well in the pc there are different soldiers on the first pic but way better graphics on the second scene there are better graphics on the pc but less details so as on the last scene i dont get it why there are alot of missing models on the pc did they run it on low???? or its just the devs being stupid i am a pc player and i know the power of the pc and i still dont get it why does the ps3 got the worst textures even though its stronger than the xbox
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is all the rage at the moment. And with a simultaneous release across the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC, it's definitely worth the effort to see how the game looks on all of them. It's clear that Infinity Ward spent a lot of time polishing the engine for speed. The game runs great on both of the consoles and doesn't require a beast of a computer to run well. We could crank up the resolution and all the high-quality settings with the $160 Radeon HD 5770 and play the game stutter-free. As usual, the PC version of the game looks better, but that's mainly due to higher-resolution textures and the ability to crank up antialiasing and anisotropic filtering settings. Outside of a few blurry textures on the PlayStation 3, the two console versions look largely the same.
We captured the following shots at 720p across both consoles and the PC to keep everything even. On the PC, we enabled all the highest-quality settings, as well as 4x antialiasing and 8x anisotropic filtering. On the consoles, we captured the images directly over HDMI using the Matrox MXO2 Mini and used FRAPs to capture screenshots on the PC.
The first shot represents a shrunk-down version of the originals, and the second zoomed-in set is representative of an actual pixel-to-pixel comparison.
Computers don't have to be super expensive to run a game. My rig cost roughly $550 in total (custom parts), and I can run Modern Warfare 2 at graphics settings that better then both consoles with 60-80 fps. Considering I can also use my computer for other things beside just video games like media editing (aka video editors, Photoshop, etc.) and work, I consider it a fair deal.
@ResidnetEvil777 Literally this last weekend I built a PC for my friend and stayed under his $700 limit. That included mouse, keyboard, monitor, OS, and all the hardware. That system blows away most console games and only the best of the best looking console games will come close but still not beat it. Take into account that most people will spend at least $200-$400 on a computer. Add in the cost of a console and it is about the same. So either you can get a slow PC and console, or a gaming PC that plays games better and does all your computing needs better. You don't need to spend over $1,000 to blow away a console and the people that spend the thousands on PCs are enthusiasts that do it as a hobby and those systems are better than what the next Xbox and Playstation will be.
@Scottisme As I said MW2 doesn't run at 1080p on the 360. Not many console games do. God of War 3 is the only game currently coming to mind that runs at 1080p with 60FPS, and that looks really good also because nobody is impressed if the new Pac Man can do 1080p and 60FPS.
Why do a graphics comparison for Modern Warfare 2? On the 360 it doesn't even run at 720p. It runs at like 640 or something then is upscaled. MW2 doesn't have good graphics anyways since it used old engine. What were the settings for the PC they used on this? The PC version shouldn't have the extra details missing on a good rig. PC games will always look better because they can update constantly. Think about it, PCs can be upgraded almost monthly, while consoles just make the best with the 3-4 year old hardware they have. Not bashing consoles because they can produce great stuff, but PC hardware will always be ahead. They should have used a more graphically demanding game for this, not one that a 9500GT can run at 100+FPS. I just got my new GTX 460 and it will take on all consoles at once and come out on top. In a couple months when Crysis 2 releases I will get a second to run SLI and I will be looking better than the next gen consoles.
Well pc wins as always:) someone mentioned something that to see better graphics with pc against the consoles u need 9600gt higher..The 8600GT 512mb can output better graphics against x360,ps3 ;) as long as u have a quad core cpu Q6600 or higher to play at decent frames.well im happy with that card and my e4400 dual core :) (upgraded with gtx260 896mb still same cpu)
JaJaGunz i can tell for a fact that PC is far superior looks wise. I've played MW2 on 360 when it came out, and now on Ps3. The game looked fairly good. Then i played it on my gaming pc max settings at 1920x1080and wow what a difference. More details, much much muuuuuuuuch better textures and lightings. The view distance is also much better. Can see more detailed and clearly at distances on pc than consoles. Going back to MW2 on ps3 after playing it on pc is a hard adjustment to my eyes.
PC obviously comes first, then the 360 and finally the PS3, not that I think that this should change the game experience that much. You play it for the fun right?
It's utterly stupid. All are pretty much the same, pc wins obviously, but Xbox and Ps3, come on? Who cares if there is a slight detail of, don't you play games for fun? It's the console that FEELS best for you, thats what the decision should be.
