No. When it comes to FLOPS, the CPU was around 100% more powerful in PS3's case, while the GPUs were roughly comparable (on paper, in reality Xenos was far more advanced), with Xenos having a slight advantage according to Microsoft's figures, and being even weaker according to some other suggestions made at the time. That's more than the rumored floating point processing power difference we have here.
If you're gonna call me wrong at least look up the specs lol.
PS3= Cell 210 GFLOPS theo max +
RSX(24 * 27Flops * 550MHz)" Pixel Shader side +( 8 *10Flops * 550) on the vertex side == 400 GFLOPs(in reality this is about ten percent less because RSX shipped at 500MHz)
360 = Xenon - 115GFLOPS + Xenos, which is too hard to compare to G70 because of architecture differences but suffice to say its no where near 50%. Don't buy into PR.
REMEMBER CITADEL said:It wasn't just the bandwidth, it's far more complicated than that. The CPUs were incomparable, the GPUs didn't really belong to the same generations, they had different memory organization and so on. We'll see how close or far apart Durango and Orbis are in terms of architecture when we get (a lot) more data.
Of course its not the only thing, but its far and large the biggest choker on the system. Its not complicated at all. PS3 had low usable memory for the GPU, slow drive bitrates, and low overall BW. Not efficient at all and not comparable to these rumored systems.