[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 .

samuraiguns

something tells me you haven't because I have. So you are saying a quad core can't match the ps3?

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant.

AnnoyedDragon

Cell =/= Quad core, they are not comparable.

Different architecture and range of performance, they would kick each others butt at different things.

The quad core is four general purpose cores, the Cell is one general purpose core and multiple RISC processors.

I agree with that and know that. I was more talking from a generational standpoint. I know they are completely different. But a quad is more comparable from a power standpoint in different ways than a tri core is. The quad core and the cell are more on par with each other from a power perspective. tri-core and dvd are a generation behind.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

lost planet 2 was running on a high end quad core pc in that footage. That's not 360 footage. I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant.

Camer999

Um, lol, someone posted 360 footage recently and a Quad-core would CRUSH the PS3.

would you like to post this footage that is running on a 360 then? All of the stuff shown was confirmed to be on a quad core pc.

lost planet 2 was running on a high end quad core pc in that footage. That's not 360 footage. I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant. If the 360 was a quad core with bluray i wouldnt be saying this, but it isnt. I think thats' pretty much the difference.

MS or 360 fans don't tout about power as much Sony does. (100 fps 360 is 1.5) They are very close in power even closer then Xbox was compared to the Gamecube last gen. Both consoles have their advatages it's just the PS3 cost more.

Return-Fire

I think ms's hardware is powerful enough where it can cover up these things. That's the difference. The ps3 is more powerful if you look at the amount of detail in the environments. MS also has the support of most developers and the best developers so they know how to cover things up and know tricks by now. IE if you notice alot of the new 360 games focus on AI and lighting and tricks the general purpose cores can accomplish like in splinter cell. They have cool tricks where they project mission objectives on screen which is cool in itself and the lighting making it either light or dark which takes the gamers eyes away from the actual textures.. There also isnt as much going on on screen as far as the number of enemies and what is actually animating and having physics calculated. It's a more simplistic approach which is impressive in it's own right but it's different.

I just find it interesting that splinter cell, mass effect 2, alan wake, and halo odst are more lighting and tactic based vs outright graphics and textures and a ton of stuff going on all at once. Forza 3 is the exception but it's a racing game and that is more just graphics pushing from the graphics card.

Look at Uncharted and how much detail is on the environments its much more detailed. Its also calculating a lot more from a physics perspective. Same as God of War.

[QUOTE="RTUUMM"]No. The game looks good but its not spectacular but a game doesnt need to be graphics king to deliver.dethroned3

he's actually asking: 'is god of war 3 too realistically gory?'

yeah i was saying both. It looks like graphics king and gore king all at the same time.

ive been saying this for years with silly fanboys saying the 360 could do anything the ps3 can and have it look better. I disagree. I dont think the ps3 can do what we've seen from god of war and uncharted 2. I actually have a 360 and dont even have a ps3 and believe this. I think microsoft won e3 and will be better overall with all the games coming that will be great too, and probably a more complete experience since its on its 3rd or 4th generation of games at this point, but from a pure graphics muscle perspective the ps3 is starting to show its more powerful imo.

What d your mother put in your apple juice?

Gnr_Helsing

apples?

the intestines were good too. and the eyeball. All of the above?

I would say yes in more ways than one.