@StuDevo: Yeah, and I'm sure you are just an unbiased ball of sunshine, aren't you? The information I am about to state is fact. If you attempt to dispute it, please jump off of the nearest available cliff. The Xbox 360 has a slightly better graphics card. The Xenos is a slightly less advanced, DirectX 9 version of the ATI HD 2900 XT. The PS3's RSX is slightly more powerful than two 7800GT's in SLI. As for processors, The PS3's Cell processor is undeniably better than the 360's Xenon. They are both tri-core processors. However, there is one major drawback to the Cell processor. The third core is different from the other two (I believe it is either weaker than them or it just behaves differently, can't remember which). This makes it difficult for developers to utilize the third core, which basically puts it on par with the 360's processor when the third core is unused. I have never heard of a cross-platform game that uses the third core. When the core is used, however, it provides a slight boost in graphics which puts it barely above or equal to the 360's graphics. The processor has a lot more to do with physics, AI, and other things that relate more to gameplay than graphics. In these areas the PS3 is the clear winner, but once again, only when the third core is used. Otherwise it is pretty much the same as the Xenon. The only truly significant hardware advantage in this battle is the PS3's use of Blu-Ray, but this only shortens load times and prevents developers from having to put a game on multiple discs, which I personally could not care less about. The 360 will usually look slightly better in cross platform games, while the PS3 will look slightly better when it comes to console exclusives. I would say that they are pretty much deadlocked in terms of hardware. It really just comes down to the user interface, additional functionality, and game selection. IMO 360 takes the cake there.

This is a crappy list. Where are Silkroad and Rappelz?

mr_funnyjoke: Get a radeon 3850 256mb on newegg.com for around 170. And I was wondering with a Turion 64 X2 @ 1.9 GHz, 2 gb of ram (I might up that to 3 if you think it will provide more stability), and an ati mobility radeon hd 2600 512mb gddr2 if I could run the following with 25 FPS... OS: Vista API: DX9 Res: 1024x768 No AA, preset AF Shaders-High Shadow-Medium Water-Medium Textures-Low Object-Low

Where are the HD 3000 cards???

-Lawsoc, that IS creme de la creme. A Core 2 at 3 Ghz and an 8800 will run anything on high or max, even at your resolution.

actually, dx10 isn't supposed to look much better (except in some lighting instances). DX10 is meant to solve the limited batch problem (example, every chair in a game looks EXACTLY the same) and produce higher frame rates. Sure, the lost planet demo didn't do that, but it is a demo of one game. We have to wait and see how other DX10 games run before we jump to conclusions.

Character models in Halo 3 are AMAZING! Textures are great and you get a true 3d sense from the game. But environments could look a drop better. Overall I give the graphics an 8.5

This helps a lot. I'd go with 4 aa 8 af and high quality, not ultra. With 100% draw distance and shadows, obviously.

The point of moving to vista is dx10, and 360 and ps3 can't handle a lot of pc games. Crysis, Crysis, Crysis

Thank you