Gaming rigs do not cost $3000...

I'll make this real simple: I agree that you can currently build a $600 PC which matches if not exceeds the power of a console. In reality, if you build such a PC you're going to be using outdated standards which will no longer be supported and therefore you will have to spend another $600 2-3 years later to keep up with games then. Therefore, no one is dumb enough to buy outdated hardware, so realistically no one (intelligent) is building that $600 PC for gamingDatheron

[QUOTE="Killfox"]

[QUOTE="Blue-Sphere"] I ended up having to buy a new graphics card just to play WoW, even though my comp was only about a year and a half old when WoW came out. :?skrat_01

What did you have an integrated graphics card and upgraded to a 7300LE. HAHAHAHAHAH.

This is what grinds with PC hardware and console gamers. Many simply do not understand anything about computer hardware and assume, and guess.

Thats not entirely true. You'll still be able to use the technology well into the last half of the generation. Nothing is requiring you to upgrade. It a little something called scalability and CVARS. The hardware will always be more superior than consoles, and will still be able to provide graphics on par with consoles. Besides, you really don't have to upgrade RAM or your CPU very much. After you buy such a rig, all you'd have to do was place 200 dollars in a 600 series card and tadah, up to date. Thats a lot more realistic.Vandalvideo

New games would require you to upgrade. The perfect example is, of course, what Pro_wrestler linked to in Crysis:

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600 - Shader Model 2.0
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9 with Windows XP / Vista

These are the bare minimum requirements, and the CPU + GPU are on par with what was available three years ago at mainstream (i.e., not the newest but certainly not the crappiest, the sweet spot for most customers) prices. Not to mention the RAM at only 1 GB when most games are going to be hitting 2GB optimal soon (Crysis's recommended RAM, for example, is 1.5GB).

So basically, what was available for $600-$800 (I think I built mine for around $1000 back then, heck, I blogged it here) will barely run you a game nowadays and certainly not very well. Any games beyond will require an upgrade and a hefty one at that (new motherboard, graphics card, CPU, RAM, and most likely a new PSU), which is what I had to do a year ago to keep up with the latest games. If you had started with a $2000 system then maybe you can get away with $300-$400 upgrades in 3 years - not with a $600 one.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"] [QUOTE="Killfox"]

[QUOTE="Blue-Sphere"] I ended up having to buy a new graphics card just to play WoW, even though my comp was only about a year and a half old when WoW came out. :?Blue-Sphere

What did you have an integrated graphics card and upgraded to a 7300LE. HAHAHAHAHAH.

This is what grinds with PC hardware and console gamers. Many simply do not understand anything about computer hardware and assume, and guess.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Thats not entirely true. You'll still be able to use the technology well into the last half of the generation. Nothing is requiring you to upgrade. It a little something called scalability and CVARS. The hardware will always be more superior than consoles, and will still be able to provide graphics on par with consoles. Besides, you really don't have to upgrade RAM or your CPU very much. After you buy such a rig, all you'd have to do was place 200 dollars in a 600 series card and tadah, up to date. Thats a lot more realistic.Datheron

New games would require you to upgrade. The perfect example is, of course, what Pro_wrestler linked to in Crysis:

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600 - Shader Model 2.0
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9 with Windows XP / Vista

These are the bare minimum requirements, and the CPU + GPU are on par with what was available three years ago at mainstream (i.e., not the newest but certainly not the crappiest, the sweet spot for most customers) prices. Not to mention the RAM at only 1 GB when most games are going to be hitting 2GB optimal soon (Crysis's recommended RAM, for example, is 1.5GB).

So basically, what was available for $600-$800 (I think I built mine for around $1000 back then, heck, I blogged it here) will barely run you a game nowadays and certainly not very well. Any games beyond will require an upgrade and a hefty one at that (new motherboard, graphics card, CPU, RAM, and most likely a new PSU), which is what I had to do a year ago to keep up with the latest games. If you had started with a $2000 system then maybe you can get away with $300-$400 upgrades in 3 years - not with a $600 one.

No no..that is a 2004 spec computer and you will be playing a 2007 and beyond spec game. You do not have to upgrade but that isn't the point. The point is that you can spend $600 and get the same or better performance as any console. Once again, once you buy a GPU thats more powerful than whats in consoles, it doesn't stop being more powerful its just that PC games get more demanding and there will be an inevitable drop in performance.

