something that is always getting left out of these arguements are facts. let's look at a couple. keep in mind too that i'm only talking about multi-platform games because exclusive titles can be tailored to fit the system in what ever way they're needed.
the ps3 uses a Cell processor that runs at 3.2 ghz, the same speed as the xbox xenos processor. the xenos uses 3 cores to run the games and the OS while the Cell uses only one core to run both. the xbox comes with 512 mb of ram compared to only 256 mb on the ps3 dedicated to gaming. the xbox has 1mb of cache memory while the ps3 only has 512kb of cache space. so far no huge differences but then comes the frame rate. the xbox can process 500 million polygons per second compared to the ps3 and it's 275 million polygons per second. polygons are the triangles used to make images in games and as a reference point, a car in a racing game such as need for speed which puts emphasis on the looks of it's cars, uses a minimum of 10,000 polygons per car and up to over 20,000 per car, so the more detail to a game, the more polygons. this translates out to roughly 60 frames per second on the xbox compared to 30 fps on the ps3. this is one reason most reviewers of the systems give the xbox the lead in graphics and how smooth the game plays. i don't have the stats on the wii so i can't compare it. when you turn to power usage, the wii is much better. for a system left on ALL the time, the ps3 will run you about $134 a year, if you bought it after 2007 but will run you up to $160 a year if you have the older model. the xbox will run you $104 a year, after 2007 model, and $143 if older. the wii will only cost you about $10 a year if left on all the time, which is better than the xbox and ps3 even turned off which rates out at $10 and $11 respectively. hopefully some stats will help with this debate, but i seriously doubt it.