| Jo21 said: numbers never lie PS3 is more powerful. 360 have a slightly better gpu but thats mainly on the programming part. due the combine shaders. still RSX is 50mhz faster. and the CPU its theorically (using both theorical numbers from IBM) its almost double on the ps3. |
Too bad that, after years, we still haven't seen anything visible on that difference ...
It is normal that a lot of people are doubting about the so-called capacity of the PS3 :
MGS4 is the best PS3 game (from a technical standpoint) but it was developed for a long time by the best skilled (on PS3) team that is Konami. With what they accomplished with MGS3 on an old plateform that was the PS2, they are clearly the best developers on the playstation world.
Anyhow, MGS4 is nothing spectacular compared to a GOW2 or even a HALO3. The benchmarking difference of the machine aren't sensibly visible on the games that are on the market. Even more, multiplateform & ported games are slighlty less good.
So... ok... for the technical figures... but so far... this is useless sh*t to me. 
Note : I worked for 2 years within the IBM world. And even if they are still king of the microelectronics, they often loose to the competition by being way too far from the pragmatism of the market that is : Cheap and easy to program hardware.
Even for non-gaming business, software companies are focusing on products and features... not high-end electronics that takes far too much time to code.
Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.
