Mouse over the captions to swap the images back and forth. The third and fourth image sets follow the same pattern.
To easily compare the PC to the consoles, we scaled down the original 1920x1080 PC images to 1280x720 and cropped from there. The first image is a full screenshot set resized to fit the width of the page, followed by a zoomed-in image set that we created by cropping the original screen grabs to show you how the games look at a 1:1 pixel ratio.
For the consoles, we captured all of our images over HDMI with games running at 720p resolution, and we enabled full HDMI range on the PS3.Įach game has four sets of rollover images. The PC allowed us to enable high-quality settings in most games and have plenty of power left over to kick antialiasing up to 4x and anisotropic filtering up to 8x. We equipped our test PC with high-end components, a GeForce 280 GTX, and a quad-core Intel Core 2 CPU. On the PC, we used FRAPs to capture images at 1920x1080 resolution. A well-equipped PC beats both consoles easily-of course, that same PC also costs three to four times more than either of the consoles. The results aren't terribly surprising, but the differences are still interesting to see. You'll likely recognize many of the shots from our previous graphics comparisons. We focused on more recent games for our current comparison, because those are the games people are still buying and playing. The graphics comparison features started out as a way to examine which console had better graphics, but readers began asking us to include PC image comparisons for games available on all three platforms. Since then we've released rounds 2, 3, and 4, but we hadn't touched the third rail-the PC-until now. By: Sarju Shah - Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008īack in 2006 (when the current generation of consoles was still called the next generation) we did our first Xbox 360 vs.