Knight's Guide to understanding WHY Pc is superior

Sorry Wasdie, but your statements are just coming out very arrogant. Making statements that, "PC gamers who think they can spend $600 on a PC are wrong" is pretty disrespectful when members are saying they have and are on such systems and are enjoying them.

You also do not have to get a 1000-1200 dollar computer.

If you are new to PC gaming, a 900 dollar tops computer would EASILY last longer then a year and thats if you not willing to look for deals.

If you are already a PC gamer and are going for a new tower, 700 would just as easily work. This is substantially less if you are gutting from the other case hardware, know of great organizations, know PC gamer friends, or can be patient of hardware deals even if you are building a complete computer with monitor, keyboard, mouse etc.

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

thats the most ignorant comment ive seen in a while. and im so sorry to see that its you who said it...

so are you telling me that once a pc its the old ripe old age of 6 months it dies. or are you saying it can no longer play games...

first off what makes you think you need to have the game running on the highest settings? hmmm...you dont have to, a console adaptation would probably be around medium of low for pc(and keep in mind AA)

ive had my gtx 260 for about a year and works well, my pc is older than 6 month but still runs good. most people already have a monitor, mouse/keyboard. so i dont see your problem. we're not talking about building a new rig just the pc it costs around $400 to $600.

to say that a computer would stop playing games is just a stupid thing to say.

CagedOkami

If you think I really mean that your PC will just break after 6 months is really incorrect, I'm saying that news games within 6 months of a budget PC will be beyond the capabilities of that PC and to play them on said budget PC at a decent spec.

Most people do NOT already have a monitor, mouse, keyboard, and speakers. To think this is believeing that gamers already own their own desktop PC and don't share with anybody. Instead most gamers use a family PC (I did until 2006 when I got my laptop) or have a laptop of which they cannot use the parts to aid with their PC. You can't just strip the monitor, mouse, and keyboard from your family PC. I don't think that would go over well with your family.

If you are to build a budget PC at $600 today, you will not beable to run the games at high settings for long. If youre building a PC that can compete with a game consoles, what's the point? Whats the point of building a PC that can't run the modern games at high settings?

The real thing is, PC gaming is not cheap. If you want a legit PC that will stand up to a few years of use before really needing an upgrade to stay current, you will need to drop a bit of money. Once you drop the money, the PC pays for itself. I bought cheap games off of steam, I get free games, mods, and I use my PC for much more than gaming. It's still a heafty intitial expense. I am just sick of PC gamers saying that it is a cheap intital expense for a PC that can keep up to par with games for many years. That is a lie.

Where have you heard that PC games are held to a higher standard? I also still don't see any proof as to why PC gaming is superior. I saw some (very skewed) reasons as to why someone would prefer PC gaming, but nothing screams superiority.forgot_it

Where have you heard that PC games are held to a higher standard? I also still don't see any proof as to why PC gaming is superior. I saw some (very skewed) reasons as to why someone would prefer PC gaming, but nothing screams superiority.forgot_it

Kevin an Admin here and Editor already said PC gaming is held to a higher standard.

Sorry Wasdie, but your statements are just coming out very arrogant. Making statements that, "PC gamers who think they can spend $600 on a PC are wrong" is pretty disrespectful when members are saying they have and are on such systems and are enjoying them. You also do not have to get a 1000-1200 dollar computer. If you are new to PC gaming, a 900 dollar tops computer would EASILY last longer then a year. If you are already a PC gamer and are going for a new tower, 700 would just as easily work. This is substantially less if you are gutting from the other case hardware, know of great organizations, know PC gamer friends, or can be patient of hardware deals.jedikevin2

You just backed up every point I've been making.

The whole time I've been saying that PC gaming is an expensive initial investement. You end up paying $800-$1000 for a new PC that will last. Those people who build $600 PCs with everything (monitor included) either settle for very low settings in their games or end up upgrading.

I've never once said you NEED to have a $2000 PC to play the games and not have to upgrade for years. I also never was saying upgrade costs for the PC gamer, as those are much cheaper than the new PC gamer who doesn't have any existing parts. You're just trying to prove me wrong while completely backing up what I've been saying!

