So what do you make of that?

There is no way on this Earth that my PS3 is more powerful than my PC.

All in, would the Cell chip be more powerful/versatile than your PC's? I ask out of ignorance

Even if it is the PS3 is crippled by a below-par GFX chip and a shockingly low amount of RAM. It doesn't even have 512MB FFS!

EDIT: Thinking about it who manufactured the PS3, was it Apple?

Is that why the occasional in-game video goes a bit stuttery?

Without wishing to start the usual argument, what's the 360 like in terms of graphics and RAM?

Well the clock speed on the Xbox gfx chip is lower (by 50MHZ), but I don't know how it compares to the PS3 (the Xbox offering is made by ATi, whereas the PS3's is made by Sony/Nvidia).

The Xbox also has 512MB of RAM - but I don't know if the graphics chip has dedicated memory or shares this. On the PS3 there's 256MB system RAM and 256MB video RAM.

I wonder will the next generation be so 'weak' compared to medium/higher-end PC cards

Only because most laptops have Intel graphics to lower costs and power consumption. If you look at systems designed to play games (just as the PS3 and Xbox are) then the PC's win hands down.

The Xbox (and I guess ATi) introduced the unified shaders which you now see on PC graphics cards. I dont know about the "is the ATi in the Xbox more powerful than the Nvidia in the PS3" argument but it always struck me that on games like Dirt 2 they couldnt manage AA on the PS3 version. Then you look at games like God of War III though which I think looks as good, if not better, than anything I've played in PC recently.

I know the specs dont add up (my PC has 4GB RAM vs 512MB for Xbox, etc etc) but the hardware in the consoles is designed for a very specific purpose. This is why I dont think you can compare the numbers like for like. Devs also dont have to worry about making the game work on a million different hardware configurations either.

I can see where he's coming from really. Of the vast amount of PCs around the world how many have the graphics card capable to run good games with good resolutions and frame rates?

The PC crowd will always say "my new gfx card has eleventy million shaders and 8 fans and can run 4000x2000" but if the software isnt using the hardware what good is it? When a game is made for the consoles it can be honed and devs can eek the performance out of the hardware available, knowing that everyone will get the same gaming experience as the next person.

Maybe not - but there are lot of PCs out there which are of lesser configuration to what you have, as any fule no.

Indeed.

"Er, excuse me, why doesn't my £350 Dell play GTA IV?"

"It's not good enough."

"What!? It's brand new!"

The benefit of using consoles - you know a game will work without any need for new hardware. A console is a snapshot which is a constant throughout it’s life.

Then why are research institutions in the US clustering them and using them to perform complex GA's (like folding)?

Just because it doesn't have much memory doesn't mean it isn't powerful, just means the software needs to be designed for it

I think that there's no way that PC gaming will die...

There are just too many people who enjoy a game, but can't afford a console. Fair enough you'll argue that they'll have to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a PC that's capable of playing games, but remember you can build a crysis-capable PC for a decent price if you're careful choosing components, and that's not the only thing your new machine will do!

It's more economical to play PC games in the end. The games are cheaper, my PC can be used to store my music/movie collection, be upgraded to store more of these things, used to manipulate photos/images/videos, used to browse t'internet (yeah I know the PS3 can do that), used to chat with all your friends that AREN'T gamers etc etc etc...

Sure, but then the Cell processor isn't capable of as wide a variety of calculations as a standard CPU. In much the same way that GPUs are much faster but not as versatile as CPUs.