PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says game Dev!

[WereKitten]

He's saying a few known things: the 360 GPU is specced higher than the PS3's, and the PS3's BluRay has a lower transfer rate than the 360's DVD.
But he's also glossing about the parallel offloading to the SPUs on the PS and being a bit limited in his vision, probably because of the techniques he's most familiar with. Basically the best proof is in existing games.

As an example: the BluRay is slower and still both Uncharted and Killzone 2 managed to stream huge quantities of data with barely noticeable hiccups and loading times.

As for the technicalities: for what I know the two GPUs have the same fillrate (4 billions pixels/sec) until you put multisampling AA in the picture. Then the 360 pulls ahead because it's implemented in hardware, but you can do the same on the PS3 using shaders and the SPUs. Games such as Killzone 2 and Uncharted certainly implemented multisampling AA in such ways.

As for the shaders he's only right about the fillrate on the 360 being higher if it can use more than 32 out of 48 pipelines (unified architecture). That means less vertex shaders, of course, whereas the PS3 has a fixed fill rate and a fixed vertex rate. You can dynamically adapt better on the 360, but the advantage is far from the 2x factor in most cases. And again, he is not thinking about using the SPUs for both vertex and pixel shading. Again look at good examples among PS3 exclusives.

In the end he has given his informed opinion, but he comes off as a bit entrenched in a PC-centric (CPU(s)+GPU) view of what makes a powerful machine for games development, thus I understand that he finds the 360 more powerful.