So would the 360 be able to handle it?

Most of what you're saying is true (and obvious to someone who knows the architecture of a computer), but just because a developer may favor a 3 core processor does not always make it the best CPU for the task(s) in question.

Actually the efficiency of the processing makes the 3 better than the 4. The fact that the processor hangs on the 4th core to complete the cycle gives the 3 a faster compile rate leaving it ahead of 4 core parts.

I'll rephrase that, experienced developers/software engineers/programmers/designers/etc prefer it, it's the design of the actual processor allowing for faster compile rates. Unless you dump 3 quad cores into a 12 core array it's not really going to change that. Trying to use the logic of "4 > 3 so 4 must be better regardless" is pretty much for those grasping at straws to hold some attempt at steady ground.

*bleep* that, everyone knows it's all about Socket 754.

All I want to know is whether or not the 360 has the power to run Crysis at a respectable quality level, not all these processor analogies.

Given the difference in ability of the PPE structure it should have no real reason as to why it can't do it. Of course the game is going to be reduced to some level on either system because of texture overhead being so huge in game. It should still look quite nice though given that the 360 is using programmable shader units such as we see in DX10 titles.

With enough invested time there's no reason that if they're serious that it couldn't be ported properly to both systems.

It's just that I find it weird how the Cell is supposed to allow greater detail and such, but it always seems like the 360 can do whatever te Cell can, sometimes more.

Me a fanboy? Haha no i was just stated what i thought was right, so *bleep*.

Yeah sort, you idiot. She's a fangirl

No one really knows I'd say.

We haven't seen someone exploit the full potential of what the 79xx series could do and we haven't see someone exploit the full potential of something like an R6xx before. They both use different graphic calls (OpenGL vs DirectX) and ultimately have better driver optimization than anything normal consumers saw in the marketplace.

If I said the ATI GPU in the 360 wins because that's how hardware advanced, that could be total bs, maybe games don't need programmable shader units and can do fine with fixed numbers. We just don't know at this point and we might never know. Maybe the RSX does exceptionally well in cloud rendering but if a game never does it, we'll never know. It's problematic and people like to instantly assume that because something came out later, it's better.

As far as the CPU goes, CELL dominates the console market with it's CPU design. (Funny enough the CELL uses a single PPE core in a little bit different config from the 360 as it has to handle calls from the SPU's)

I guess in the end it's just more of a point to say, no one knows what either console is really capable of until we see developers throw down the gauntlet. One of the biggest things the 360 has against it is drive cache, games need space, crysis needs a boatload of it to unpack itself and that could end up being a deciding factor.