My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[sieanr]

MikeB said:
@ sieanr

MikeB said:Technically I think the PS3 is powerful enough to render a game like Halo 3 in 1080p at 60 FPS together with additional effects, with twice the content, higher quality 7.1 audio and localization on a single disc.

If you decide to quote me in your footnote, then please put the quote in context:

"But that would be a mammoth undertaking and involve a complete game engine redesign from scratch. Maybe 3rd generation PS3 (SPE optimised, harddrive caching and texture streaming enabled) first and second party game engines will start to perform at such levels."

The added context doesn't make your original assumption sound any less delusional, in fact it doesn't justify your assumption in any way. Anyone with half a braint stem would know that the game would have to be completely reworked to run on PS3 hardware - hence that statement lacks any sort of profound insight explaining your position and is thus completely frivolous.

Because of that, I think its just fine as it is. However, if you want it changed than actualy have the balls to post that on B3D. Really, all I'm asking of you is to defend your position by either coming up with a logical defense or addmitting how stupid it was to say that. I think the folks at B3D would be quite the litmus test, but maybe you know a better place to do so (SDF doesn't count). Really, I leave it up to you on how to defend that best; all I want to hear an actual explanation beyond the obvious. Maybe thats too much to ask...

Oh, and this is the thread where you claim I posted diagrams that twisted performance numbers to make them look better. That part was true, but what was false is where you claimed I beleived those diagrams. Lets take a look at the original post to learn something of MikeB and his poor reading comprehension, shall we?

I can post charts that slant and overstate numbers too.  EDIT; another funny pic that takes numbers out of context  Thats right, the Cell can write memory at 4gbs and read memory at a whopping 16mbs. Not a typo 

The last pic is no longer available, hence my last statement doesn't make that much sense. Still, lets see how MikeB tries to defend his post in that other thread. I'm guessing he'll just ignore this post entirely.

EDIT; The quote is really jacked, but just go to page 4 to see the original, as well as how other people understood I was mocking his power point slides.