"What you can say really quite clearly and not get into too much argument about it is that the 360 is much easier to develop for, it's easier to get the performance out of it that it can deliver, and the rasterizer, the GPU side is generally faster than what the PS3 has," Carmack told Eurogamer at QuakeCon.

Another win for 360?

Full article here.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=203956

Wow. It's looking more and more like the PS3 will never pass 360 WW.

The 360 happens to be A very very good games console.
Thats not saying the ps3 is not.
imo ms got it right this time.

We were talking about this guy all of yesterday, so I'm sure this statement was already posted.

PS3 has a better CPU, 360 has a better GPU.....
Which one is better for gameplay [the factor that should be most important for gaming], a better GPU, or CPU???

Yes, the 360 is easier to develop for... we've talked about this for how long now???
I remember dev's bitching about ps2 development also......

 Thats ok when you,re top dog not in third place in A 3 horse race.

Has everyone forgot that the Cell can produce graphics on its' own, without any help from any GPU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKqZKXwop5E&feature=related

IBM IRT, did all that with the Cell processor alone.

http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/irt

So while the Xenon (Xenos?) may be slightly better than the RSX, the RSX is still pretty damn close in terms of graphical output, and team that with the Cell's capabilities, and the PS3's graphics > 360's graphics

But last time I checked, wasn't the RSX faster than the 360s GPU? I thought 550 MHz > 500 MHz

...what? How is Carmack's statement and what you said related in any way?

It is....
Just squint really hard and eat some really old cheese?

Anyway, I think Hawkeye meant that this means the 360 even if it gets out sold will not lose development support so fast on the account of being so 3rd party friendly.

Exactly.