[QUOTE="forgot_it"]Where have you heard that PC games are held to a higher standard? I also still don't see any proof as to why PC gaming is superior. I saw some (very skewed) reasons as to why someone would prefer PC gaming, but nothing screams superiority.jedikevin2

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]Sorry Wasdie, but your statements are just coming out very arrogant. Making statements that, "PC gamers who think they can spend $600 on a PC are wrong" is pretty disrespectful when members are saying they have and are on such systems and are enjoying them. You also do not have to get a 1000-1200 dollar computer. If you are new to PC gaming, a 900 dollar tops computer would EASILY last longer then a year. If you are already a PC gamer and are going for a new tower, 700 would just as easily work. This is substantially less if you are gutting from the other case hardware, know of great organizations, know PC gamer friends, or can be patient of hardware deals.Wasdie

You just backed up every point I've been making.

The whole time I've been saying that PC gaming is an expensive initial investement. You end up paying $800-$1000 for a new PC that will last. Those people who build $600 PCs with everything (monitor included) either settle for very low settings in their games or end up upgrading.

I've never once said you NEED to have a $2000 PC to play the games and not have to upgrade for years. I also never was saying upgrade costs for the PC gamer, as those are much cheaper than the new PC gamer who doesn't have any existing parts. You're just trying to prove me wrong while completely backing up what I've been saying!

[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?

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"][QUOTE="forgot_it"]Where have you heard that PC games are held to a higher standard? I also still don't see any proof as to why PC gaming is superior. I saw some (very skewed) reasons as to why someone would prefer PC gaming, but nothing screams superiority.forgot_it

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

markinthedark

great point, everyone should read this!

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

markinthedark

great point, everyone should read this!

Did you forget to log into another account, or did you just want to shamelessly bump your quote? :P

Although biased it seemed like a decent opinion thread... until the last line where I stopped taking you seriously at all. "FACT: PC games are rated on a higher standard." Bull. F***ing. S**t. Why do the multiplats on PC get the same score? Because they are rated on the same standard and are the same game.

Hermits have been pretty quiet, level-headed people who only occasionally feel the need to speak up about PC superiority, but now you're making lists in every thread that even involved PC gaming. Doubt Hermits are too happy about it. Fakeboy maybe?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

markinthedark

great point, everyone should read this!

Yah apparently he can tell the future.

Although biased it seemed like a decent opinion thread... until the last line where I stopped taking you seriously at all. "FACT: PC games are rated on a higher standard." Bull. F***ing. S**t. Why do the multiplats on PC get the same score? Because they are rated on the same standard and are the same game.

Hermits have been pretty quiet, level-headed people who only occasionally feel the need to speak up about PC superiority, but now you're making lists in every thread that even involved PC gaming. Doubt Hermits are too happy about it. Fakeboy maybe?

oldkingallant

Kevin an Admin and editor on GS already said that PC games are held to a higher standard......this is fact.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

markinthedark

great point, everyone should read this!

[QUOTE="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?

DragonfireXZ95

FACT: Pc gaming DOES NOT cost thousands of dollars, budget machines CAN be built for about 400-500 dollars. And when you think about it, when you buy a console, that's 200-300 bucks, not counting the XBL Live membership, or the extra peripherals that you have to buy with it. Such as an extremely overpriced hard drive *looks at microsoft*

That is what I'm arguing against. I agree with the TC on every other point. A budget machine cannot be built for those prices if you do not already own half the parts.

This lie needs to end. You cannot build a budget PC for anything under $800 and expect it to perform a year after building it. Non PC gamers do NOT have teh parts to the PC that a PC gamer does. I am using the keyboard, mouse, and speakers of my first $1500 build (after monitor). However I had to pay $150 for the speakers, $30 for the keyboard, and $40 for the mouse (I buy quality stuff) which bruoght my original build up to over $1700. I also upgraded the graphics card for $300 which put that whole thing at +$2000.

This current PC I don't add those costs in but if I didn't own any of those I would have to buy them. Non-PC gamers don't come in with a new LCD monitor, speakers, keyboard, and mouse. The keyboard and mouse usually come cheap, but the speakers/headphones, and monitor don't. Also most non-PC gamers don't have an OS laying around, that's an extra $100 right there.

