@bm1212, I run my 360 at 1080p via VGA, so you fail if you thought that it was because of a lack of HDMI on the older ones. Also the 360 would actually look better in 1080p due to it's hardware upscaler, as opposed to the software based one of the PS3.
If the 360 having better graphics isn't enough, which is fine as you probably won't notice much, unless its an ultra low-res texture or extreme jaggies, but consider the performance advantage that the 360 has over the PS3. The 360 is able to maintain a more stable frame rate and I don't believe the reason why PS3 games are worse is because people are still learning and they haven't reached its "full potential", I just think its because its a weaker, overcomplicated machine.
Assassin's Creed should be out tommorrow, that should see whether DirectX 10 is able to perform better than DirectX 9 on XP and may prove that Vista is more capable or that they just developed it badly for DirectX 9.
IBEX333 nVIDIA have already lowered the price of the GTX and the X2 is just coming out at the same sort of price so I think it is a perfectly viable option.
"Hi! Please Healp me! I want to know it before i buy this game!! I Have a Intel Dual Core 2160 1.80Ghz, 1.80Ghz, 1GB RAM, GeForce 7100 512MB PCI Express, And Windows XP. This Game will work with this machine!?" Possibly, but don't expect to have anything past low.
This game wasn't meant to be able to be played by everyone with a computer, it was designed to be a graphical powerhouse, to show what games are capable of being like now, and soon the 9 Series will be out and it should play perfectly on those.
I wonder how well a Geforce 8800 Ultra OverClocked SLI setup would run this game. I would guess about 50fps on Very High on XP, 45fps on Vista and 75fps on High on XP, 70fps on Vista all at 1600x1200.
Titanicles' comments