Mike, its easily known that ps3 is "little bit more powerful then the 360" in some areas, but your technical crap, is just showing off how much you love the ps3.

I mean comon man, you even mentioned that the 360 controllers are to heavy, for fuck sakes

Wow what a waste of time to read this biased junk. Why not just say in the title, I own a Ps3 and want to tell you why it is better. If you want me to break down your sentences I would love to with the fact that some of them are poorly worded. Some parts were alright, but it is amazing how biased someone can be.

Whoa! I'm not reading that!! But I did read a little bit and I am telling you you're WRONG about the machine's processors.

The 8th SPE in the PS3 is NOT disabled by default. It is a REDUNDANCY backup which means it is REDUNDANTLY checking the work of the other processors in case an error is made. It would then fix the error and send the data along to the next channel. So it is in fact, working and not disabled however since it is not processing any new information most people consider the other 7 processors the true measure of the machine's output.

The 360's triple core Power PC processor: each core is HYPER-THREADED essentially giving you 6 CPUs. Yea, ok I know they're not TRUE CPUs but it does do wonders to reaching the processors' max output. Deny this all you want but.... it SIGNIFICANTLY improves performance!!

It's really too bad that most people dont know as much as I do otherwise we'd have facts from the start instead of fanboy-ish speculation.

Hey MikeB,

You say you welcome debate between anyone who is putting forth logic and reason in their arguments; but you conveniently ignored the comment by "Fazz" that challenged, and in some points (in my opinion), refuted what you were saying. Is it possible you saw it, realized he had good points, and chose to ignore it? Rather targeting people that were obviously misinformed to make "360 fanboys" (or whatever the hell) look like idiots. Point is, you don't have to be a 360 fanboy to see that you're making some invalid conclusions (especially in situations where a conclusion is based on very subjective data). I'll give you the benefit of doubt and say that you just missed his argument. Either way, you should read it.

Some of your points are true, but you're making a lot of generalizations, assumptions, and large (erroneous) jumps in logic. The PS3 is, in most respects, more powerful on paper than it is in reality. And this is mostly due to bottlenecks. All the power in the world doesn't prevent bottlenecks from occurring when there are places in the design that cause these bottlenecks.

 Really, when you logically think about it, you can see why there are bottlenecks and why the PS3 is NOT a supercomputer. How can a system that costs 800 dollars to make (when it was released, not sure what it is now) honestly be on par with "supercomputers"? Really, just think about it.

You have to realize that both of these systems are consoles; and consoles by their very nature are made to be cheap and reliable. In order to make these systems as cheap as possible, design decisions have to be made. And often these design decisions will cause bottlenecks. In my opinion I believe in terms of overall power, the two systems are about equal. The PS3 has the obviously stronger CPU (although this point is completely taken out when games are ported to the console and not built specifically for it; which you are seeing), and the 360 has the stronger GPU. The PS3 may have a slight edge...but shouldn't it? I mean, it was released a year after the 360. If anything, it's expected it should outperform the 360! 

It's pretty obvious what system you have a preference for, and your reasons for choosing this system are also very obvious. Unfortunately, none of that really matters in the long run; just as the PS2 dominated last generation, the PS3 will not dominate due to its poor performance in sales (it's obvious, the Wii is and will continue to dominate; and the 360 is the platform of choice for more traditional PS/Xbox styled games, whether you like it or not as of now).

Anyways, I think you should read Fazz's post on page 1 and come back and give a proper logical (key word here) response (if you actually have one).

good post hockey

btw welcome to vg chartz O.O

Thanks Lost Tears of Kain. For what it's worth, I don't hate the PS3 (I know I will pick one up soon enough). I won't deny that I have a preferance to the 360 and the Wii currently (mostly because these two systems are releasing the games I want).

Point is, I recognize that these consoles are designed to be cheap by their very nature, and for that reason they all have limitations. I just don't think the PS3 is the all-powerful system people want it to be. But really, none of this matters if the games aren't flowing, and right now the 360 and the Wii are dominating here. Things could change, sure, but as of now this is the situation (and this is why I show the preferance that I do). 

same here, most likely grabbing a ps3 either christmas (matters on white knight story release date) or spring

Currenly, have also have preference for 360 and the wii

Hey hockey, great post, welcome to VG Chartz

Well, MikeB might be a raging fanboy, but his numbers do seem good to me. Fazz's objections about the bandwidth of the XDR memory in the PS3 do not concur with the Internet research I have done. I am far from an expert on this subject, but I need a better explanation than Fazz provided before I am convinced that the PS3's memory architecture is not superior.

I don't see why 360 fans need to be ashamed that a console $200 cheaper and a year older than the PS3 is not as powerful.