This is console gaming, not computer.

Games = graphics/physics/enviroments/animation/artificialIntelligence/gameplay.

Cells capability is greater then Xenons.

Taken from beyond3d:
In Lost Planet, each character is 10-20K polys. A VS robot is 30-40K polys. A background is about 500K. With shadows and other hidden rendering cost, it's about 3 million polys per frame.

Different platforms require different care, would not be surprised if ppl working on 360 and suddenly dropping their datasets onto RSX would not observe good numbers (and viceversa)
Now..I can't see how RSX, if used in the right way, should be so limited at vertex processing: in HS we easily render 2-2.5 MTriangles per frame at 30 fps without being VS limited and without making any use of CELL to speed up vertex shading and I know for sure that being more clever we could even go faster..(just using the GPU)
The numbers quoted about HS are slighty wrong..cause a few days a go I realized there's a bug in the code that computes the triangle count: in some cases it's more close to 3M triangles per frame mark than 2M.

Regarding cpu, yes its totally different arguments. The 360's is a very standard setup, a bunch of cores that can all see main memory. The advantage to this is that lots of thread coded written over the years can be ported to it easily. For example, Valve (the Half Life guys) are writing an entirely threaded engine for the PC. When it's done, porting it to the 360 will be easy. How about porting it to the PS3? Nope, won't work, it's a totally different setup. The PS3's main core is basically the same, but its spu's can't see main memory. Each one has 256k that it can work with, so you need to rewrite your code to pack things into 256k chunks, feed it to the spu's to process it, then copy it all back to main memory. In other words, you've gotta rewrite your code.

Now before I get jumped on here let me briefly mention the downsides. The 360's cpu setup is painfully easy to code for. But, they really aren't all that fast. Worse yet, all three cores use the same memory controller so the three cores are not three times the power of the one core on the PS3 due to some overhead. The PS3's spu's on the other hand are monstrously fast. You need to setup your data correctly to work with them, but once thats done then yes, the 360's cpu setup is crap compared to fully working spu's. I say fully working because most current games out there barely even touch on them, it will take time to re-write everything. I haven't done spu coding....yet. I will be though in 2007 which will be pretty cool.

RSX
5 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle (2 vector4 and 2 scalar (dual/co-issue) and fog ALU)
27 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
68 billion shader operations per second theoretical maximum ( ((5 ALU x 24 pixel pipelines) + (2 ALU x 8 vetrex pipelines)) x 500 MHz )
364 GFLOPS ( ((27 FLOPS x 24 pixel pipelines) + (10 FLOPS x 8 vertex pipelines)) x 500 MHz )
24 filtered and 32 unfiltered texture samples per clock

Xenos
2 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle (1 vector4 and 1 scalar, co-issued)
10 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
48 billion shader operations per second theoretical maximum (2 ALU x 48 shader pipelines x 500 MHz)
240 GFLOPS (10 FLOPS x 48 shader pipelines x 500 MHz)
16 filtered and 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock

this is rather pointless.. we know the RSX isnt the Xenos in overall strength. If anyone who has half a brain knows that the processor takes a major role in the graphics section. IF the processor bottlenecks before the video card can use its full potential then the graphics card. I dont know how many times my friends have had a lessor video card top a highend one because their processors were stronger (QX6700 + X1950xtx beat a 4800 + 8800GTS)

BUT THE PS3 CAN DO REAL TIME RAY-TRACING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alas, where's Washimul when you need him?

The RSX specs are still speculation. I haven't seen an official redress of the RSX specs. Second of all this comparison is filled with some inane comparisons. Take for instance deductions for the RSx "reading" from the XDR when most of the time the rsx will most likely be "writing to the XDR. Or they clock the triangle setup rate at 250 when it is more around 333 million (which doesn't matter much because of the cells ability). Theorized fram buffer limitations (which are as valid as the claims of those who said the PS3 had no scalar.)

 These pretty much look like guesses extrapolated from wikipedia data and a guess on the actual GPU and what it can do.... it is still unown what the RSX actually is.

 Even as such the RSX still seems like a mean contender without it being unified (what does that say?) and even as such the majority of the weight can be cooked up for the SPE's to process. With the cells SIMD and parallelism capabilities it is well adept to pick up slack for whatever is left over by the RSX.  What should be a slap in the face but note really pointed out is that the texture memory of the 360 is shared with the CPU while the worst they come up with for the PS3 is that it shares it's bandwidth for the frame buffer. The CPU of the 360 has to access its memory through the GPU’s memory controller and they share the same bus to the GDDR3 memory. If you look at it that way, memexport and the edram were not additional bonuses.... they are needed.

But thats just sticking to overall system points. You see the person on this forum is trying to do a beating of the chest by saying " these specs are higher, therefore the system must be better". If you step back and look at the big picture each gpu is a compliment to the system. Because of this they actually have different strengths and provide a huge boon for multiplatform developers. Take for instance the multiple core setup for the 360.... the cores do not talk directly to each other where as in the PS3 they do.  The PS3 takes what the PS2 was great at and amplified it. This causes great distress to programmers who are normally familiar with one frame of thinking or one type of archetecture.

 The systems are different and have noticible gaps in their powers. Multiplatform titles are going to be next to useless as a comparison because either one system is going to get more time or upon simultanious release it seems as if one system was shortchanged. Onm splinter cell the characters meshes were sticking together..... and I assure you that has nothing to do with power. Or how oblivion looks and performs better on the PS3 , most likely due to the additional attention it got. Or how the visuals look slightly better on the PS3 for virtua tennes (two different dev studios worked on the port) Am2 has had experience with the PS3's archetecture which lent to better results. There are many multiplatform games in which features are better in this one or that one but the truth is  exclusives are going tobe the shinning points of each systems. Already on the latest of techniques (such as streaming textures and streaming geometry the PS3 has the advantage because of blu ray. The 360 allows for greater cross-platform acheivability and is somewhat faster to make progress with.

This could go on till the cows come home... argueing specs is useless the real proof will show when the exclusives are released. 

Truth be told...

I dont think the 360 will get much further than GoW.....

Graphic capabilities you have to throw in other factors too not just GPU vs. GPU...

It would have to be

GPU.VS.GPU + CPU.VS.CPU + DISKSPACE.VS.DISKSPACE...

The CPU does play a role in graphics but not that much but still who wants graphics with dumb AI and Physics...

The Diskspace because you could use more uncompressed data.. For smooooooooth textures and such...

Im no computer genius but can someone tell me if im right?

Nice source..

I suppose you know most of this data is fake dont you ?

The RSX has 550mhz not 500Mhz ,the polygon count cant be determined for any of the architechtures ,etc etc ...

One of the most funny is the comparision of the shader capabilities ...basically you always calculate the 48 pipelines of the Xenos at full speed against the 24 pipelines of the RSX for shader and the 8 pipelines for vertex operations putting those apart to compare them face to face with the Xenos ....that way you maximize the difference and make the Xenos look better  .But in truth you must do vertex and shader operations at the same time ,and the correct comparision is 48x4 operations per cycle X500 megahertzs for the Xenos against 32x5.7 operations per cycle x550 megahertzs for the RSX .The results are comparable ,the flexibility of the unified shaders could give the X360 some advantage (4% )under determinate and optimate conditions ,but in raw numbers the RSX is a 4% more capable of this kind of calculations .Used at best the Xenos couldnt do the 100 Billion SOPS the RSX could theorically achieve ,but 96 at best .

 Just look at your source .Pathetic attempt boy .

how about the fact that nvidia hasnt released final RSX specs...