Most console titles run at about 30 FPS at around 720p resolution. Their GPUs can't handle anything better than that. There are some exceptions like CoD:MW3, which uses an old engine that has been optimized quite heavily, and some of the early console titles could do 60 FPS, but that is not true with most current games.
If you want to imitate console graphics, best thing you can do would be to run your games at 1280x720 on the low or medium settings. It would help to know more about your system though. Starcraft II is more likely to be CPU bound than GPU bound, especially on a lower resolution. Rage isn't demanding at all, even really low end cards do well at lower resolutions, bugs and texture pop in notwithstanding. BF3 you would probably have to play at low settings, it needs a strong GPU and a quad core to run well.
October 26, 2011 10:18:03 PM
This is my rig:
Phenom II X4 955BE 3.2GHz (Oced to 4GHz)
Corsair XMS3 8GB DDR3-1600
ASRock 880G Pro3 Socket AM3+ 880G ATX
XFX Radeon HD5670 1GB GDDR5(OCed to 900MHz clk, 1.2GHz mem)
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 6GB/s 7200RPM HDD
OCz StealthXStream 700W PSU
Antec 300 ATX
(5x) Antec TriCool Case Fans
Contrary to popular opinion I do not have any money to buy a new graphics card as it all has gone to the processor, motherboard, and RAM.
If you play at a low resolution like 720p, that computer will do just fine at medium, or even high settings on some of the less demanding titles. BF3 might have to be run on low, you would have to play around with the settings and see what the best balance of performance and eyecandy is. Rage, Starcraft II, and World in Conflict should run fairly well on your system, provided you don't crank the resolution up to 1080p.