Why all the negativity about this article? The Slim uses a standard issue HDD which makes it POSSIBLE to install a SSD. Is it worth it? No. But the point of the article was to find out. The results are about the same as last year's PS3 test. In the Conclusion section, the article clearly states that they "wouldn't recommend doing so until the prices are more in line with performance expectations". They can afford to try it out so we don't have to. It's a good thing! (Someone below complained that GS is biased towards the 360 this generation and cited previews being mostly 360 versions as their "proof". Which version of an unreleased game they get is really up to the devs. The PS3 is known to be harder to program, so it could just be that during the development cycle the 360 versions look a little more polished and are used for that reason. By release the differences are always minor. From what I have seen GS is extremely balanced in its coverage. The simple fact is that Sony dropped the ball early this generation and the coverage simply reflects that. As Sony has ramped up its "Hail Mary for the PS3" price cut/branding effort for the Slim, the coverage from all the big game sites has been more positive.)

@Blaze_Hrimfaxi Yes, I am aware that this is a graphics comparison. As I noted, the graphical differences are minor and not worth picking one version over another for (despite one being just as inferior as one version of Dragon Age was). I was arguing for consistency from gamespot in my first paragraph. The main reason that I mention Dragon Age is that the difference I see graphically appears to be the exact same one (with the consoles reversed). It isn't textures or crispness that I see as differentiating the 2 versions, it is that the colors on the PS3 screen seem (to use Gamespot's words about Dragon Age 360) "washed out". After stating that the graphical differences were not enough to recommend one version over the other, I mentioned the one factor that could tip the scales- highlighting that graphics were not that factor. As for me, I'm enjoying Borderlands WAY too much to get into MW2 right now anyway.

While the differences are minor between the two console versions, I think Gamespot needs some consistency. (And maybe to add "Gamespot" to their spell-checker.) The PS3 shots here look just as bad compared to the 360 shots as the 360 shots of Dragon Age: Origins did compared to the PS3 shots of that game. The difference? They knocked half a point off the 360 score for it on Dragon Age. Some games look better on the 360; some on the PS3. The differences are usually minor, but if you are going to knock points off the review of one, you should do the same for the other. The 360 is clearly the way to go with MW2, though. PC gamers need to make sure publishers know that the $60 price point (not to mention the weakened MP options) is unacceptable, so it drops to third automatically. As for the two consoles, it isn't the graphics that tip it to the 360, but the strength of XBL.

The 360 is the clear winner, but it isn't a blowout. The article fairly praises both systems and highlights how small MOST of the differences are. Overall, the 360 has slightly better graphics on common games. Very few people are going to decide anything based on that anyway, unless they are Rainbow Six fanatics (ouch for Sony there). The deciding factors for the still uncommitted will be price and exclusives. MGS freaks will buy a PS3. Those anticipating Fable 2 will buy an Xbox. Most other people are going to go with the one that drops its price first. The Xbox is still the better value right now (the $399 PS3 is a glorified Blu-Ray player). Son'y problem is that they probably won't be able to match Microsoft's price drops. And the way the economy is going, that is going to matter.

But, fastpunk, I would argue that they don't really bring AMD any closer. These tests pit Phenom against old technology. Yorkfield and Wolfdale are hitting the stores around the same time as Phenom. By the time K10 is ready to show its muscle, Intel will be just about ready with their Yorkfield and Wolfdale replacements. I personally prefer Intel chips, but was hoping for more from AMD to keep Intel on the ball and keep prices down. Sadly, I just don't see Phenom doing this. Even though I plan to stick with Intel for the foreseeable future, I want AMD to do better than this to keep Intel from slouching and overcharging.

So, these ultra-hyped AMD Intel killers are being outperformed by the old Core 2's? Intel will have a full line of their replacements for these chips on the market before AMD gets chips with a fix for the critical bug on the market. This does nothing to keep the heat on Intel. AMD has fallen a step behind and the Phenom merely maintains the status quo. Hopefully the lackluster Phenom won't slow down the CPU performance progress that a horse race always brings.