With the multi-plats however, the GOAL is to barely notice a difference ;) That's why this thread is FUBAR to begin with. If you want any glimpse of what your consoles capable of you HAVE to look at the exclusives.

haha then I guess we will agree to disagree on the amount of gold in those rooms, time will tell. I'm gona go watch avatar now :p

ONLY LOOSERS COME UP WITH RIDICULOUS CLAIMS, SO BOTH SIDES FAIL!!! But seriously i doubt anyoneon vgchartz is a game developer that worked on both consoles. So supporting your console by outdated quotes from other sites, or using a bunch of computing numbers copied from wikipedia no one understands ( floating point? WTF ) is not getting this ahead at all. IMA go play GRID right now on my PS3, and i don't give a shit about screen tearing, FPS drops, higher resolutions, particle accelaration, odunblongatas. amount of leprechaun shaders, or annoying little sisters

Meh, these may be facts. But, it's only because the Developers were too lazy to take care of a PS3 port.

When a Dev actually takes time and care into a PS3 port or exclusive, you notice the difference from the Devs that don't take time.

The fanboys come out in droves when these things happen (and yes, I'm referring to both 360 and PS3 fanboys).  Why? because of insecurity.  Both the 360 and PS3 have had their share of better multi-platform games regardless of how slight the difference might be.  Why can't you guys just put such trivial issues aside and enjoy a game and its console for what it really is?  And who cares how powerful a console is according to processing numbers is as long as the end results are pleasing in the real world?  I remember when NCAA 08 ran better on the 360 than the PS3, but now, both versions of NCAA 09 are practically identical according to the reviews.  And this is becoming a more common trend.  I'm just gald that the game itself was better than its last year counterpart.  So what's more important here, theoretical processing power or the end results?  If nothing else, third party developers are still backing the PS3.  The 360 had a year head start, and it has a larger userbase over the PS3.  But yet for some reason, these developers are still backing the PS3.  There's got to be a good reason admist all the worst case scenario of "doom and gloom" for the PS3.  You'd think that if the PS3 were as "bad" as some would claim, third party development would and could have easily dumped and PS3 altogether to save R&D and just concentrate entirely on the 360 for HD games.  Come up with any reason, with any opinion.  But what I state is reality, people whatever the reason.  PS3 fanboys, there is nothing truely significant to prove that the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the 360 at the moment.  Xbox 360 fanboys, don't let the PS3 be a thorn in your sides because third parties have more than enough reason to keep pushing the system for reasons either we don't know or it's because you choose to ignore.

You should also mention that the 360's GPU has up to 512MB of video ram for use, while the PS3 can only access up to 256MB

What's the point in this since both consoles have vastly different architectures which require different approaches?  The PS3 has 256 MB of RAM for the CPU and 256 MB of RAM for the GPC.  What's more important are the end results.  It's posts like the above that's either outdated and/or it only paints a partial picture which lead to a subjective, limited point of view.  Nothing personal by the way.

As an actual owner of both versions of GTA IV and having completed the game on both platforms, I can emphatically state that the 360 version has a framerate that's just as low as on the PS3, if not even lower. Additionally, the PS3 version has better colors, contrast and lighting. The 360 version does run at a higher resolution and is thus technically superior but the funny thing is that there are so many filters being used on GTA IV that you can only really notice the extra sharpness on close-ups. There's a good reason not a single reviewer noticed that the 360 version was sharper and that quite a few of them thought that the PS3 version had better antialiasing even though it doesn't. And while having a mandatory installation is points against the PS3 version, there's the whole benefit of faster loading and less object and texture pop-in.

I'd like the OP to take a look at Burnout Paradise and tell me how that proves the 360 is superior overall to the PS3.

Here's a stunning revelation: When games are coded for one platform and then ported to another, the orignal platform (the Xbox 360 in the case of GTA IV and GRID) tends to perform better. The OP proves... nothing.

After reading this thread it brings one thing to mind.... you are all wasting your time......

QFT. Though this could change over time (not much in a generation...probably after a decade or so). I think the reason the 360 is so easy to develop for is that it has such a familiar architecture while the PS3s I believe is fairly new and different. Engines with ease of use and more optimization for the system need to be developed. I don't see it happening though because I don't see this architecture lasting long against the norm.