Modern Warfare 2: PC vs. Xbox 360 vs. PS3 - The ultimate graphic comparison

Keita101 - 46 days 14 hours ago

If you have a decent dual core CPU and a decent GPU such as an hd 4850 or above, you should be able to run this game fine at 60 fps at 1080p on pc. you may have to bring the aa down to 4 multisamples, but still, thats miles ahead of the consoles

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Sub4Dis - 46 days 13 hours ago

actually this generation of consoles have virtually no hardware AA ability. if it's not built into the engine (unreal engine) you will see jaggies everywhere...and even then the software can't handle everything.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Pandamobile - 46 days 12 hours ago

Dude my mid-rage PC from 2006 could easily max out COD4 at 1680 x 1050 with 4x AA. And I'm sure the same PC could perform the same with results on MW2.

Agree(1) | Disagree(8) | Report

chad22hkd - 46 days 9 hours ago

Wow thanks for the information. That the pc can be upgraded annually. To boast of so much more power than 3 year old machines. You know what it's to bad no one makes pc games any more isn't it. Now you dont even have dedicated servers. Plus they gimped your version of MW2 for the consoles. What resolution are you running it in? People like you annoy me. Always running your mouth about you super powerful pcs. Treating console owners as below you of some sort! Well I'm sure you will have fun playing crysis forever. Because pcs are inferior. How many games got a pc release this year not that many. Probably not even half of what console did. Plus the ones that got released like MW2 dont look that much better than consoles. It called piracy they cant stop it on pcs. No one wants to make a pc only game anymore. So go spend the extra money for your super powerful pcs. So you can play slightly better console ports on them! Now try and bash me you arrogant pricks! Play games not hardware!!!

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

arakouftaian - 46 days 2 hours ago

btw the killzone2 lithing have not been mach on a pc game jet

yes crycis look good but is just fake lithing
i can put the camera on a bolt from killzone2 and give lith to my room lol
that how good killzone2 lithing is

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

NCAzrael - 46 days 1 hour ago

@ Ju

I'm sorry you don't own a computer that was built after 2004. The last time I checked, my old PC was fully capable of playing games at high resolution at over 60 fps. It wasn't even a top of the line PC when I put it together. The point is knowing what parts to go with.

@ chad22hkd

By inferior do you mean forced to load the entire game from a disc and having to wait several seconds for the game to load due to the read limitations of the optical drive or the inability to use high resolution textures as well as anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing to increase visual performance and reduce the appearance of jagged lines? Oh, wait, no, that's how consoles are inferior. Perhaps you meant inferior in how when the next cycle of hardware comes out you have to purchase an entirely new system that does not guarantee you the ability to play all of the games that you purchased for your current system? Oh, again that's the consoles. My bad. Perhaps you meant inferior by lacking the intense hardware demands that push manufacturers to increase performance in CPUs and GPUs, allowing us to have even better gaming hardware? Gah, again I mistook the consoles for the PC. So, other than the fact that the PC market suffers from piracy (which, by the way, is easily done on the Xbox as well), there's really nothing "inferior" about the PC. And last I checked there are still plenty of developers who actually like the PC and know how to treat their PC customers. Just because Activision doesn't give a crap about the PC doesn't mean that other publishers are going to follow suit.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Utalkin2me - 45 days 21 hours ago

God here we go again with this crap. I have a 512 9200 and a dual core intel and 4 gig of mem and i can not run the game at that res very smoothly. Sh1t people will say just try make an argument is absurd.

Agree(6) | Disagree(2) | Report

TABSF - 45 days 18 hours ago

@ Utalkin2me

512 I'm guessing this is the video memory which will be low speed DDR2 9200M GS which is mobile GPU very low end, 9200M GS is shared with main memory, were as if you got GeForce 7800 GT that were released around 11th Aug 2005 it would probably max out CoD: MW 2 with out AA or AF

Also since I have identified that your GPU is mobile it stands to reason that so is your CPU, Mobile CPU are not designed to perform intensive task, just word processing and web browsing.

Intel dual core CPU desktop lol
AMD dual core CPU desktop lol

Any high end series GPU card including
7800GT, 8600GT, 9600GT, GTX 260
HD 3850, HD 4770, HD 5770

They are not the higher end cards around but they are in the high end window of the series they belong to for very very good prices.

My mum system is

Intel Celeron E1400 2.0GHz (Dual core)
ATI HD 4550
4GB PC2-6400 800MHz DDR2

That not high end or not low end, I would say main stream and it probably play the game at better setting than Ps3/360 at 1440 by 900P with no AA or AF

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Pandamobile - 45 days 14 hours ago

What the f*ck? 8 disagrees? So many idiots on this website...

