@ Slimebeast

@ sieanr

Point of Clarification: 1920x1080 = 2.25 * (1280x720). Just so we're clear, you're stating that the PS3 has the potential to render 2.25 times as many pixels as the Xbox 360 with the same effects. Yes? I'm not debating anything in this post, just asking.

@ Entroper

FullHD is 1920 x 1080, 1080p is 1,080 lines of vertical resolution progressively scanned, so resolution can vary depending on horizontal resolution.

I asked for a clarification, and your answer is vague and noncommittal. :P

@ Entroper 

I don't want to attach an exact figure, but what you read in sieanr's signature is my and some other people's general view, the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the XBox 360, but at some actions more so than others. But note that I also think that even the XBox 360 could have been pushed further than Bungie did with Halo 3.

MikeB said: @ sieanr I leave it up to you on how to defend that best; all I want to hear an actual explanation beyond the obvious. Maybe thats too much to ask... OK, I will do my best, especially considering you pollute other threads with demanding an explanation from me. Based on developer discussions, it seems that currently developers have already been tapping well over 90% of the XBox 360's performance resources. That's why I don't think it will be possible for the XBox 360 to run games like BioShock, Gears of War or Halo 3 in 1080p. The amount of additional resources needed to run a game with the same effects in 1080p instead of 720p is estimated to be about 60-100%. Current 720p games on the PS3 are only estimated to be scratching the surface of what is actually possible with a fully SPE enabled / well optimised game engine, well below 40% of the console's game performance potential.

Funny, you ignore the post directly above this one.

You know, the one where you completely misread something I posted and used it in an attempt to slander me.

But to the discussion at hand.

1. You're an idiot if you think those % figures are real. How the hell do you quantify "90%" of hardware being used.

2. % of power used =/= potential for higher resolutions - common sense

3. There are various bottlenecks in the PS3 design that will prevent very detailed games from being 1080p. You love to bring up a made up bottleneck in the 360 design, yet ignore anything along those lines with the PS3.

4. The 360 is actualy better suited to 1080p than the PS3, if it wasn't for the relativly small amount of EDRAM (aka, a real 360 bottleneck) 

If you really want to impress me, post you're arguments on Beyond 3D. You have yet to give a satisfactory explanatin as to why you haven't done so, which is odd since you claim to frequent there.

With that out of the way, I'd like you to address this.

Do I have to pull up links to that thread?

As I explained then, and will explain now, I posted that link when you were posting BS diagrams yourself. To make my intent even more obvious, I posted, with that diagram, something to the effect of "I can post misleading info that takes things out of context as well".

Really, I dont see how I could have made that any more obvious and I cant see your "example" as anything more than a attempt to misconstrue what I said - probably in an attempt to avoid my other points. And all this comes from the man who claims flops is a great benchmark.....

Its not like you completely misread something and now look like and idiot