DarkMatterIt doesn't look as good, it doesn't come close, not even in your wettest dream PS fanboy.

it does come close, im looking right at it. and im not a PS fanboy and i dont have wet dreams because im an adult. grow up.

Nor it is the PS2. The ones that come out today for the PS2, I wouldn't call them games of today. I don't care about those crappy games, I left caring back in 2003.

you dont care, but i do.

Say 30 FPS with serious slowdowns to 15 better, in the actual games, wich is what we are talking about, and not Sony PR BS. We both have played the games...

it plays at 60 FPS. im playing the gt5 demo at 1920x1080 at 60 fps....

Keep saying that again and again, maybe someday it will end up being true nowadays. Wich is sad is that today consoles DO use OS that are on par with windows, in crappiness that is.

no they dont...

Also games on next gen consoles are programed on DX9 and OpenGL with heavy use of shaders (preprogramed functions) wich are the same for PC and consoles. Game engines are the same, there isn't any difference RIGHT NOW. Forget about what was true in year 2000, it's almost 2008.

i care. that is the entire reason i started my first post on this thread.

No one gives a shit about PS2. :laugh: And there's also the saddest thing, the PS3 has been desingn as a media center and not a gaming machine. If you were suporting a real console at least...

it wasnt designed to be any one thing. it has multiple uses. does that make it less of a console? maybe to someone who is immature.

And the last thing about $2000 PC, as I said like 100 times. I have been playing games at max with PCs a lot less pricey. Indeed in my whole gaming history 1993-2007 I have spent ~$4000
and that's because I wanted to play at much better games than consoles. If had go mainstream instead of performance, it have been ~$2000.

how can you be playing games at max with a PC less than $2000 ?? look at crysis. a quad core cpu and 8800gtx cannot play that game at 30fps at high res. the same goes for past years and past high end games. this isnt some sort of console versus pc battle. as i stated in my very first post, you can spend 500 bucks and play games at 60 fps at 1920x1080 for the next 5 years and not have to worry about upgrading. you cant say that about the PC.

I've been playing 1024x768 --> 768p since 1997. 1280x960 --> 960p since 2002. As I said most games on consoles run at 720p, most of the ones at 1080p are upconverted from a lower res. So it's been needed 10 years for consoles to catch up in here. That's funny.

it has nothing to do with the consoles "catching up." its that people up until the past year have been playing games on a standard definition television.

Give up. You are not convincing anyone on this forum. PCs are way superior 90% of the time, being the console somehow superior the first 6 months, when the PC components that are better than the ones on the consoles are still expensive. The rest of the lifetime PCs are waaaaaay superior. They are more expensive? Of course dude, Ferraris are better, so they are priced acordingly. But unless Ferraris, Pc components get really cheap in a year. Any PC today is superior to PS3 if you put in it a HD3850 or better graphics card. That is the truth, live with it.

give up what? i dont understand what your point is. why do you have a problem with my initial post of saying that you can spend 500 bucks and play at 1920x1080 at 60 fps? of course if you wanna spend 2000 on a pc every 3 years go right ahead, but i dont see the point when you can spend 500 and not upgrade for the next 5 years, especially when the games for consoles only get better graphically AND the coding for games on the PC is less than optimal. you need to give up thinking this is some battle. if you like upgrading every year to play the best games on max go right ahead. meanwhile, ill be playing my ps3.

Mwahaha! My income is despensible! PC FTW!!! :rockout: PS3 does rock btw.:D

crysis ftw!!!

who said we can't have the best of both worlds, pc and console.

Scrizzdid you up the fan speeds?

Yes I did exactly what I told him to do unplug it from the board and wire it directly.

Its more of an ambient heat an then my psu get warmer etc.... I very honestly don't find the performance increase worth it anymore, simply gets ridiculous.

Considering selling my machine complete to someone right now and maybe even stepping down to a HD3850, but I don't need the newest game running the absolutely best on my machine either.

so if i put my third 8800 in my 680i, will tri-sli be able to work? obviously it would be more effective with the bridge in place, but who has one of those? not me.

how do i save my ultra's bios and flash it to a gtx? PM me ASAP. as soon as i figure it out i can give you guys some benches on my tri-sli.

Rhino it's easy, I have a problem anytime when lies are said, being them intentional or not. And you are spreading lots of BS. The PS3 doesn't run most games at 1920x1080, it does at lower resolutions and then it upconverts (PS, PS2 did the same BTW, that was so obvious when comparing PS2 vs. Xbox at 480p standard resolution, and I'm not supporting neither of those, when Xbox launched was already crap). And by no means does it run at 60fps. It does at 60 Hz which is not the same. As I said, remember that I play on consoles too. I know when a game is running below 30fps on my PC (specially because I can check with fraps) and I know when it runs below on consoles too. I don't know about GT5, but I know about Oblivion, COD4, Bioshock and UT3. Also do you really believe that windows or any OS accounts for a 500% performance penalty? Grow up.

how can you be playing games at max with a PC less than $2000 ?? look at crysis. a quad core cpu and 8800gtx cannot play that game at 30fps at high res. the same goes for past years and past high end games. this isnt some sort of console versus pc battle. as i stated in my very first post, you can spend 500 bucks and play games at 60 fps at 1920x1080 for the next 5 years and not have to worry about upgrading. you cant say that about the PC.

