Ok, I see a couple of problems with this guy's essay. One, he doesn't really go into the RSX in detail AT ALL. It would be fair to have the same guy go through the RSX as he did with the ATi GPU and then draw a more leveled estimation. Certainly he's using what Sony has already published as hardware facts but I still don't buy that the ATi card is that much more powerful than the RSX, if it is at all.
Now the edram @ 256gb/sec is astounding and I see how it alleviates the bottlenecking that most cards have with anti-aliasing and the other texture smoothers.
Lastly, there is no other system in production that utilizes the cell (even the PS3 doesn't utilize the processor properly at this juncture. Launch titles rarely push a system to its limits). While the essay is filled with facts about the 360, in no way does it really prove that the 360 is superior to the PS3. It, again, states the obvious "ATi card this, GPU that" but until there is a paper that knows what the RSX is capable of, what it does, and what it has built in, I will only accept this as what the 360 is capable of.
You're a dumbass if you think the 360 isn't capable of amazing graphics. That's a jab at the Sony fanboys. But you're also a dumbass to think that the RSX and moreover, Sony, didn't look into this in advance. Remember, they've had a good 9 months or longer to sit on what the 360 can provide. I doubt they would release a system that they'd say is better on paper but in fact, shows nothing in real life.
