So by your standards PC/360 "basically a PC" > PS3 !!

It is similar to the older Macs which Epic released the UT franchise's games on. Like you said the difference is that it is a triple core PPC versus a single.

Not true. 360's architecture is closer to the Wii than to a PC.

Maybe you're thinking of the first Xbox?

Okay, here we go:

1. Epic stated that UT3 was doing more on the PS3 than Gears was on the 360.
2. Epic have been working on the 360 using UE for 3/4 years now and it is to be expected that they can get the best out of UE on the 360 compared to the 2 years of development on the PS3.
3. 360 UT3 comes out 7/8 months later than the PS3 version, so it is to be expected that Epic can do more with it now.

All in all, it is to be expected.  I would be worried if UT3 was the same or not as good as the PS3 version seeing the later release...add to this, that Epic need to spin a little positivity on the released of UT3, seeing as nobody really cares about it now.

Mike Acton, an expert on the Cell stated everything which runs on the PPE (the equivalent of a 360 core) can be done better by the Cell's SPEs. Tim Sweeney is not enough of an expert on the Cell, else he wouldn't have needed Sony to help them considerably.

Sweeney is an expert with regard PC game engine development.

It's kinda surprising... I mean the PS3 Unreal Engine 3 was supposed to be optimized for PS3. Which you would hope would be at least equal to the 360 version regardless of the extra time.

The PS3 is supposed to be more powerful... so extra time should eventually not mean anything.

Mike Acton also has a job that depends soley on how much the Cell gets adopted. 

While Sweeny's job will be safe whether cell gets adopted mainstream or not.

MikeB prefers the "Unbiased" opinions of people who are dependant on the PS3 being successful, rather than those "Biased" opinions of people who are independant of all platforms ...

This is why he so often quotes Sony employees (or employees of Sony partners) and refuses to quote Tim Sweeney or John Carmack who are considered (by most) the leading experts in the field.

The 360 has a clear distinguishing architecture compared to a PC. It has a PPC-like CPU (just like the Wii, but far more powerful), which is similar in architecture as used by past Amigas and Macs, but triple core and with additional capability. Some GPU approaches like the use of EDRam is clearly a console like approach (PS2), the shared memory bandwidth sacrificing approach is more like a cheap low-end PC solution.

What makes it most like a PC is especially its development environment, which uses many Windows originating technology. It's easier but not more powerful to the most talented coders to work with.

Overall I would say the console is closer to a PC than a Wii, certainly in terms of development approach and with regard to gaming capability.

It is optimized for the PS3, however its clear to see Epic have got the UE3 to run better on the 360 which isn't surprising given the time spent on it. UT3 was pretty much the first PS3 game to use the UE3 with very few issues, where as the 360 hasnt had issues with the engine for god knows how long.

This is less of a 360 vs PS3 debate and more of a debate on which system uses the engine better; lets not forget there are better engines out there.