John Carmack said that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. He has worked with both system, is known for his pro-xbox bent, and is a videogame programming god.

You are a random person posting on the internets.

Who am I going to believe?

LOL. If you dont want to believe IBM's figures dont. I just posted them, and brought to light what people obviously didnt know (or were lead to believe something Sony said without stating that the PS3 would not utilise the cell fully.)

I don't even know what those numbers mean. Why should I care about them?

Fact is, someone who actually knows what they're talking (ie. not you or me) has said that the PS3 is more powerful the 360.

 Fact is, IBM has a different argument. So fact is, we aren't going to figure out whos right anytime soon.

Lol, "fact is". Thats a funny one.  I wouldn't mind seeing the link about Carmack's "the PS3 is more powerful", though I kind of believe you.

figures talk about specific situations, and are used to prove opinions (often twisted i might add).  the specific situations dont actually apply to games.  so while these might be facts, no one can actually use them for anything meaningful.

the other problem is that u r listing only these facts.  Both sides can easily draw upon skewed facts.  by nature of how different the consoles are (even gpu), pretty much any test favors one console over the other.

He's said it a couple of times. He mentioned it here in 2006: http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/50983/ps3-more-powerful-than-xbox-360-says-john-carmack/

And he said it again more recently this year. (I'd look it up, but I just can't be bothered.) 360 is easier to work with (so he prefers it), but the PS3 is more powerful if you have the time and money to put the effort in.

And as for those figures: as I said, I have no idea what they mean. Odds are, unless you're a video game designer, you don't fully know what they mean either. Numbers on their own are meaningless, as there may be (and usually are) other factors at play.


As I said, who am I going to believe? A near god-like and unbiased videogame programmer, or a couple of random, biased guys posting on the internets, boasting about numbers they don't fully understand?

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/51600/john-carmack-on-xbox-360-and-ps3-theyre-slower-than-a-modern-pc/

"Though he prefers to stay out of the limelight, Carmack has lately been more open in offering his analysis of Microsoft and Sony's forays into their next-gen consoles. Recently, he noted that although the PS3 has the edge in overall power, the Xbox 360 offers a simpler development platform, a sentiment he echoes in his most recent interview."

Care to give me a link?  And isn't John Carmack, or whatever his name is a Software guy?  I know several software developers and they don't know jack about proccessing power.

It's funny, this may be true, i'm not saying it's not, but I'm pretty sure that if it proved that the PS3's Cell was MUUUCH more powerful than the 360, U would not have been the one to post that. Anyways, I don't care about that, I never have (check my history, never mentioned TEH CELL), all I care about is the games and so far I have not been disappointed.

@seinor.. Shouldn't you provide links for the 360 numbers? Just to stay objective...