Apart from the 50MHz difference, what else is fake in terms of specifications?

And you can determine the poly count, or theoretical max fill rates and textured triangles - you know, the stuff that console manufacturers target when designing their consoles. Sure, you can't compare game A with game B's poly count for countless reasons, most stemming from different engines.

Now, what would be interesting is to see benchmarks from games using the same engine license (e.g. Unreal 3) - it's still not a 100% even comparison, but it's better than theoretical fill rates and marketing spiel... 

The source is dubious at best, agreed - if you want to compare specs Legend11, it'd be more credible if your source was not from a direct competitor (and give fanboys less mud to sling back at you).

 Originally the RSX was going to be clocked at 550mhz, but the clock was cut back due to cost/time constraints. The memory also took a clock hit.

 I don't feel like linking to this, but tons has been writen on this and it's been reported on everything from major gaming sites to beyond 3d.

 Fail, for thinking processing is somehowdifferent on PCs game consoles. Sorry, but the rules of processing are the same on any system. It's just the components and firmware that are the difference.

 As for the Cell, you all bought a bill of goods from Sony, in that the Cell's power supposedly trumps everything else in the system. Real time graphics don't work that way. In things like CGI and folding@home, the Cell is great, but those don't have constant, and usually rapid, input from the user, that happens with real time. In real time the CPU is just one like in a chain. So the hype for the Cell is pretending that the strongest link in this chain is the most important.

 So since a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, or this case the fastest bus, then every part has to be considered. So since every other part is comparable to the 360, then the system's power is comparable to the 360, no matter what the Cell can do on its own. It still depends on the rest of the system to process and store the Cell's calculations.

 Now there are some things in real time that can bedone primarily by the processor, such as physics, shading, and lighting (even though the latter two can be done though the RSX's firmware, as a developer fallback). Yet those are just three parts of the big picture. Beyond those, the Cell is dependent on the power of the rest of the system, and that simply isn't far enough ahead of the 360 to make the PS3 the most powerful system, no matter how much it is hyped to be so.

For the top text part You're just qouting a dev that works on PS3, in fact he's PS3 second party, on Heavenly Sword. He doesn't even work on Xenos, how would Marco/nao/nostromo know what Xenos can do? He doesn't. He talks a ton of crap about 360 on a couple forums, and that's fine, but he doesn't know what 360 is capable of. He has no experience with it.

Now as for your specs, they're bogus. You can make up all kinds of spec like "gigaflops" that are meaningless. I can tell you Nvidia is especially good at this sort of BS. They set RSX as some kind of monster with inflated specs early on, but the real world throughput is another story. I dont know where you get RSX has 5 ALU per pipe, it has 2. Even then for example, 1 of the 2 must do double duty as texture fetchers when needed, which means they are less useful to shaders during that time. Xenos on the other hand has 16 dedicated TMU's, all it's shader ALU's are constantly available unlike RSX that may have many ALU's tied up fetching textures at any given time. See how you cannot compare stats? It just doesn't work that way in real life.

Things like a "fog" alu can up some artificial flop count, but that sort of flop counting is useless. Comparing like to like, you're looking at 56 (Vertex pipes have one ALU)  32 bit precision ALU's in RSX versus 48 in 360. But considering 360 has less framebuffer bandwidth pressure, has dedicated TMU's, has a arguably more efficient unified architecture, oh and I think Xenos can do an extra component per ALU. Xenos alu's are vec4+1, RSX's are vec3+1. A small 8 ALU deficit on paper for Xenos can easily be made up and surpassed.

I really think both 360 and PS3 games' graphics are just gonna keep improving, Gears of War is not the final barrier for either system. Also your stats don't take into account what the Cell processor is outside of straight numbers.

There will be better looking games on both systems in the future. It took the 360 developers a whole year to push the 360 to get gears.  The PS3 games are looking better and better as we go, from Resistance to Motorstorm (which looks great) to Gaiden Sigma (which looks better than Motorstorm). The first game I think that is really taking the next step on the PS3 is Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction.

Anyone seen that game? It's a monster...

Thats only FUD against the machine .If you look at the specs in the pages of IGN or Gamespot or Gamepro the RSX is still at 550mhz .Please stop using rumours of 9 months ago ,never confirmed ,as if they were facts .Nvidia has said clearly the RSX can do 100 billion SOPS ,and that amount can only be achievable at 550mhz at less it would be less than that .Its crazy how the bad rumours about the PS3 spread withut any evidence ....I suppose thats what happen when there are some millions of people around the internet WILLLING those to be true and one company known for its FUD against the rivals churning them out as fast as it can .

 Amen to the part about Microsoft's practices...

Another thread created by the idea of... "Yeah. I'll google PS3 Vs 360 and start a thread"

Yes. I am tired of reading the same stuff over and over again about one being better than the other.

The PS3 being called a oversized 'calculator' and the 360 a 'P.C'.... 

The truly distinguishing PS3 features are its Blu-Ray drive and most importantly the Cell processor, which according to for example IBM is mulitple times faster. IBM is the maker of both processors, so I think IBM is the most reliable source on this matter.

To use the performance advantage of the Cell processor traditional game engines need to be redesigned, this will not or at least has not happened with regard to multi-platform games. IMO Motorstorm provides a good preview of the PS3's graphical, complexitity and general performance, though it's a PS3 exclusive.

Having said this even by using just the PPE togtether with the RSX the PS3 is very powerful. For example Genji2 looks great and performs well without even using the PS3's SPEs. Multi-platforms games which don't make (much?) use of the SPEs and have been ported from the XBox 360 like Final Night Round 3, Oblivion, Ridge Racer, etc are overall improved compared to the original, so even without tapping into the bulk of the PS3's power the PS3 can keep up.

IMO to judge the PS3's true power judge future exclusives like Lair, Killzone, Rachet & Clank, etc, not the ports. Remember that initially Atari ST games ported to the Amiga were either on par or slightly inferior compared to the original, but after a few years when the developers tapped into the power of its custom chips it became clear the Amiga was overall by far more powerful.

Yeah MikeB. Sick of reading rubbish with regards to comparisons of ports from one system to another. It would be good to see a PS3 title that has been worked on near to it's full potential from the ground up. Then people can judge for themselves.