I'm a product manager. I would like to offer a slightly different perspective from my own experiences.
Powderkeg said:
They had to go to Nvidia to be competative with the ATI equipped 360 in all areas, instead of just blowing them away with geomitry alone.
Bottomline is: I highly doubt Sony made major design decision according to ATI's (projected) R500 specs.
"Designing specifically to crush a competitor's product" is a viable approach if that product/competitor is a market leader, and has already been released. There is little need for Sony to do that given the circumstances.
First and foremost, successful companies design products *for their market/intended use*. In this case, Sony is on a mission to expand gaming to the next tier, and also to converge different industries. Their performance targets are pegged according to their own vision and projected users' needs rather than based on ATI's specs. As others have pointed out, Sony can simplify PS 3 development by working with nVidia. So there are good reasons to go to nVidia instead of doing everything in-house.
Perhaps J. Allard quoted the "Replace Cell with RSX" line because MS wants to counter the Cell hype. And the tech sites are the people who hoped for a 4-Cell PS 3. These do not necessarily reflect the truth or the PS 3 Cell performance. Sony may have considered using Cell for hardcore GPU work (the same way they wanted to have router functionality in PS 3 earlier on). But that's just normal brainstorm, what-ifs, another possibility to cut cost, long term investment during _any_ product planning.
Now back to Sony's vision...
PC-Engine said:
Simply put, SONY was too ambitious with their original CELL CPU goal of 1TFLOPS + CELL GPU for a 2006 release so instead of 1TFLOPS they got 215GFLOPS for the CPU and ditched the CELL GPU which together wasn't good enough to compete with Xbox 360.
Bottomline: Ambitious yes. But I think the comparison with 360 is MS-speak. Sony does not need to look to Microsoft to realize that a Cell CPU is insufficient to do the job. Ken Kutaragi is there to remind them.
Sony has a grand vision even before PS 3 is designed. The Cell-based *system* (not just the CPU) goal was set according to that vision. One of the articles mentioned Kutaragi wanted to create an early version of the Matrix virtual environment. To do so, Sony has to roll out a system that is beyond the capability of Xbox 360 or any consumer devices.
Early in the development phase, IBM talked Ken out of the ridiculous target for the Cell CPU. Sony would have to look for alternatives. nVidia may well come into the picture since then.
It is not uncommon for leaders to paint a grand vision (See "7 Habits of Highly Effective People") and then drive the whole company/groups of companies to achieve it.
For those who are offended by Ken's lying/hyping of PS 3, here's my interpretation...
I used to work for a boss who's like Ken (in another country). He would go to the press to talk about his high vision, partly to capture the users' imagination, and mainly to align multiple parties inside and outside our organization. Many times instead of consensus-based meetings that deadlock forever, we achieved much better mileage by announcing our goals publicly. It sends the message: "There is no turning back", "We are s.e.r.i.o.u.s.", "I'm putting my reputation on the line", ... to your colleagues, subordinates and other parties. We managed to hi-jack much of the group's talents and resources to do what we wanted to achieve.
We also forced ourselves to excel (You aim high, you shoot higher even if you miss). I used to wake up in cold sweat (a couple of times) when the deadlines are near. Many quit, 2 broke down, but more talented people joined too.
So behind the hype, there are real people sweating (swearing) to make that little game box of ours. I get a little pissed off when posters belittle Sony's or for that matter, MS's work. If you don't like the product, just don't buy it.
Sorry for the rant.
