LOL! The PS3 definitely has more headroom in graphics, in my opinion, but I don't think the gap in potential is so great that we're going to eventually see something dramatically better on the PS3. Unreal engine is not the end solution for the 360, graphically speaking.

Wait... what? Did you even read my post? You do realize that Gears of War 2 uses still the same unreal engine, which has been modified just a bit? Just think about what would happen if one would make engine and game for X360 from scratch. It wouldn't be better than anything you can do with unreal engine? You do know that even killzone 2 uses forward rendering too? You do know that you can also make hybrid engines(,which is actually done in Killzone 2, I think even GTA IV does use deferred rendering for something and was it crackdown too, anyway...)?

Sure I would love to play around with PS3(or more like with CELL) like always with new tech, but I wouldn't want to make anything big for it especially anything commercial.

@FKNetwork

Both systems have their own strenghts and the graphical abilities are more like par.

The PS3 has been out 2 years 3 months so Killzone 2 has been released in such a time. Not too shabby. But Gears was released ONE year into the 360's life. But sequel came out 2 years after original.

The issue here is that we are looking just the final result, and we are not taking in account the other factors, yes, the PS3 is showing better graphics than the 360, but just in a few games, and some of them got big budgets and a lot of dev time, probably only another few games will get this threadment, so yeah, the gap will be bigger but just for a few games... maybe 5 or 10...

As a general guideline, processors which are manufactured using the same manufacturing processes, are of a similar die-size/ have similar transistor counts, and have similar energy consumption are very similar in terms of real world performance ... The reason for this is based on the physics which processor design is based on. Now, this is not a perfect metric because there will be inefficiency in design along with each processor will have their own strengths and weaknesses.

With this in mind, the PS3 and XBox 360 are as similar as two similarly priced graphics cards or CPUs that were released in the same year ... Basically, you would probably only ever see a single digit framerate difference between the two systems playing the same game and the same resolution regardless of which system the game was designed for.

So if architecture doesn't matter why even have a GPU? Two CPUs would have a higher transistor count.

If the 360 can do the same as the PS3, then why haven't we seen anything that comes close to Killzone 2? The 360 has been out a year longer than the PS3 too, which means developers have had that extra time to increase their skills.

The gap is already wide open.

I would like to know what you consider a statistic meaning what a GPU can truely put out. If embedded RAM was that powerful Sony would still use it since PS2 had 4 MB of embedded memory onto the GSX boosting 39 GB/s (think this compared to 2000 standards and you'll get the picture pretty clear).

Still is a advantage to X360 which means AA samples and alpha composing by lower cost. Plus X360 has the Directx 9 'trick', meaning devs do not need to build an API from scratch.

There is nothing factual to be shown. PS3's RSX has more transistors, bigger fillrate, more vector/scalar processing and better DOT processing.

One makes games with big big budgets and loses big big money and the other makes normal games and makes normal money.

That would be the part where he said that "each processor will have their own strengths and weaknesses". I think his point is that the Cell is not drastically above 360's CPU overall (of course it is superior for embarassingly parallel applications, which games are not for the most part except in the graphical area).