Not really, the 360 is more alike with the PS3 than it is with the PC. Its Microsofts excellent tools which make the differences much more transparent to each other when porting PC -> 360 or 360 -> PC.

The CPUs being used are markedly different, both the Cell and the Xenon are from the Powerpc family of processors and the 360 uses VMX units which can run some forms of SPE code or you could say they are somewhat SPE friendly. Your Computer runs an x86 out of order processor and both the HD consoles use an In-Order processor. One uses a complicated instruction set (X86), the other uses a simplified instruction set(PowerPC) its essentially CISC vs RISC if you boil it all down.

No PC in existance uses a unified memory architecture, nor have I seen a PC use ED-Ram in its GPU design. Also I have never seen a graphics card on a PC sport its own scaler chip.

easy now.

Im merely saying that MS made 360 development "similar" to PC developing. WHich is true given how 360/PC games perform well where as the PS3 version takes longer to make and suffers problems (again like with Orange Box).

Surely youmust agree that porting from PC to 360 is easier then porting from PC to PS3.

As a system architecture there are some quite large differences, but as a development architecture they are very similar. The two may perform instructions in radically different ways but this is essentially transparent to developers who input the desired command and the desired result is outputted due to how Microsoft designed the development tools.

Why all of you miss this:
"We're not going to gimp the 360 because the PS3 can't do it. We're going to optimise the crap out of it and make the PS3 really good, sort of like Burnout."

Most important part for high graphic games is GPU. 360 GPU > PS3 GPU. Not by far, but still better for most of the graphical operations. Cell is cell, but without strong GPU even Core 2 Quad Extreme is useless. Don't get me wrong. You still need strong CPU for great physics, A.I., etc.

If you optimize for 360 GPU, when porting to less powerfull PS3 GPU you need to sacrifice something (framerate, resolution, etc) to make things to run or to downgrade it visuals. That is why GTA 4 PS3 is 630p, noAA with lower framerate against 720p and 2xAA on 360. GTA 4 is one of the many examples.

"Pretty soon in a month or two we will switch and lead on the PS3. That is so that you're not downgrading the PS3 later."

If you optimize for PS3 GPU and make it to be the best it can take, then you will have no worries porting to 360, cos you are sure 360 GPU can take it too.

I Sense alot more 3rd party comapnys to follow suit...

2nd biggest company

Surely there's a difference here of EA the developer and EA the publisher.

Cos EA didn't make Burnout. Criterion did.

Wow... Could have sworn i've heard this b4....

Actually any console can handle 1080p,including Wii,but you cant have good graphics or good AI

Infact since 360 has a stronger GPU (Which i proven,but its not alot so dont get over hyped)it can put more pixles on screen,or Pixel Fill rate,and PS3 has proven to have less pixles on screen.

Between dream and reality ...

"making the PS3  lead platform will make the Xbox 360 games look “even better.”"

When I read this article, it is unfavorable to the "quality" of the PS3 ... they explain that it is easier to develop on the 360 (so that the port on the PS3 is a pain in the *ss).. and Sony fanboys says because it is more powerful..

I propose to pay free education for "Software Development and microelectronics conceps" to all the Sony fanboys.

This way we will stop talking about that marketing BS on this forum.