Pretty much this, although it wasn't anything to do with R&D but more about being contracted to nvidia, who genuinely just didn't have anything better available that would fit a thermal model and power requirement for a closed box console. R&D wasn't the issue.

The 7xxx tech from nvidia was notably inferior to AMD/ATI, lacking in pixel and vertex shader performance. This wasn't rectified for 2 YEARS when the 8xxx series was released which blew AMD/ATI out the water.

Not slagging of the PS3, we all know the Cell when utilized to it's maximum if superior the CPU in the Xbox 360 and we all know the Xbox 360 has superior GPU and we all know PS3 exclusives look markedly better than Xbox 360 exclusives. (Except Halo 4...at last!)

I don't think it is that simple. R&D should take years from what manufacturers usually say.

Besides, they are both pretty different and it is doubtful if Sony's initial target was to just be better than xbox 360. They had blu-ray, cell all that stuff, they had different plans.

Pretty much this, although it wasn't anything to do with R&D but more about being contracted to nvidia, who genuinely just didn't have anything better available that would fit a thermal model and power requirement for a closed box console. R&D wasn't the issue.

The 7xxx tech from nvidia was notably inferior to AMD/ATI, lacking in pixel and vertex shader performance. This wasn't rectified for 2 YEARS when the 8xxx series was released which blew AMD/ATI out the water.

Not slagging of the PS3, we all know the Cell when utilized to it's maximum if superior the CPU in the Xbox 360 and we all know the Xbox 360 has superior GPU and we all know PS3 exclusives look markedly better than Xbox 360 exclusives. (Except Halo 4...at last!)

I don't think PS3 hardware is why games like Uncharted 2/3 and GOW3 looked better than 360 games. I've always been of the opinion that Sony spent the money and resources to ensure their dev teams could outdo the 360 because they had to. Sony made big promises that the PS3 was superious, but when the console launched Gears of War still looked the best. Sony had no choice but to put in enormous effort and money into nothing but graphics. Naughty Dog, Guerrilla, and Santa Monica all benefitied from that. Without the expensive Sony resources tow ork with Uncharted 2 would have looked like Uncharted 1 and Killzone 2 would have looked like Resistance. Sony knew they had to spend the money if they wanted to convince people that the PS3 was worth buying or they knew people would just continue to buy Xbox 360s. Halo 4 is the first game on 360 that MS did the same with. 343i cost MS a ton of cash, but like Uncharted 2 it payed off. Now it seems we see the truth. The great graphics of Uncharted 2 isn't proof of PS3 superiourity, but instead proof of effort. Uncharted 2 and Halo 4 proove tegether that the machines are equaly capable when the same level of effort is applied to graphics specificly. That's my take on the matter anyway.

As for Halo 4 alone. What impresses me the most is that the game looks so good and runs so smooth while so much is happening in such large areas.

I know there were other strategies involved here like Sony trying to push the Cell and Bluray but ittook Microsoft 9 months to get Xbox 360 from concept to store shelf. Sure there was RROD and all...but just saying it's possible.

Halo 3 was actually going to be original Xbox title but when Nvidia pulled the plug on their Xbox 1 GPU in early 2005 they had a choice of rusing a next gen console or being without a console to sell for Christmas 2005.

Also, Microsoft was smart not to release full specs of 360 before it was released. There are rumors that Sony actually had a different GPU planned for PS3, but due to cost and Microsoft announcing the supposed GPU they were using, they decided to downgrade it. However when the 360 came out it was revealed that the Xenos GPU in the console was a lot closer to the R600 (2000 series, unified shaders) GPU ATI was about to release than the R500 series one (ATI X1800) that Microsoft said was their GPU spec.

the point of all this is that Sony could have easily made an executive decision to swap the GPU in the console for something beefier. GPU performance and lack of dedicated RAM is the weak link of the PS3...

While I really don't want to contribute to the PS3 vs 360 graphics war flame, as they both are pretty limited and even by todays standards, I do have to ask...

How did Sony screw up the PS3 performance like this? A year in R&D development is an eternity. A year is the difference between 3DO and PS1. Dreamcast and PS2. PS2 and Xbox... Even if we consider PS3 and 360 a graphical draw, which I think they are with their individual strenghts and weakneses, I have to see this as a failure on the Sony side. 

All they had to do is buy a 360 in 2005, and say to their engeneers..."Look at what this is capable doing, and make sure PS3 does it better."

What you failed to mention was the help MS got there off the back of the cell R&D .

Except? You're saying Halo 4 looks better than any PS3 exclusive? According to the article, Halo 4 isn't as breathtaking as God of War 3....
But these 2 games are 2 different genres. I don't really want to compare them.

If you put Halo 4 vs Killzone 3, I'd say Halo 4 wins in every level including graphics.