yes, a lot better

Im not saying ur wrong but could u give some reasons why its better

I disagree.

Had it been the usual 5 year life cycle, then yes. But they both obviously intended to extend well beyond that. Nintendo will most likely keep to the 5 year thing though.

Not really, the Xbox 360 was about right and had a reasonable launch price. PS3 shouldn't have had cell, making it a little less powerful.

Nope they were underpowered for my taste as are PS4/Xbox/Wii U should have had both 1gig ram imo.

The PS3 could have had a 8800gt instead of the RSX.

That simply would've delayed the inevitable for a few more years.

Developers and publishers have been chomping at the bit for bigger, more "cinematic" experiences for several generations now. And they're pushing for the power to keep doing more of it--Mark Cerny said they would've gladly taken a PS4 100x as powerful as the PS3 if it was possible. If they didn't have the toolset to go hamhocks this gen, then it just would've happened next gen.

No the PS3's memory was the reason. Developers struggled tto utilize the very silly 256 split the console had. Causing large open worlds  to choke the system. Also making it dificult for PS3 to maintain 60FPS as well as the  360 does.. See Rage, GT5&6 ( yes 6 is still not as stable as Forza 4 )/Forza 4. Or see Skyrim, RDR etc etc. 

Games that require open world gameplay or high framerates faired better on 360 architecture.

Of course they were too powerful. They were expensive and still sold at a loss. Terrible business decisions. If Sony and MS were games companies, they would be bankrupt by now. The generation dragged on way too long and development costs got too high too soon.

These consoles should have been weaker and cheaper and been replaced at least a year or two ago with HD systems.

NO!

Are you mad!?

360 was the most perfectly chosen hardware ever IMO.