I would like to know how X360 CPU is even close to PS3 Cell.

Xenon's performance bare minimum is 19.2 GFlops (3 cores x 2 FP units per at 3.2GHz). Theoretical max is 115 GFlops.

CBE's performance bare minimum is 92.8 Gflops (7 SPEs with 4 FP units per, and one PPE with 1 FP unit per, all at 3.2GHz). Theoretical max is 204 GFlops.

Recent tests by IBM show that the SPEs can reach 98% of their theoretical peak performance using optimized parallel Matrix Multiplication.
204 * 98 = 199.92 GFlops

Conclusion: Cell is at least 73% more powerful than Xenon.

As I have posted in another thread:

Reality Synthesizer:
550 MHz
256 MB GGDR3 700 MHz
+300 million transistors
24 parallel pixel-shader ALU pipes
27 floating-point operations per pipeline, per cycle
8 parallel vertex pipelines
10 floating-point operations per pipeline, per cycle
27 * 24 * 550 = 356.4 GFlops
10 * 8 * 550 = 44 GFlops
PS3 total = 400.4 GFlops

Xenos:
500 MHz
Unified memory (10 MiB daughter DRAM embedded in 65nm process)
48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines
232 million transistors
Unified shading architecture (each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders)
10 floating-points per pipeline per cycle
10 * 48 * 500 = 240 GFlops
X360 total = 240 GFlops

Conclusion: RSX is at least 68% more powerful than Xenos.

But in orded to be fair, comparing only floating point abilities of a system is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric. Just pointing some errors out there.

So, if the 360 is more powerful, why cant it have graphics like uncharted, MGS4, killzone 2 and Gran turismo?

I mean...it is clear that the PS3 can achieve better graphics..

What are you talking about?

I dont get this at all really gt5 understandable but when you kz2 which is in beta and the textures up close are garbage walk up to a wall and look at it.

Uncharted with its fake plastic feel like the damn trees and rocks were painted with krylon plastic paint.

and mgs4 with its weak gun models and bad texturing how can you say this heve you ever played gears 1 or 2?

How about ace combat 6

what about all the multiplatforms that look better on 360 even dead space that was developed on the damn ps3

I own both consoles and have all of those games i play them on my pioneer elite and i will tell you.

GT5 Looks best

Gears2

kz2

Thats what i see gt5 may look awesome but i would rather play forza2 because of what it has to offer and the control feels better on forza2

I Agree that everyone has there own opinions i just wish people would look past that and look at the games.Stand in store look at whats in the library pick a few games you know you would want to play compare them and buy the damn console that suites you.

If you can afford both get both i mean a ps3 may be expensive at 400 but throw a 199 360 in and for 600 you get the best of both worlds and if you feel you need to play online on 360 go to xbox.com and get a 20gb hdd for 20 dollars.

First I think it safe that you need the official IBM statement on that. It's fair enough since the OP did make his post with data. I do advocate proof :) when it comes to this kind of thing. You also need to dispute the OP OS requirements leaving evidence that applications have access to more power. The OP did give an analysys that the straight raw power the PS3 is more powerful, but he also goes on to use the OS consumption. So I am interested in your next figurative analysis so we can make a full comparison with the adjusted IBM changes with the proven Sony OS changes to take advantage and the OS consumption.

Someone mentioned Integer processing. Interger processing isn't used for 3d. Only Floating Points. Integers are use for game logic in these cases.

The thing is that you can achieve nice graphics, if other aspects in game are minimal. Just compare MGS4 and fallout 3. Fallout 3 looks like crap because theres so much else going on graphically and game logically. Same goes with GT5P, its very simple game and there is for example few to none shaders used while it runs. Heavy rain looks like step to even smaller area with even less stuff going on at the same time.

If we drop more and more stuff, eventually what can be rendered will be near photorealistic graphics. Only downside is that what can be rendered atm is only one to two objects. Good example of this is nvidia human head demo, which looks like this:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2235/humanhead20080116173527if8.jpg

Only thing that matters is what does it look, isn't it?

Table 2 or table 13, IBM CBE page.

SPE max : 25.01

PS3 CBE: 7 SPE, 6 used by developers, 1 used by the OS.

25.01 * 6 =  150,06 GFlops.

PPE = roughly 2 SPE in terms of power.

150 + 50 = 200 GFlops max

Intersting enough? So, what about now advocating proof about the 'Xenon proven 115 GFlops'? ^^

Wow.

PS3 is less powerful than the 360 in number of gigaflops.

Thanks for the links and facts.

Actually, throughout the post there's a fair number of opposing views (backed by similar analysis) that indicate the PS3 gigaflops potential exceeds 360...

I've come to the following conclusions:

1) its better to play games on consoles that debate their processing power when so many conflicting views exist

2) nobody, no matter how well intentioned, seems able to offer an objective and unbiased view on these matters

I'll give you an objective view.

The PS3 is indeed more powerful, and better designed than the 360. The complexity of the PS3 however, makes it difficult for *less gifted* developers to code for the PS3, and the porting from 360 to PS3 just causes more problems, which is why often we see ports that look worse and run worse on the PS3.

However, with developers such as EA switching to PS3 as the lead console we should soon begin to see the PS3 shine as old developers learn new tricks.

Are we going to see these results immediately? Probably not, in the mean time buy the game for which console you own and stop crying about it.