Knight's Guide to understanding WHY Pc is superior

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] for 200 dollars and a bit more, you could be playing those games at "max" settings and a standard of 720p and above in an xbox. so PC gaming fails again...why to spend money on a gamer pc if its not going to beat a console?lightleggy

Didnt the 360 come out in 2005 or something? At the time that I got the upgrades it could play any game that was out at the time at max (Except Crysis, but we all know that). And that is all I have ever put into that system. How much did you have to pay for a TV, controllers, Live and etc over the years?

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] ps3- 320 dollars new and sealed. controllers- 0 dollars...it came included and I dont buy extras cus I hate playing split screen. tv- like 400 dollars, but the tv is not only for gaming...its also for watching tv (Duh) and blu ray movies. live- 0 dollars, I dont have an xbox. for 700 dollars, im getting games with great graphical quality (and a maximum one, not a medium-low) and I will not have to update the console. cheaper console gamer is cheaperlundy86_4

You do realize console games don't play games at highest settings right? This has been made apparent with the introduction of PC/console multiplats, where the PC often runs it with much higher settings and resolution. As an example, look at Dragon Age: Origins:

Yah and Dragon Age Origins on the PC has mods to make it look even better.

Also there is a noticeable difference with Prince of Persia the Forgotten Sands, especially with lighting.

I used to be a hardcore PC gamer, built a new rig every 2 years.

what i like about consoles is... everyone is on an equal playing field online (more or less)

with a PC i was constantly upgrading hardware/mice/keyboard devices to make sure people didnt have an edge on me. Yea you can game on a crappy rig... but the guys who are willing to spend thousands of dollars for all the latest gadgets will have an edge.

I used to be a hardcore PC gamer, built a new rig every 2 years.

what i like about consoles is... everyone is on an equal playing field online (more or less)

with a PC i was constantly upgrading hardware/mice/keyboard devices to make sure people didnt have an edge on me. Yea you can game on a crappy rig... but the guys who are willing to spend thousands of dollars for all the latest gadgets will have an edge.

markinthedark

That is a waste of money.

A higher mid end tier computer from 2007 can still max out a lot of the games.....and at much higher res than console and much higher settings.

A console does not get more powerful they just lower the settings like LOD and draw distance and textures.

A console is still just as weak as it was 4-5 years ago.

[QUOTE="Zerkrender"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Even the really low end video cards today can max out that game.

Hakkai007

An 8800 gt is in the lower part of the mid end tier.

And 8800gt can max out alot of games from today at 1680x1050 res.

I am talking about the lower part of the low end tier.

Like something around an ATI 5450

great...here we go with the hermits talking about their so called "all-mighty god" called PC. YOU think PC gaming is superior, I think that PC gaming sucks, YOU love mouse and keyboard for gaming (and with the millions others saying FPS are soooo much better with mouse+keyboard and console gamers struggle with controls) I do NOT like mouse and keyboard for gaming, YOU like 20-30" 1200p monitors, I like my big screen HDTV, YOU like RTS, RPG, MMOPRG, Shooters, etc. I like Action/Adventure, Shooting, Racing, Platformers, Open World games, etc. So PC gaming is NOT superior because that is all subjective. Plus Console gamers get plenty of deals as well, there is a 50% off select games deal on Gamestop, Console Bundles, Discounts, special trade-in offers, buying offers, etc.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Zerkrender"] Describe is 'low end' to me. Low end like a GF8800GT, or low end like a GF8300LE?Zerkrender

An 8800 gt is in the lower part of the mid end tier.

And 8800gt can max out alot of games from today at 1680x1050 res.

I am talking about the lower part of the low end tier.

Like something around an ATI 5450

Can we agree that current gen gaming, be it PC or console gaming, is not for teens who rely on their parents and can't get jobs? :PZerkrender

Erm......I can't really agree with you on that for a secret reason lol.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Zerkrender"] Describe is 'low end' to me. Low end like a GF8800GT, or low end like a GF8300LE?Zerkrender

An 8800 gt is in the lower part of the mid end tier.

And 8800gt can max out alot of games from today at 1680x1050 res.

I am talking about the lower part of the low end tier.

Like something around an ATI 5450

AMD CPUs are perfectly fine and so are their cards.

There is no issue with core usage.

The Nvidia 220GT is close by but is stronger and it costs around 20 USD more.

