All I'm trying to say is that many many people will think that since the PS3's gpu has 1.8 Tflops, and the 360's has 240 Gflops, they will thus think the PS3's RSX is seven and a half times more powerful than the 360's GPU, or at least that is the way many people will twist it.
They said 360 is 100% solid, and PS3 99.9% solid. Same thing, no arguments here.
OH SWEET, SWEET IRONY!
I can't wait for all the unintelligent people who have no idea what they are talking about to come in here and tell gigantic lies and blow floating point calculations out of proportion.
Those are called bump maps my friend, and really doesn't represent better texture quality.
Sadly the best way to go has been the Newer 8800 GTS 512 MB, choosing it over the 9800 GTX is sometimes even a good idea. I think Nvidia should really get their crap together instead of basking in the sun since they're on top of the GPU market :|.
you mean billion? :P
I've played almost every Zelda and Mario game there is, and no doubt they are some of the best games ever made, but Ocarina of Time just seems so epic, and so deep, even for an N64 game, it's the deepest and greatest game I've ever played.
While yes, Windwaker is a great game, it just didn't have that touch that made Ocarina of Time such a masterpiece. I still play Oot now, and never get bored with Master Quest, it truly is ( to my at least) the best game I've ever played.
The extra videocards are never really taken advantage of. Also, although Nvidia is on top right now, it's really gotten to them. Since they ARE on top, they let the 9 series slide, it really really sucks. The only card that deserves the 9 series name is the 9600 GT, the 9800GTX is pretty much a bit more efficient rehash of the 8800 GTX, and the 9800 GX2 is like two 8800 GT's slapped together, it's nothing special.
I hope Nvidia gets their act together, or Ati pulls ahead with som...
Since PC gaming is all about choice, you don't have to spend the 1200$ on the 9800 GX2 quad-sli to get the 35fps in crysis very high 1920x1200 (1200P) which no console could even DREAM of running, you can just spend 150$ and get a 9600 GT, which runs crysis pretty well at medium on a decently high resolution, that would last you a while.
-_-
When will you people learn that the RSX is a mediocre chip, the special thing about the PS3 is the cell, not the RSX.
Actually, Halo 3's visuals weren't really THAT bad, sure it was pretty low resolution, but if I recall correctly, COD4, one of 2007's best games was even lower resolution then Halo 3, and caught no flak about it, while Halo got all the flak. I think it's just a bunch of PS3 fans jumping one big band wagon just to be able to bad mouth halo 3 more and more.
Those pics really look great, if Halo 3 had better lighting, it probably would have looked much much better!
It's far from it, it has HUGE modding communities, and hey, we have a little thing called steam. It's pretty damn big.
Last time I checked PS3 no have 2560x1600, so I don't think so.
Did they just use the word beautiful? Shes 100% skank and 0% beauty.
#3??!??! LINK!?!?!??!
HE SHOULD BE NUMBER ONE >:(!!
Anything but.....OVERLOGGING!!!
We might all have to take a trip to Californie in the future!
230$ at launch? @_@, that's not bad if you ask me.