I agree with what you said 100%. Except the GPU relies on the processors especially in fusion systems (both the xbox 360 and the playstation 3 are fusion systems) so if the processor has more cores, it means its more powerful and its easier to multi task with each core doing a specific job and the GPU aiding. Plus if you read the "Xbox 360 vs playstation 3: the hardware throwdown" on IGN it says the Xenos has up to 512 MB GDDR3 RAM (shared w/ system RAM) and the RSX has 256 MB GDDR 3RAM (additional 224 MB can be shared w/ system RAM) which adds up to 480. So like you said the Xenos is a much more modern and easy to use GPU, but the GPU as you may know is not even half responsible for rendering the graphics in a fusion system.

Thats where the CPU comes in. The GPU is responsible for sending what it wants to the processor, so the CPU becomes a big part of what you see on screen. If you don't believe me just look at multiplatform games, the reason they are 95% of the time slightly better or even superior is because of the Xenos GPU which is used heavily in multiplatform games so the developers can easily port from the 360 to the ps3. Which is where you see the ps3's weak GPU in action due to multiplatform games being more reliant on it. Thats why even when a multiplatform game is developed on ps3 then ported to 360 the 360 version will still from a technical standpoint will always be superior no matter what (even if it's not noticeable to the naked eye) just based on the multiplatform development techniques of today. This excludes mass effect 2 and Final fantasy on ps3 where the developers are simply using a completely different engine for each console.

But then when you look at exclusive games like the fantastic looking Alan Wake, Gears of war 3, Uncharted 2, God of war 3 you start to see the best of the best in graphics, which is where the ps3 shines. Exclusive developers want to take advantage of the systems best qualities right? So Microsoft takes advantage of the GPU and Sony takes advantage of the CPU and it's large amount of cores in the Cell processor. So in the end the best looking games end up on ps3 due to the CPU being much more important in the grand scale of things because in fusion systems the CPU handles a majority of what goes on on screen. In the end the better GPu does not mean superior graphics. What I find interesting is the fact that the cell is like our brain in that a lot of it is not used and many developers don't know/ might not ever know how to full optimize it. The Cpu in the 360 however is fully taken advantage of due to the large amount of info coming to it from the GPU. Ps3 CPU specs 3.2 GHz Cell processor, 7 single-threaded cores (plus 1 backup core), Maximum 230 GFlops. Xbox 360 specs 3.2 GHz Xenon processor, 3 dual-threaded cores, Maximum 77 GFlops. The GFlops are the key components in superior graphics (if utilized correctly) and as you may have noticed the ps3 has 3 times the amount of Gflops and that the processors run at the same speed. All the information I have stated can be confirmed in the IGN article I mentioned earlier in this post .

Well here's the thing about RSX and having extra memory. Because CellBE is architecturally tied to the XDR memory, developers can only utilize that memory when CellBE accesses it. In other words when they offload work from the RSX they can then see benefits of having more memory. But the two pools cannot be combined to create a larger memory space for EITHER component. So the game workload still has to comform to those limits.

By architecturally I mean that CellBE is tied to the XDR rambus memory through the FlexIO rambus controller, similarly to how a GPU's memory is tied (or soldered, LOL) to its GPU board.