PS3 has the cell CPU which is more powerful than anything intel has released. It also has a powerful nvidia GFX card which performs on par with an 8800GTX for some games, also PS3 has faster RAM.PS3_N1

You're joking right? Link that says the PS3's GPU is as powerful as an 8800GTX? Only half of the PS3's ram is faster, and that's the ram that it has to move to use for graphics, so that's kind of a waste right?

[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]If GEoW was a 9.6 because of its visuals, than WTF happened to Uncharted?finalfantasy94

what happened? gamespot happened. Uncharted and R&C are probably the worst reviews they did in their entire existance.

then how do you explain virtually every other reviewer giving Gears higher scores than uncharted and r&c?

Its called multiplayer. Thats why it scored higher. Also it did the whole cover system(even though kill switch did it before gears) with nice graphics. I mean thats the only reason that would make sense. I mean both gears and uncharted are short games and they both look good(uncharted looks better imo and other review sites opinion)

Sorry bud, you just contradicted yourself. First you say Gears only scored high because it looked good. Now you're saying it's because it had good multiplayer too; after you said you didn't like the multiplayer. Try again... :(

[QUOTE="beatzfreak69"]

the HDD is trash

the case is trash

the "micro-ATX" mb is trash

there's no OS

you fail...

Oh yeah, and the 360, PS3 and Wii will play every game that comes out for them at "max" settings; will that computer do that for atleast 3 more years?.....NO

pieatorium

No but that argument fails, I've said this before but why is it ok that a console can play games at lowered resolutions and framerates with no AA (lol "max") but when we talk about PC gaming a pc is considered **** if you do the same and get some longevity out of your hardware. You can't have it both ways guys either medium settings, no AA and 30 fps with drops is fine and good or pc's dont need to be upgraded every year with the latest hardware.

Most of the newer games have some sort of AA...even if it's only x2. I play my games at 1080i...whether it's scaled or not. Either way, the game is "optimized" to be played at those settings. Tell me crysis is meant to be played on medium settings with no AA....please. That PC, would have to be upgraded within 6 months...tell me otherwise on that too please.

the HDD is trash

the case is trash

the "micro-ATX" mb is trash

there's no OS

you fail...

Oh yeah, and the 360, PS3 and Wii will play every game that comes out for them at "max" settings; will that computer do that for atleast 3 more years?.....NO

The initial buy-in is higher, even though they level out in the long run.

PCs weren't designed solely for games, so it takes a lot more hardware to do similar things.

PC game developers have to worry about scaling their games so that they play on an infinite number of hardware/software combinations.

The lack of a few genres has been made apparent.

Oh yeah, and my father's a senior manufacturing engineer and doesn't know how to fix his PC. :lol:

I mean everytime I installed a driver from ATI. Well almost everytime. I would get some kind of error in the middle of the darn thing. With Nvidia I have yet to have a problem with them. I do own 3 Nvidia Cards and 2 ATI cards. baddogjmh

That's odd....I've never had a problem with ATI's drivers. :D

It came with this tower: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129024

RawDeal_basic

Definately go aftermarket PSU with that setup. I have the OCZ gamestream700 and I love it. It's about 100 dollars now, it's worth the price.