Originally Posted by noahhova
PC's could run it smooth and as good but it would have to be a better card then a 7900GTX for the PC to replicate the quality. Again because of the console optimization.
Say if a PS3 has the equivalent of a 7900GTX in it a PC would need say a 9800GTX or something along those lines to be able to produce the same graphics quality and smoothness.
Again its all subject to game, hardware and many other variables.
If game developers would optimize as well for the PC as they do for the consoles, that wouldn't be so much true. But even as it is now, it's not quite true. I bet you can get very close with comparable hardware. You are forgetting one thing: with PC's we nowadays consider it desirable to run at 1680x1050 for the mainstream and good to run at Full HD (1920x1080) or even higher resolutions for high-end with everything maxed out.
If you were to do a fair comparison, you'd have a PC with a quad core CPU and a 7900GTX at a 1280x720 resolution. And then you would fine tune the game options to make it look like the console. I can almost guarantee you'd get a fluid game all the same.
I've been doing some experiments with my legacy P4 Northwood that has a Radeon X1950 Pro 256Mb (an upper mid-range card from 2006 - the same year the PS3 came out - the equivalent to a nowdays GTX560 Ti, at a $250 price point), and I can play Crysis and Crysis Warhead fluidly with the shaders and texture quality set to medium, and the water to high, and I can assure you it looks very good, probably the same as it would look on a console IF the consoles could run these games in the first place, which they can't because of open world map design.
And if you don't believe here are the screenshots I took:
Originally Posted by DarkEnergy
That's why GT5 looks so good, name me one PC racer that look as good let alone better.
How many examples do you want ?
Let's take your GT5:
Compare it with:
Need for Speed Shift:
There. Need more ?Edited by tpi2007 - 4/6/11 at 3:40pm