Considering the 8800GT has ~3* the transistors, is clocked higher and the architecture is a more efficient unified design then yes it is very plausible as we're comparing two architectures which have been tweaked as much in drivers as you can reasonably expect.

Comon man, you're unreasonable. R u just joking or what?

It's pretty well established that the 8800-line was twice the power of 7800, no more and no less.

I tend to agree with Squilliam. Let's say in a perfect driver situation a HD3870 is about equal to a 8800 gt. That means it's also twice as powerfull as a 7800. A HD4870 then is 2 times the power of the HD3870, wich makes 4 times the PS3 gpu. The 5870 then is twice a HD4870, bringing the total to 8. Then finally the 5970 is a dual 5870, wich brings the total 16. So by that logic it would actually be about 15 times as powerfull as the PS3 gpu.

Than you have two side to look at it:

1: This is an ideal situation, so the number is probably lower, say 10-12 times as powerfull.

2: We have not counted in the DirectX revisions, since the HD5xxx series is two Directx gens ahead of PS3. Also the architectures of modern gpu, like the unified shader parts are still not fully utilizied, and also offer more potential power than the old pixel pipeline architecture of the PS3 7xxx gpu. This making the number higher.

Then on a side note the HD consoles have proven to be mostly memory limited, especially if one would like to use 1080P in games. The 2048mb ram of the HD5970(1gb per gpu) completely removes this limitation.

To sum it up, i would say 12 times more powerfull is actually an understatement, and i would say closer to 15 times more powerfull in a scenario where it's full potential could be utilizied, wich a gaming console is since all the PS3 have te exact same hardware.

I agree with this. And the HD consoles main issue is Memory. I wish they had 1024mb. I believe they would have gotten more from their designs if they did. Also 360 has unified shaders on it's GPU which again hasnt really been used properly yet. With also the ability to do some DX10 features. Something the PS3 cant do. It's not as simple as many people think.

Well, you DO get what you pay for right?

yet, PS3 doesnt use direct X to begin with.

and opengl support extensions and can be update, so many direct x 11 features can be found on the ps3 one way of another.

360 can do antialiasing easier, ps3 can do better lighting and deffered rendering and parallell engine slike cry engine 3.

But that doesn't make sense according to CRYTek. They are on record at GDC this year saying the PS3 version was a nightmare to bring it up to speed with the PC and 360. They got there now, but the things you say PS3 can do better, were easier to get on 360 than PS3. Thats from CRYTek direct. They also took a pop at other top games on PS3 and 360 saying no other game engine is fully realtime. ( Including KZ2 and at the time upcoming Uncharted 2 ). They said there engine is the only engine on consoles where no tricks are used it was all realtime.

Microsoft will never add a browser as by rebranding web applications specifically it allows microsoft to control their service better. Which for them is preferable to user freedom.

oh, I thought it was a new game. -_-

last line it's marketing, cry engine it's very similar to kz2 engine, since both use deffered rendering, but they are practically selling engine saying it's only one real time, when kz2 graphic wise looks almost as good, if not better (on the consoles).

 and they did say cry engine 3 was better on the ps3.