Is that all because I fully debunked your thread about 'objective factual look in the cell"?

 LOL I'm never going there again. It was funny to see fanboys argueing with raw facts from the makers of the chips own figures. (I will never forget that).

But seriously GPU in 360 is a better GPU. It's common knowledge like bread goes with butter.

Graphics comparisons just cause (*looks at the comments in Gamespot*) flame wars between PS3 and 360 fanboys..... The difference is not enough between the 2 to bother you during gameplay.... And if it does....wow O_o

The only thing X360 GPU got better than PS3 is texture (because of unified pipelines). So, the higher the definition, better X360 would look over PS3. However PS3 GPU is better about processing raw data and, how I said before, more difficult to work because of RSX's outdated (yes it is) pipeline architecture.  And besides textures most of PS3 graphical issues don't even happened last gen so is cleary  developing issues.

And comparing xenon's theoretical single floating point max with cell's double floating point performance is "raw facts from makers"? I see...

 This is nor the thread or time for this. But obviously you cannot read those tests if this is your post. Stay on topic now. This thread is not a tech thread, but a fanboy trip.

Take a better look and you'll see I went off topic just in the last two lines. But I'll not be discussing with you. Just looking at your thread makes me know there's no point in arguing with you.

But seriously, Far Cry 2 Graphics>Heavy Rain Graphics? That's just ludacris. It is Fact that your opinion is wrong.

.........out of all the members on vgchartz I bet your the only one that has this opinion.

Hmm...........Bread does go well with butter. Guess it must be true !

I love how blind some of us can be on this website :P I think a good majority of you missed the entire point to begin with ^^

The obvious die-hard fanboy's on both side ravenously support they're console in which is OBVIOUSLY TEH BETTARS, I mean hell, were hearing talks of some missing vines here... a little bit of blur there, a shadow being silly looking on one console, while not even being there on the other :P

This was the point guys!

At the start of this "console war", you'd be lucky if you could even make a PS3 version of the game run at 30 frames a second! Developers have come a million miles from they're first efforts on the PS3, and some of these actually look better than they're 360 counterparts! It's fantastic! Not because it looks better (personally, the exclusives always have, and probably always will ^_~ ), but because you don't have to dread picking up a multi-plat, which I'll admit, I've been pretty wary of :P A common expression of ours around the house for a while has been "Meh, it looks so... multi-plat..." And well now, that's not as much of a bad thing :P

I tip my hat to some of these developers for not being fully incompetent, you've learned the PS3 quite well ^^ Now please for the sake of gaming, figure out the Wii xD It's suffering the worst from 3rd party developers :(

I honestly cannot make out any difference just looking at the pictures.

Let Gamespot preach about "pop-in" and "screen tearing" and "lower resolution" while tweaking the brightness and contrast settings so they are optimised on the 360 and make the PS3 version as ugly as possible.

Come on, it's obvious. Gamespot are not exactly the least biased site on the internet. Almost as bad as EuroGamer, when they made that PS3 version of BioShock being clearly inferior to the 360 version and an insult to a great game comment.