This guide makes no sense at all. We aren't talking about Crysis-level hardware-crippling graphics here. Using an i7 920 @ 3.6 GHz, 6 gigs and a 4890 and everything runs well at 1920 x 1080 max settings everything.
Very minor differences, if at all. And you really need to a good hard look, which somewhat defeats the point of playing the game if you're just looking at the floor the entire time. Just get the version for the console you have. Simple as that.
SSD drives have poor price-to-performance ratios. Didn't know that a lot of people didn't know about it before but from the comments, it seems a lot of people didn't. At least this Gamesport article was informative in that respect. Also, it isnt exactly speed that helps you load faster, its the HD cache. A HDD with 8mb cache will read and write faster than one with only 2mb. So instead of going for that 7200rpm laptop drive, better get a 5400rpm with 8mb
"Treflis As for the graphics I don't really care if the lightings are a tiny bit better on Xbox, or if you can see 300 miles in game before it turns blurry. I play games for the fact that they're supposed to be fun, sure the graphics are a good bonus if they're great but I'd rather sit down with Doom 2 then a game that had outstanding graphics but were boring to play had I been given a choice. Gameplay before graphics and stability from the console before anything else." Its a graphics comparison and therefore, they would obviously compare the graphics. nowhere is it stated that it was a gameplay comparison.
"Its normal that both consoles will look similar due to fact that they are playing the same game tecnicaly the PS3 is superior but devellopers don't put any effort into improving PS3 visuals over the 360's what gamespot should do is take the requirements exclusives and see if the other console is competent enough to render it. I bet that the Xbox can't handle Killzone 2." Aaahhh....the classic "lazy developer" excuse...
"Sychronised Are these guys even using HDMI for the PS3? I do not know if they stated so, but not only will a HDMI cable and a good LCD Full HD TV deliver better graphics but it unlocks settings (that are only availble with HDMI) that improve picture quality and display." If you had actually read the thread, you would have seen that they used HDMI. "We've upgraded our capture equipment since the previous installments in the series. We captured all 720p images through an HDMI connection and then resized them for use in the article. The fullscreen shots are, of course, shrunk down to fit onto the Web page. The pixels in the zoomed-in shots are 1:1 representations of the original image captures, but cropped to fit our page width. We compressed the images slightly to make them more palatable for the Web, but they haven't suffered too much in terms of quality for it."
a lot of the comments here show the dissappointment of some people about DAAMIT's latest chip. for me, im not entirely dissappointed since i knew a month or so ago that the Phenom really wasnt that phenomenal to begin with. im not saying its slow, its actually much faster than any of DAAMIT's prior chips. its just that it isnt as fast as the Chipzilla's older chips, much less the newer ones. that being said, i will stand by my earlier statement that for DAAMIT to compete with Chipzilla this round, DAAMIT has to do either or all of these things: a. lower the prices and make their offerings truly bang for the buck b. lower power consumption even further c. both a and b combined other than these things, i don't know what else DAAMIT can do to keep up with Chipzilla's Core 2 ace.
sean_ph's comments