I understand that gaming on a desktop is considered the best way to go by some, but I have already decided that I would like to get a laptop to play games on, so what would b the best option for me?

Okay, so I have found myself faced with four different options. The first option is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M, and the second is the GeForce GT 525M, which is the graphics card that u get w/ the $800 base configuration of the newest version of the Dell XPS 15 laptop. The third option is the AMD Radeon HD 5650M, which seems to be a very popular GPU these days, and is available in a $780-ish VAIO I am looking at. The fourth and final option is the AMD Radeon HD 6630M, which is apparently brand new, and theoretically a lower-clocked 5650M. The 6630M comes in a VAIO C series that is around $830-880-ish depending on the hard drive configuration. I will tell you up-front that I have absolutely no interest in overclocking any of these. I don't really give a flying one about "high-end" graphics cards, because I consider graphics that play all the games I wanna play on the settings I like to be top-tier anyways.

The first question I have is which should perform best in the following games at a resolution of 1360x768 or higher at what settings ( as well as games w/ similar system requirements) and is it relatively futureproof as a mid-range card:

- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

- Call of Duty: Black Ops

- BioShock 1&2

- Mass Effect 1&2

- Crysis 2

- F.E.A.R. 1,2&3

- Dragon Age II

- Singularity (probably doesn't require much of a powerful comp)

- The Witcher 2

The second question I have is: I own an HP Pavilion Elite e9260f desktop PC. It has a quad-core first-generation Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.66 GHz, 8GB DDR3 RAM, 1 TB hard drive, SuperMulti DVD burner w/ LightScribe Technology, Wireless LAN 802.11 A/B/G/N, NVIDIA GeForce GT230 w/ 1.5 GB dedicated graphics memory + DVI and HDMI capabilities + Microsoft DirectX 10.1 support, and Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OS.

What performance will these cards have, respectively, with a dual-core second-generation Intel Core i5-2410M with Turbo Boost 2.0, compared to this current PC I just mentioned?

A few things need mentioning.

First is accessibility. Let's be honest. The majority of people who play on consoles do so because it is easy, shiny, fast, conforms to what their friends are doing, and it is marketed like hell. The PC platform isn't like that quite yet, but I feel confident that accessible solutions like consoles will become more mainstream as time goes by. There is already evidence of this happening. Think of Microsoft Windows. Apple's Mac OS has always been the easy-to-use operating system for people who don't *want* to tinker with the OS much to make it work. Windows has been far more cryptic, but is becoming very much the standard in ordinary middle-class households due to its excellent compatibility and also due to how much easier it has become to use. Its new graphical layout is easier to navigate, and things are put in more conspicuous places.

This leads me to my next point. A lot of people do *not* *want* to know all about their PC's hardware, they just want the simple solution so they can plug and play. This is why consoles are popular. This is what makes the audience so large, and the large audience makes developers and publishers very interested in the platform. The reason consoles have exclusives is not to *make* it a good option economically, exclusives come to consoles because they are *already* the most economical option for the businessmen who require a profit to stay in business. it usually is not the other way around, even though that may occasionally be the case (to a certain extent). People will subscribe to TiVo or buy a new Macintosh computer because, even if it is more expensive, it is easier to use. Accessibility has become a commodity, unfortunately for consumers.

My next point is that integrated graphics would be better than dedicated graphics if they had the power to play high-end console-like games, because integrated graphics take up *much* less space, and are cheaper to build and sell. A computer with good integrated graphics would cost less than a computer with a dedicated graphics card of equivalent performance.

Another point is that some people believe consoles will always be popular due to 'exclusive' features, instead of exclusive games. They make arguments along the lines of " Well, the Xbox 360 has LIVE, and PCs don't have LIVE, so Xboxes are better!" This is not true in the slightest. The PC has Steam, Windows LIVE, EA Online Store/ EA online accounts, BioWare's social network, and so on. The PC actually has FAR MORE options in terms of accessible and elegant online solutions. Plus they don't require a subscription. Or, of course, there is the option of simply buying a game without using any type of online platform, playing through the game's own servers without bells and whistles. There you have it. The network isn't a good reason to become a console gamer. It's a reason to be a PC gamer.