Once that card has hit a "Saturation point" then you upgrade, but its certainly not a requirement as you can tell by the Crysis minimum system requirements.

That rig will not outpeform any console you are freaking delusional that processor sucks. Polaris_choice

Oh, you sure know how to change my mind! Congrats /Sarcasm.

My PC cost me $500. It can play Counter Strike and WC3 FT on Medium settings.waynehead895

Mine cost $480 and it can max out HL2 and Far Cry @ 1440x900; 60+fps 2xAA/4xAF.

pc rox

No no..that is a 2004 spec computer and you will be playing a 2007 and beyond spec game. You do not have to upgrade but that isn't the point. The point is that you can spend $600 and get the same or better performance as any console. Once again, once you buy a GPU thats more powerful than whats in consoles, it doesn't stop being more powerful its just that PC games get more demanding and there will be an inevitable drop in performance. Pro_wrestler

Good - at least you're beginning to understand that performance means more than just the number of transistors and the pure resolution + frames per second that so many PC gamers fixate on. Now you have to understand that for any piece of hardware, the performance you get out of it, especially initially, is not 100% or even 75% - a lot of the raw power and polygons that GPU's push are lost to inefficiencies in the pipeline and in the rendering so that the GPU is able to run on all sorts of systems. You can tap that potential given time, but since people would prefer buying new hardware for more power instead of optimizing their software, you don't get that "lost performance" the way you do with consoles.

Once that card has hit a "Saturation point" then you upgrade, but its certainly not a requirement as you can tell by the Crysis minimum system requirements.Pro_wrestler

And I'm telling you that the saturation point comes 2, 3 years after the card's been released. Whatever comes after Crysis will push the min. requirements up even higher, making your GPU unable to run the game at all, forcing an upgrade.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Thats not entirely true. You'll still be able to use the technology well into the last half of the generation. Nothing is requiring you to upgrade. It a little something called scalability and CVARS. The hardware will always be more superior than consoles, and will still be able to provide graphics on par with consoles. Besides, you really don't have to upgrade RAM or your CPU very much. After you buy such a rig, all you'd have to do was place 200 dollars in a 600 series card and tadah, up to date. Thats a lot more realistic.Datheron

New games would require you to upgrade. The perfect example is, of course, what Pro_wrestler linked to in Crysis:

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600 - Shader Model 2.0
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9 with Windows XP / Vista

These are the bare minimum requirements, and the CPU + GPU are on par with what was available three years ago at mainstream (i.e., not the newest but certainly not the crappiest, the sweet spot for most customers) prices. Not to mention the RAM at only 1 GB when most games are going to be hitting 2GB optimal soon (Crysis's recommended RAM, for example, is 1.5GB).

So basically, what was available for $600-$800 (I think I built mine for around $1000 back then, heck, I blogged it here) will barely run you a game nowadays and certainly not very well. Any games beyond will require an upgrade and a hefty one at that (new motherboard, graphics card, CPU, RAM, and most likely a new PSU), which is what I had to do a year ago to keep up with the latest games. If you had started with a $2000 system then maybe you can get away with $300-$400 upgrades in 3 years - not with a $600 one.

Well DUUUUUUUUUUUH. We just hit a new generation. Its obvious that would happen. OMG MUH XBOX ONE CAN'T RUN TEH GEARS TEH 360 IS BAD. Your logic is wrong.Vandalvideo

Hey genius - PC's hit a new "generation" every 2-3 years; other than Windows XP, every major Windows release has come out within 2-3 years of each other. Each new DirectX has come out within 2 years of each other. GPU's get upgraded to the "next generation" between 9 months to a year. New generations are common.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Well DUUUUUUUUUUUH. We just hit a new generation. Its obvious that would happen. OMG MUH XBOX ONE CAN'T RUN TEH GEARS TEH 360 IS BAD. Your logic is wrong.Datheron

Hey genius - PC's hit a new "generation" every 2-3 years; other than Windows XP, every major Windows release has come out within 2-3 years of each other. Each new DirectX has come out within 2 years of each other. GPU's get upgraded to the "next generation" between 9 months to a year. New generations are common.

