On a less scientific note, though, I like PS3 because it's quiet, and I hate 360 because it's so damn noisy! The noise, though, can be alleviated a bit by installing games onto its hard drive, which is now possible thanks to NXE. The PS3, though - you really have to wait till someone does a comparison of a multiplatform game, because while I'd love to have more games for PS3, most of them look better on 360 (Fallout 3 being the latest example, and before that - Brothers in Arms, which graphically looks the same on both consoles, but the frame rate on PS3 is horrible, and Star Wars: Force Unleashed, which again I've played on the PS3, but its 360 version has by far much better graphics, and Call of Duty 4 and so on, and so forth). It's nice to see the titles like Dead Space, which looks just as good on PS3 as it does on 360. Mirror's Edge, however, while being primarily developed on the PS3 as a lead platform, looks better on 360 (albeit, has some insignificant frame rate issues). Anyway, I'm going to BestBuy now, to swap my 360 for a newer one - hopefully the one that has the new Jasper chipset in it (uses much less power and runs much cooler and, therefore, much quieter).

PS3 simply has half the memory than 360 does (512M in 360, shared system/video, plus 10mb super fast frame buffer memory, versus 256 system and 256 video on PS3), and its BluRay drive is half the speed of the 360 DVD drive (9 MB/s vs. 16 MB/s), so game developers have to compromise in image quality on the PS3 to provide for a tolerable loading time (without installation on the hard drive) and to be able to fit all the textures in the video memory. The problem with the PS3 is that you have to move textures from the system memory to the video memory, which takes time. On the 360 you don't need to do that - the memory is shared. Also, 360 has the 10mb frame buffer, meaning all frames are rendered into that memory and then displayed onto the screen from there, which PS3 does not have and have to, again, use part of its already small amount of memory for the frame buffer. Also, 360 is easier for game developers to develop for, because it offers 3 general use CPUs, while the PS3 has only _ONE_ general use CPU and six specialised CPUs, which crunch numbers very fast, but are generally useless for gaming. So PS3 is a good _computer_, to crunch a lot of numbers - like it does for the Folding@Home, but is not very good _gaming_ console, because its number crunching capabilities are mostly useless for gaming (you could, probably, use one or two of them for some calculations, but 6 of them??? makes no sense). Again: while PS3 is a very powerful machine, it's NOT very well suited for gaming. All its power is misdirected.