How long was Killzone 2 in development and how long has GT5 been in development compared to 360 games in the same genre?

Yes PS3 has a more powerful CPU but the entire system as a whole is closer to the 360 in terms graphics. Remember you have to take AI and physics and sound into consideration and if the PS3 version of a game is a little bit better in all of them then it won't seem much better overall

Interesting read. Seems sensible to me, as I read him to be saying:

PS3 has more raw power however for most current gen game engines due to GPU and easier to use SDK in 360 they are more or less equal in terms of results - this seems true based on most current titles available

PS3, if coded for properly (something that's been highlighted multiple times) could be pushed further but that this would require very specific coding, something that many developers will simply avoid if they can get a decent game out that runs on both platforms equally. Hence it's with exclusives that PS3 will have to show this potential.

MS did indeed ignore sensible levels of reliability and behave in a manner detrimental to the consumer in their desire to get to market first and fast with the most power they could. Again, I thought this was well accepted now. Some don't care as they fix your console anyway, some think the extra $$$ it cost them in extended warranty was enough, some like me think they should have been punished a bit more, but whatever it's done now and they're moving past it.

PS3 is probably a better all round processing unit, and if like me you want to use it for a lot of media, BR, etc. that's great, but in general it doesn't make much difference for games (at least most built on current gen engines) while the 360 was designed very much for games only. The ability to handle media is there, and is decent, but is only to the level allowed within the design of the unit and its coding interface to support games primarily. Again, this fits with early Sony positioning. Sony made the PS3 to be more than just games, and that might not have been a wise choice (even if it suits a minority like me) in the long run.

All i will say is both the Xbox & the PS3 are brilliant pieces are hardware that are equally better value for hardcore gaming than any other products out there.

So now that they are out there, it should be the games developers that should be held to account, im really tired of the 'poor developers has to work out how to program the systems' its their job, if they dont like it they should find another business.

Developers need to stop making dodgy ports (in either direction) or games that crash every other time you play them, these are the people that are lessening our gaming experience if anyone is to be on trial here.

As it stands the systems are pretty much equal in terms of the quality of games, so it should be a question of which exclusives you prefer, and that all a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Maybe one day a developer will come up with an idea for maximising the SPU's on the PS3 to create a games that wouldnt be feasible on the XBOX architechture, but as of now i dont think that has happened.

The X360 is a multi-core system based on PowerPC much like the PPE on the PS3. Having taken a look at the chip of a RRODed console myself I can safely say is physically impossible to the Xenon process more than 75.2 GFLOPS/sec (6 threads, 3 cores, 8 single precision floating points per clock cycle no double precision, 1 MB of shared cache).

In the other hand, PS3 has the PPE with 512 KB of cache, 2 threads, and 7 SPEs with 1 thread and 256 KB cache each. All of them process the same 8 FLOPS per clock cycle and the SPE can still do 64-bit double precision. This equals to 204.8 GFLOPS of single precision floating points per second on the PS3, more than twice the processing power on the X360. Look below how the PPE looks exactly the same as the X360 CPUs.

That's the main reason PS3s are clustered and not X360s arcades. Even costing half of the price PS3 is still a better choice. Indeed, the Cell is the best cost-benefit processor on the market. Based on the same architecture, both consoles must have also the same % of  theoretical max used.

Of course for gaming there is still may factors going around, like front bus, RAM amount/bandwidth and GPU power. Going by gaming alone, X360 has the best value out on the market.

Developers still have to make those games, When will we see a game like Killzone 2 on 360? Or the On screen action of MGS4?

If I were a developer,I will like the machine with the easy port (time and money) and with the larger user base granted by the 1/2 price.

360 wins even if it`s 25% less powerfull than the ps3 (or whatever % you want).

All those numbers dont mean anything..cuz when someone look at the games and compare, they are not going to see numbers they are going to see people putting in the time in there games so it could look the best it could so it doesnt mean much when someone said they put 3 yrs in a game cause that doesnt mean much to the buyer
360 might be more powerful (so yall say) but there isnt any game out there that can prove that, not even the 3+ yrs Alan wake title

and there is a honest answer from a honest gamer

Sony fans have been on the defensive this whole generation.
Constantly defending their systems on countless chat rooms and websites worldwide. It won't be the end of the world if you admit both consoles are equal. Seriously, the world will not end. Stop playing in your sony spin machine world and come live in our real world.

I think Mr. Shippy knows more about which console is more powerful than anybody here. So I'm going to take his word for it.

I dont't get the point of this comparison. Those two screenshots are not even showing similar situations in the games.

By the way, I don't like that MGS4 screenshot at all... Did they change from the regular brown/grey FPS palette to a green/grey one? It looks horrible, I'm sure there are much better MGS4 screenshots.

lol.  This discussion is so funny because mainly it is between xbots and ps3fanboys.  How many of you are CS/CSE or a branch of those two majors?  How many of you know about compilers, how to write one, heck even know how to program (C/C++/OPENGL soon to be OPENCL/etc...).  Java is mainly for academic scholastics.  This is my 2 cents.  Unless you (and the programmers out there) know how to do parallel computing, having a crapload of cores are useless.  Look at today's PCs.  Mainstream is quadcore, yet core 2 duo can still compete.  Reason: Nobody in the industry are writing software that takes advantage of that.  Also, to those xbots that keeps touting "the GPU is very complex".  Ever heard of Bottleneck?  Vice versa to you ps3fanboys.