Yet you aren't required to upgrade ocne every 2-3 years. There was a major graphical leap between then and now. A 5700LE purchase near the beginning of last generation would have lasted you up until near the end of the generation. I know mine did.Vandalvideo

I'm not familiar with the 5700LE, so I did a bit of research:

In 2003, NVIDIA's mid-range GPU products were the GeForce FX 5600 and GeForce 5600 Ultra that contested against ATI's RADEON 9600 and RADEON 9600 PRO respectively. At that time, the mainstream 5600 model was much more prevalent than the performance oriented 5600 Ultra model and we have in past reviews cited the reason is due to a GPU shortage problem. We weren't really surprised either as it was merely a cut down version of the short-lived GeForce FX 5800 series, which also faced similar problems.

That situation took an about turn at the start of 2004 when the GeForce FX 5700 and GeForce FX 5700 Ultra were replacing their GeForce FX 5600 series predecessors.

So....card released in 2004 with a sub-$200 price tag, and now - 3 years later - you can't use it to run games! Not to mention you barely meet the minimum requirements for games like Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes, and Oblivion. A three-year-old piece of technology has you playing in essentially 480p with PS2-like textures and pixelation and jaggies? Really?

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]No no..that is a 2004 spec computer and you will be playing a 2007 and beyond spec game. You do not have to upgrade but that isn't the point. The point is that you can spend $600 and get the same or better performance as any console. Once again, once you buy a GPU thats more powerful than whats in consoles, it doesn't stop being more powerful its just that PC games get more demanding and there will be an inevitable drop in performance. Datheron

Good - at least you're beginning to understand that performance means more than just the number of transistors and the pure resolution + frames per second that so many PC gamers fixate on. Now you have to understand that for any piece of hardware, the performance you get out of it, especially initially, is not 100% or even 75% - a lot of the raw power and polygons that GPU's push are lost to inefficiencies in the pipeline and in the rendering so that the GPU is able to run on all sorts of systems. You can tap that potential given time, but since people would prefer buying new hardware for more power instead of optimizing their software, you don't get that "lost performance" the way you do with consoles.

Once that card has hit a "Saturation point" then you upgrade, but its certainly not a requirement as you can tell by the Crysis minimum system requirements.Pro_wrestler

And I'm telling you that the saturation point comes 2, 3 years after the card's been released. Whatever comes after Crysis will push the min. requirements up even higher, making your GPU unable to run the game at all, forcing an upgrade.

.With the new technology within DX10 GPU's upgrading will come even less often now, especially since optimization/scaling technology is getting better all the time

Proof of this? When Halo CE PC first launched I doubt you could max it out on an Intergrated graphics like you can now. This was at a time when ATI's 9800Pro's where highend and now I've maxed it out at 30fps @ 768p all on intergrated graphics chips. This is just a testament to how less demanding games are getting in comparison to what you need to upgrade in order to meet the demands of that game...Its why scaling exists and is why Crysis will run on 3/4 year old rigs.

Halo CE PC requirements:

• Microsoft® Windows® 98SE/Me/XP/2000
• PC with 733 MHz equivalent or higher processor
• 128 MB of system RAM
• 1.2 GB available hard disk space
• 8x speed or faster CD-ROM drive
• 32 MB T&L capable video card required
  
  I can max that out with my cellphone.

With the new technology within DX10 GPU's upgrading will come even less often now, especially since optimization/scaling technology is getting better all the time

Proof of this? When Halo CE PC first launched I doubt you could max it out on an Intergrated graphics like you can now. This was at a time when ATI's 9800Pro's where highend and now I've maxed it out at 30fps @ 768p all on intergrated graphics chips. This is just a testament to how less demanding games are getting in comparison to what you need to upgrade in order to meet the demands of that game...Its why scaling exists and is why Crysis will run on 3/4 year old rigs.

Halo CE PC requirements:

• Microsoft® Windows® 98SE/Me/XP/2000
• PC with 733 MHz equivalent or higher processor
• 128 MB of system RAM
• 1.2 GB available hard disk space
• 8x speed or faster CD-ROM drive
• 32 MB T&L capable video card required
  
  I can max that out with my cellphone.

Pro_wrestler

Uh - you're taking a 2-years-in-the-making port of an XBox 1 game as your example of how long PC hardware lasts? That's rather sad commentary on the longevity of hardware, don't you think?

As another example of some ridiculous hardware requirements, I give you Stranglehold:

• OS: Windows XP SP2 / Vista
• CPU: Dual Core Processor
• RAM: 2 GB RAM
• Video: Nvidia 7800 or higher / ATI x1300 or higher
• Disk space: 15 GB