@ciderboy, You may need a bit more power to run the full game because there are some graphical effects which are present in other stages that need more power than those of the demo stage. For instance, a level with tons of dust from air strikes got my laptop just a litlle bit laggy whenever there was such a huge particle effects display. I played it with a turion processor and a radeon x700 and was able to play the demo at the maximum graphics setting. I had to tone down the res to 1024 x 768 to get a similar performance from the card when I played the full game. Bottom line is, you may (depending on the card) need abit more power for the full game but with a 7600GT, you will be just fine with the full game. COD 4 is not power demanding as I completed it very smoothly with pretty high settings (looked just like the 360 version to me) on a mobility radeon x700, which by today's standards is outdated.

i guess the core 2 Q6700 remains the best. Four cores in one chip sounds good though

im not impressed. the 8800GT and even the radeon 2900 XT still own it.

haha, nice feature, still skeptical about RE:UC but may give it a go cos i love a good zombie head popping game once in a while. i think since rich gallup left, alex navarro has to be my favourite gamespot dude. everytime i see his face i just burst out laughing. im i the only one who thinks he's beginning to look like a very stupid laugh-out-loud version of Kratos? he shud dress up and do a spoof of god of war. it will fit him.

MARKET VALUE'S UP FIVEFOLD IN TWO YEARS!!!! BLOODY HELL!!

the differences between halo 2 and 3 are similar to the differences between metroid prime 2 and 3. better lighting and smoother textures but then again, thats a good thing because the graphics of halo 2, metroid prime 1 and 2 were flawlessly awesome. just like the case of prime, i wont believe pictures here cos alot of detail is lost. ill just have to play halo 3 and prime 3 to tell how much has changed. its funny how some people think graphics is everything. halo 2 surpassed halo 1's looks by a mile but to me, halo 1 was much more fun. so whether gears of war or any other current shooter has better visuals or not, nothing comes close to the fun u get from sticking a plasma grenade to someone and shooting a millions needles at him while he's screaming "why me!!!!".

obviously, the pc version will always be better visually. it kinda sucks tho because only those with a quad SLI and some with dual or the equivalent will be able to boast better visuals than the 360. its not only about resolutions of monitors, evolving graphics hardware have the ability to push more shaders hence, better lighting and reflections not to mention all the magic directx 10 can give to the game (just look at crysis). Because those cards alone cost > 1000 quid, it makes sense to buy a 360 instead for sub 300 and still have great graphics and not have to worry about hard drive space or memory or compatibility issues.

doesnt really matter, 6 months down the line, all these cards will be obsolete except for the ultra which will follow 2 months after the others.

rex fight was the most annoying. but as far as bosses go, the best has to be liquid. the guy just wouldnt die. i was excited about the car chase part and i kept asking myself what i shud do to kill his ass. i was really disappointed though wen i didnt get to kill him finally, a stupid virus did.

nah!!, pokemon aint my thing, its too kiddish (its aimed at kids anyway) and the anime is too cheesy. thats my opinion tho and its the general fan base that matters after all. the hardware which has zelda on it wins for me no contest (oh look, its the wii as well ... :-) )