[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Geforce 6600's and up to 8800'shave better textures and graphics for the most part on counterparts like FEAR etc... Now the PS3 Does have a moded geforce 7800 with 256 mb of video memory. But what holds it back is the 256 ram for the system. codezer0

Problem is that while the PS3's Cell architecture is a technical feat, it basically takes someone with a master's degree to be able to make software that will actually run efficiently on it, and right now nobody seems to want to put the time and effort into making something that can run fluidly on the console (or at the least, graphically on par with the Xbox 360). Only people that are making the better looking PS3 games are all not going to be releasing them until at least when the year is done, if not next year.

The Xbox 360 may not be as technically powerful (in some aspects) as the PS3, but its API software makes it a lot easier to make use of its power and make stuff run fluidly on it.

And the other obvious advantage with a console is that at least the console hardware will get better because devs will be able to use it more efficiently. When Quake I & II both came to the n64, they definitely ran the game much better than what users who had initially bought each were able to do so, even though that console only has (by default) 4MB's of RDRAM shared between all components; and 8MB when the RAM expansion cart was added.

By the same token, Quake 3 Arena on the Sega Dreamcast was probably one of the best examples of the console's power; the system had only 16MB's of system RAM, 8MB of VRAM, and it was able to run the game with better IQ, framerate and was more feature-complete than the crippled PS2 edition, which of course was running on a system that had twice the RAM available... and the DC version natively supported a keyboard and mouse and online support.

And I can guarantee you that the Xbox 360 will certainly be able to play games like Shadowrun, Alan Wake, and even Madden better than what you could buy for a computer at the time the 360 was released. Sure, a computer may be able to eventually run the game far smoother/shinier/faster than the 360, but at what cost? Hell, just to have a computer system, monitor and speaker package that can replicate the experience an Xbox 360 with an HDTV and home theater surround sound system, the PC would set you back a few magnitudes in price more than the 360 or PS3. And just to be able to keep up in performance through the console's lifetime, you're going to be spending several times more than what the one console would cost you... which is one of the frustrating problems with PC gaming in general.

This guy is on the right track. I think it is funny that sony hyped up the ps3 so much when it is really not all that special. It has a less powerful GPU than the 360. It uses NON unified shader architecture at 24 pixel pipes vs. 360s unified shaders at 48 pixel pipes and 10mb Edram for a free (no perfomance loss) 4x antiliasing advantage. The 360 runs all the new football games, at 60fps and the PS3 with the same graphic fidelity run them at 30...?

The cell is a very powerful processor, great for hd video like blu ray to help sony push their bigger business of movies. Everyone watches movies!

I know it isn't for dx10 only, but dx10 only games are coming in very soon. The 2900 readon clocked at 16fps.bonik

Umm my HD 2900xt maxed the COJ DX10 benchmark at 71fps and averaged 31fps the min was low like in the teens. I can't remember the exact number though.