The 5450 is 45 USD and the 220gt is 65 USD.

great...here we go with the hermits talking about their so called "all-mighty god" called PC. YOU think PC gaming is superior, I think that PC gaming sucks, YOU love mouse and keyboard for gaming (and with the millions others saying FPS are soooo much better with mouse+keyboard and console gamers struggle with controls) I do NOT like mouse and keyboard for gaming, YOU like 20-30" 1200p monitors, I like my big screen HDTV, YOU like RTS, RPG, MMOPRG, Shooters, etc. I like Action/Adventure, Shooting, Racing, Platformers, Open World games, etc. So PC gaming is NOT superior because that is all subjective. Plus Console gamers get plenty of deals as well, there is a 50% off select games deal on Gamestop, Console Bundles, Discounts, special trade-in offers, buying offers, etc.

XVision84

You can play PC games with controllers. You can hook up your PC to an huge HDTV too.

PC games cover all genres you just don't look hard enough there is also great indie dev support.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

DJ_Headshot

http://i30.tinypic.com/301k3sl.jpg

Really so this $600 pc will suddenly become unable to play games once the magical 6 months has past? It includes a 5770 1G,4G ddr3 ram,anthlon II x4 2.8ghz. similiar to my current pc has same gpu except it has more ram and a slower cpu. You don't need to spend more money to have an enjoyable experience on pc. A $600 pc will give let you play with this level of graphics at 1080p with smooth framerates. Spending a few hundred dollars for to be able to turn the graphics up one notch for slightly better graphics and an extra 10fps is nice but far from needed for enjoyable experience. If this is the inferior crappy pc gaming then i sure was fooled.

Lol I looked at that pic and was like "when did Uncharted 2 look that good?!" and then I was like ....oh that looks like the mod from unreal tournament 3.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

great...here we go with the hermits talking about their so called "all-mighty god" called PC. YOU think PC gaming is superior, I think that PC gaming sucks, YOU love mouse and keyboard for gaming (and with the millions others saying FPS are soooo much better with mouse+keyboard and console gamers struggle with controls) I do NOT like mouse and keyboard for gaming, YOU like 20-30" 1200p monitors, I like my big screen HDTV, YOU like RTS, RPG, MMOPRG, Shooters, etc. I like Action/Adventure, Shooting, Racing, Platformers, Open World games, etc. So PC gaming is NOT superior because that is all subjective. Plus Console gamers get plenty of deals as well, there is a 50% off select games deal on Gamestop, Console Bundles, Discounts, special trade-in offers, buying offers, etc.

Hakkai007

You can play PC games with controllers. You can hook up your PC to an huge HDTV too.

PC games cover all genres you just don't look hard enough there is also great indie dev support.

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

Wasdie

http://i28.tinypic.com/2e2oz1u.jpg

Really so this $600 pc will suddenly become unable to play games once the magical 6 months has past? It includes a 5770 1G,4G ddr3 ram,anthlon II x4 2.6ghz. similiar to my current pc has same gpu except it has more ram and a slower cpu. You don't need to spend more money to have an enjoyable experience on pc. A $600 pc will give let you play with this level of graphics at 1080p with smooth framerates. Spending a few hundred dollars for to be able to turn the graphics up one notch for slightly better graphics and an extra 10fps is nice but far from needed for enjoyable experience. If this is the inferior crappy pc gaming then i sure was fooled.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] Thats bull about AMD. I have had 4 computers and laptops with AMD CPUs in them throughout my life. Never had a problem with any of them. I also had 2 Intel computers, both of which broke within the first year of use. I would compare it to a 9600gt I think. Zerkrender

Both Nvidia and AMD are good companies.

I have been using Nvidia since 2001 and ATI since 1995.

Nivida has better video card drivers most of the time but they can be a little more expensive and ADM are a good bang for buck cards and CPUs.

I usually go for AMD black edition CPUs because they are cheaper and I don't need anything more poerful.

Intel does have better high end CPUs but they also cost a butt load.

Terrible arguments. PC gaming is not cheaper. I bought a PS3 for $300 and can play every game that will ever be released on the console. Can you get a PC, mouse, and keyboard for $300 that will be able to play all the games from the same time frame? Of course not. Yes, PC has better graphics. But the increase in graphics is certainly not worth the large increase in price. Also, graphics are not everything. Gameplay is what matters. If PC had a better game library, I'd switch over. But unfortunately it does not. Consoles are king in that category. And that is really the only category that matters.Rocky32189

I can build a 380 USD PC at the least and 468 at the most (without deals) that is around 4x more powerful than a console so yes if I buy cheaper hardware I can.

