Ah, I love it.  The designer of the PS3 hardware is coming right out and saying exactly what you don't want to hear, so you just start making things up.  I suppose I'm to believe your word over his, right?  All you're doing is what the typical Sony Defense Force member does when they're faced with things they don't want to hear:  make things up.  What are you going to do next, start listing off future PS3 games that are going to move a million consoles each?  Because that's what always comes next.  And there's usually a "year of the PS3" prediction in there somewhere too.  What's it going to be for now, summer or winter or 09 when the PS3 finally "takes over"? 

Again, I didn't write the article, I just posted it.  You say "anyone with a brain" knows how much more powerful the Cell is.  Well, the guy who designed the thing says otherwise, at least when it's coupled with the rest of the hardware inside the PS3. You say "putting in sync 6 SPU and a PPE is not an easy task".  What does that have to do with anything and what does that even mean anyway?  Programming a game in general is not an easy task.  All the PS3 does is make that process HARDER, not easier.  It's hard enough to program for mutliple threads running simultaneously in a game, not to mention trying to do it on the proprietary Cell chip that seems to make things even more complicated than they need to be.

So I will stand by my statement.  Just because the Cell can fold protein does not mean that the PS3 is the ultimate gaming hardware.  It has a GPU that holds it back, is hard to program for, and is not selling enough software to make developers really want to dig into it.  Now, if you say the Cell is ahead of its time, I can agree with you there.  The home console market was not ready for a processor this advanced.  It's probably a generation too early.  It's showing in the price of the PS3 as well as the sales figures of the PS3.  The things that are built in to the PS3 are definitely pretty amazing, but they are also killing the platform because they are not cost effective and are not really being used to do anything different from what the competition is doing.

the statement 'PS3 and 360 are equally powered' is completely misinterpreting what this man said, and it is not true at all. I shall translate what this man said

"Shippy tells Gamasutra, "I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends.' Again, they're completely different models. The PS3 has a much more powerful processor than the 360, and as such is much better at processor dependent tasks such as folding@home

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional gaming system, that is pretty equal to the PS3 as far as gaming is concerned

"At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal at playing games."

I'm sorry to be arguing semantics here, I really am. I just don't like the claim that just because they are equally good at playing games, they are equally as powerful. The 360 might be as good for gaming as the PS3, but running any fair and objective benchmark, which tests CPU, GPU and harddrive in different tasks, the PS3 will win

Check the bottom of the article.  It is pretty clearly stated where he says "they are about equal"

And the SPU's and FLOPS and all that mean nothing.. that's all theoretical potential.  From actual use, with the give and takes like others have mentioned, the two systems end up being about equally as powerful.

This is BS. 360 could never handle a game like Killzone 2. It just dont have the power to show so many things happening on the screen at the same time in such brilliant graphics. I guess M$ paid somebody to write that article.

You are misinterpretting his words, i'm afraid.  You left out where he mentioned the 360's GPU is quite complex and much better than the PS3's.

All in all, they are pretty equal.  Just as he said.  You are the one trying to make him imply stuff that wasn't there.  He mentions the holds of the PS3 hardware itself as well as the added difficulty in programming for the Cell.  He is not saying that the software being released is making them about equal, but the hardwares actual performance is pretty equal.

Come on dude, this article is from one of the chip designers.   If you think M$ paid someone off to talk trash about something they made your a bit silly.  You may also want to keep an eye out for those black helicopters that follow you around when you go outside as well.

I do not understand what the big deal is anyways.  Both systems have great looking games so it doesn't really matter, to me  which has a slight advantage.

M$ messed up last month, they sent me 2 checks out instead of their useual 1.  Maybe it was a Christmas present. :/

Funny. All those that have spent hours on this site stating the PS3 is more powerful, have just been shot down by the producer of the Cell.

All I can say to anyone that has ever argued with me, I told you so.

360 and PS3 are basically equal in terms of power, says IBM Cell producer. :)

 I have never seen fanboys go against a producer of the chip thats inside their fave console. LOL

Dude please your making fanboys look desperate now.