All these 'which is better' discussions follow the same patterns which is why the Old Guard of B3D gave up on them as a bad idea many years ago. Seriously, some of us have been debating platforms for 20+ years! We even had comparisons outlawed in another version of the Rules of Engagement.
You can only compare hardware performance across the same games when you can be sure the same investment and expertise is brought to both consoles. It is possible for one platform to have more overall potential for a game than another, but that game on that other console to perform worse than the rival because the hardware wasn't so well used for economic and/or technical reasons.
As such, comparing platform to platform is a very complex task that requires processing a truckload of data. All sorts of games need to be compared across the entire library, exclusives and multi-platforms, the circumstances of each title needs to be weighed in, and lastly the results balanced between 'strengths and weaknesses' of the platforms as it's rare for a platform to be better in every single way.
The only time you can definitively say a platform is better than another is when it clearly is in every way, such as SNES versus NES.
Lastly, to answer the OP's question with a question, and the most important question, why do you want to know? Is it out of curiosity? Then there may not be an answer you like. Is it to validate an emotional connection to a piece of a hardware? Let that go; it's unhealthy. Is it for the joy of discussion? Then move off 'how powerful is a console' as a question and instead think 'how and why does a platform perform as it does on a game' with comparisons only to consider alternative approaches to the same problem as an engineering exercise.
PS3 versus 360 could maybe be summarised as "both were remarkable engineering features using pioneering silicon. They took two diverse approaches to the challenges of producing computer games. XB360 has a more balanced hardware design but with some design considerations that ended up limited as software paradigms progressed. PS3 was difficult to use and had a relatively weak GPU. Both experienced games that managed to tap their potential and produce incredible results, while both also had buffers. UE4 generally ran better on 360. Both had key strengths where they could eclipse the other, but those strengths may not have been particularly useful in actual games."
Or something. There's a meaningful Masters Thesis here, but not a "platform A was more powerful because" answer and it's honestly a complete waste of everyone's time to try to debate that. I won't stop you, but those of us who have done this for 20 years and see the same old arguments and perspectives circle around and around and around can tell you from experience that you won't get anywhere trying to debate the question this way.