Of course educating the consumer can make a huge difference with some people, leading them to discover that there are good options outside of the console world they did not know of, but I believe not everyone *wants* to learn about all the hardware in a PC and what it does. They just wanna play, and who can blame them? This is yet one more reason why PCs that cost at least $300 and are made for regular home use should come with good integrated graphics, so as not to confuse people and/or create a lack of interest.

Some people say that exclusive features like motion controls will keep the consoles on top, but I do not believe in this. Motion controls have already come to the PC, even though they have not yet been officially supported by any modern PC games. For now, PC players may hook up WiiMotes when playing HL2 or something just as highly modifiable, but the official versions will come. Microsoft and Sony have expressed interest in putting their motion products on the PC. One day I am sure PC games will support motion controls, if they truly add any value to the game.

I bet that if HP or Dell, or any of the other major computer-making companies, put enough resources, research, and interest into it, they could create products in a joint effort with Intel or AMD that can play video games very well on integrated graphics for the price of a console. If they marketed it well enough, possibly even getting celebrities to endorse it, it could be very profitable and possibly eliminate the need for gaming consoles.

In this constantly-changing high-tech world we live in, only one thing is certain: Nothing is certain.

However, I have seen a trend recently towards the integration of different aspects of technology. Originally, there were separate systems for many purposes. There were MP3s for music, Betamax/VHS/DVD players and televisions for movies, phones for calling people, computers for computing advanced programs, speakers for audio, and so on.

Nowadays, you see people with iPhones. They use these iPhones not only as phones, but for browsing the internet, playing video games, listening to music, and even watching movies. Amazing, don't you think? Where am I going with this? I'll tell you. Video gaming consoles started in the '70's in arcades so people could play 2-D sidescrolling games... Then home consoles were introduced, with the Atari and the NES. Slowly but surely, computers became powerful enough to overcome the graphics barrier in video games, becoming not only capable of playing games, but capable of anything required from a multimedia center and workhorse machine, also offering access to a variety of communication methods. There may be some multimedia features in consoles as well, but would many people truly use an Xbox for work? I doubt it. The PC is also the birthplace of many great developers of games, creating successful indie studios that eventually become the next big AAA+-blockbuster-title-producing-developer-studio with tons of fans.

The PC is not dead. In fact, it is growing and becoming more popular and accessible as an all-in-one home device. One of the main reasons consoles have so far been the more popular and accessible option for gamers is because of their lower price tag. This counts A LOT, even if PC and console spending may even out eventually. This is a barrier that has already come close to finally toppling, with Intel and AMD's newest integrated graphics on their processors. The only other real barriers I see are marketing and exclusive features. The consoles are well-known and make a lot of money in part because of their effective marketing. They make it seem as if the gaming world revolves around them, and that they are the newest, shiniest, best things in the market since sliced bread. This could be overcome if PCs had more profit in the video gaming communities and lower price points. Exclusives on consoles could be overcome by widening the PC audience and profit margins, so that developers would be even more interested than they already are.

Think about this: Millions of people today use PCs or Macs, and many of them own these powerful machines. What if every PC about the same price as a console could play beautiful games in stunning high resolutions with smooth frame rates and excellent gameplay? What if, farther on, ALL PCs could play games that well? This is integration. This is the trend I foresee, because consoles are the opposite of integration. I think the PC's golden years have not passed. I believe they are merely about to begin.

Who knows when any of this could happen, or how long it lasts before smart phones and tablets take over, or if an ultra-portable form of computer may take over everything as the one-stop entertainment, work, and social connectivity platform. Nothing is for certain. I just wanted to post this thread to share my thoughts, my love of PC gaming, and the opinions of all the people on this forum.

