[quote] Quite strange that I invest on last-gen hardwares, but as long as I am satisfied with the games I am playing with, I won't think of a videocard that won't benefit my needs. [/quote] It ís strange, because for the same price of a 3870, you can get a nice 4870 card nowadays, which is much faster! Of course, some people might have to upgrade their motherboard also... and that might cost you a little bit more. The gap between both generations is huge when it comes to performance though, so it's totally worth the cost!

[quote] Why has nobody mentioned the main reason I left PC gaming behind? The odds of actually getting a game to run out of the box! [/quote] I never had any issues getting games to work. Yeah, sometimes I needed to update my drivers, that happens on your console as well... only difference is that it's a manual process most of the times on the PC platform.... In the past things used to be better... like installers that came with the needed Directx versions included. The PC platform just isn't for the casual masses no-more.. that's what Wiis are for. :P

[quote]wow, its sad when a psp, with less power can crank out games that look better than a console game.[/quote] You should check your facts... a PS2 is not as powerful as the PSP. Apart from that, it's not like they are running the exact same game on both platforms either.... The whole article about how 'good God of War Chains of Olympus' looks is incredibly weird. Yes it looks awesome, but why even bother to compare?

And yet another pointless Gamespot article.... geesh what's going on!? The PSP has already proven to have graphics at least on par with PS2. God of War isn't the only title that has great graphics. MGS:Portable Ops easily looks as good as Metal Gears Solid 2 of the PS2... so what?

"I've had my 8800 GTX since it came out and have been very happy and see no reason to jump on ATIs bandwagon just for a few frames....plus I would need better cooling, a bigger PSU etc." That's bullocks honestly... you need a good PSU for the 8800GTX as well, in fact better cooling is not even required at all. The stock cooler on the card is a beast that will keep it cool and it's not noisy at all unless you play without any game sound on or something strange like that. You really won't notice in practice.

The only really correct graphs here seems to be the Benchmark 2006 one. Also in no way are the beta drivers anywhere mature enough to compare them while keeping things fair, especially in regards to the Vista drivers. In fact, on my pc those drivers gave me an increase of almost double the fps, but still Vista generally sucks for gaming. Basically the AMD/ATI HD3870 X2 beats the Geforce 8800GTX on all accounts and I also really wonder why they didn't compare it to a 8800GTX Ultra because it beats that card too, at least in the benchmark programs.

@Sentenced83: The 8800GT is better, yes, but not necessarily the best buy. I would still advice to buy a cheaper card that performs better in a dollar-to-performance ratio when the difference is only this small. These first generation DX10 cards won't perform very well with 2nd generation DirectX 10 games anways.. @Lustingfordeth: Last 5 years? You must have been living under a rock, because the last 5 years if not longer there has been no real winner. Every new card from the competition was better. It's only since the Geforce 8800GTX that Nvidia is clearly the winner in terms of most powerful graphics card. Still... that card is freaking expensive even WITH the direct competition of ATI. Seriously though, prices will only go up even more if ATI totally looses this 'fight' and their struggle with AMD. (AMD should never have bought ATI... it did more wrong to both companies than right).

@AnnoyedDragon: mf1986 is totally right. Being a fan of a brand really doesn't make much sense. I don't know which characteristics you think a typical for each brand, but the differences now are quite minimal. Sure, everybody jumps the bandwagon and would say the HD2900XT isn't as good as the 8800GTX, but that's not always true.. and drivers for the HD2900XT are a lot better. That's where the relevant differences stop though. Ultimately it comes down to which card you can afford. Who wouldn't want the best card for his money? Only a fool would choose one brand over another just because of the brand... which was exactly mf1986's point.

[quote=randy915]randy915 I don't know about you guys but I don't see much difference between XP VHQ and Vista VHQ.[/quote] That's because there is no difference... both 'very high' versions are DirectX 9 versions... You won't see any difference between those. For those who don't know, the Crysis demo has no DirectX 10 renderer enabled. [quote=Biotch87]Does anyone here know what DX10 is? DX10 is NOT backwards compatible! Any game that will run in XP is not a DX10 game.[/quote] True, but there will be two renderers in the final version of Crysis. One supporting DirectX 9 and one supporting DirectX 10. There will be a visual difference between the two, but Crytek said they want to give all players the same experience whether Dx9 or Dx10 hardware, so I wouldn't be surprised if we won't see very much DirectX 10 candy at all.

"this is cool and all but Sony is forgetting whats really important, a second analog stick." Are you sure you have played any games on a PSP? Because really, you DON'T need a second analog stick ... it's totally superfluous... there's no game I couldn't play on my psp because of lack of good controls (e.a another analog stick), that argument is both hyped, old and flawed. Try God of War, Prince of Persia, the 2 GTA games, Socom, Syphon Filter Dark Mirror, Metal Gear Portable Ops and so on and so forth, NO control problems whatsoever......