[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Then according to you this is a mid range GPU,

Which you think the PS3 can perform better than?

Some benchmark scores for you.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/compare,1468.html?prod%5B2678%5D=on

washd123

Is it free P and P? Regardless my price ranges are still fairly accurate, because that card is practically high end. Find one for 40 and tell me it's better than the PS3 GPU.

40 pounds thats what 60 50 usd?

the 9600gso DDR3 or the 9600gt both fall into that price range and both far outperform the RSX

[QUOTE="decoppel"][QUOTE="Tobin09"] gt5 isn't full 1080p, I don't think I"m pretty sure the horizontal is alot smaller, and upscaled, So it's more like 720P, but a little higher, Forza 3 is 720P I belive, But hey, the cockpit is 60FPS now, the e3 build had it at 60Shattered007

[QUOTE="decoppel"] So you think Uncharted/KZ2 look bad after first glance?washd123

if you actually look at everything graphically, then no not bad but nothing as good as the visuals try making it appear.

bottom line : visuals are not a representation of system power. they rely on art and are subjective.

They're the same.

[QUOTE="decoppel"][QUOTE="washd123"]

thats because looks have little to do with how good a gpu is. looks and visuals are not representative of power since they rely on art. only graphics are. and if you actually look KZ2 or uncharted graphics are slightly above average but nothing outstanding. that and the cell is also helping to compansate there.

washd123

not always but that can be the case and this gen more often than not. its not a direct statement though. its not like all games with good looks have bad graphics. but my point was you cant use visuals as a representation of power since much of the work is on the artists and level designers. you can hand an artist **** textures low poly models and a poor lighting system and they can come back and hand you a game that looks excellent at first glance

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

a console with weak gpu has one of the best looking games....

washd123

thats because looks have little to do with how good a gpu is. looks and visuals are not representative of power since they rely on art. only graphics are. and if you actually look KZ2 or uncharted graphics are slightly above average but nothing outstanding. that and the cell is also helping to compansate there.

[QUOTE="decoppel"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]The 360 actually has the same amount of RAM, it's usage is just more flexible. And more of it is available for games. Also, the GPU in the 360, the Xenos, is far more advanced than the RSX. The Cell however is a better CPU than the Xenon, but it's harder to utilize. In the end, it boils down like this.. The 360 has the better GPU and architecture, and features the more efficient design. The PS3 has the better CPU and more raw power, but it's far less efficient, so that extra power can never actually be used. It's just wasted cycles, and causes the PS3 to use more electricity.-GeordiLaForge-

GT5 runs at 1080p 60 fps

dirt 2 runs at 720p 30 fps

[QUOTE="druggyjoe3000"]

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

The consoles are the same, it is all up to the dev as to what they want to do about it.

-GeordiLaForge-