So why are us 360 fans something else? are us guys Incredible, Awsome, cool MF's,  Magical, Professional of gamers, get hot chicks, big wangs, rock out with our ----- out, MASTERS OF OUR UNIVERSE.

Funny how you stereo type every 360 fan. Now is that fact?

Gets popcorn. Read this guy.

This could be the reason

"...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..."

"...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

"Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there."

"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

"And the other major difference is the memory partitioning. Where they're both 512mb machines, but on the PS3 it's partitioned into 256mb of video and 256mb of main. And one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than it does, than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3. We spend a lot more time trying to crunch down the memory for that..."

"...and we're trying to say pretty plainly that this is going to be the one thing that the PS3 version is gonna be better at, and in fact it's almost the worst sort of thing for Microsoft there because we are having to work twice as hard on the PS3 to bring it up to spec. But in the end it's going to be 60fps game, and it's going to wind up looking just like the 360, we just had to sweat lot more for it. And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't..."

What franchise is that?

He really isn't worth reposting stuff for if he cannot be bothered to read the thread.  He's just hit my ignore list after looking at his other posts on here.

so as I expected NON of you have the balls to post the specs of the ps3 and 360, if your so cock sure they're the same it should be no prob to post the specs.

like a said, you 360 fans are something else, but it's ok, you guys post count are much higher than mine, which given your delusion you've been allowed to believe this lie for a while so not like anyone else here cares, I guess others just ignore, and I guess I should do the same.

and @ the quotes

again like a said MORE EFFICIENT given it's similar architecture to the PC which is this guys bread n butter

Call of Duty: Black ops (X360).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-black-ops-faceoff

Wow, you call that better running? Thats an overstatment. I thought you were talking about some serious diffrence and lacking performance on one ps3 version of the game. When you say it runns better it usually means less loading times, no freezes, glitches or bugs and no HDD problems. A few missing textures, or slightly un noticable graphical superiority doesnt mean it runs better. If you wanna see a true gap in console graphics compare KZ3 with any FPS out there, or GOW3 with any action adventure game outhere.  An article also says MW2 put up better performance on Xbox 360, but we all know the matchmaking problems the xbox version had - that means PS3 version actually ''runs'' better - at least it did until hackers ruined it, but thats the not hardwares fault.

All in all, the article doesnt say it runs better on xbox, it says it looks better. And if you ask me, those diffrences are so god damn small you probably wont even notice them when you play the game. To use them to win in some graphics debate is dumb IMO. But correct me If I am wrong, but wasnt Xbox the lead console for developing Black Ops? If it is, than there is really no suprise it looks slightly better on Xbox, it has nothing to do with PS360 hardware, but with developers choice of choosing what will be the main console version and which one will be the port, which usually looks slightly inferior. Example, Burnout Paradise, PS3 was a lead platfor and thats why its version looked better. It has little to do with hardware capabilities and more with the development and porting of the game. But like i said, the diffrences on most multiplatforms are so small and un noticable its not relly worth arguing.

How many versions of the game are there for the PS3?

The PS3 versions where the game is seriosuly and considerably worse or PS3 version where game is considerably better?

I'm really not following.

Are you asking how many games on PS3 are superior to 360 version or inferior?