Part of the article that is somehow missed ~

"General framebuffer set-up is exactly as DICE claims - on PS3 at least. Here, resolution is definitely 1280x704, with tiny black borders top and bottom. We were expecting the same on Xbox 360 after a tweet from DICE's rendering architect, Johan Andersson, but the borders are absent on the Xbox 360 version. Perhaps it's full res, perhaps it's been upscaled"

So that could be the reason the 360 "seems" to have less tearing etc...because it is possible it is at a lower resolution. Maybe not, as it might actually be full res but this is something still yet to be proven. Either way this part is what I take out of the whole discussion ~

"Based on the "beta-ness" of the multiplayer demo, final conclusions on the quality of the two console versions can't really be judged at this time. The overall feeling you get from playing both builds back-to-back is that the two games are virtually interchangeable - in terms of both the good and bad. We see some minor, inconsequential lighting differences, and the 360 has a few texture streaming issues, but overall it's quite remarkable how close they are bearing in mind how much DICE has put into getting the most from the PS3 Cell processor's ultra-fast SPUs."

The last 4 paragraphs of the article really explain the overall view a lot better and is what needs to be emphasized. Not Console A is better than Console B when it's not even retail yet.

I feel the same way. The game runs and plays and looks great.

i think it will be bug free and the graphical glitches will be cleaned up. anybody expecting the graphics to somehow get leeps and bound better is an ignorant turd, but it is prob those same people who thought the consoles would look as good as pc. as of now its graphics easily compete with the top games, are they the best though, no. are they bad? not even close just not as good as the pc or some console exclusives.....