How many people actually have cutting-edge PCs?

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

Nope. It's 2 years old and yet still plays many games at 1920x1200 with high/very high settings dependant upon the game.

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

nameless12345

Only thing I have that is outdated is my GPU.

Mine is the average run-of-the-mill Laptop, not that powerful, not built for gaming but I can play KillingFloor, which is enough for me while i built my as you would say "Cutting-Edge" PC.

I can run things maxed out, but i tend to get a cinematic framerate on a few games :P (which im fine with)

Do I have 4TB hard drive space, 3 GTX 480s, 12GB RAM, and 1000 dollar Intel processors? Hell no. So no I do not have a cutting edge computer. I do have an AMD Phenom 2 965 BE, GTX 260, 4.5GB ram, 2TB space in total (3 external hard drives and 2 internal. Got externals all free.)

My rig is good enough to max at anything on my monitor with a 2048x1125 resolution and still get acceptable frame rates. Of course modded Crysis and Metro 2033 fall below 20FPS in certain areas, mostly Metro 2033, but they're still extremely playable.

My PC can probably kill most games out there, but the only gaming I do on it is play good old classics from the SNES. My GPU isn't exactly built for gaming though I'm sure it can handle most.

I wouldnt say that my PC is cutting edge, but i would say its pretty damn good, Although i do admit, going with a 5770 was kinda stupid.

Note that this is a gaming forum. Many people (and potential customers) have integrated graphics.

I don't have either a cutting-edge PC or....

...a cutting-edge Mac!

I don't have either a cutting-edge PC or....

...a cutting-edge Mac!

catfishmoon23

Macs are PCs :P

Note that this is a gaming forum. Many people (and potential customers) have integrated graphics.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]

I don't have either a cutting-edge PC or....

...a cutting-edge Mac!

rpgs_shall_rule

Macs are PCs :P

Yeah, I was debating on whether to just put something like, "you guys don't have the cutting edge PC," accompanied by the Macbook Air picture, but I knew people would be like, "psh, that's not a PC!". Instead I just decided to differentiate. System Wars semantics lol.

Wow, this nameless guy is sure on an anti-PC agenda tonight. You think he's jealous?DragonfireXZ95

Oh yes, He be jelly my man.

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

i5750at4Ghz

You mean the indie scene? :P

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

nameless12345

You mean the indie scene? :P

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] Believe it or not there are still game devs out there who enjoy making great looking games, and don't look at gaming as a quick buck. Something that is missing from the console gaming world. i5750at4Ghz

You mean the indie scene? :P

We don't know exactly what Crysis 2 will look like on PC so I wouldn't call Shogun 2 the best just quite yet. Personally I'm hoping The Witcher 2 looks better than any game for some reason. Shogun 2 looks incredible though.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

You mean the indie scene? :P

ChubbyGuy40

We don't know exactly what Crysis 2 will look like on PC so I wouldn't call Shogun 2 the best just quite yet. Personally I'm hoping The Witcher 2 looks better than any game for some reason. Shogun 2 looks incredible though.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] No I mean devs like CD project. That care about the product they deliver to the market. Undoubtedly the best looking RPG of the next year. Or creative assembly, creating by far the best looking game of the next year in shogun 2 total war.i5750at4Ghz

We don't know exactly what Crysis 2 will look like on PC so I wouldn't call Shogun 2 the best just quite yet. Personally I'm hoping The Witcher 2 looks better than any game for some reason. Shogun 2 looks incredible though.

Marketing BS or whatever you wanna call it, I could care less for. I want a demo to see how well it's actually going to look myself.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] No I mean devs like CD project. That care about the product they deliver to the market. Undoubtedly the best looking RPG of the next year. Or creative assembly, creating by far the best looking game of the next year in shogun 2 total war.i5750at4Ghz

We don't know exactly what Crysis 2 will look like on PC so I wouldn't call Shogun 2 the best just quite yet. Personally I'm hoping The Witcher 2 looks better than any game for some reason. Shogun 2 looks incredible though.

My 5 year old laptop isn't very good with games. It struggles with Plants vs Zombies. Can't play Bejeweled Twist at all (only for a few seconds before slowing to a halt). And it slows down when there's multiple balls flying on Peggle (yeah I"m keeping it to simple games). Most impressive looking game I can play on it is Morrowind, and only for about 30 minutes, before it slows to a grinding halt.

Thinking about upgrading, or just use it for basic needs only and stick to handhelds and consoles for gaming and save the cash.

i have an amazing pc

My 5 year old laptop isn't very good with games. It struggles with Plants vs Zombies. Can't play Bejeweled Twist at all (only for a few seconds before slowing to a halt). And it slows down when there's multiple balls flying on Peggle (yeah I"m keeping it to simple games). Most impressive looking game I can play on it is Morrowind, and only for about 30 minutes, before it slows to a grinding halt.

Thinking about upgrading, or just use it for basic needs only and stick to handhelds and consoles for gaming and save the cash.

LovePotionNo9

Laptops age faster than desktops. Our Dell computer thats in the family room is 5 years old. Only thing I've done with it is throw in old video cards and a extra gig of RAM. Pentium D 2.8GHz, 1.5-2GB DDR2 (don't remember the exact number,) and 8800gt. I'm surprised even the PSU has lasted this long honestly. If you didn't need a monitor or a copy of Windows (windows 7 that is,) a budget PC is very capable for 500ish to get something good. You could even get away with less money spent if you can deal with used/ebay.

My GTX 280 is more than two years old, it still plays nearly everything I throw at it at 1080p and a solid framerate. Then again, this probably says more about the consolization (which, if only in this aspect, is a good thing) of this gen than it does the power of the card, though.

I think I have one.... Just for the power supply alone I paid $220, cant skimp on the most important part of your PC 8) But I didnt buy all the parts at once, a lot of them are upgraded like motherboard,ram,CPU, and the graphics card has been upgraded every 20 or so months. And yeah Metro is not the easiest game to run, its poorly optimize imo, kinda like the 1st Crysis.

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

nameless12345

So.......care to share that with us?

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

more people own cutting edge pc's then people owning a ferrari.

There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?

Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.

So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.

This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).

Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.

nameless12345

I play at a res of 1280x768 or 1440x900. At those res, the PC in my sig doesn't have too many problems getting a game close to max.

Another thing to consider is some games like Crysis actually look worse if you max out some of the environmental effects. For example, Shaders I always leave on High, not Very High. The latter looks too blurry. There are more than one way to make a game look and play better besides sliding everything over to the right or maxing everything out.

All the images I've posted thus far are actual gameplay screens. They're playable on MY rig. I'm sure it's the same for those who post screenshots of their own. I'd like to see you show these images and the owners they belong to. Call them out on it.

Possibly for 2001.

Bought my current PC in early 2007 and it runs the latest games on high.

Wouldn't call it cutting edge but it runs Football Manager flawlessly ...

Along with Metro and such.

I have a cutting edge PC. Unless you mean 3 or 4 way and dual 6 core cpus are needed XD

i did in 2004...top of the line pieces i chose :)campzor