PC has has more higher scoring exclusive this gen than any console by a lot more.

Is 80USD more for around 4x the power a bad deal?

[QUOTE="Zerkrender"][QUOTE="Iantheone"] Thats bull about AMD. I have had 4 computers and laptops with AMD CPUs in them throughout my life. Never had a problem with any of them. I also had 2 Intel computers, both of which broke within the first year of use. I would compare it to a 9600gt I think. Hakkai007

Both Nvidia and AMD are good companies.

I have been using Nvidia since 2001 and ATI since 1995.

Nivida has better video card drivers most of the time but they can be a little more expensive and ADM are a good bang for buck cards and CPUs.

I usually go for AMD black edition CPUs because they are cheaper and I don't need anything more poerful.

Intel does have better high end CPUs but they also cost a butt load.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] ps3- 320 dollars new and sealed. controllers- 0 dollars...it came included and I dont buy extras cus I hate playing split screen. tv- like 400 dollars, but the tv is not only for gaming...its also for watching tv (Duh) and blu ray movies. live- 0 dollars, I dont have an xbox. for 700 dollars, im getting games with great graphical quality (and a maximum one, not a medium-low) and I will not have to update the console. cheaper console gamer is cheaperlundy86_4

You do realize console games don't play games at highest settings right? This has been made apparent with the introduction of PC/console multiplats, where the PC often runs it with much higher settings and resolution. As an example, look at Dragon Age: Origins:

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

great...here we go with the hermits talking about their so called "all-mighty god" called PC. YOU think PC gaming is superior, I think that PC gaming sucks, YOU love mouse and keyboard for gaming (and with the millions others saying FPS are soooo much better with mouse+keyboard and console gamers struggle with controls) I do NOT like mouse and keyboard for gaming, YOU like 20-30" 1200p monitors, I like my big screen HDTV, YOU like RTS, RPG, MMOPRG, Shooters, etc. I like Action/Adventure, Shooting, Racing, Platformers, Open World games, etc. So PC gaming is NOT superior because that is all subjective. Plus Console gamers get plenty of deals as well, there is a 50% off select games deal on Gamestop, Console Bundles, Discounts, special trade-in offers, buying offers, etc.

Zerkrender

You can play PC games with controllers. You can hook up your PC to an huge HDTV too.

PC games cover all genres you just don't look hard enough there is also great indie dev support.

The real issue here isn't even whether this $600 PC or whatever BS will run future games. It takes less than that to nullify this "PC is not expensive" BS.

The real question is would that $600 PC, bought in 2005, still hold up today or would you have spent more money on it?

If you bought an Xbox 360 at launch in November of 2005, and even a top of the line, best PC you could get at the time, 5 years later (now), your 360 will still be running beautiful games like Mass 2 and RDR @ 30 FPS and your 2005 PC would be a paperweight.

If you bought a great PC at the time the XBox launched you would have upgraded 2-3 times at least to maintain current standards, pushing your PC well beyond what a 360 costs.

The further this console gen goes on, the more this argument favors PC gamers, but logically if you're comparing similar price points over the same amount of time, there is absolutely no question about which is a better value.

This is one aspect I have never seen discussed in these arguments.

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

I'm sorry but anybody who says that buying a PC is cheap ALWAYS forgets that 90% of people who don't own a good PC need a mouse, keyboard, monitor, and probably speakers or headphones and an operating system. All that alone adds up to about $300 extra to any price. Also a 600 PC will beable to play all of the games, but very few of the new ones on high settings and NO new games on high or even medium settings.

You want a PC that is going to last, that isn't going to break from cheap parts, that is going to not require an upgrade for 2-3 years? Drop at least 1 grand on the PC alone, not including software and extra hardware you will need (mouse, keyboard, monitor, speakers).

PC gaming can be superior because of the hardware and open platform but developers need to take advantage of it. If you just port a console game over to the PC, it just isn't right. Everything from the optimization of the engine to the UI will be wrong.

Good PC gaming requires money. There is no escaping it. If PC gaming were cheap, the consoles wouldn't be necessary. Consoles are there to provide another way to play games at a much lower cost than it costs to build and maintain a PC.