The initial investement into PC gaming is NOT cheap. The beauty of PC gaming is how it can pay back in the long run. Cheaper games, free online, mods, and all of the other awesome stuff that comes with a fast computer (from making a word doc to surfing the web), the PC is worth it in the end.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I haven't played GTA 4 but that game is not gpu intensive it is more stress on cpu.

People with my card and a quad core cpu could easily max the game out at 1680x1050.

Hakkai007

.....zzzzz....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP1Chv5kQ3o

Also you forget to note that GTA IV was a bad port.....

Tell you what: go ahead and load up GTA IV (oh, wait, you don't own it) with the -nomemrestrict and -norestrictions command line arguments, go to the settings menu, and max everything out at 1680x1050. I just did so, and according to the game, it needs 1193MB of video memory to accomplish what I'm asking of it (never mind the GPU power that would be required).

Now, benched on a pair of GTX 260s, that runs at about 30 FPS, with a couple of graphical glitches that don't occur when it's dialed back within the VRAM constraints (the marquee in Star Junction turned into a checkerboard, for instance). Do you really still want to claim that a card with 2/3rds the memory and a single weaker GPU can pull this off? Really? Really?

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] Yeah, right. GTA IV has settings that blow right past the 896 MB of memory on my GTX 260s. Got any more games you haven't played that you want to offer your uninformed opinion about?

lowe0

.....zzzzz....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP1Chv5kQ3o

Also you forget to note that GTA IV was a bad port.....

Tell you what: go ahead and load up GTA IV (oh, wait, you don't own it) with the -nomemrestrict and -norestrictions command line arguments, go to the settings menu, and max everything out at 1680x1050. I just did so, and according to the game, it needs 1193MB of video memory to accomplish what I'm asking of it (never mind the GPU power that would be required).

Now, benched on a pair of GTX 260s, that runs at about 30 FPS, with a couple of graphical glitches that don't occur when it's dialed back within the VRAM constraints (the marquee in Star Junction turned into a checkerboard, for instance). Do you really still want to claim that a card with 2/3rds the memory and a single weaker GPU can pull this off? Really? Really?

I will go borrow a friend's game then....

But you will have to wait a day or two.

Also GTA IV is a poor example since the game is a bad port.

*goes back to playing Dirt 2, Prince of Persia newest, Bad Company 2 and AC2 at max settings except 8x AA for Bad Company 2 and at 1680x1050 res at directx 10.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

.....zzzzz....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP1Chv5kQ3o

Also you forget to note that GTA IV was a bad port.....

Hakkai007

Tell you what: go ahead and load up GTA IV (oh, wait, you don't own it) with the -nomemrestrict and -norestrictions command line arguments, go to the settings menu, and max everything out at 1680x1050. I just did so, and according to the game, it needs 1193MB of video memory to accomplish what I'm asking of it (never mind the GPU power that would be required).

Now, benched on a pair of GTX 260s, that runs at about 30 FPS, with a couple of graphical glitches that don't occur when it's dialed back within the VRAM constraints (the marquee in Star Junction turned into a checkerboard, for instance). Do you really still want to claim that a card with 2/3rds the memory and a single weaker GPU can pull this off? Really? Really?

I will go borrow a friend's game then....

But you will have to wait a day or two.

Also GTA IV is a poor example since the game is a bad port.

*goes back to playing Dirt 2, Prince of Persia newest, Bad Company 2 and AC2 at max settings except 8x AA for Bad Company 2 and at 1680x1050 res at directx 10.

The settings from your link: Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: High Reflection Resolution: High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: High So you claim a 8800GT could max out GTA IV at 1680x1050, I point out why it can't, and your evidence to the contrary is... a 9800GT NOT maxing out the game at a much lower resolution than what you proposed. Tell you what: go ahead and load up GTA IV (oh, wait, you don't own it) with the -nomemrestrict and -norestrictions command line arguments, go to the settings menu, and max everything out at 1680x1050. I just did so, and according to the game, it needs 1193MB of video memory to accomplish what I'm asking of it (never mind the GPU power that would be required). Now, benched on a pair of GTX 260s, that runs at about 30 FPS, with a couple of graphical glitches (the marquee in Star Junction turned into a checkerboard, for instance). Do you really still want to claim that a card with 2/3rds the memory and a single weaker GPU can pull this off? Really? Really? lowe0

Even my 4890 can only play this game at medium settings. Its a terrible game to try and compare systems with.