PC always wins in a comparison war. PS3 and 360 is almost identical except that you have to look closely for any difference. Does it matter what console you own when you can enjoy games?
on PC the third and forth pictures the grass disapears what's up with that? and also it's on 720p both the xbox and Pc version can go to 1080p not that your eyes would notice a difference untill it's played a a large screen
obviously PC is the best im ashamed that they excluding from exclusives AND FOR ALL OF THOSE WHO SAYS THE PC COSTS TOO MUCH...IT USED FOR EVERYTHING NOT ONLY GAMING..... I BET ALL OF YOU HAVE PC'S (lol of course they do how could they comment) U NEED ONLY ABOUT 100-250$ TO GET A DECENT GRAPHIC CARD AND THATS THE ONLY THING THAT YOU NEED FOR GAMING not mentioning that the PC is able to emulate some consoles so PC WIN
PS3 comparisons always look a bit washed out.......... As for us PC gamers, of course we get the best possible experience. Both console versions have what looks to be trilinear texture filtering and the worst bane.....render at 1024 x 600 and upscale to 720p. Even modest PC graphics cards can run the game at 60 FPS at true 1920 x 1080 without 4x AA enabled, but so many CAN with 4x AA enabled. It should be mentioned that the 360 version IIRC uses 4x AA, and the PS3 version if not using 4x AA, is using 2x AA. However at such a high render resolution 2x AA or none at all really is needed, but so many graphics cards out there can do 4x AA, max available AF, 2560 x 1600 and still do 60 FPS+ minimum. As for cost of a gaming level PC that will wipe the floor with a 360, it doesn't take much.......not more than \\\$450 - 500 even with OS included. For another \\\$100 you could go quite future proof with............ Athlon II x4 620 @ 2.6 GHz CPU ATi Radeon 5750 1 GB GDDR5 Graphics Card MSI 740GM-P25 AM3 Motherboard 2 x 2 GB G.Skill DDR3-1333 System RAM 500 GB 7200 RPM Western Digital Harddrive Cooler Master 460W PSU Gigabyte Mid-ATX Tower Case Sony Super Multi DVD Drive/Burner Windows 7 64 bit Operating System Another \\\$200 will buy you a decent 1080p computer monitor. \\\$800 for a pretty kick*** gaming machine. Everyone needs a computer anyways. So why not spend an extra \\$200 or so to have a gaming quality machine?
practically doesn't matter what pc you have, as long as it has a nvidia 9800 or better graphics card, it will always out do Xbox360 and PS3...course thats just my opinion.
graphics wise well of course the pc will be out on top.. your comparing a multi thousand dollar machine to ones that only cost a few hundred. second place i'd have to say xbox and then ps3 in last. The 360's screens look a bit crisper then ps3.
PC? PC? Wow! Oblivion looks great on mine but that was in 2006, so now some high end computer could handle MGS4 or Uncharted or some console exclusive!
yeah, but in pc version they seem to look like they are one from other world, and you cant compare pc to ps3 or xbox, cause of course its better, its just expensive and stuff. ps3 is blurrier cause dumb ps3 developers doesn't know that darker shades look much better than light. not too dark (like xbox) but in the middle of xbox and ps3. xposx 3630
Look at the first image comparison. PC isn't blurry, Xbox 360 is a bit blurry, PS3 is the blurriest. So in conclusion: PS3 = Good Xbox 360 = Better PC = Best But that's just my opinion :)
Have there been any game where where the PC version looks worse than the console version? (except for Half-Life 2, but it graphical enhancement were necessary.) The PlayStation 3 have always had problems with blurryness, just look at Grand Theft Auto IV.
first place=PC second place=Xbox 360 third place=PS3 PS3 graphics look to blurry. Don't believe me, compare the PS3 graphics to the 360 and PC on the first image.
A lot of the people here are stupid. PC will always have best graphics compared to consoles, because, you can always build a PC with better hardware then the consoles. An Xbox 360 is $200, a decent PC is over $1000.
the pc is best in my opinion, dont get me wrong i have it for xbox360 d: but still theres much more detail in the pc version... feel free to comment (:
Got the best of both worlds, PS3 for U2, KZ2 and MGS4 and PC for all the rest. We all know that most of all 360 games come to PC, and then we get better everything. Just waiting to Gears 2 to come. Overall, I think the PS3 is the best buy cuz of all the extra's: Media Player, BD, WIFI, Controllers and most of all, it's the quietest of the 2. Also waiting on the new Fermi chip from Nvidia to really go beyond the norm in Graphics!
@Shoinko - LOL,ok,glad u find that so funny xD... @slayerduckie- had it, and yes, it does look amazing,but your off the point, that game is probably only one that's comparable with Uncharted 2...