I love PC gaming, I just built a brand new computer, I bought 50 games on the Steam sale for dirt cheap, I love the open platform, I love how robust the features is, but I know for a fact that nothing about PC gaming is cheap. If you want quality, you have to pay for it.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Zerkrender"] How did they break, overheating?Zerkrender

Both Nvidia and AMD are good companies.

I have been using Nvidia since 2001 and ATI since 1995.

Nivida has better video card drivers most of the time but they can be a little more expensive and ADM are a good bang for buck cards and CPUs.

I usually go for AMD black edition CPUs because they are cheaper and I don't need anything more poerful.

Intel does have better high end CPUs but they also cost a butt load.

Well here is an unbiased factual statement.

PC gaming can be as cheap as console and still off quality.

PC games have better graphics

PC games have lots of mods

PC games have longer lasting online communities

PC gaming has a much higher amount of exclusive rated games than consoles on GS (even without all the PC games GS skips in ratings)

PC gaming allows for a more varied use of peripherals like keyboard/mouse, game controller, flight simulator controllers.

PC gaming has more variety in games including all the indie dev support

But the subjective part is when it comes down to what games you like. Objectively the PC is superior but subjectively it is the individual's choice

console games play at the highest settings...because you cant even change the settings... PC games can be played in low, medium or max settings because it has those options... but, im gonna put an example: dragon age origins for the PS3 has no option to change the resolution above 1920p...if the PC version does, that doesnt means that the PS3 is not maxing the game...the PS3 IS maxing the PS3 version, just because another version can dobetter it doesnt means its not maxing the game...lightleggy

So they are the highest settings because consoles are incapable of higher settings? Wow, ok then. Wouldn't highes settings be what the software is capable of, and not what the hardware is capable of running? That seems to make much more sense than what you state. Especially because when you said about a PC playing on low-med, and you said get a console because it'll play max -- that especially seems to imply that you are saying consoles run it better.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

I'm sorry but anybody who says that buying a PC is cheap ALWAYS forgets that 90% of people who don't own a good PC need a mouse, keyboard, monitor, and probably speakers or headphones and an operating system. All that alone adds up to about $300 extra to any price. Also a 600 PC will beable to play all of the games, but very few of the new ones on high settings and NO new games on high or even medium settings.

You want a PC that is going to last, that isn't going to break from cheap parts, that is going to not require an upgrade for 2-3 years? Drop at least 1 grand on the PC alone, not including software and extra hardware you will need (mouse, keyboard, monitor, speakers).

PC gaming can be superior because of the hardware and open platform but developers need to take advantage of it. If you just port a console game over to the PC, it just isn't right. Everything from the optimization of the engine to the UI will be wrong.

Good PC gaming requires money. There is no escaping it. If PC gaming were cheap, the consoles wouldn't be necessary. Consoles are there to provide another way to play games at a much lower cost than it costs to build and maintain a PC.

I love PC gaming, I just built a brand new computer, I bought 50 games on the Steam sale for dirt cheap, I love the open platform, I love how robust the features is, but I know for a fact that nothing about PC gaming is cheap. If you want quality, you have to pay for it.

Lost-Memory

Amen to what? The first part when he talks about pricing is wrong but I guess what he says later is partially true.

The real issue here isn't even whether this $600 PC or whatever BS will run future games. It takes less than that to nullify this "PC is not expensive" BS.

The real question is would that $600 PC, bought in 2005, still hold up today or would you have spent more money on it?

If you bought an Xbox 360 at launch in November of 2005, and even a top of the line, best PC you could get at the time, 5 years later (now), your 360 will still be running beautiful games like Mass 2 and RDR @ 30 FPS and your 2005 PC would be a paperweight.

If you bought a great PC at the time the XBox launched you would have upgraded 2-3 times at least to maintain current standards, pushing your PC well beyond what a 360 costs.

The further this console gen goes on, the more this argument favors PC gamers, but logically if you're comparing similar price points over the same amount of time, there is absolutely no question about which is a better value.

This is one aspect I have never seen discussed in these arguments.

Hahadouken

Not really you just lower the settings.

Just swap out the video card for a slight increase and it is back to good performance.

SO just spend that money you would have spent on Xbox Live and use it towards a new video card.

In the last 3 years I have not needed to upgrade my computer at all.

