Is there anyway they can put in the 8800GT SLI benchmarks in there? That would be a closer equivalent to the HD3870 Crossfire and X2 in terms of pricing than the GTX SLI. I was able to run Crysis @ ~40fps on 1920x1200 (High DX 9) on E4300 @ 3.2ghz 2GB OCZ DDR2 800mhz P5N-E-SLI 8800GT 512MB Superclocked SLI @ 700MHZ core So I wonder just how well that will scale against a crossfire option.
@Biggm4tt77 Guys, the comparison scores they are showing are marginal at best...10-20 points? It doesn't make a big difference in the long run when you compare the 2 quad core cpus. Only thing is they are comparing last gen q6700 to AMD's latest and greatest. They aren't comparing Penryn to the Phenom. Plus if we refer to: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10648&page=7 As you can see the Phenom 9900's primary advantage (when compared to a q6600) is its using integration power with the Crossfire platform. So basically AMD is only good if you are going for the really high end stuff, not only do you "have to" buy their chip, you have to buy their motherboard and a pair of HD3870s in order to see some tangible results. Considering you can buy a Q6600 for just under $300 nowadays and the fact that the best "bang for your buck" video cards isn't the HD3870 but rather the 8800GT 512MB, I really don't see the point in going with the Spider package and limit myself to buying only AMD. It is the Ad Hoc advantage that helped IBM Compatible PCs to beat out Apple, if AMD's going the route of "buy AMD or get weak performance", then I'd rather stick with the "superior" Intel / Nvidia combo. * Side note to AMD fanboys, I've been using AMD for the past 3 computers I've had, the only reason why I went Intel this time was simply because of the vast differences when Intel introduced Core 2 Duo. Unless AMD is able to find some way to either make their package more "universally" powerful (rather than limiting themselves with only AMD/ATI parts), they will definitely continue to lose market shares to Intel and Nvidia. Their long term goal of integrating everything sounds great on paper, but the underlying flaws in their implementation will definitely be a put down to gamers who wants the biggest bang for their buck.
Video output = something that would have been nice in the original PSP, so it is good that Sony has finally listened up. The smaller size and extended battery life will definitely make the PSP slim (?) a much better product that the current version.
solidgearmetal: I think a major thing you need to put into perspective is the fact that there is "far more" XBOX 360s sold when compared with PS3s. So of course the number of consoles with defects will undoubtedly be more than PS3s. Also the main reason why we buy consoles is for the games, unless Sony is able to bring out some high quality titles, this console war is as good as lost. I've been a staunch follower for Sony since PS1 (I have PS1, PS2, and PSP). But it really appears that Sony has really been slipping in terms of their business practice. Unless they get their act together, regardless of how "reliable" their systems are, there is no hope for the PS3 ==> another expensive paper weight.
Icarusmk3's comments