Dirt 3: PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. PC - HD Comparison Screenshots

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. PC. Some more hd comparison screenshots of Dirt 3.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Ranshak2762d ago

Not just about the graphics PC version on most dated hardware will be running beyond 60fps, plus for enthsiasts it could even be running on 3 screens. While being cheaper then either of the console versions.

CameronL992762d ago

Right, your $2000 PC that needs to be given several hundred dollars worth of upgrades just to run all the newest games each year is much cheaper than my $300 PS3. Oh wait... I think he meant that PC gaming is cheaper because he steals PC games off the internet. lol

Ranshak2762d ago

lol to run 1080 dirt3 a 500usd pc would be enough and yea the game would be cheaper too.

saying 2000usd PC is deluded at best.

iamgoatman2762d ago

1. A good gaming PC doesn't cost anywhere near $2000.
2. Upgrades aren't needed to play new games.
3. PC games are cheaper than consoles games, making it cheaper in the long run.

Got anymore ignorant nonsense you feel the need to spew?

Solid_Snake-2762d ago (Edited 2762d ago )

[email protected] your pathetic attempt at trying to curse pc gamers.

next gen consoles are 5 years old or around that. you buy 1 game a month for say @£40...£40x12x5 =£2,400 for 5 years worth of games.....

pc titles 1080p/60fps for £25 a shot. £25x12x5 = 1,500

you wasted £900 on games this gen. i got a gaming rig and all them games for the same price. except i wont be spending £400 on next gen hardware in i already own it..... you will be trading your console in for pennies towards your new "ON BOARD" 1GBgpu,2gig ram,2core cpu console.


kevnb2762d ago (Edited 2762d ago )

who the heck pays $2000 for a pc? Mind you that 300 dollar console will still leave you buying a 500-700 pc every few years... so why not spend the extra 100-200 on making that computer gaming capable? Its even got to the point where an extra $300 will get you a laptop that plays games instead of just a decent machine.

I prefer pc because I value customization, digital distribution, playing at higher res, deciding when my gen starts and not even worrying about backwards compatibility.

MaxXAttaxX2761d ago (Edited 2761d ago )

Further proof that when it comes to most multiplatform games, the graphical leap isn't that big.

What I'm trying to say is. We still need at least a couple of years before the next generation of consoles are released to actually see a big enough difference the like we've seen from PS1 to PS2 to PS3.
It's just not enough yet.

Oh and physical software game pricing between PC and consoles:

montyburns0002761d ago

lol more ignorant ps3 drones claiming gaming PC's cost $2000 minimum.

I don't blame them, they're too poor to afford the 11¢/day for XBL> I hardly think they could afford a decent rig.

cdland2761d ago

What really sucks is mommy owns the TV... lol

MaxXAttaxX2761d ago (Edited 2761d ago )

Sucks for you.
If your mommny owns the TV, then more than likely that PC isn't yours either.

Get a job, afford your own stuff.

BeastlyRig2761d ago (Edited 2761d ago )

come on dude at least say something true! Don't just make a typical console fanboy statement because u hear other fanboys say it!

This is a 2009 low end card that costs $120!

it's called a amd 5770 & if it can run dirt 2 like this it can run dirt3! ok?


it runs the witcher 2 well! & it looks better than console games! I came out 4 days ago!

If you own a pc i say anyone can upgrage with the console cycle..

For a game Like BF3 it's worth an upgrade after 3 - 5 years! It's next gen!

stevenhiggster2761d ago (Edited 2761d ago )

I have a decent rig that I built in 2007 which still runs most games on high settings all I've done since then is up grade the gfx card from an 8800gt to a gtx460.
There are a few areas where console gaming is better, more convenient for most, cheaper to get in to at the beginning, much simpler and consistent.
I personally play on my PC and PS3 in equal measure, both have strengths and weaknesses.
You really don't have to pay thousands for a gaming pc, you pay thousands for an enthusiast pc, but they are just overkill and totally unnecessary.
And the fact is, once you've got over the initial build costs, pc gaming is waay cheaper. I've bought at least 10 games in the last couple of months and thanks to Steam and other online stores with their crazy deals I haven't even spent £80.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2761d ago
waltyftm2762d ago

They all look great, Very hard to see any differences.

yamzilla2762d ago (Edited 2762d ago )

screens are good at hiding all the jaggies, pop-in and screen tear the consoles will have

not to mention the pc's much better framerate and wayyy higher resolutions

BrianG2762d ago

Funny you say "wayyy", with three "y"'s, higher resolution.

Most PC gamers are still using PC hardware that will probably run this game at 1080p with a few additional features, like low AA or AF.

Nvidia pointed out that the majority of PC gamers were still using a 9800GT graphics card. Granted this card is powerful when compared to the consoles, but certainly not "wayyy" better.

We all know the PC version will be better, but only enthusiasts will be able to appreciate the true leap from consoles to PC. There's nothing wrong with that, since I want to build an enthusiast system myself.

ProjectVulcan2762d ago (Edited 2762d ago )

BrianG, you do realise that 1920 x 1080 is more than twice the resolution the consoles run this game at? That is kinda wayyy for me...

Plus i prefer the 60 frames version. The smoothness in racers is important. A lone 9800GT and an old core 2 duo will have no problems running this game in 1080p and with better AA/AF than the consoles.

Certainly this represents a 'low end' gaming machine in 2011, as much faster cards like the Radeon 5770 cost as little as $100/£75

PS360PCROCKS2762d ago

it is wayyyyy better when even my system can probably run this on 3 screens easily.

MaxXAttaxX2761d ago (Edited 2761d ago )


These screenshots clearly show very little difference between PC and console versions.
Yeah HUGE differences. /s

BrianG2761d ago

@Vulcan, I agree that it is a higher resolution, seeing as how the console versions of games like this typically hit 720p natively. At least that's what I'd expect from Dirt.

But I don't think that is enough of a difference to warrant purchasing a PC. Even with outdated hardware, to run it better than the consoles right now would cost anywhere from 300 and up easily. I reckon more than 300 for a decent GPU, CPU, PSU, and MB. But that is just my opinion.

Also I have to admit, the consoles have been holding up quite well. The way PC technology has been evolving I would expect games like Dirt 3 to be miles and miles above console versions. This is why people buy consoles, solid performance for a decent amount of time.

@PS360. You would need a decent GPU and CPU combo to run this game smoothly on 3 screens at a resolution higher than consoles NATIVE resolution. But I'm not doubting your system.

MaxXAttaxX2761d ago

My previous links didn't work. So here:
So again. Observe the HUGE difference between PC and consoles.
/end sarcasm

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2761d ago
MaxXAttaxX2761d ago (Edited 2761d ago )

[double post]

BYE2762d ago

Pointless. It's kinda hard to see any differences between console and PC on these tiny screens...

ian722762d ago

Click on the "Full Size Image" at bottom of photo's, to get bigger pictures.
There isn't much difference at all between all 3 versions. Looks very good on console and PC.

F4sterTh4nFTL2762d ago (Edited 2762d ago )

Some people will be playing PC version with even more screens:

PS360PCROCKS2762d ago

that's absolutely ridiculous lol

ATiElite2761d ago

Well after viewing the video it's obvious that that person plays Flight simulators. Many PC Gamers who use Flight, Rail, Space, or Boating simulators use that many monitors but for Dirt 3, 3 is good enough for this console port.

Once again Codemasters disappoints.

Show all comments (43)
The story is too old to be commented.