I have yet to understand why people bring MGS4 up when talking about PS3 graphical capability. It doesn't have the best PS3 graphics by any measure except maybe art direction which is good.

I do think eurogamer is biased towards the 360 but i like the vids and pics

GT5 ??? GT5 its all images.

XENOS is better than RSX, slightly.

CELL does run more floating point operations per second than Xenon, actually its much more.

XENON can handle more instructions per second than CELL, about double.

XENON can help easily XENOS because of architechture, they both can access the same memory.

CELL can't help RSX easily,

they both have different memories and therefore all graphical stuff you do with CELL must be first done in CELLs memory and then transfer to RSXs memory. It gets even more compilicated, because CELL can't really read RSX:s memory. Well it can, but its painfully slow so you really can't count on it. Of course RSX can send stuff into CELLs memory, but sending and processing that stuff can easily take more time than the alternative where RSX would do the stuff alone. Also can you really sacrifice any of CELLs memory for that job?

Both don't even have OoOE, means they can't really handle complicate programs, if you throw them some code with a lots of paths they render slower than 4 years old mediocre home computers.

----

Graphically, X360 wins

Number of instructions per second , X360 wins

Number of floating point operations per second, PS3 wins

----

Well, thats not all because...

Game graphics = artists+(engine capabilities)*(platform capabilities)

@MikeB

Wtf are you talking about? :D

(Yeah, I am dev who is stuck with PC, because no money for devkits. Actually I wouldn't even want to do anything for any console. Way too restricted platform.)

MikeB, I'm still waiting for your real comparison of the GPUs instead of the silly hypothetical examples which get us nowhere.

The RSX has higher peak GFLOPS than the Xenos, the difference is that Xenos's peak is actually attainable in the real world due to shader flexibility. To attain RSX's peak performance, almost a miracle is needed (outside of cooked up benchmarks).

Well I think that MGS4 looks better than GeoW, but is not "a lot better" or a "huge gap", in fact an old post shows two pics of cutscenes from the two games, and, well see it yourself...

I've been seeing MGS4 screenshots and videos, and I still don't get what's so special about this game's graphics other than the art direction. I have also seen (good quality) footage of the game on a big screen at a games shop once. It has good graphics by any measure, just not outstanding to the point of being a showcase of PS3's capabilities.

Since I must be missing something, please post some links to any HD screenshot/video which shows these amazing MGS4 graphics.

that mgs4 screenshot stinks though.

Wow ... more arguments about insignificant graphical differences between the two platforms.

From what I have seen this generation I think that it is fair to say that the difference between the XBox 360 and the PS3 is (much) smaller than the difference between the PS2 and the XBox; this is made (noticeably) worse for the PS3 because it is far more difficult to achieve decent performance out of the PS3 so it has difficulty obtaining similar performance as the XBox 360.

Even after 3 years (and hundreds of man-years) of development of the best developers in the world the PS3 has yet to produce a game which is dramatically better than anything that has been produced for the XBox 360; ultimately I think that it is fair to say that we will never see a game which is that far beyond anything the XBox 360 will produce.

Gears of War 2 will look better than MGS 4 and Resistance 2. The original Gears of War is being compared to MGS 4 and is not that far off in visual quality. the Unreal Engine 3.0 is impressive. PC version of Gears of War 2 will be even better than X360 version.