I hope this thread get's locked and the topic creator gets sent to hell to be Satans bitch,because this topic will lead into a flame war which will ultimately rip a black hole and suck whole GR community in it.
Im not fanboy, i do own a 360 and as of right now with the current games, the 360 has better graphics.
it in part depends greatly on which game engine is used. while ATI based GPU solutions tend to do a better job of Anisotropic filtering and antistropic filtering, quite a few game engines are optimized towards nVidia's G60-g70 architecture. at this time though, I'd probably have to say that the Xbox's Xenos GPU has an edge over the PS3's RSX GPU in a majority of situations based off of the performance in PC gaming. in terms of a capacity standpoint, RSX cannot do HDR and AA simultaneously, so on a PS3 either the edges will be jaggy, or the lighting will be subpar. again it is situational but I'm feeling that Xenos is the better GPU and that the memory subsystem on the Xbox is a bit better optimized towards gaming.(512mb shared DDR3 RAM @ DDR3-1400 on a 128 bit bus plus 10mb eRAM dedicated for Xenos vs 256mb R RAM on a 128 bit bus) albeit it varies by the situation, the size of the working data set and what's being done. also, Xenos is just beginning to be better utilized, it was the first mass produced unified shader GPU, and most programming was and is still being done in the conventional manner based towards fixed shader architectures. When properly programmed for, Xenos should be around 10-30% faster than a Radeon X1800XT(albiet it would exhibit scaling behaviot much mroe similar to an x1950XT), RSX is essentially a mobile 7800GTX essentially take that, add 20% to the frame rate on the x1800XT and compare with a 7900GT http://www.techspot.com/reviews/hardware/n...e7900gt-3.shtml it's a toss up/is close in many cases, but overall Xenos is slightly ahead another matter besides the GPUs is the memory architecture. in games with very small working sets, or ones which mostly access relatively little memory at a time, the xbox will have a huge advantage, when the working data set is medium sized and the memory access is fairly random, the PS3 pulls ahead, but when the working set is rather large, the xbox pulls ahead as it would need to access the disk a lot less.
Why don't you instead just go to one of the zillion ps3/xbox 360 forums out there and read for yourself. Noone needs to see another one of these dumb ass threads.
as a rule of thumb, people are finding that the xbox 360 has better lighting, smoother edges, less texture shimering and better anisotropic filtering while the PS3 has higher resolution textures and more fluid physics(object movement). frame rates are typically a bit higher on the xbox though.