Hahaha, free bluray

when you're a developer and you have 512MB ram of video to use while the other console has a maximum of 256MB of video, it's easy to see which console is more powerful graphically.

Funny how these discussions deteriorate into fanboy slugfests. I really doubt that 99.9% of consumers would be able to tell a difference between the 360 and PS3 versions of the same game, much less be able to really determine if Uncharted looked better or worse than Mass Effect or Gears of War. They might have a small chance if you had both systems running on monitors side by side, but that rarely happens.

To really take advantage of better graphics, the PS3 games need to be dramatically better than their 360 counterparts, i.e. - a generation ahead, and that just isn't the case.

If you're going to claim someone is "strongly biased", at least get your facts straight. He's the Technical Director of iD Software, so I'm pretty sure his daily work is still very directly related to programming (even if he spends less time at the keyboard than he used to, which may not even be the case).

Furthermore, he's much more likely to know the overall picture of multi-platform engine development than some of his programmers, who will be more concerned about their own modules and platforms.

both have 512mb for use

but the ps3 is separated into 2 pieces also use 256mb rambus memory XDR that its faster than the traditional DDR2 modules.

and another 256mb are for nvidia card that its 700mhz

Last I checked, technical directors don't spend any time programming, unless its a one-man show, and the title is just for kicks.  And he's the majority owner of iD as well -- I'm "pretty sure" he spends almost no time programming these days.  Meaning I know it for a fact, and you're welcome to believe what you like.  I'm a software engineer by profession, and I know very well what a technical director is and does.

For iD, the 360 is easier.  But that's the rub -- he's talking about it from the same perspective that many other PC developers approach it from (e.g. Valve, another example of "the 360 is better" mentality derived from a pure PC studio).  Every tool and app he, or his team, has written in the past decade has been with DirectX and a Windows-like OS.  If you *don't* think he's biased, I think you need to take a step back and look at the big picture.

I will agree with Carmack, up and down, that the 360 is much easier to develop for than the PS3.  I know this is true in my case, since I've worked on so many PC and XBox apps.  A developer's effective performance could be much greater on the 360, given some rigid prereqs, like a severe PC bias coming in, and no experienced parallel-thinking engineers.  Lately, however, both the 360 and PS3 architectures have become quite clear to me, and its obvious as to which one is superior, given the legwork to build an engine properly (for both machines, actually).

Claiming the 360 is a superior platform for reasons outside of the ease-of-development reason, however, is just plain folly.  I'm shocked that Carmack would say such a thing, actually, but since he did... I have to concede that he may not be as bright as I once thought, or that he's wearing some severely tinted eyewear.  I'm going with the latter.