Fallout 3 was proven to run better / look better on 360 and PS3.
You lot are just ignorant if you think I am lieing. My source of information is
Xbox 360 Vs. PlayStation 3 Graphics Comparison: Now With PC! - Features at GameSpot.
On top of that the 360 is well known to have low level AA due to a cleaver hardware configuration. The PS3 has no such hardware configuration so has to render AA like PCs do so mostly does not.
In the fallout 3 images, you will clearly notice how the PS3 lacks certain reflection effects and has a worse shading on the terrain.
You will also notice how the PS3 suffers from graphic bugs in some games, but that is probably programming's problem and for specifically designed games that shading method would have been avoided so such bugs would not occur.
In all the images, the 360 looks clearer, as unlike the PS3 it has AA (with exception of GTA4).
There is no dought about it, the PS3 still can produce beautiful graphics. But sadly it can not match those of what the 360 is capable of. The PS3 however can use its processor to give a better engine which can result in better effects but generally such programming is avoided in multi platform games. Equally well the 360 could use its extra graphic power to give a more detailed effect.
However, from the programers side, almost all game developers say the PS3 is hard to use properly compaired to the 360.
Thus although 360 games might get more and more tightly optimized graphically (like with the PS2), you may find that the PS3 games are not going to look much better from the end of 2009/2010 until the end of its life.
People also overestimate the PS3's CPU. Just because it is a "cell" does not mean it is better than the 360. It firstly has atleast 1 of its CPU disabled for yield. One of the CPUs is locked for the PS3's OS so is not available to games. The rest then have to shair common recource factors like cache and RAM axcess meaning that they lose great ammounts of speed. The 360 is also multicore I believe, but with fewer bigger cores, this generally means that as only a few threads can run at once, programming is not only easier but also tends to be more efficent as less time is wasted waiting for data or syncronizing. In the end, key factors of both the PS3 and 360's design probably put a very simlar cap on their speeds, meaning they probably preform about equally for average computation.
The PS3 may only out preform with well threaded small tasks as then it could take advantage of cache and the numerous processors to allow for insanly quick processing. The 360 however probably can out preform with large volume data comutation as I would believe that the transfer rates between the RAM and processor are pretty close.
The Halo load time problem is probably due to the maps also being stored on HDD, thus it is having to multitask reading from a HDD which is horriably slow due to mechanical parts and fragmentation. EG, if it reads part of the map, needs a file, it then reads that file then continues with the map and sees it needs another file etc would result in a lot of movement and wasted time so slower transfer rates as it can only read one thing at one time. This could easilly be fixed by restructuring the halo load process to accomidate for the fact that it is getting the data from one source at the same time and not 2.