PS1 had one of the slowest loading averages on gaming history. It would take almost a minute to load Fifa 98! The first party and close third party games were brilliant though. Crash and Spyro series or Namco games for example had very short loadings, sometimes none at all.

I wish I had more time to post on all of these "facts" but I am short on time today. Some of them are actual facts and other are bogus. However, fact number 6 is not a matter of opinion, it is pure 100% fact. Not only does the Xbox 360 offer developers more memory, but the memory architecture is also superior. Most games use more video memory than actual system memory. The Xbox 360 allows developers to allocate the exact amount they want without a penalty. On the PS3, you are stuck with 256MB for the Cell and 256mb for the GPU (not considering space allocated for OS)

Know what happens if the Cell wants to access the GPU memory? It has to go through the GPU which eats up a LOT of bandwidth and is slower. Want to know what happens when the GPU wants to access the super fast XDR memory? It goes through the Cell CPU and it hits the bandwidth and slows things down a LOT.

Also, one thing they didn't mention, RSX has to use memory for a framebuffer while the Xbox 360 has a dedicated 10MB eDRAM chip with 256GB/s of bandwidth which allows tiling and other advanced techniques. Thing is, developers don't really exploit it too much because it is difficult and simply not worth it. It will make the game look better, but it complicates development too much.

Sony should have gone with a unified memory architecture.

Just tell me which one is bogus. I welcome you here to discuss more about it :)

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=59275

Fact 3.) This one is incorrect. The SNES was indeed more powerful than the Genesis. Although the Genesis had a few advantages over the SNES, in overall system powerful, the SNES was more powerful. Remember mode7 on the SNES? The Genesis wasn't capable of that while maintaining good performance.

Fact 7.) If you win America and Erope, you can still win the console wars even if you lose Japan. As far as home consoles goes, Europe and America are much more important than Japan. Japanese home console sales are pathethic. Besides, western developers are targetign the west even if their games don't sell too well in Japan (Xbox 360).

Number 7 is an opinion, not a fact. Wait until the end of this generation and see how the Xbox 360 does. If it beats the PS3 despite losing Japan, then this is wrong. Ignore the Wii of course :D

    Well the third one is controversial. Snes was more powerful in terms of graphical capabilities but not the cpu. Its also a special case since it actually lost to Sega for the first 3 years, but Sega finally lost due to past and future mistakes, not the console itself (Sega CD, Sega 32 etc.)

   There is no console which was able to win GLOBALLY without Japan and America. Its theoretically possible, but I was not "reasoning" but speaking of experience. I didnt mean OVERALL. You can still have the most sales but its not going to be a domination like NES, PS1, PS2 or Wii. All leader consoles were Japanese made and dominated Japan and America. Sega Genesis was very successful in America and Europe but couldnt stay long, why? Because they never won Japan!

The CPU is only a component of the system, it does not decide the overall power of a console. In fact, the GPU is more much influential than the CPU.

It doesn't have to be a domination to win a console generation. Even if you're only ahead of your competition by 4M units, if you are pushing 2X the software and developers prefer your platform, it is a victory.