What card can give graphics at the same capability as an xbox 360?

Specs are similar to the X1900 XT... not sure about clockspeeds, maybe the XTX is closer.

A 7800GT would match it on the nVidia side.
 
But go with the 7900 GT. Cheaper than XBOX 360 and much faster!

Will the specs of the ps3 be published once it is released? I'm thinking about building a rig that will be better than the ps3 in terms of graphics and speeds

Actually none of them can right now, I dont see any chips oyt therer with 10 megabytes of cache on die. Some of the current chips are getting really close to the same performance such as the radeon xt1900xtx.

The xbox 360 is the best value for money in terms of gaming systems.  To have a comparable PC, you're going to spend $2000+.  You'll spend more on the graphics card for the PC than you'll spend on the 360.

Game consoles are budget, regardless how much they cost.  Keep in mind, to fully enjoy XBOX360, you need a HDTV, if you don't have one, you will probably buy one.  A good one costs about $1000 (here in Canada), plus the 360, it'll end up costing as much as new rig.  I'll say PCs are better than gaming consoles, but it's personal preference.

 
 
That's pretty optimistic in the 7800's favor...
 
Both the X1900 and XBOX 360 have 48 shader units... the 7800 GT has 20.
 
Even the 7900 GT and 7900 GTX have 24 shaders, half that of the XBOX 360 and X1900.
 
In shader heavy stuff (new & upcomign titles), shader power rules. The 7800 GT is most certainly not up to par compared to an X1900.

Well, we know it's not all about shaders. That's only part of the story.
 
The XBOX just has an ATI GPU right? And it can only be as fast as what was out 6 months ago when the thing was launched. PCs are already on the next generation and faster. The 7900GTX of course blows it away.
 
But I'm not sure on what ATI chip is exactly in there, just going off common sense here. But I'd take my $350 and put it on a 7900GT  card before an XBOX 360 that's for sure. A whole PC system would cost more of course but I've already got that.

i dont think you can compare them in that way.  that 10MB of cache from what i recall would not benefit a pc gfx card.  they are different and just comparing them side by side is misleading.  
 
  if you can give us a link explaining how the gfx card, made by ATI is better than ATI's pc range i would be surprised.

im definately getting a 40inch+ lcd hdtv to hook up wid my rig

 
6 months ago, the fastest videocard was the 7800 GTX, and the 7900 is a 7800 GTX with higher clockspeeds.  
 
It's not apples to apples so it's possible to compare, but IMHO if you took the Xbox360 GPU and made a videocard out of it it'd be closer to an X1900 than a 7900.
 
I put more stock into shader power than you do, sure I'll agree to that. Shaders may be only part of the story, but architecturally it's really all we can compare with. Onboard ram? Memory bus? Not really comperable because of the system specifics.

Nothing out is on par with the 360. It's got two gpus[ at 500mhz I think] and Unified shaders. I have heard that it's the first DX10 gpu and is beyond sm3.
 The thing is it's not just a gpu, the whole thing is a dedicated gaming system. It can't be viewed outside of the whole, if you put it a pc it wouldn't  even work as it is.
 The x1900 may beat it on paper but will never see optimization. No one out there has a os and game made just for your system. By the time you start really use the cards potential it's old news. Your OS takes up alot of resources  Just look at halo and what a pc needed to play it at xbox levels.

 
Excellent point concerning Halo on the PC vs. the original X-Box. The original XBox was a lowly Pentium 3 (either a 700 or 733) with 64 MB of RAM that was shared with a video card that was about equal to a GeForce3. If you think a PC with those specs will play Halo or Halo 2... well, you're living on another planet.

 
Actually, if memory serves the original Xbox was a Celeron, not a P3 (!).

I'm gonna stick by my original specs... I believe it was a full blown P3.

Detailed specifications
CPU: Micro PGA2 733 MHz Intel Coppermine Core. Basically a Pentium III.  
Intel IA-32 instruction set  
SIMD: SSE. Four single-precision floating-point numbers in one instruction.  
Theoretical maximum 4 FLOPS/cycle (2.9 gigaFLOPS for Xbox)  
Pentium III had architectural drawbacks that lessened real-world SSE throughput.  
SIMD: MMX. Integer functions. Switching between FPU and MMX is slow, so not of great use for 3D rendering tasks. Often used for audio and video.  
133 MHz FSB. Same as fastest Pentium III EB CPUs.  
32 kB L1 cache. 128 kB L2 Advanced Transfer Cache (256-bit). Same size as Celeron, but 8-way associative like Pentium III E.

128k of L2 cache = Celeron in my book  
 
Reduced cache has been the hallmark of celerons since they were invented...

In all other respects it is a P3. Since that's the only Celeron specific trait I'm sticking with my original analysis. The 133 FSB wasn't found on Celerons until much later. Give it up old timer!