I know that streaming services like OnLive may very well become the new face of gaming sometime in the future, but I believe that will be a little while off.

What do you guys think of this idea.... A netbook, with a special super-ridiculously-aggressively optimized OS,(that still has full PC-style internet capability, etc), a relatively advanced truly next-generation graphics card,(AT LEAST on par w/ Epic Game's recent Unreal Engine 3 tech demo), a Ps3-style cell processor w/ advanced next-gen graphics capability in addition to the graphics card, 3g mobile broadband internet, plus 802.11g or n wireless LAN, WiFi, 100gb of storage, a wireless xbox 360-style controller hooked up to a rechargeable battery port on the back of the netbook's screen, full keyboard, mouse pad,(external mouse must b bought separately), and a screen that is 10 inches and 800x600 (or possibly 1024x768 ), and the ability to hook up to an HDTV or VGA/DVI/HDMI computer monitorand upscale games to 1080p. The idea behind the low-rez screen w/ upscaling abilities would mostly be for the purpose of saving money by making graphics and CPU that only need to be able to perform well in 800x600 w/ next-generation graphics. Cheap, and better framerate. Now, this netbook would have only Steam as its one online platform, would support modding and any legal user-created content, would b able to play Blu-Ray movies, CDs, DVDs, w/e the next-gen version of DVDs/Blu-Raysare and so on... Plus all games would have fully customizable control schemes available for both controllers and mouse and keyboard. Period. I believe this would be a good way to compete with home consoles and portable consoles at the same time. This netbook would have exclusive titles in a variety of genres, including MMOs, offline RPGs, racing games, FPSs, third-person shooters, and the netbook would have stereoscopic 3d (w/lowered grafx settings) and a built-in motion-sensing camera (little webcam type thing) that can allow for motion-sensing to even be used in shooting games by making the controller compatible with the motion-sensing camera, in order to avoid being gimped and pricey like the Kinect.

Do any of you think a product like this could do well in its own market segment, or perhaps compete w/ home consoles, portable consoles, or standard PC gaming if it launched right before the next generation of game consoles from Microsoft and Sony? If not, why so? Price? Performance? Just plain stupid? Impossible?

i found out my monitor, altho HD, is only VGA... Xp Oh well... I'll just work out some kind of time schedule so I can play the PS3 on my family's HDTV...

Thanks anyway, guys. I'm pretty sure the TV came w/ an HDMI cable, so I could always use that to play the PS3.

Two last questions.

1. Could a third-party DVI cable work w/ the PS3?If the answer is yes, is it only specific brands? If the answer is no, does Sony offer its own DVI cables?

2.One more question... Can a regular voice chat headset, the one this computer uses, work on a PS3? It isn't USB. It uses the regular headphone port. (Whatever thats called)

Alright, thanks again for all your help. I'm gonna check back after I find out whether or not my monitor supports DVI and "HDCP," whatever that is. Sorry. I don't know a lot of tech lingo for comp monitors, altho I'm rather the uber-nerd when it comes to graphics. lol. I'm pretty sure this monitor supports DVI, because if it didn't, the monitor would most likely not be HD, which it is. I heard VGA can make HD signals blurry and weird-looking. (I suppose that means I won't get the VGA HD cable for a 360. I couldnt find a DVI cable for it, though, so I may need to get a new monitor w/ HDMI or use the hdtv upstairs. I dont use the family room HDTV because my parents and little sister watch it all the time. I dont watch much tv, but i play games a lot, so there would be time conflicts.)

P.S - Could I use non-Microsoft or non-Sony DVI cables to connect from a ps3 or 360 to my monitor?

Thanks guys.

And you, loweO, u said that PS3's don't work with VGA... would they work with DVI?

Sry if my second question was unclear. Here's what I meant.

Can either/ both the 360 and PS3 play in 1440x900, or are 1080 and 720 the only compatible HD resolutions?