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

hoops - 46 days 16 hours ago

You simply cannot compare console graphics to PC graphics.
Between higher quality textures. Smoother frame rates looked in at 60fps for most games and IQ settings just not possible ON CONSOLES, it makes anyone wonder why some people will try and compare PC's to consoles.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

frostypants - 46 days 15 hours ago

@6.1: Because with every console gen, those differences become less apparent. The closer video game graphics get to photo-realism over the years, the harder it becomes to discern the difference between PCs and consoles. There's a limit to what the eyes can perceive in terms of graphical quality, as that quality improves.

Yeah, this looks a bit better on the PC, but to call it a mind-blowing improvement over consoles would be disingenuous. It's...a little better. That's it. But it's nothing like the visual difference between PC and consoles for, say, CoD 2.

I still don't know what platform to get this on myself. I have more gamer friends on PS3 and 360 than on PC. But yes, the PC looks a bit nicer (for those with a good rig), and I'm assuming is a little cheaper.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

chad22hkd - 45 days 11 hours ago

In some of your points your right. In a perfect world we all could afford to upgrade a pc yearly. To me I love video games no matter what hardware its on. But this is the point I'm trying to make. I know that by now pc hardware can destroy consoles. Anyone who thinks they cant doesn't know what they are talking about. But their popularity is not that high anymore. name 1 exclusive to show off pc hardware in the next year. It doesn't matter in you have all that horsepower. Because no one is taking advantage of it. Crysis is 2 years old correct. Every year pcs should have a title to look like that. They have have the hardware to make it happen. Its like 2006 with the ps3 harware. Everyone bragging about the cell and blue ray. Well those things haven't even really been used untill K2 and uncharted 2. So it was bragging about nothing. I see other people saying how COD is built on a pc engine first. Then ported to consoles. But on most all multiplat titles they have to keep the consoles in mind. They cant fully utilize the pc without hurting the console version. Unless they make it from the ground up on every platform. This is how it should be done. But cost way to much development costs. I would buy a high end pc for gaming. But It doesnt have enough games like crysis for me to care about it. Its like Tekken 5 a psp port running at 1080p with better textures. Tekken 6 at a lower res still looks better. Because the tech for the game engine its self was higher. Its just right now pcs don't have much to brag about. The next crysis is coming to consoles.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

El_Colombiano - 46 days 17 hours ago

Ratings and sales mean nothing. Its the overall experience and Uncharted 2 over delivered on that. MW2 with its four hour story line and generic online...not even close.

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report

Keita101 - 46 days 14 hours ago

eh, i've played better multiplayer being a gamer of all platforms. yes the game is great, but imo, not deserving of a perfect 10/10.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Sub4Dis - 46 days 13 hours ago

Scribblenauts

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Sub4Dis - 46 days 13 hours ago

The winners are the ppl who saved their money and didn't buy COD v2.4

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

hoops - 46 days 15 hours ago

You are truely one hard core Sony fanboy LOL

So you're saying that if L4D was made on the ps3 it would look better then the PC version? LOL
Good god man....

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Pandamobile - 46 days 12 hours ago

The f*ck are you talking about?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

STONEY4 - 46 days 11 hours ago

The faces in Left4Dead 2 on PC have more detail than Uncharted 2's faces. I don't know what "crappy graphics" you're talking about.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

bjornbear - 46 days 14 hours ago

.

Agree(0) | Disagree(5) | Report

Ju - 46 days 15 hours ago

I just spent about $1000 on a PC in Feb. Quad, 9600GT (well, supposedly kills the PS3, no ?). And no, with that config I can just run 1280x800 on high and it can't match the PS3; not with the smooth gaming experience I am used there. Not without tweaks or what not (ever seen UC2 ?). I am not willing to invest to another graphics card again to "maybe play 1080p with 4xMSAA and @60fps".

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

frostypants - 46 days 14 hours ago

@17.1, a slightly better graphics card should run most things in 1080 no problem (I'm running a Radeon 4850 and can do 1080 smoothly). Your CPU is certainly good enough. But yes, I agree, the PC fanboys tend to talk too much about what their systems can do IN THEORY, not what they do in REALITY. On paper, sure, high end PCs dust the PS3 and the 360. What developers end up releasing rarely reflects this, though.

Totally with you on Uncharted 2. The only PC game that beats it is Crysis. PC fanboys will say "HA! That's a 2 year old game!", to which I say, well, shouldn't it have been surpassed by now? Isn't this a REALLY bad sign that developers are giving up on truly pushing PC technology as far as it can go?

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

TABSF - 45 days 18 hours ago

@ Ju

You could get HD 5850 (£210) or HD 5770 (£120) and it would rape that 9600GT no end.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report