My 2004 computer can still run games on lower settings.

A PC game running at console settings by todays standards would be medium or low.

Console just gimped a lot of the settings to try to keep up.

[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"] The size of the screen is irrelevant its the resolution that determines how taxing it is on the graphics card so a 1080p on a 17" laptop screen is the same as 1080p on a 50" hdtv same amount of pixels. If you t.v was only 720p then regardless of how big it would be less taxing then pretty much any modern monitor.Zerkrender

Nope you can only play in the original resolution of your system settings from your PS2.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I used to be a hardcore PC gamer, built a new rig every 2 years.

what i like about consoles is... everyone is on an equal playing field online (more or less)

with a PC i was constantly upgrading hardware/mice/keyboard devices to make sure people didnt have an edge on me. Yea you can game on a crappy rig... but the guys who are willing to spend thousands of dollars for all the latest gadgets will have an edge.

Hakkai007

That is a waste of money.

A higher mid end tier computer from 2007 can still max out a lot of the games.....and at much higher res than console and much higher settings.

A console does not get more powerful they just lower the settings like LOD and draw distance and textures.

A console is still just as weak as it was 4-5 years ago.

agreed. But i wasnt talking about being able to just run games, i was talking about not being gimped in online multiplayer.

the guy who can maintain 60+ fps with no slowdown and maxed out resolution and a higher dpi gaming mouse will ultimately have an advantage over someone whos squeeking by on a budget gaming rig in an online match. With 360, all hardware/input devices are equal... whether you are some kid who works at mcdonalds or the son of bill gates.

my point was that i like knowing my online competition in games has no major advantage over me, other than skill. In term of just playing single player games or something, i agree the PC is great and not very expensive at all to have an enjoyable experience.

I definitely spent way too much money on upgrading my rig. But im very competitive and wanted to make sure in the online world i had all the advantages i could get.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I used to be a hardcore PC gamer, built a new rig every 2 years.

what i like about consoles is... everyone is on an equal playing field online (more or less)

with a PC i was constantly upgrading hardware/mice/keyboard devices to make sure people didnt have an edge on me. Yea you can game on a crappy rig... but the guys who are willing to spend thousands of dollars for all the latest gadgets will have an edge.

markinthedark

That is a waste of money.

A higher mid end tier computer from 2007 can still max out a lot of the games.....and at much higher res than console and much higher settings.

A console does not get more powerful they just lower the settings like LOD and draw distance and textures.

A console is still just as weak as it was 4-5 years ago.

agreed. But i wasnt talking about being able to just run games, i was talking about not being gimped in online multiplayer.

the guy who can maintain 60+ fps with no slowdown and maxed out resolution and a higher dpi gaming mouse will ultimately have an advantage over someone whos squeeking by on a budget gaming rig in an online match. With 360, all hardware/input devices are equal... whether you are some kid who works at mcdonalds or the son of bill gates.

my point was that i like knowing my online competition in games has no major advantage over me, other than skill. In term of just playing single player games or something, i agree the PC is great and not very expensive at all to have an enjoyable experience.

30 FPS is just fine for me, I have played FPS games online and have no problem.

I tried on my Friend's computer which is better and even at 60+ FPS I still did the same.

It is noticeable difference but nothing that really affects my game play.

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"]

The real issue here isn't even whether this $600 PC or whatever BS will run future games. It takes less than that to nullify this "PC is not expensive" BS.

The real question is would that $600 PC, bought in 2005, still hold up today or would you have spent more money on it?

If you bought an Xbox 360 at launch in November of 2005, and even a top of the line, best PC you could get at the time, 5 years later (now), your 360 will still be running beautiful games like Mass 2 and RDR @ 30 FPS and your 2005 PC would be a paperweight.

If you bought a great PC at the time the XBox launched you would have upgraded 2-3 times at least to maintain current standards, pushing your PC well beyond what a 360 costs.

The further this console gen goes on, the more this argument favors PC gamers, but logically if you're comparing similar price points over the same amount of time, there is absolutely no question about which is a better value.

This is one aspect I have never seen discussed in these arguments.

Hakkai007

Not really you just lower the settings.

Just swap out the video card for a slight increase and it is back to good performance.

SO just spend that money you would have spent on Xbox Live and use it towards a new video card.

In the last 3 years I have not needed to upgrade my computer at all.

My 2004 computer can still run games on lower settings.

