the ps3 sucks and everyone knows it. i mean come on, its STILL hard to find wii's!!! and everyone thought it would be 6 months before you could touch a ps3. nope, they were available days after christmas. people got them and realized "wow this is junk" wait until some dx10 games come out for vista and then tell me a console has better graphics.
Rhetorical: Why do people buy wrenches when hammers are clearly superior at driving nails?
I agree, it's all about the style of game. Consoles let you fire up a game of hockey or racing that you can play with your buddy on the couch.
Midwayman
Diamond Member
- Jan 28, 2000
- 5,723
- 325
- 126
Oh?
Sony Claims about 2gflops performance on their cpu. That's on a weak in order execution cpu and theoretical performance.
A core 2 e6700 can put up over 11gflop single precision, and that's as test, not theoretical peaks. Plus its a much better out of order execution general purpose cpu.
Yep, it reminds me when Apple was touting all of their altivec equiped macs and how they were much faster than intel. Of course, that was using a few select benchmarks that could use the vector processor, but when benchmarked using just about everything else they were still way behind intel (and amd).
The cell PPE is slower clock for clock than p4 (let alone core2 or athlon), there are plenty of standard benchmarks out that show this. And there are enough limitations to the SPU architecture where they will never really replace a proper multi-core architecture.
If you really want to find out about the 'power' of the PS3 go out to some of the developer forums and listen to them complain about how weak RSX really is.
Kind of sad that it was a year late and not even up to par with the 360, and the main reason they give is delays for the blu-ray drive, and the 360 ends up beating them to the hi-def playback punch.
The cell PPE is slower clock for clock than p4 (let alone core2 or athlon), there are plenty of standard benchmarks out that show this. And there are enough limitations to the SPU architecture where they will never really replace a proper multi-core architecture.
If you really want to find out about the 'power' of the PS3 go out to some of the developer forums and listen to them complain about how weak RSX really is.
Kind of sad that it was a year late and not even up to par with the 360, and the main reason they give is delays for the blu-ray drive, and the 360 ends up beating them to the hi-def playback punch.
ibex333
Diamond Member
- Mar 26, 2005
- 4,094
- 123
- 106
It doesnt matter if anyone hates PS3 or not. What matters is that PS3 is dying. It will be dead by 2009 or so. There's a good saying that I heared somewhere.. "Dont dig a hole for someone, you'll fall in there yourself".
Sony killed SEGA once, and now it is facing the same fate. Sony is already slowly closing down it's gaming branch and they demoted the wise president of the gaming branch.
Around 2009 Sony Playstation3 will be dead, and Sony will divert their effort toward making software and games. Same thing SEGA is doing right now. Microsoft XBOX 360 will be king.
You can waste your money on PS3. That is your choice. You'll have a nice antique to show your grandkids.
Imyourzero
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 3,701
- 0
- 86
And if that happens, it'll be so ironic because when the XBOX came out (and even after it was out for some time), no one took Microsoft seriously when it came to the console war. It was bigger than the sleeker PS2 and due to the internals people just dismissed it as a pseudo-PC and nothing else.
I liked it however. The Duke controller sucked, but the controller-S was a huge step in the right direction. XBOX load times were faster, the graphics were almost always better vs. the same game on PS2, and a lot of the "must have" PS2 games like GTA and MGS2 ended up coming to XBOX anyway, and were superior. The only reason I kept my PS2 around was for the Gran Turismo games and a handful of other titles such as Ratchet & Clank.
Microsoft did lose money on the XBOX, but at least now they're a major player. Sony has always had some good ideas and some great games, but recently they've made a lot of bad decisions and have lost a lot of exclusives.
I honestly don't know what state the PS3 will be in in 2009, but it'll be quite shocking if it's dead considering the success of the original PlayStation and PS2. I sort of hate for Microsoft to win, as it's not like they aren't a giant enough corporation already, but Sony is huge also and is turning into one cocky ignorant bastard of a company.
ibex333
Diamond Member
- Mar 26, 2005
- 4,094
- 123
- 106
When XBOX first came out I already knew it will destroy the Playstation. It is not because I'm a fanboy or anything(I dont even own neither console). The truth is, my opinion was based on the simple fact that Sony is nowhere near as rich or powerful as Microsoft. PS simply doesnt stand a chance. PS1 and 2 were a sucess. But Sony really screwed up with the PS3. (Well not Sony but the wise president of the gaming branch who was in charge)
I read a very interesting article somewhere which basically says that Microsoft is loosing less money on every console than Sony. This is one of the reasons why the Playstation is dying, another reason is their inability to provide enough consoles to the people. Finally, Sony simply doesnt have the games for the PS3. Sure the fanboys will come in and say something like: "Stop whining! Give them a chance! They'll come up with games!"
But you see... People want games NOW. Not later. Same thing that happened with SEGA Saturn and SEGA Dreamcast. Not enough finances and not enough games.
Like I said, I dont own any consoles atm, but I'm glad PS3 is dying, because I really loved SEGA and Sony is SEGA's killer.
In the end, I cant see why some people have a problem with XBOX or Microsoft. Sure I think Microsoft is evil, but I wont hate the XBOX because of it. When Sony started making game systems many people were surprised and didnt see how Sony can make a good console after being mostly known for "other" electronics.... And look how that turned out.
Same thing is happening with XBOX right now.
PianoMan
Senior member
- Jan 28, 2006
- 505
- 10
- 81
LOL - they've been there for a long time...
Sony's big mistake, IMO, is that they focused too much on the hardware versus the software. That's what is keeping the PS2 going strong - I miss Shadow Hearts on my now sold PS2 (to finance the 360). There are so many legendary games on the PS2 that are as of right now, remarkably absent.
A post said PS3 dead by 2009 - that's a possibility, but I think once those titles start coming out with the fanbase (GT, FF, etc.) - it'll make the PS3 a bit more of a competitor.
As of right now, I'm still having too much fun playing golf, bowling, shooting Elebits, and hacking with a sword on a Wii. And all of that (w/extra controllers) still didn't get me to the PS3 price point.
Sony's in trouble, and I'm ready to call the first round winner with Nintendo (look at their recent earning reports).
...but once those games come out for the PS3 - I may opt for one... but I'll need an installment plan to pay for it, LOL.
PM
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter