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.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/index.html
http://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!
-Why dude?
-I don't know, buddy. Let's ask Crytek about this.
-Humm... They said consoles don't have the power to run the game...
-OMG
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.
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...
PS3 does rock btw.
![[I.R.A]_FBi](https://tpucdn.com/forums/data/avatars/l/39/39344.jpg?1384761935){kind=avatar}
) 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. 