but that's .....a fact *scratches head*

It seems that you have a really high esteem of your own opinion.

really, where have you been this entire genreation???

there's been like TONS of hardware comparisons and they have all came to the same conslusion that the ps3 is in FACT more powerful than the 360, not to the extent some ps3 fans would like to believe, but it's still a fact. I'm not making this up......

Comparison of GPU specs
Clockspeed in MegaHertz: 550 (PS3), 500 (360)
GigaFlops (Billions of Floating Point Operations Per Second): 1,800 (PS3), 240 (360)
Billions of Dot Products per Second: 1,800 (PS3), 240 (360)
Millions of Polygons per Second: 900, 1,800 with CPU handling culling (PS3), 500 (360)
Shader operations per clock cycle: 136 (PS3), 96 (360)
Billions of Shader operations per second: 74.8, 100 with CPU (PS3), 48 (360)
Texture lookups per clock cycle: 24 (PS3), 16 (360)
Texture lookups per second: 13,200 (PS3), 8,000 (360)
Vertex/Pixel Shader pathways: 24 pixel, 8 vertex (PS3), 48 shared (360)
Shader ops per pathway: 5.7 (PS3), 2 (360)

Video RAM
Amount in Megabytes: 256 Dedicated, 256 Shared (PS3), 10 Dedicated, 512 Shared (360)
Clockspeed in MegaHertz: 700 Dedicated, 3,200 Shared (PS3) Unknown Dedicated, 3,200 Shared (360)

"The PS3 has the upper hand in all areas. Theoretically, the GPU is about 2-3x faster on the PS3. Although the 360's unified 48 pipe architecture is very efficient, it only performs 2 operations per pipeline. The PS3 has dedicated 24pixel and 8 vertex, but they are both capable of 5.7 operations per pipeline."

CPU:

Cell Processor

• One general purpose PPE core that is used for the OS and the game application.
• 512 MB total memory on 2 buses which can be accesed directly only by the PPE core. 256 MB of processor main memory and 256 MB of memory used by GPU.
• 512 KB L2 cache for the PPE.
• 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB L1 data cache for the PPE.
• 7 specialized SPE cores. One is used for the OS leaving 6 for the game application.
• 256KB SRAM per SPE. No common memory between SPEs and SPE cannot access the PPEs main memory directly but the PPE can access the SPEs memory directly.
• Communications between SPE memory or to the PPE memory is performed via the Element Interconnect Bus (EIB) by either accessing ports or via DMA.
• SPEs do not have branch prediction capability.

Xenos Processor

• 3 General purpose PPE cores that are used for the OS and game application.
• 512 MB main memory that is shared by all three cores and GPU.
• 1 MB of L2 cache that is shared by the 3 cores (333 KB per core average).
• 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB data cache for each core.

Programming the 360 is fairly easy and straight forward since a large amount of shared main memory is available, a relatively large amount of shared L2 cache is available, and information can be quickly and easily passed between different threads (cores) of the application by just passing pointers.

The PS3 is so much more difficult to program than the 360. In a sense it is designed similar to multiprocessor systems used by specialized customers such NASA Ames Research Center. The concept is based on the principle that there is a very large amount of repetitive mathematical data that can be performed in a parallel or a segmented sequential fashion (ex. one core multiples two arrays of 10000 numbers and then passes the output array to another core which performs divides on individual elements in the array which will pass the array to another core which performs some other operation on the data, etc. After the first core finishes its operation, it will acquire more data and perform the same operation).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

see i told you.

360 is in FACT more EFFICIENT, due to it's straight forward approach and unified architecture

but overall the ps3 is more powerful

sorry to burst your bubble dude.

Why don't you ask in Beyond3D to anyone who has real game developing experience which graphics hardware is more powerful, and then come back and tell me with a straight face that the RSX is more powerful than Xenon. Theoretical numbers means nothing in real life.

developers spend more time using GPU than CPU and that's why the multiplats look inferior on ps3 as it's GPU is not as efficient as the Xenon despite being similar in power, however when combined with the Cell Processor the overall power is superior to that of the 360.

most multiplats only use the ps3's main core and non of the 6 spe's while trying to manage a port from code optimized on a much more efficient GPU.

there isn't a single game on 360 that the ps3 can match and do slightly better, however to get that result developers basically have to program 2 different games. But given the 360 similar architecture, and ease to developer for it's normally chosen as the lead platform, which leads to a shitty port almost ALL the time. Some developers have learned it's better to do it the other way around and use the ps3 as the lead which often leads to both versions being identical, but those are few and far between.

this all however, is Sony's fault as they deliberately made the ps3 a bitch to develop for, so I don't blame developers at all for most of the crappy ports, I just don't buy them as the exclusives are always better.

I'm in the Crysis 2 beta right now and it doesn't hold a candle stick in hell to looking as good as Killzone 3, but some tell me it's an old build, which I'm praying to god is true

there are some gems on the horizon though, Brink and Rage are looking quite nice

EDIT: side note, I can't believe I'm this discussion again, I'm mean back in 07 it was ok but damn, that was 4 years ago....

states otherwise

even if you were correct though, that still doesn't excuse releasing a year later with the same performence, but with less effects (blur)

So, shouldn't all multiplatform games load faster and look better on PS3? Do they? I don't think so

Plus it wouldn't matter, RAGE is a space heavy game, the limit for PS3 forced installs is 5GB, less then your typical xbox 360 dvd.

nor does the disc space define the performance being my point, PC and 360 are still using DVD and PS3 continues to struggle for parity, let alone the significant advantages the Gamecube had...im not really seeing a reason to belive the PS3 version will be on par with those, given JCS comments

I could agree with almost all you said... and the fault is developers don't know how to do... and a latter port with less features is Sony fault??

When you put one game in Xbox360 that look better than any PS3 game than i'll agree with you, because if a multiplat looks better in one than it's developers fault because Sony Studios are always doing better than them, so it isn't a flaw in the hardware.

Wrong, and you will always be wrong.

"The 360 isn't superior in anyway to the PS3"

That I'm afraid is not a fact, it's just your opinion that many people will feel is wrong.  I think you need to look up the definition of fact.

not getting into this again just re read my other post.