[Edit:  For the record, what] I was TRYING to say [in my post that got jumped on] that there is a BIG technological gap between PS3 and Wii which hardly exists by comparison between the PS3 and 360; the main problem is the unique nature of the Cell vs. the more traditional Xenon. Therefore, developers don't have to practically remake the whole damn game as they likely would for many PS3-to-Wii ports when making PS3-to-360 ports. At most, they'd have to dumb down the graphics somewhat.

"say all you want.. but the ps3 has the most advance looking tites that 360 can not match... name one game that looks better then killzone and GT5 on 360?

there is not one im sorry just deal with it."

Graphics aren't the only things that makes up a game, thats why 360 do so well because they have lots of exclusives that are really fun like halo 3, yes the graphics suck, but guess what its more fun then playing Resistance.

Btw how fun is Killzone 2 and GT5?

ohh wait they haven't came out yet, which makes your statement still invalid, either way. 

"Ah, I misunderstood. In that case, all three consoles are PPC this generation."

Yes true just cell is the next step up on the power architecture processors platform.

Thats the info i got. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Architecture

 It seems all the high end server and all next gen consoles use a type of PPC based cpu.

In my experience, Macs and high end servers *used* to use PPC based stuff. Apple got away from them because they simply did not perform as well, in the general, as Intel based Core 2 architecture CPUs do. And they're not as cheap.

The Cell isn't a step up, it's a step sideways.  Toshiba owns the cell fab plant now, and while they have put the Cell in some of their laptops, they're really just going to relegate it to some of their TVs and leave the laptop work to faster Intel processors. 

None of this talk matters. Games for either system will never look substantially better than another. Thats why Sony says they are not m aking another console for 10 years. The technology jump of the near future will not clearly offer substantial gains in graphics. As for PCs, you need to spend mega bucks for a graphics to be good. And then they are spotty at best. Look at Crysis. You need a $3000 system to get it to not be a slideshow on the best settings. Raw power does not necessarily mean better graphics. It is much easier on developers to utilize a consoles hardware because they a sure of the least amount of power each system has. Not so on a pc. They have to use a lot of development time ensuring a large amount of the population can play the game. It must be compatible with a large array of hardware setups. Not so on a console. They are able to eek out every last bit of power because they know that all system have the same basic hardware. I am glad I spent my money on a 42 lcd and console than a high power pc that I will have to upgrade in a year or two to keep up. The truth of the matter is that both the PS3 and XBox360 are ensured to have incredible looking games made for them for the duration of their lives. There is no chance of either failing. The talk of which console is pointless since it is the games that matter and both platforms will have their fair share. I chose the XBox360 because I grew up on PC games and it is the natural extension of that. I am not interested in the Wii at all because the games don't suit my taste. It is not a bad system, just doesn't suit me. The future will probably be solid state hard drives, no optic drives, streaming content(games included), and some form of control.

"Toshiba owns the cell fab plant now, and while they have put the Cell in some of their laptops"

 Which latop has cell processors?

 "they're really just going to relegate it to some of their TVs and leave the laptop work to faster Intel processors. "

First off they don't make laptops they assemble them, second cell won't run on windows nor will it run on mac so why would they sell laptops with them.

Actually, I had thought that one of the biggest reasons Apple switched to Intel was that PowerPCs made for poor laptop CPUs (ran hot or something), NOT performance considerations. But I am certainly no expert on this.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. IBM didn't want to spend the money to make the G5 a suitable portable chip and neither did Apple.

IBM was also missing ship dates for faster speed boosts and lagging in die shrinks. The two reasons were both caused by the need to legthen the pipeline, which would have been a rather major overhaul.  Both Xenon and Cell are the results of looking at alternate ways to change the architecture to allow the smaller processes.  

yeah,i just they will be exclusive to the ps3