"most PS3 exclusives will continue to suck"

I stopped reading there; total fanboy.

Sony has proven that Nintendo doesn't last forever either.

Classic.

It's irrelevant how much SPE extra work does. PS3 can do better setup work due to it's SPU. Once you hit the fill rate ready for output the PS3 hit's it's bottleneck. This is what Booth is saying.

He isn't saying PS3 can't handle more objects or the like. He is sticking with graphics alone. The CPU these days is a limited area these days. He also saying that the BR does give a benefit to quality of textures, but it has it's draw backs. Given in his example.

If you value graphics so much it's the quality/detail of texture that most graphics whores notice. Not the fill rate of shader effect. These techniques in development won't ever help fillrate, but they will assist in taking the load off the GPU to focus more on that area. This in the end and shown by the God of War 3 images that PS3 techniques need to cover up the PS3 inferior fillrate and shader processing.

As for CPU yeah when your processing raw data, no console beats the PS3.

LOL. Pointless arguments. Halo 3 doesn't have anywhere near the best graphics, but it has been the most fun game released this gen. Gameplay is greater than graphics. LOL. Flame on.

But the two consoles' GPUs have the same fillrate (4 billion pixels per second) without AA. On 360 the 4xMSAA comes for free, on PS3 you'll have to offload it to the SPEs together with other postprocessing.

You have to understand that you can use the SPEs in rendering, not only for physics or audio.

I would (personally) disagree with the most fun game released part but it is an entirely subjective claim (meaning no one can be right on what they pick as the most fun game) ...

What the constant argument over whether the PS3 is more powerful than the XBox 360 really demonstrates is how the "Graphic Whore" gamers are forcing videogame companies into bankrupcy. While the majority of gamers don't (really) care about the tiny differences between what the XBox 360 and PS3 are capable of, and would be entirely happy with Wii-Like graphics (technically simple graphics with few obvious graphical artifacts), the tiny minority of "Graphic Whore" gamers are so vocal about these differences that developers begin to believe that they can't be successful unless they appease these gamers.

With the big games this doesn't matter because a game like GTA will be profitable regardless ... When you're dealing with much more "Average" games, a developer's focus on graphics may take resources away from other elements (gameplay) and they end up with a visually impressive mediocre game that sells poorly rather than a visually mediocre game that plays well and sells decently.

kick in the ass,..again ''360 the real power'',..

Gameplay is better than graphics, no doubt there.  BUT, both graphics and gameplay are subjective to the person playing them.

Apparently some people like the gameplay in the Wii game "Cooking Mama". But I wouldnt use it as a coaster, just an opinion.

 If you are using this thread to back yourself up in saying that the PS3 is not more powerful then God help you :P

A lazy Rockband dev isn't exactly good evidence. Killzone 2, Uncharted (2), God of War 3, MGS4 and GT5 all are good evidence though..