bah.. you people dont get it.. the specs can be as high as ever.. still doesnt change the fact that its all about the games.

I agree. I dont think there is much of a competition there, whether your an AMD person or not. 3 Dual core 3.2s are going to perform better than a single 4000+. the only way that doesnt happen is if microsoft screws up the hardware drivers/configuration and makes the latencies high or something, which, from what ive read about the placement of the video memory with regaurds to the r520, they've done a very good job of avoiding.

Of course, it is always about the games. I never bought a PS2 cause i didnt like the titles. i have a PS1, but only for FF7. Rumor has it that they may rerelease FF7 for the PS3 or XBox360. im buying whichever one, if they do rerelease it. Otherwise, its between the 360 and the revolution for me, cuz i Miss all the N64 launch titles like starfox and goldeneye.

actually starfox 64 came out a couple months after the launch of n64 :)
the rumble pak debuted with it too ;)

lol that pos rumble pack.. good idea - terrible execution (batteries and weight distribution = WTF)

yea.. i remember the online flash videos advertiseing it lol

He was making an exageration. The PS3 isn't using a single 4000+. It's using a CPU called the "Cell" which contains 8 processors that can output 218GFlops, while the 360's 3 dual-core 3.2s put out 115GFlops. (I would definately not mind getting a version of Unix or Linux to run on either of those!) As for graphics power, there is very little consistent information from reliable sources because both are very secretive about the details, especially ATi. The information that is released is very comparable between both and very impressive, however.

This pole shouldn't even exist. PS3 is going to dominate the gaming industry just as it's predecessor gaming units. Heh, it's a joke to think that it's competition will even stand a chance.