That doesn't give the PS3 greater performance. It's not the number of buses, but the bandwidth and clock speed, which is nearly the same on both (mostly; the PS3's system RAM has a greater clock speed, but that's nullified by the slower latency*).

 *That was deliberate. That kind of RAM is great for FMVs (DVD and blu-ray playback), but not so great for graphics.

 Care to enlighten us ?

In fact you don't seem to understand the complexity of coding difference between muti-threaded programming model (on which Xbox360's CPU is better suited than Cell), and distributed parallel model one (on which Cell is way better suited than Xbox360's CPU). 

Nothing, because a basketball title doesn't have to render near as many high poly characters as football game. One football team has more players on it (11) than both teams in a basketball team (10). I went over this in a prior post. A football game has to render more than twice the players as a basketball game in a larger stadium with more characters on the sidelines than a basketball game. Its not whether the game can run the same on the PS3, EA said that next years version will be at 60fps I believe, its the fact that it seems to take more time to get the same performance out of multiplatform PS3 titles. Now publishers could put more resources towards the PS3 version of a game than the 360 version to make them equal, but that is unlikely until if/when the PS3 userbase surpasses the 360's.

What leads you to believe that I don't understand the difference?

3 out of the 4 buses of the PS3 have the same bandwith(or greater ) as the only one in the 360 .Only the bus connecting the Cell to the RSX memory bank its a lot slower .Once you have everything in count the PS3 bandwith is way greater .Its only one data ,but I bringed it because in the FUD books of Sony-bashing theres hardly any good consideration about the PS3 and bad about the 360.Normal ,seeing what type of autodenominated "experts " are churning out these "analysis " .

Then either you took a games programming course or your professor had no idea what they were talking about. Optimising is out, it's much cheaper to create a single general purpose program and computing power is fast enough to handle it anyway. Only games programming and incredibly complex programs (such as Office) really require the extra optimisation power.

However, how the hell is a developer supposed to spend the time optimising their code when they are not allocated the budget to do it? The simple truth is there's a limited amount of money available and EA thought that money would be better spent improving the 360 sales since that would be where most of the sales will come from. 

I can't say I blame them. There's nothing lazy about it. 

Did you see EA's last financial report? That is not a company who can throw money behind developers just to get Madden to run at 30fps on the system that will sell the least copies? Do you expect them to see ANY financial return from this? Should they do it just to showcase the POWER OF THE CELL? Of course Sony is going to put the money into creating a fantastic looking game, because they benifit from it. It's no skin off EA's back if someone buys the 360 version instead of the PS3 version.

This is true, they make the one with the bigger install base run better, the ps3 can support up to 120fps(when tv's support it) http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/28/playstation-3-will-do-120-fps/

Basicly every first party ps3 title runs at 60fps, resistance,motorstorm,mlb07,nba08, etc.. Heavenly sword the final game is roumered to run at 60fps. Besides I find it funny, the video I saw at GT for the ps3 looks way better than this, people really want ps3 to burn.

Yes, and graphics engines that I've written for the PC can render at over 1000 fps... with one object on the screen. But it's just as irrelevant to this discussion.

 Both Motorstorm and Resistance run at 30fps not 60fps.