A PC game running at console settings by todays standards would be medium or low.

Console just gimped a lot of the settings to try to keep up.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"]

The real issue here isn't even whether this $600 PC or whatever BS will run future games. It takes less than that to nullify this "PC is not expensive" BS.

The real question is would that $600 PC, bought in 2005, still hold up today or would you have spent more money on it?

If you bought an Xbox 360 at launch in November of 2005, and even a top of the line, best PC you could get at the time, 5 years later (now), your 360 will still be running beautiful games like Mass 2 and RDR @ 30 FPS and your 2005 PC would be a paperweight.

If you bought a great PC at the time the XBox launched you would have upgraded 2-3 times at least to maintain current standards, pushing your PC well beyond what a 360 costs.

The further this console gen goes on, the more this argument favors PC gamers, but logically if you're comparing similar price points over the same amount of time, there is absolutely no question about which is a better value.

This is one aspect I have never seen discussed in these arguments.

Hahadouken

Not really you just lower the settings.

Just swap out the video card for a slight increase and it is back to good performance.

SO just spend that money you would have spent on Xbox Live and use it towards a new video card.

In the last 3 years I have not needed to upgrade my computer at all.

My 2004 computer can still run games on lower settings.

A PC game running at console settings by todays standards would be medium or low.

Console just gimped a lot of the settings to try to keep up.

You can play games from this gen on windows xp just fine.

And if you don't use xbox live then you can't play online.

Another plus for PC if you say it like that.

agreed. But i wasnt talking about being able to just run games, i was talking about not being gimped in online multiplayer.

the guy who can maintain 60+ fps with no slowdown and maxed out resolution and a higher dpi gaming mouse will ultimately have an advantage over someone whos squeeking by on a budget gaming rig in an online match. With 360, all hardware/input devices are equal... whether you are some kid who works at mcdonalds or the son of bill gates.

my point was that i like knowing my online competition in games has no major advantage over me, other than skill. In term of just playing single player games or something, i agree the PC is great and not very expensive at all to have an enjoyable experience.

markinthedark

That's bs.

Making sure that your PC can play the game online properly is a requirement to do it. Not an optional check.

Higher resolution also means having to scan a bigger area with your eyes. That's a double-edged argument when talking about fairplay.

The higher DPI...somewhat. An uncautious person will just hurt himself by playing with different DPI settings.

Sorry, just no. Swap out the video card = already modding it and spending money on it.

XBox Live isn't a necessity to play games on a console.

This already painfully thin argument is becoming anorexic.

Factor in the fact that you can't play Games for Windows games on XP, you need to upgrade that as well. ;)Hahadouken

Whats this about XP and not being able to play GWL games? I'm 100% certain I can get on my GWL account, login in and play the few GWL games I have on XP since I've been doing it for a couple years now. Maybe I just misunderstood that last statement.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

NVIDIATI

The PC I put together for $604 will last longer than 6 months. It includes everything aside from a monitor.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5535/600pc.jpg

I know it's a late post but a freaken BIOSTAR mobo? That is not only a bottleneck but it will die in a few weeks. Sunbeam for the PSU? Yup, that will burn out fast... PQI Ram?

I'm sorry but you are throwing absolute trash parts into this. Outside of the Nvidia GPU and teh AMD CPU, you are building this entire thing with absolute junk parts. BIOSTAR makes throw-away motherboards, PQI makes really cheap ram that cannot perform to nearly the spec of G-Skill, Corsair, or Patriot, and Sunbeam PSUs don't last long at all (known from experiance). Also a 160GB harddrive? PS3's have 120 native now for only $300... I mean c'mon you can fit like 5 modern games on that before it fills up.

I would take a Dell build over this peice of crap you put together.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

agreed. But i wasnt talking about being able to just run games, i was talking about not being gimped in online multiplayer.

the guy who can maintain 60+ fps with no slowdown and maxed out resolution and a higher dpi gaming mouse will ultimately have an advantage over someone whos squeeking by on a budget gaming rig in an online match. With 360, all hardware/input devices are equal... whether you are some kid who works at mcdonalds or the son of bill gates.

my point was that i like knowing my online competition in games has no major advantage over me, other than skill. In term of just playing single player games or something, i agree the PC is great and not very expensive at all to have an enjoyable experience.

Mograine

That's bs.

