Not to be mean or anything but I immediatly stopped reading when they stated that rsx runs at 500 mhz. Whoever wrote this doesn't know anything about the ps3 or xbox 360, seeing how rsx runs at 550. I doubt any of those numbers are true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#System_configuration

Here it states that rsx is 550 mhz. Which makes me believe that wikipedia has inaccurate news. And what is up with you posting theinquierer? That is so wrong and so dumb I won't discuss it.

First of a

Dude RSX is 500.

Did you ignore the watch.impress article? A highly technically minded site that interviews many developers and that gets info straight from the source, Japan? If anybody would know PS3 specs, it is them.

Also, so you believe one wiki article but not the other? I would rather tend to believe the article specific to the RSX than the overall system article which probably contains many other errors.

Developers are the ones who know the RSX clockspeed, and I am sure they are the ones who put the correct info in the RSX wiki.

Liike I said, find me a current Sony source that says 550. Right around the time of the change Sony mysteriously stopped listing RSX clockspeeds in any official capacity. Coincidence? Originally Sony published the 550 spec around e3, which is the outdated info many sites still have. Now Sony does not claim any clockspeed on RSX publically. Again, ask yourself why? Are there any PS3 developer interviews where devs are saying RSX=550? Can you link me? If it's really 550 should be no prob right? No, because AFAIK Sony has that info under NDA, and they're not allowed to speak about it. Xbox 360 on the other hand, MS has been loud and proud of the specs from day one.

http://www.xbox.com/en-us/support/connecttolive/xbox360/resources/consolespecs.htm

MS lists 360 clocks on their official website to this day. Sony does not, they would rather hide the clocks. Coincidence? 

Sony was aiming for 550, but apparantly they did not make it. Could be lots of reason (heat? yield?). It's even entirely possible that they didn't feel they had the bandwidth to make any use of 550 anyway. In the grand scheme of thing it probably didn't even make much difference, and hey, Cell did hit the 3.2ghz that was promised,

Here is yet another link:

First off, I could go edit wiki to claim the RSX is running at 266mhz Now, go ask yourself why Sony or any developer has yet to come out and deny the 550mhz rumor? If this was a rumor they could, very easily, refute it - but they dont

BTW, there isn't THAT much of a differrence between 500mhz and 550mhz, when that's only one part of a GPU. If the rest of its abilities are good, then the GPU works well, even with a mere 1/11 of its clock speed removed.

 actually yes there is a major difference but ill let one of these guys who think they know technology actually explain it.

anyways guy you fail to remember one thing

THE FINAL SPECS FOR THE RSX HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED. 

Well, I know technology fairly well. The difference between 500 MHz and 550 MHz is exactly 10%. The real-world performance difference between 500 MHz and 550 MHz is less than 10%. If you're trying to say one console is graphically superior to the other, a gamer isn't going to notice a diference of less than 10%, so, yeah, not sure what the big deal is about the specific clock speed.

I will say this: The original specs for the Xbox were a 300 MHz GPU. This was later revised down to a 250 MHz GPU, and then again revised down to a 233 MHz GPU for release. Long, long after the Xbox was released, websites were still quoting the 300 MHz number, and stores like Software Etc. were using printed materials to advertise a 300 MHz GPU, even though the one in the Xbox was 233 MHz. So a clock speed revision "under the radar" is not without precedent.

wow you guys can get hi-tech. Honestly if your not obsessed graphics junkie with all the fine details the graphical difference is hardly worth noting. The poly counts capable on the 360 with hi-res graphics look amazing. I'm blown away by most of whats there, I'm sure the cell is more powerful, but what ever extra power thats squeezed out is hardly noticed. Most cross platform games will look the same, exclusives really can't be compared they are engineered to look amazing on their own system, so comparing Lair with Gears is pointless, the bottom line is they both look amazing. Although Gears has already proven to play and sell amazing will Lair? Only time will tell, because graphics only gets you so far.

You've lost me..... look at that diagram again...... everything connected to the EIB rins at 3.2 ghz that mens the ram and the to high speed flex I/O ports...... which the "other" devices are connected to. Please show me your sources and second of all the PS3 is supposed to be a streaming system.... meaning what ever non graphical data is supposed to be outputed as fast as it's calculated...... which should be a big deal because the majority of space on any ram in any console that is taken up is normally because of graphics. you still do not get that the 360 does not have 512 dedicated to video but is shared with the processor of the 360. The epics deved pushed for more memory but I assure it wasn't because of non-graphical data.

 Edit:

I am not sure if I said it before (wicked case of deja vu) but the cpu seems to access the memory on the same memory controller as the GPU.That is what would be considered a bottleneck one that the PS3 doesn't seem to have. You as a gamer would not see these effects because of the memexport and the Edram. This makes them more of a necessity than additional features. It isn't a crippling one because as a said above it is expected for the gpu to take up a large chunk of the bandwidth and space to the memory.