Main reason for paying for years was the free game guides, then wanted to view some of those lovely HD videos (think that came in 2007), faster downloads, and then our dedicated forum for any issues.
I still value these and really hope we don't get horrible ads in the videos otherwise there are plenty of other services that won't annoy us. Ads on the website I can deal with, in videos, no thanks!
@XspidervenomX And it certainly looks better on PC, this is my best screenshot about 3 hours into the game with maximum quality settings - http://i.imgur.com/6VspP.png
My game with everything on (x2 AA) @1680x1050 plus bottom texture settings on High manages on average 120 using Fraps, but this depends on the levels which goes from 70fps to 300fps! This is a console port which explains the big dips as MW1 was much smoother and I put everything on max to average 240fps. Where you get numerous enemies on-screen, the fps hovers around 70fps and can feel laggy to pull off quick shots in tight spots. Visuals are great as always but I would like to know for sure what GPU + RAM you need to run Extra Settings. For High I would say its 512MB-1GB, then Extra is 1GB+ for smooth play when they become more commonplace at more affordable prices. - CPU: Intel QX6700@3.2Ghz - Mobo: Gigabyte X48 DS5 - GPU: Gigabyte 4870 HD 512MB DDR5 (CrossFire) @780MHz/1010Mhz - RAM: 8GB Corsair DDR2 800Mhz 4-4-4-15
@ Johnny-n-Roger No need to be so rude! I'm a photographer by trade so I know what to look for - my eyes were OPEN!! In an ideal world of GS, it would've been better to see the images in full HD, rather than 41% of the size. And then again (regardless of image sizes); using PNG for lossless IQ rather than the lossy JPEG which is a bad choice for IQ comparisons. I said my observations were based on PQ, the PS3 isn't perfect with jaggies and overall thats why 360 is in 3rd place. If the PS3 dealt better with the jaggies, then would you complain about anything else? I play games just on a PC, so no console bias from me. If the PS3/360 actually looked better than the PC, I would've said so as I don't really care about bragging rights on who wins here. Nothing like good healthy competition, which is the point of this feature.
Looking (very closely) purely from those screenshots, the Xbox360 is 3rd, then PS3 2nd, PC 1st. A representation of you get what you pay, we all knew that. The 360 textures looks last gen (non-HD) in comparison, too blurry+low-res. The PS3 was quite impressive with most games here, moreso with Fallout 3 where some shots looked a bit better than the PC; the detail on the bridge was better + looked just as sharp as the PC screenshot. You won't be noticing these details as much with the PS3 vs PC as you'll be on the move, but very surprising to actually see the differences. Shame on trying to make comparisons: you don't make the brightness/gamma the same (as the consoles look very dark) to see as much detail in the dark areas as you would get with the PC. You couldn't get away with running this side-by-side at a tech show as the consoles/display hasn't been collaborated to give a completely fair result.
Its good with choices for GPUs but CPU & RAM is restrictive & not worth the cost - too much hassle for ordinary consumers. There are better alternatives coming up in the summer, just wait :) This would suit developers, CAD, video editors, or anyone where data crunching is needed & time is short. An 8 core system for the gaming masses in full production is still a few years off, so make sure if you buy a PC now, its quad core, so you won't feel its so out dated by then.
How fast was the test RAM in that test? Was it normal DDR2 1066Mhz? Don't waste money on x2, just a gimmick unless games start to make use of multiple gpus better.Interesting 3dmark06 score, but its downhill from there :(
champmanfan's comments