residude. Gamespot used a direct capture system that takes the footage straight off the HDMI output of each system. There are two reasons it looks better on your setup. One is that your TV settings are set in a manner that you don't see the difference, and the second and main reason is that you probably have RGB set to Full instead of Limited, which is default. GS probably went default(as they should) which is why it looks different. It's really not that much of a difference and nothing that playing with some settings couldn't adjust.

Concerning a comment below...the Cell will not be able to help the RSX push significantly better graphics. Write speed to memory is too slow and with fixed 256MB system and 256MB video RAM there would be major bottlenecking. Any benefits would be outweighed by loss of frame-rate and resolution. 90% of games on the PS3 and 360 run 720p. Nobody argued that the RSX(Nvidia) couldn't do antialiasing at the same quality level as the Xenos(ATI). Everything is give and take. If you enable true 4xAA then you lose big concerning frame-rate, resolution, and shader quality. Of course 500million polys and even 250million polys aren't realistic. Those are theoretical numbers, not in game. A good engine on the 360 or PS3 would top of at 1-2 million polygons on-screen simultaneously. Check this link and compare resolutions and AA specs. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 Most notable is the fact that GTA 4 on the PS3 runs 1152x640 with no AA. On the 360 it runs 1280x720 with 2xAA. Also, Assassin's Creed on PS3 1280x720 with QAA, 360 1280x720 with 2xAA. There are at least 5 other games that don't even use AA on the PS3, while the 360 versions use 2xAA. The 360 offers better AA performance without loss to other effects, because of the 10MB embedded DRAM. I've always found Nvidia to have superior AA to ATi, but concerning the PS3 you would be looking at too much of a performance loss to enable it. *EDIT*Also it has been shown the ANA scaler in the 360 is not used for upscaling, that is done on the Xenos. The last part about the Wii sucks...how does that apply to a graphics comparison between the PS3 and 360?

There are very few games that run native 1080p, so showing comparisons in that res would be pointless and illogical. I can't remember the OP who put this link up, but it's very useful in showing how GS is correctly perform this comparison. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241. The PS3 is know to have more CPU power for FLOPS, but the 360 has better power for running game code. Graphics come down to the GPU. The Xenos GPU is more flexible and accessible which results in better power for graphics. The RSX has good texture power, but it can't quite compete with the 48-unified shader pipes and 10MB embedded DRAM in the 360. These systems are almost exactly equal. The PS3 is 10% more powerful if you optimize for an extra year, but that's money and time lost. The reason these screens look different is because it is highly likely the PS3 is set to RGB Limited not RGB Full. Gamespot is not biased, they showed the truth. Direct captures done through HDMI, no TVs involved. PS3 = 360. It's that simple.

Also, concerning 360 fans enjoying their relics...what about Gears of War 2, Ninja Gaiden 2, and Fable 2? Are those games so horrible in graphics and gameplay that a person would feel bad about having a 360? Also, most people knew that they would be paying for Live before they bought the 360. If they wanted free online service of equal or better quality than the PS3 then they would play games on the PC with a $150 Geforce 8800GT. Live offers incredible value such as achievements, unique/recoverable gamertags w/stat tracking, 100s of movies(even HD), and tons of cool XBLA games. What's so bad about that?

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

DeltaCobra is very funny, I congratulate him. He makes an interesting point concerning the fact that Sony was pushing "Full-HD" and even the original PS3 demo units had Dual-HDMI ports, like it could run two 1920x1080 screens at once. What ever happened to that? It is a fact that 95% of games on the PS3 and 360 run in 720p native and then are upscaled to 1080p. Even MSG4 runs in 720p. What happened to the dual-hdmi 1080p? XBOX 360=1 teraflop PS3=2 teraflops Xbox 360 = 500 million polygons PS3 = 250 million polygons

The 360 GPU is actually slightly more powerful than the PS3 GPU. The PS3 Cell CPU is indeed much more powerful than the 360 GPU when it comes to FLOPS. However, the 360 CPU is much more power when it comes to general purpose power, like real game code. Unless you are wanting to run a particle simulation on the PS3 the Cell does not matter to your gaming experience, with the exception that a developer wants to run real-life physics for a flame-thrower burning somebody's skin. We can only hope and wait. P.S.- Please leave nnn2004 alone. There is no reason to reinforce stereotypes attributed to people who speak English. He has just as much right to voice his opinion as anybody else.

I think that in the long run the main people who are being victimized by this article are PS3 fans who do not own 360s. They know that, when properly optimized for, the PS3 is indeed 10% more powerful than the 360. They know that because of the difficulty of programming for an asymmetric cpu, many of these games are not up to quality with the 360 because developers have to meet a deadline. They know that 360 gets exclusive games first like Bioshock, Dead Rising, and Mass Effect because it is easier to develop for the 360. They are getting the shaft, but once MSG4 comes out the whole world will tremble under the might of the PS3. It's very unfair that comparisons like this have to cause them the trouble of getting on GS and proving it wrong. Just flip the RGB Limited to Full! That's why they look different! What is the deal here?

No, I am saying that if you like driving on the right side, that you should instead like driving on the left. This all depends on perspective. Perhaps you should turn around and go to England. Just do not do what you want. Do what you do not want. This will change many quadrillions of times throughout the next 10 minutes.

I think people should like the opposite of what they like. If you like chocolate, then you should instead like vanilla. I you like vanilla, then you should instead like strawberry, but not chocolate, because other people are saying chocolate is better. This does apply because not all people like the same style of lighting and shading. A certain person may prefer better anti-aliasing over superior shading. Or another person may want a better frame-rate instead of AA. In the end you should go for what you don't want, and then try to justify it to yourself by posting words on the interweb. Don't like that, unless you already don't like it, then, in that case...like it. I'm not sure I know what this means, but I'm positive you do.