PS3 version of Far Cry 2 is running at 960*1080p(1,036,800 native pixels) as opposed to 1280*720p (921,600 native pixels).

PS3 version of Far Cry 2 is running at 960*1080p(1,036,800 native pixels) as opposed to 1280*720p (921,600 native pixels).

this is from 1UP its about the GPU 

summary:
The Xenox, built ground up by ATI, is capable of using today's graphic's engines to make some amazing looking screens with 10 mb of memory dedicated to 4x Anit-Aliasing (smoothing of jagged lines) at no cost to graphics horsepower. 332 Million transistors and 48 pipelines allow for lots of texturing, able to be flexible enough to do geometries (not currently the case) or pixels (much more used currently, especially by the Unreal engine, which is licensed for use the the vast majority of game developers) as needed. The GPU is linked very closely to the CPU, and is able to shift 512 mb of RAM towards either as needed.

The RSX is based on the G70 and is a card that was implimented late in the game when the cell could not handle graphics processing as was assumed it could (whether due to programming difficulty or simply too much drain on resources). The differences as noted above amount to a lessened memory bandwidth versus the 7800GTX PC cards. This will cause more reliance on the Cells Memory controller and memory banks (which causes a major problem in high detail at 1080p, which is why you are seeing the majority of PS3 games running 720 best frame rates ( True ).
300.4 million transistors and 36 piplines, 24 and 12 dedicated, versus 332 million (that is with the skimping due to unified pipelines, normally 48 pipelines would use a heck of alot more) and 48 pipelines, combined with 512 system memory and 10 mb dedicated 4x AA = roughly 522mb that could be used for graphics (more realistically about 386-412mb for pure graphics due to other needs), versus the 256 mb dedicated in the PS3 just allows for a more powerful GPU on the 360.

and this is the link: http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?publicUserId=5799836&bId=7967278

According to a few pixel counters *Not official Quaz51 material*

Bioshock PS3 runs at ~1200 by 675 vs 1280 by 720 for the Xbox 360.

~810,000 pixels vs 921,600 or a 14% difference.

Yay, an unequal port produce by the makers of another unequal port (Dark Sector).

Kinda lets you know how 2k? Take 2? LOL whichever thought about the port.

In other news, LBP is gonna be huge.

The budget was around $30 million although it's substantialy higher if you include advertising, but that money doesn't go into game development.

If you ever played the first Halo you would know the horrible framerate issues the game could have and since then Bungie has made it one of their priorities to keep the framerate locked and steady. Having played 4 player co-op and large 16 player matches I have never experienced any framerate issues whatsoever. I'm sure bungie deemed it appropriate to lower the resolution slightly in order to keep the framerate steady.

The real question is why the PS3 the widley touted stronger console cant match the specs of its weaker counter-part. Despite your name you sure do seem to show a PS3 bias...

And you apparently don't know how to read so I'll put my message again.

"Well 50 MHz is sure not much difference. The GPU clock is basically the only thing I know about the RSX, what annoys me is that if there's a mistake on something so basic, how can we be sure there is no mistake on something else?

That's why I was wondering where you took this from."

I provided a proof that your specs infos are partially wrong, now you have to proove me that the rest is right...

 960*1080 is an inferior resolution to 1280*720

It might have more pixels, but our output devices aren't square and this resolution was used just so that the game can properly support 1080i because the PS3 doesn't have a hardware scaler like the 360 does.

So you've got 960 pixels on the horizontal and 1080 on the vertical......Uhhhhhhhhh ok! YUCK.

Also, Far Cry 2 is cropped in widescreen mode so those 1080 vertical pixels are being wasted even more.

I have never shown any PS3 bias (if I was going to be biased it would be to PC gaming, particularly for FPS)

Second, anyone with a degree of wit would realise I was pointing out that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'...  many games on both consoles have made comprimises to get decent performance, so there's no point trying to score points on one over the other... unless you're a fanboy that is with real bias.

Yes, certainly!

For this reason GT5 runs at 1080p and 60fps with the best graphics of this next-gen.

In addition, Wipeout HD, NBA09 The Inside and others games run at 1080p and 60fps. Uncharted is also the second game with the best graphics of this next-gen, behind GT5.

Do not read more stupid and fake hardware review, play games and watch with your eyes.