I vote for Floydsters.. Beatles are just nowhere near the almighty Floyd, I'm afraid. I never heard anything by Beatles close to Bike, Flaming, Matilda Mother, Lucifer Sam, Astronomy Domine, Gnome, Interstellar Overdrive, Echoes, Cymbaline, Burning Bridges, Grandchester Meadows, full live side of Ummagumma, Time, Shine On, Dogs, WYWH (the song), Hey You, Is there anybody out there, AHM, Fat Old Sun. Each of these songs, to my ears, outweigh the complete catalogue of Beatles. The only thing Beatles were good at were syrupy songs like Strawberry Fields, As my guitar gently weeps, and the like; imnsho, Granchester Meadows is gentler and more truthful; it is immeasurably sweet yet tasteful.
Helter Skelter, Oh Darling!? Try the Nile Song, Careful with that Axe, Eugene! (To be fair, Oh Darling is perhaps the best Beatles song, and as such not a bad one at all). Anything on Piper will make Revolution #9 sound like Justin Timberlake, which it is.
My theory about Beatles is that Lennon could be a really decent, maybe even great musician. Once he woke up to the fact that Beatles are - not where it's at - he showed some teeth, at last: */me hums working class hero*. Alas, most of his energy and life were spent on Beatles. Look what McCartney amounted to by himself!! Ram, Band on the run.. that's what every beatles album would be like if not for John.
My theory on PF is, in fact, that neither Waters nor Gilmour were really talented. Yeah, I know, it's mad. You might ask, how did they manage to pen some of the best rock music in history if they were not talented? I don't know, but I think Roger felt like he had to prove Syd and the world that he could make real music, too, and he felt it so strongly that he overcame his lack of talent for, roughly, the next ten years. I don't think a talented musician could do something like KAOS, Amused to Death, Pros and Cons. Lennon would not do something as bad. Lennon did have talent, and yet he failed to accomplish anything close to Pink Floyd.
Pink Floyd was probably the best rock band in history and yet it was a fluke - an aberration caused by friction between too-mad Syd and not-mad-enough-to-have-musical-genius Roger, with some nice chops thrown in by Dave. Don't get me wrong, Roger was a great musical artisan, and he was thrown into space orbit by Syd's unstable talent like a satellite is launched by a booster rocket.
I believe 3 mediocre-at-best Roger's solo albums prove that (well, you can add The Final Cut and parts of Wall, too), exactly in the same way as Paul's solo work proves that he had nothing to do with rare good work that came out of the Beatles.
Now for some disclaimers ;-). I greatly respect both Beatles and Roger, yadda yadda, didn't mean to poop on anyone's breakfast, didn't mean to ruin the mood of anyone who thinks Beatles are the neatest thing since second coming, and so forth. Best Regards! Just enjoyin' the music..