the sake of overcomplicating it. Developers whinged and whined at how the PS2 worked, and Sony probably took notice. Why not use a powerful PC based technology when it makes sense? You're trying to invent things in your mind here.
If I were you I would stop talking about threads and signals, because it's total nonsense what you have written here. Are you confusing threads and signals with the PPE having two threads like each XCPU core does? There are also 8 SPEs in the Cell, one disabled for yield purposes in PS3, 1 used by the PS3 OS, giving 6 SPEs for exclusive use by the developer.
The SPEs are not co-processors or sub-processors and should no be treated as such. Get this out of your crazy head. They have their own RAM, they run their own code, they have their own data. They cannot access RAM on their own, or any other subsystem of the PS3 without a DMA request (they can feed RSX however). The SPEs are part of the CPU, the Cell in its whole is a CPU. You keep going on about Cells as if a Cell is a PPE.
Now we will go on to the silly juggling comment. The PPE doesn't juggle anything other than provide each SPU with tasks. That's called task management. It doesn't need 6 arms to juggle six SPEs, as the SPEs work on their own once told what to do. I suppose that your boss at work has 6 arms to tell six people what tasks they are doing for the day does he/she? However, you say that programmers say these things. Again, quote them or it's more bullshit.
On a final note here, if Cell is so weak, could you tell us all why IBM use them in the most powerful super computer in the world instead of a 3 or 4 core run of the mill Power processor? They designed both after all. Also, why are these IBM Cell processors only produced with single PPEs? I thought that you said they were broken? Well, the PPEs in the IBM chips would need 8 arms to juggle their 8 little balls.
Carmack never sain that PS3 was a waste of time, he said that he didn't like the way it works. My thoughts on Gabe Newell are well known.
The Cell is based on Power architecture. The PPE is basically an XCPU core. Again, why are IBM not using this in the most powerful supercomputer yet made? Why are IBM not producing any of their own products with this type of CPU? They must be fecking stupid!
PS3 has 8!
6 threads vs 2 threads and 7 cores? I make that 9!
Are you seriously saying that the asymmetrical parallel processing model is outdated in comparison to the symmetrical one?
I'm getting very tired of this now and am starting to think that you should be filed under F for fail. What the feck are you talking about with "signals"?
Where the feck did you copy this shite from?
Blu-ray is available to any company that wishes to pay royalty fees to the Blu-ray Disc Association.
I don't know which console looks better, but I know that I don't really give a shit about graphics. I just find the 360 more enjoyable.
Out of interest why do you want to know which console we prefer if you're going to have both anyway?
Cheers.