i really don't know how the ps3 isn't technically superior to the x360. i'll admit that it is much harder to develop for according to what everyone says, but here's a breakdown, if anything's wrong with it, don't flame me, just politely correct me.
i'm not a fanboy now that sega's out of the picture.
graphics: 1. the ps3 has a modded geforce 7, so it can do up to 8XS. The x360
can only do 4x, plus it can't do trss.
2. ps3 has the ability for trilinear filtering; the x360 does only bilinear.
3. the x360 uses unfiltered R10G10B10A2 render targets, which means effects like hdr, aren't potentially as good on the x360, due to the playstation 3's filtered rgba x 16.
4. the x360 unified shader architechture is more efficient, but ultimately slower than the ps3's non-unified shader architecture. think about this:
geforce 8 series have to use 128 unified shaders clocked more than 2.5X higher than 48 in the x360 to be equivalent in shader power to a geforce 7 series (non-unified architechure) with 32 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders.
medium size and loading;
the x360 has a much smaller, much more limiting medium that may run on a faster optical drive, but is ultimately slower b/c it has no hd to fall back on to help load faster.
so, the playstation 3 can effectively load much more data much faster than the x360, so the optical drive speed differences really don't matter.
controller: the x360's wireless controller speed is less than the ps3's. the ps3's is 3mbps, the x360's is less. that means response times will be faster on the ps3.
reliabilty: the ps3 is very reliable, the 360's are cheap busted pieces of shit. look at the stats. it shows that sony listened to the ps2 and ps1 complaints, while microsoft doesn't let you have a reliable system yet they were perfectly capable of it, considering their 1st system. they take something away from you (reliability) from their 1st system to the next and then they charge you more for it.
the cpu: needs no explanation.
