My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[sieanr]

Over 200 GFlops for 8 SPEs while taking out of account the performance provided by the PPE, so remove the GFlops for one SPE which isn't used and add some GFlops for the PPE, which gives the Cell processor over 200 GFlops performance.

WTF?

The SPEs are mostly responsible for the flop performance, so the PPE is not going to make up for the disabled SPE and the one.

Conclusion: the PS3's CPU is about 2.5-3 times faster than the Xenon processor. The Cell’s real world performance potential is well above the Xenon’s theoretical peak performance.

Is this a fucking joke? 

Flop performance is by no means the be all end all of CPU benchmarking, unless you wan't to make the Cell look really really goog. But you wouldn't do this, would you? I mean, that would make your TL;DR bias?

Oh, and GPUs are the real flop beasts, not CPUs. 

The additional EDRAM inside the Xbox 360 is often cited as a major advantage. But according to for example memory experts Rambus the PS3 still has the Edge as the PS3 has a dedicated bus for its GPU while the 360’s GPU needs to share the bus with the CPU when accessing the RAM.

Call me crazy, but here it sounds like you're bringing in the RAM bandwidth just to imply that its related to the EDRAM - thus negating the EDRAM advantage. Of course this is presuming that you didn't just confuse the two to beging with.

The PS3 has 2 types of main memory, very fast 256 MB XDR DRAM with a clock rate of 3.2 GHz and slower 256 MB GDDR3 memory clocked at 700 MHz.

I'm done with this.

The clock speeds you quote just proves that you have no fucking clue about what you're talking about. 

Oh, and nice job not mentioning latency or ignoring the inherint advantages of a pooled RAM design. You could atleast mention these things to seem like you're somewhat fair and know what you're talking about.