PS3 technically is better when used right than the 360, not to say that makes a better game, but i cant help feeling my Mass effect on 360 if on my PS3 would run just that bit better, at least when i see the textures on faces taking forever to appear i think that.

I love the way EA say "we" when they mention Burnout development. Burnout was developed by Criterion, who have always been uber-talented at getting the most out of PlayStation technology. To effectively lump them in with all the other EA development teams- and I am talking specifically about the EA in-house team who ballsed up Half Life 2 on PS3- is well cheeky in my opinion.

Actually no the PS3 is not technically better that just is impossible the reason being is the PS3 uses 96mb of its total 512mb RAM which I might add is 2 completely different type of memory and its GPU is around 1yr behind in technology over the 360 GPU.

The 360 memory is unified 1 type no bottlenecking unlike the PS3. The 360 only uses 32mb of the total 512mb available ram.

The GPU in the 360 has a unified shader, HDR+AA and 10mb EDRAM.

The 360 CPU is a 'gaming CPU' at heart and designed solely to function and calculate better for gaming as opposed to the PS3 CELL which is desgined for complex data calculation of programs rather than games.

So when you look at which console has more memory, more advanced GPU and put that in with a better designed CPU for gaming in mind the Xbox 360 overall is better technically for what it was meant to do - play games.

I'd tell you to go end get a clue, but that would make you dangerous.

I've explained to you many times, using actual figures to back up my points, that the 360 and PS3 GPUs are pretty similar in power. I'm not going to do it again, if you can't appreciate facts and figures and just keep repeating your fanboy-induced internet memes then I'm not going to waste my time posting facts over and over.

What I am going to take issue with is your laughable assertion that the 360's CPU is somehow a "gaming" CPU. This is such absolute horseshit that it deserves to be laughed out of town on a donkey.

The 360's CPU (Xenon) is three Power PC cpu's duct-taped together. It's like a small network of Macs from three years ago. There is nothing in its design that has any bearing on games. Nothing was added or enhanced, in fact the CPU is limited to in-order execution which means it can't execute parallel processes effectively if they rely on each other. You can't figure out the the answer to a problem until you need the answer.

Many modern CPUs will allow out of order execution where small simple tasks can be scheduled into the spaces between larger tasks even if their answers aren't needed for a while. This is exceptionally useful for physics and AI programming, speeding them up by quite a way.

Needless to say, physics and AI are areas that modern games make use of quite a lot. Physics is also an area that that the Cell is very good at. So in this instance, the Cell is a better "gaming" CPU than the Xenon.

Get some facts before you start squirting out your comments, it may make people treat you better if you contribute to a discussion once in a while instead of being our own little window onto the fanboy world.

Why are you such a Pleb? the 360 CPU wasnt designed for gaming, its a Power PC Chip x 3 which have been around a lot longer than the original xbox, the 360 has a lot of RAW power but it cant calculate to save its arse unless its told to do so, the cell on the other hand was designed with multiple calculations and random choices on its own!

if anythign the Cell was designed for something specific unlike the 360 but all i was saying was that maybe Mass Effect may run a little better on PS3 than on 360. i didnt need your fanboyistic bollox facts schmacks explaination,