This is getting silly. The blog post makes some very good points. He is talking about 'PS3 misconceptions and spin' so of course it might be a onsided. He isn't trying to be overly fair, just counter some good old spin.
Thanks (in part) to marketing, a lot of incorrect ideas have been tossed around.
- Cell
This is where the blogger is spot on. A huge amount of marketing was spent to give the impression that the Cell was uber powerful. In some way it is, but Sony had slides saying it was twice the speed of the 360's CPU. The point is, it might be powerful, but an all new chip has its quirks that takes longger for people to learn, even document. It would seem that both are rather similar.
- Blu Ray
Yes extra space is great. There is no doubt about it. However, the drive is slower. Someone mentioned about where the data is located on the DVD affects speed. It's true. Data on the outside is read roughly twice as fast. However, there are tools to set where data goes. So, key parts can be placed at the outside, and bits of FMV etc near the inside. Blu Ray speeds are constant. The key is PS3's 2x Blu Ray is roughly the same as the minimum speed of the 360's.
But what I find really odd is why people think Blu Ray will automatically mean better textures? DVD space is not realistically going to be the limiting factor. It does mean that every level could have an entire set of textures only for that level, but since hi-res textures are not quick to make, thats the limiting factor.
I'm not really a fanboy, I just like people (including myself) to have their facts straight. If I'm wrong, say why.
