I'd almost agree with this statement if the PS3 wasn't horrible to program for xD. In a term of graphical prowress, you can't really compare multi-platform titles as is the case you can't optimize properly for either. I'm talking the meat of the conversation! Exclusives ^^. You can't say that one console has better graphics, when a game featured on the opposition has better than anything your console has produced to date :P. We weren't talking about which was easier to program for, just which had better graphics :P and the PS3 does indeed have better graphics.

Oh and I wont ever have to "justify" my console ^_^ I currently own like 14 games, I've watched well over 30 blu-ray films, and when I'm not browsing the interenet or playing music off my hardrive to clean to, I'm folding at home and believeing that I'm doing the world a favor ^_^ In fact not to sound like an ass, I can almost guarantee you my console has seen more life than your 360 :) I live in a household with 6 other people and we've litterally had our console on for the last 3 months ^_^ 

Btw, has anyone exact figures about power consumption of both PS3 and XBox360 ? And did that area improve with the new SKUs maybe ? I once read that PS3 eats up to 380Watts (that was in 2006). If that is really true,I would really be worried. Opposed to other users around here probably, my parents don't pay my electricity bill .... :)

LOL ^ Chrono you gonna have to wait till 2009 b4 you can gloat about ps3 being graphically better :)

Cuz right now you arent saying anything important :)

There's really no surprise to be had there if you know about processor architectures. The fastest processors for folding are GPUs (they beat the PS3 by far), but they're hard to code for, and that peak performance can only be achieved in certain kinds of work units which are suited for GPU algorithms.

Then you have the Cell, which gets you lower performance than a GPU, but at a broader range of tasks. That's because the Cell was designed as a hybrid architecture - it can perform general computing tasks, but its SPEs are optimized for parallel number crunching (though not as much as GPUs).

At the other end of the spectrum, you have general purpose CPUs such as the 360's, which are easier to program with, and give you good performance on about every computable task. However, they won't achieve as high performance as a GPU or a Cell processor on certain tasks which involve lots of number crunching.

Being (mostly) a software company, Microsoft went with ease of development over raw performance, and they supported it with a superior OS (having a smaller memory footprint), and great development tools.

Being (mostly) a hardware company, Sony came up with a new architecture, which not only programmers have to learn from scratch but also is inherently more difficult to use than a generic CPU (being asymmetric). It's really the same route that they took with the PS2 - developers hated the architecture, but they had no chance but to stick with it since the console was so successful.

^ listen to this guy.

Seriously this is so tit for tat...the PS3 has more theoretical processing power, but the 360 has faster system memory bus. There are certain aspects of both designs that you could 'cherrypick' and say system x has the advantage. In the end the differences equate to very little...didn't John Carmack say there's less technical differences this generation than any previously?

^*standing o*

Its funny how some sony fanboys are :)

@NJ

So True xD Sony always seems to go some route that just doesn't make sense lol, however I applaud them for it, the Cell really seems like breakthrough technology and it's gotten its fair share of awards ^_^ DEFINITLY harder to program for, once proper dev kits and such get out though and the technology is massively optimized, I can see how it could change the way computers could perform in the future. Hell that one guy who took 8 ps3's, strung them together, and ended up with the worlds 24'th fastest super-computer is insane! MS definitely took the dev friendly approach, but at the same time I can see why it's not exactly breakthrough technology. Software friendly (Microsoft), vs Technologically insane (Sony). They both play they're parts so well XD 

Well let's not forget the fact as of right now the first PS3 is holding out a lot better than 360. So even if all the rest is the same the fact PS3 hold up better is worth the extra cost in the long run.

So far PS3 can run with it's power while 360 power is like Dodge trucks tearing out those cheap transmission.

In my opinion, a lot of the reason why the PS3 has a reputation for being so difficult to program for is that a lot of developers are not willing to accept a fundimental rule of parallel processing ... When you're working on a distributed system, the more parallel units of work you divide your algorithm into the more processing power is wasted due to idle time.

Games like Lair had all of their game assets designed (and their levels built) under an assumption that they would be able to get a decent level of performance from all of the SPEs at the same time; as development continued and they started to see massive ammounts of processing power wasted to idle time the developers probably (foolishly) assumed that they could optimize the systems performance using a profiler. They probably wasted weeks (or months) of development time trying to balance the processing load more evenly across all of the SPEs only to find themself trapped at the same basic performance level.

Many of the best developers in the world have tried to push the PS3 as hard as they can and yet we haven't seen anything that demonstrates that it can achieve performance levels that you (and many PS3 fans) expect.