Making sure that your PC can play the game online properly is a requirement to do it. Not an optional check.

Higher resolution also means having to scan a bigger area with your eyes. That's a double-edged argument when talking about fairplay.

The higher DPI...somewhat. An uncautious person will just hurt himself by playing with different DPI settings.

look im not saying its an instant win or anything, im just saying the ability to buy yourself a small advantage exists in the pc world. Obviously this depends on the specific game you are playing as well.

and beyond just performance then you have things like logitech g13 gameboards which i find can offer a huge advantage in games that require lots of key bindings.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

Wasdie

The PC I put together for $604 will last longer than 6 months. It includes everything aside from a monitor.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5535/600pc.jpg

I know it's a late post but a freaken BIOSTAR mobo? That is not only a bottleneck but it will die in a few weeks. Sunbeam for the PSU? Yup, that will burn out fast... PQI Ram?

I'm sorry but you are throwing absolute trash parts into this. Outside of the Nvidia GPU and teh AMD CPU, you are building this entire thing with absolute junk parts. BIOSTAR makes throw-away motherboards, PQI makes really cheap ram that cannot perform to nearly the spec of G-Skill, Corsair, or Patriot, and Sunbeam PSUs don't last long at all (known from experiance). Also a 160GB harddrive? PS3's have 120 native now for only $300... I mean c'mon you can fit like 5 modern games on that before it fills up.

I would take a Dell build over this peice of crap you put together.

i used to have a sunbeam toaster... thats not the same company is it?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Today you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer running in anything less than 1440x900, and even that is considered low for PC gmaing.

Wasdie

Again sure it can outpreform consoles, but can it keep up to PC standards? I'm not comparing anything here to consoles, infact I don't care about them. A cheap PC today would not survive long against the newer games coming. You would have to upgrade.

I just can't imagine building a new PC and not being able to play all of the games on the highest settings. What is even the point then?

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself and I'm still on the first page.

X2 6000+, 9800GT.....That's what's in a computer I built in october 2008 for between $500 and $600. I used a copy of win xp that I already had so throw that in and it's between $600 and $700. It will still play any game just fine at 1280x1024 and it makes any console look like a joke. This comp maxed the Starcraft 2 beta with ease.

So quit spewing out your BS like you have to spend a grand or your comp will last no longer than 6 months.

Get over yourself, you clearly don't know half what you think you know.

This misinformation BS is absolutely the worst part os system wars.

i used to have a sunbeam toaster... thats not the same company is it?

markinthedark

Yup, same company.

You want to really game with the PC? You pay some cash. I'm sorry, only getting 20 fps on modern games with medium-high settings at 1680x1050 is not doing it right.

I want to see a $500 PC even come close to my $1500 i7 930 @ 3.8ghz (using a Zaleman 9500 cooler to keep it nice and stable), 6 gigs of DDR 3 ram, a GTX 470 GPU, 750 watt power supply, an Antect 900 case to keep it all nice and cool, with a nice ASUS motherboard with socket LGA 1366.

The fact is that no $500 PC can come close to this PC. Another fact is that a $500 PC will have to skip on parts to beable to play any modern game at a nice high resolution at a decent framerate. Sure my old 2007 PC could play Crysis at 10-20fps at max settings... but that's 10-20fps, thats HORRIBLE for a game even by console standards.

Why settle for console standards when building a PC? Cut your losses and get a console! If your going to do PC gaming, do it right. Get some powerful parts from good companies. Don't settle for knowing that there are games on the market you can't max out even though you jsut dropped upwards of 1000 on a PC.

Why invest in something that you have to put more money in not 1 year later just to keep up with the times?

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself and I'm still on the first page.

X2 6000+, 9800GT.....That's what's in a computer I built in october 2008 for between $500 and $600. I used a copy of win xp that I already had so throw that in and it's between $600 and $700. It will still play any game just fine at 1280x1024 and it makes any console look like a joke. This comp maxed the Starcraft 2 beta with ease.

So quit spewing out your BS like you have to spend a grand or your comp will last no longer than 6 months.

Get over yourself, you clearly don't know half what you think you know.

This misinformation BS is absolutely the worst part os system wars.

mudman91878

You also had a monitor, a case, a power supply, ram, a motherboard, and keyboard and mouse when you build that PC... am I correct? Even if you had the case, motherboard, powersupply and ram, I can't imagine a non-PC gamer just having an extra keyboard and mouse laying around next to a spare monitor.

