maybe I dont understand the message being conveyed. xbox 360 would have been the most powerful 8 years? But 8 years later (now) the technology was around to create it.

cost wise in this article is confusing too. Didnt I just read a story about the xbox360 costing $715 to manufacture?

still, stupid examples leave stupid people where they stand, not to the bookstores and libraries:P

....my bad:P

too bad it isnt 1998

dumbass

Actually, as far as the PS3 is concerned, I've read that the Cell sucks ass when it comes to regular computer computations. wheras the Xenon would work just dandy as a computer processor. This is because the Cell is currently only tailored toward making the PS3 run. It would take a little more development, and lot more money to tailor the Cell into a standard PC chip.

I think what you may have read is that the CEll isn't great at running unspecialised code, ie the way most programmes are written for the PC. Becuase of its complex deisgn to get anywhere near its potential out of it, software has to be written (or at least optimised) for the multiple cores.

The 3560 chip on the other hand has far less power or potential for power, because Microsoft wanted a chip that was easier to program for (in a bid to win over more developers).

As neither machine will be running unspecialised code (being consoles and not PCs), its about as useful as saying that a car could get 10,000 miles to the gallon on the moon - it's a pointless statement.

"*cough*killzone *cough*"

Are you still whining about this? They said the video was representive of what the PS3 game would look like, what the PS3 could do, and you said "yeah write - moe Bull from Sony". Then Metal Gear showed exactly the same quality of visuals (in fact slightly better), and you all just started looking at the floor muttering "killzone was still a pre-render movie though".

Until Gureilla Spit the game out and prove that Killzone 2 is as bland,joyless and depressingly mediocre as the first one, keep you tongue in your head.

Why must everyone continue to argue about the PS3 and 360? The fact is that they were both developed during the same time period. The only way the PS3 will be that much better is if Sony puts it off until 2007 and redoes the hardware. Otherwise, they are going to be close enough that it won't matter. Besides, everyone complains about how they want next-gen gameplay and not just graphics. At that, what does it matter which can pump out more polygons? One could argue that the Revolution is the only real next-gen system since the PS3 and 360 are basically improved versions of their predecessors, whereas the Revolution is a whole new concept.

Yeah, it would reign king in 1998, wow.

Anyways for those graphics fanboys that wet their pants because PS3 is "twice" as powerful as 360, you've been mislead by the corporate machine again.

FLOPS have very little to due with graphics and are only one measure of a machines performance. If your only experience in graphics benchmarking has been things like 3DMark, you should know (if you've played with enough configurations) that your CPU's power has very little to due with your final score (if that score means anything, but it's some measure at least ) If you've never played with that, then just take my word for it, or try it out

So the statement that the PS3 is "twice" as powerful as 360 is a little misleading...now if you had to setup both machines to render realtime data being sent from a satelite or some weather tracking system, then yeah the PS3 would rock the socks off the 360....but i'm not really into that myself...

my cellphone was the fastest supercomputer in 1989.