How can I do? I don't know, maybe I'm a sort of wizard or maybe I'm intelligent enough to make good decisions when upgrading. Just as an example, look for my post about my recently reserved 8800GT. Then look at my specs. I purchased that PC for 1200€ almost 2 years ago. Indeed the PC had another 7900GTX in with Zalman VF900 in SLI that I sold for 250€. Are you trying to tell me what can I play or not? Look at this article.

www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/index.html
www.gamespot.com/features/6183499/index.html

Look specially at settings with everything disabled on COD4 you get a 50% boost and you don't loose too many eye candy. The same happens on UT3. I did some image comparisons and PS3 looks like PC with those disabled, plus textures on Medium. And remember that on graphics cards benchmarks they always use maximum settings. I'm sure that if you can't tell the hugh difference between MGS3 and Doom3, all the comparisons there are going to look the same to you, but nevermind.

Until now I have played any game at max settings, except Crysis that I play on medium with shaders, textures and objects on high. With those settings the game looks pretty close to everything on high, but runs a lot faster. With this settings Crysis looks better than COD4 at max, but yeah, let's say I can't play all games.
-But wait!
-Oh! You can't play Crysis on PS3 or any console! :cry:
-Why dude?
-I don't know, buddy. Let's ask Crytek about this. :confused:
-Humm... They said consoles don't have the power to run the game... :banghead:
-OMG :cry:

And as a proof that this is not an isolated game, every game on PS3 are equiparable to MED settings in the PC version and never to High. Cry about this all you want, it's true, it's not our fault if you can't see the difference between MGS3 and the much better (graphicaly, this thread is about graphics) HL2, Doom3 or Farcry. Those games on low, with the propper settings on medium looked better, and run well on a Radeon 7500. Even the Splinter Cell series looked way better on PC. You don't need a $2000 PC to compete with consoles, you need a $2000 PC to compete with a... $2000 PC!!
You are really confused by the people in forums like this, that spend lot's of cash on hardware, but dude, be sure as hell they don't play at 720p 0X AA, 2X/4X AF. They pay the premium to play at much higher settings than most of people. Just as the countless people who paid +$10000 for a PS3, that is a fair comparison.

For me this discussion has finished. It's obvious you don't have the ability to catch graphical differences, nor you have any knowledge about hardware. At least you are not demostrating any. You just keep on repeating the BS Sony spreads. The PS3 was designed to win the HD format war, that's all, and at the same time they filled the gaps with some console parts. I just can't continue argueing with such a tool.
If you are happy with such low IQ, play on a PS2 or play on a PS3 in 2009, when we PC gamers are going to be playing real games. But don't say they are the same, because it's not. I'm a PC gamer. That compares to: I'm a McLaren F1 owner and this is a race. I don't say your Honda is useless, but when it comes to racing, it's crap. Don't try to compare them.

niko084Yes I did exactly what I told him to do unplug it from the board and wire it directly.

Its more of an ambient heat an then my psu get warmer etc.... I very honestly don't find the performance increase worth it anymore, simply gets ridiculous.

Considering selling my machine complete to someone right now and maybe even stepping down to a HD3850, but I don't need the newest game running the absolutely best on my machine either.

if ur selling on of teh 3870's holler.

thanks.

@ DarkMatter

Well said, lad. I'm going to sucker-punch a neighbour on this point who seems to daze of the X360 being a smarter choice than a gaming PC, just because most PC games are ported to the X360 and vice-versa.

I must apologize to everybody for maintaining an offtopic discusion in this thread. I can't promise I won't continue with it (who knows what could be his next BS), but I will try to.

It's that I can't bear liars or those trying to distort reality. I don't say (well I said, but I was altered :p) nextgen consoles are crap today, they are just not as powerful as PCs today and this gap will only grow with years. You won't see me saying my PC is better than consoles, it's on the same level, but you can buy a PC twice as powerful today. Indeed I'm doubling its gaming performance soon (8800GT). Recomending someone with a decent PC to buy a $500 console over a $200 graphics card is just silly. And then there's the MSG3 thing. :banghead:

As I said sorry, I will try to do my best. ;)

EDIT: Hmm... Indeed I have thought it better, and what most bothers me is that he is insulting almost 100% of game developers by saying they don't optimize on PCs, when they spend countless hours and days without any kind of life (you can't call that life) when they enter crunch mode trying to give us players the best experience they can. What a cock!! Damn it!