WOW, When you think about it in tech terms the PC really isn't showing how good it is, Its showing how much more game makers are favoring consoles over PC. The 280GTX they used is atleast 5X times better than the GPUs in these consoles but yet I don't see even a 2X improvement in the graphics of the PC over that of the consoles. The only thing the 280GTX seems to offer over the console GPU is its ability to run at higher RES and have a higher AA setting. I think they should have made a 200$ PC and compared it to the 200$ 360 base modle. Buying a PC with these specs for the average person who is going to be buying it from Dell or Compaq or something will cost in the range of 1200-1800$. This comparision only shows how much of a great value a game console is compared to a full blown gaming PC.

I think what they did was jaked up the contrast on the 360 and lowered the res then posted it as the PS3 image instead. I have the game for PS3 and to looks nothing like what they have here. I also have Oblivion for 360 and it looks about the same, Just instead of roming open wood land, Its dead radio active roming open wood land.

I turned my PS3 down to 480P in the setting then ran the game again. The trees and other objects now look more like what they do in this BS "comparision" I also turn off the RBG and other HDMI options. I can honestly say that any person that puts forth judgement on ethere system based off this comparision is stupid, And un willing to test for them selfs. And that bridge that doesnt reflec in the water is only one of a few large buildings that dont do that, Most of the others that are close to reflect off the water. And to fix the "Rock detail" All i needed to do was turn the contrast down and raise the brightness so that the shadows would show up better. Even thow the rocks still look better in the 360 images they have posted they dont look leaps and bounds better than the PS3 version like there pic show.

Atleast one of these pic is a lie, I have the PS3 version of this game. I tested out the one were they are stading on the bridge looking out at the trees and the super-duper, the part were they say you "cant" see the stand out next to the bus that is a little farther back is a lie. I can see it clear as day on my Toshiba 42" at full 1080P. I can even see the out line of the chane link fence that is no more than 10 feet behind it wich doesnt show up in there 360 image. Also the trees look nothing like what they do in the GP pic and fuzzey and broken like that. I'm going to check out the other pics as well. I call BS on this hole thing. This review even made me think if taking back my PS3 version and getting the game for my 360 instead, I and quicky starting to change my mind. And as for the AA problem there isent one. The AA in this game is just as bad as it is in Oblivion wich I have for my 360. As for the pic over that is was talking about, they are right on the part about the water reflections, And the super-duper sign looks a little better in ther 360 image. I'm going to do my own comparision on the other pics too and will post back with what I find.

I think that Bethesda just kinda put the PS3 version in the back seat. I remeber when the PS3 verison of Oblivion came out and it looked a fair amount better than the older 360 version of the game. I know that they are using ether the same game engine as in Oblivion or at least an off shot of it. So I dont see why the games on both systems wouldn't look at the very least the same. Fallout 3 and the Force unleased are clear wins for the 360, Dead space IMO looks better in the PS3 other than the small detail with the miss forming sharders on his back, The rest of the word in Dead space seems to have better shader work and detail on the PS3. As for the rest of the games I think the PS3 take home the gold on them. The color looks better and the textures look to be of a higher res or quality. Also I think the fact that some of the games look better on 360 is do to the market share that it hold. People are more likley to buy the 360 version of the game becuase of the lager install base and thus the game gets a little more work. I think that if the Wii had a CPU and GPU that were on the level of the PS3 and 360 it would have better graphics than both the 360 and PS3, As it has the largest install base and is most likley to have the highest software sales. I also think that Bethesda should release a patch to bring the detail on the PS3 version up to the level of the 360, Like they did for the 360 version of Oblivion. That and there are a lot of other things wrong with both versions of Fallout 3 other than just graphics. Many bugs have been a problem with both versions of the game as well as the PC version. Showing off multi plat games and trying to say that they are a good graphics comparison is also a bad idea IMO. They should have pitted Halo 3 with Metal Gear Solid 4. Or Gears of war 2 and Resistance 2. Fist party games VS first party games. I own both a 360 and PS3 (as well as a wii) and I must say the first party games on the PS3 do have a good edge over that of the 360. MGS4 runs at full 720P (upscaled to 1080) were as Halo 3 runs at a little lower res than 720P and MGS4 still has much better textures and shader work than Halo 3 in my opinion. But in the end I own both system and this dosent realy apply to me.

I'm kinda sorry for AMD. I sold my 4200+ system about 3 months ago and got a E6420 and OC it to 3.2GHz. I was really hopping that their new Phenom CPUs would set Intel back some and lower the prices. But with a 2.6GHz Phenom x4 being a little slower than a Q6600 at 2.4GHz it doesn't look like AMD will take the crown this year.

Mikerotch4u the game isent optimized yet.If you go by what crytek said then a system with a E6600 2gigs of ram and a 8800GTS all stock should be playing the game on high settings with no problem. My rig is a E6420@3.2GHz 3gigs of ram a 8800GTS 593,1058,with shaders OCed to 1620.I get 11124 in 3Dmark 06 and a stock 8800GTX gets 11200.And im still getting realy low FPS.I played the demo on all low settings becuase its the only setting that it wouldnt lag on.Just wait or the final copy to come out.The demo is a lot worse than the beta was.I was playing mostly high setting with so medium in the beta with no lag at all. http://service.futuremark.com/orb/resultanalyzer.jsp?projectType=14&XLID=0&UID=11874173

Welll for the looks of it the 8800s are the FX card of the DX10 gen,NOT worth the money for Such low fame rates if you ask me.I will what tell the 8900 or the 9000 cards come out.