Starcraft 2 is far from a graphical powerhose and Blizzard is known to choose an artstyle that does not require a massive PC for.

How does that PC of yours handle in Crysis at a decent resolution? Or how about Shattered Horizons at max settings?

Face it, a budget PC doesn't last long. You won't beable to touch Shogun 2 Total War when it comes out or many other 2010 or 2011 games that aren't developed by Blizzard.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Fact: No 500-600 dollar PC will last more than 6 months.

Wasdie

The PC I put together for $604 will last longer than 6 months. It includes everything aside from a monitor.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5535/600pc.jpg

I know it's a late post but a freaken BIOSTAR mobo? That is not only a bottleneck but it will die in a few weeks. Sunbeam for the PSU? Yup, that will burn out fast... PQI Ram?

I'm sorry but you are throwing absolute trash parts into this. Outside of the Nvidia GPU and teh AMD CPU, you are building this entire thing with absolute junk parts. BIOSTAR makes throw-away motherboards, PQI makes really cheap ram that cannot perform to nearly the spec of G-Skill, Corsair, or Patriot, and Sunbeam PSUs don't last long at all (known from experiance). Also a 160GB harddrive? PS3's have 120 native now for only $300... I mean c'mon you can fit like 5 modern games on that before it fills up.

I would take a Dell build over this peice of crap you put together.

did you mist my pc build?

Biostar is an ok motherboard I had one and it still has no problems and it is years old.

console gaming is cheaper easyer to use and is more parctical .

PC is the best when it comes to high end gaming.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i used to have a sunbeam toaster... thats not the same company is it?

Wasdie

Yup, same company.

You want to really game with the PC? You pay some cash. I'm sorry, only getting 20 fps on modern games with medium-high settings at 1680x1050 is not doing it right.

I want to see a $500 PC even come close to my $1500 i7 930 @ 3.8ghz (using a Zaleman 9500 cooler to keep it nice and stable), 6 gigs of DDR 3 ram, a GTX 470 GPU, 750 watt power supply, an Antect 900 case to keep it all nice and cool, with a nice ASUS motherboard with socket LGA 1366.

The fact is that no $500 PC can come close to this PC. Another fact is that a $500 PC will have to skip on parts to beable to play any modern game at a nice high resolution at a decent framerate. Sure my old 2007 PC could play Crysis at 10-20fps at max settings... but that's 10-20fps, thats HORRIBLE for a game even by console standards.

Why settle for console standards when building a PC? Cut your losses and get a console! If your going to do PC gaming, do it right. Get some powerful parts from good companies. Don't settle for knowing that there are games on the market you can't max out even though you jsut dropped upwards of 1000 on a PC.

Why invest in something that you have to put more money in not 1 year later just to keep up with the times?

I used cheap parts 3 years ago and I have still no need to upgrade, looks like your idea is false.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i used to have a sunbeam toaster... thats not the same company is it?

Wasdie

Yup, same company.

You want to really game with the PC? You pay some cash. I'm sorry, only getting 20 fps on modern games with medium-high settings at 1680x1050 is not doing it right.

I want to see a $500 PC even come close to my $1500 i7 930 @ 3.8ghz (using a Zaleman 9500 cooler to keep it nice and stable), 6 gigs of DDR 3 ram, a GTX 470 GPU, 750 watt power supply, an Antect 900 case to keep it all nice and cool, with a nice ASUS motherboard with socket LGA 1366.

The fact is that no $500 PC can come close to this PC. Another fact is that a $500 PC will have to skip on parts to beable to play any modern game at a nice high resolution at a decent framerate. Sure my old 2007 PC could play Crysis at 10-20fps at max settings... but that's 10-20fps, thats HORRIBLE for a game even by console standards.

Why settle for console standards when building a PC? Cut your losses and get a console! If your going to do PC gaming, do it right. Get some powerful parts from good companies. Don't settle for knowing that there are games on the market you can't max out even though you jsut dropped upwards of 1000 on a PC.

Why invest in something that you have to put more money in not 1 year later just to keep up with the times?

Agreed, if you are simply building a pc to match console quality, you are doing it wrong.. and should just be buying a console. In the PC world its go big or go home... since devs will constantly pushing new hardware standards. A $500 PC is never going to last you 5+ years. A $500 console, will.