In  your opinion naughty dogs games are more techically demanding then anything on 360 but it's really impossible to confirm this.

I would say GTAV is more demanding then anything on those consoles of course it doesn't have the looks. also FORZA horzion looks stunning and makes gt5 look like crap. 

also FORZA horzion looks stunning and makes gt5 look like crap. 

 It also not rocket science  that if it is  more powerful in real world performance it would eventually be able to show in some games, like it was a long gen where are these multiplaform games that actually take advantage of the power and prove it, not many big gap in thousands of games.

so basically we are stuck with uncharted 3 being the show case and the reason for ps3 being more powerful in your opinion which is subjective and also can be based on the skill of the devloper. in  the end it's more powerful on paper but no developer could actually take advanatge in real world perfomance.

This is absolutely false. - You can confirm it.

Just by looking at what techniques and graphics features are being deployed and at what kind of scale.

GTA 5 has different processing loads.

Budgets. They make a difference.

No one is arguing that the Xbox 360 had more multiplats that looked and ran better, that's not even up for debate.
The Xbox 360 had a better development environment.

But the Playstation 3 had superior hardware... Which I find baffling that you are even trying to debate that.

It's not subjective.

Many developers took advantage of the Playstation 3's higher performance ceiling and hardware capabilities.

This is from DF

Frostbite is one of those engines built from the ground up for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and mooted to have equal performance on both platforms - claims we've heard before and rarely believe. However, DICE's coders are more open than most and they claim that PS3 performance has been substantially optimised. According to posts on the Beyond3D forum from one of Bad Company's developers, the game makes extensive use of the SPUs - everything from animation to the Havoc physics and even the generation of undergrowth are farmed off to PS3's satellite processing units. The result is a game that is pretty much identical to its Xbox 360 sibling.

wow all that work and the result was being on par with 360 what a beast .

We all agree most games ran better on the 360 bit that's because they were made for the 360 (easier to develop for) and ported  over really badly for the PS3. The most demanding game during that generation would be GTA5 and that game actually ran the same on both but looked slightly better on PS3. Just look at the some of the exclusives on PS3, no games on 360 could look or run better than Uncharted 2, 3 or the last of us . 

This is from DF

Frostbite is one of those engines built from the ground up for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and mooted to have equal performance on both platforms - claims we've heard before and rarely believe. However, DICE's coders are more open than most and they claim that PS3 performance has been substantially optimised. According to posts on the Beyond3D forum from one of Bad Company's developers, the game makes extensive use of the SPUs - everything from animation to the Havoc physics and even the generation of undergrowth are farmed off to PS3's satellite processing units. The result is a game that is pretty much identical to its Xbox 360 sibling.

wow all that work and the result was being on par with 360 what a beast. battle field 3 used ps3 full power and 360 was right there with it.

You derailed multiple other threads claiming Digital Foundry were wrong and didn't know their stuff because they called games on Nintendo hardware technically impressive, and now you're citing them as an authority?

You want me to say the ps3 has superior hardware when 360 ran 90% of the games better and you find that baffling, and what are these devolpers you talk about that took avantage as far as i know even lead ps3 games ran fine on 360 with no problems unlike ps3 had running many 360 games.

intresting that you can look at a game and tell the GPU and CPU load something that can't be seen considering both hardware have advantages and disavantages so you are saying uncharted 2 and 3 are not possible on 360?

so i was using google to read about this subject more and this is the best answer so i post this again.

In addition, these debates are always semantically impossible. Until there is a metric for quantifying how powerful a console is, every response will be subjective.

Anyone wanting to discuss how powerful a console is will need to first debate how we're going to measure it. Once consensus is reached and a unit of measure ratified (Flops? Ops? Shaded pixels per second? Bozomips? Pixels peek draw per GB per GB/s median average bandwidth attained 90% of operation per GB/s minimum bottleneck bus width per instruction per clock per processor core per pixels drawn on screen in interquartile number of games?), then we can measure these consoles and sort them by this metric.

This is from DF

Frostbite is one of those engines built from the ground up for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and mooted to have equal performance on both platforms - claims we've heard before and rarely believe. However, DICE's coders are more open than most and they claim that PS3 performance has been substantially optimised. According to posts on the Beyond3D forum from one of Bad Company's developers, the game makes extensive use of the SPUs - everything from animation to the Havoc physics and even the generation of undergrowth are farmed off to PS3's satellite processing units. The result is a game that is pretty much identical to its Xbox 360 sibling.

wow all that work and the result was being on par with 360 what a beast. battle field 3 used ps3 full power and 360 was right there with it.

This is more about Dice coders said then DF said. I'm only using DF as a point that's whats techically impressive is subjective. permalite is not really impressed with halo 4 and gears 3 compared to ps3 games best looking games while DF is, and this always subjective and really not a great way to compare hardware. when you compare multiplatform games it's fair comparsion, especially when talking multiple games.

I don't think I need to explain this all again if it's going in one ear and out the other, my previous posts still stand... I suggest you go back and re-read them as your rebuttal hasn't made my previous points redundant yet.

Absolutely I can look at a game and tell what the CPU and GPU load is. Some effects are more CPU driven than others... And some effects are GPU accelerated and it will vary from engine to engine and the hardware it's running on.
Case in point, particle effects were historically CPU rendered, but when Doom 2016 came along it became GPU accelerated with full particle lighting.

This is the difference between someone with experience. I don't need to guess or pretend or use google.

I don't need google.

False.

You take the sum of all of it's parts.

Some consoles will have hardware aspects that fall short, but will be augmented by other aspects... Like the SNES, it had a very strong visual processor with an amazing audio processor that allowed it to present games far far more impressively than it's contemporary peers, despite consoles like the Genesis having far more CPU performance.

Like the WiiU, shit CPU, but the GPU and Ram capacity makes it competent enough to hang with the Xbox 360.

Frostbite uses a deferred based renderer which typically does not play well with G70 based GPU's, G80 and G90 GPU's were far better architectures for deferred rendering as they relied less on fixed function units and separated vertex and pixel shaders.
If Dice stuck with a forward renderer, things would have been a little better for G70.

Playstation 3 had more 1080P games. So there.
https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-playstation-3-chasing-the-1080p-dream-part-one-of-an-88-game-mega-test

You aren't one of those people who hypocritically attacks an outlet because it contradicts your already established pre-conceived false ideas and then uses at the first convenient opportunity when it can forward your own argument.... Are you?