Offtopic: With that -nomemrestrict and -norestrictions could that improve my FPS? Cause I play it with max view distance and detail and such which is fine. If I play at max I get 40fps or above, but I have to keep the view distance down due to the memory restrictions. So at max it gets slow downs to single digit FPS while driving. It does the same on med settings if I have the view distance down low. So maybe this will help me?

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] The settings from your link: Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: High Reflection Resolution: High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: High So you claim a 8800GT could max out GTA IV at 1680x1050, I point out why it can't, and your evidence to the contrary is... a 9800GT NOT maxing out the game at a much lower resolution than what you proposed.

Tell you what: go ahead and load up GTA IV (oh, wait, you don't own it) with the -nomemrestrict and -norestrictions command line arguments, go to the settings menu, and max everything out at 1680x1050. I just did so, and according to the game, it needs 1193MB of video memory to accomplish what I'm asking of it (never mind the GPU power that would be required).

Now, benched on a pair of GTX 260s, that runs at about 30 FPS, with a couple of graphical glitches that don't occur when it's dialed back within the VRAM constraints (the marquee in Star Junction turned into a checkerboard, for instance). Do you really still want to claim that a card with 2/3rds the memory and a single weaker GPU can pull this off? Really? Really?

lowe0

I will go borrow a friend's game then....

But you will have to wait a day or two.

Also GTA IV is a poor example since the game is a bad port.

*goes back to playing Dirt 2, Prince of Persia newest, Bad Company 2 and AC2 at max settings except 8x AA for Bad Company 2 and at 1680x1050 res at directx 10.

Keep kicking dirt up at nothing it amuses me.

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

Wasdie

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Keep backpedaling - it amuses me.Hakkai007

Keep kicking dirt up at nothing it amuses me.

Here's the thing. When you stick that disc into the computer, you have no idea if it will run correctly. When you put the disc into a console, you know it will run. That's why I will always game on console first, PC second.monkeytoes61

I always know if my PC can run it.

I just look at other people with similar configurations.

Also some console games have bad frame rate and bugs. They are not too different from PCs in that aspect.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

lundy86_4

great point, everyone should read this!

Did you forget to log into another account, or did you just want to shamelessly bump your quote? :P

the 2nd option.

[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]Here's the thing. When you stick that disc into the computer, you have no idea if it will run correctly. When you put the disc into a console, you know it will run. That's why I will always game on console first, PC second.Hakkai007

I always know if my PC can run it.

I just look at other people with similar configurations.

Also some console games have bad frame rate and bugs. They are not too different from PCs in that aspect.

[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]Here's the thing. When you stick that disc into the computer, you have no idea if it will run correctly. When you put the disc into a console, you know it will run. That's why I will always game on console first, PC second.Hakkai007

I always know if my PC can run it.

I just look at other people with similar configurations.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

great point, everyone should read this!

markinthedark

Did you forget to log into another account, or did you just want to shamelessly bump your quote? :P

the 2nd option.

the 2nd option.

markinthedark

I figured that, but I felt like making a joke out of it.

Nothing wrong with shamelessy bumping, though I do disagree with the topic of FFXIV. My rig which consists of an e8400 @ 4ghz, a 4870 (heavy overclock) and 4gb RAM is seemingly struggling with the FFXIV benchmark right now. I have to set it to the 720p version to get a score of around 3500, out of a total 8000 or so.

It's either dreadfully optimized, or the PS3 version will run with stick men :P

[QUOTE="CagedOkami"]

thats the most ignorant comment ive seen in a while. and im so sorry to see that its you who said it...

so are you telling me that once a pc its the old ripe old age of 6 months it dies. or are you saying it can no longer play games...

first off what makes you think you need to have the game running on the highest settings? hmmm...you dont have to, a console adaptation would probably be around medium of low for pc(and keep in mind AA)

ive had my gtx 260 for about a year and works well, my pc is older than 6 month but still runs good. most people already have a monitor, mouse/keyboard. so i dont see your problem. we're not talking about building a new rig just the pc it costs around $400 to $600.

to say that a computer would stop playing games is just a stupid thing to say.

Wasdie

If you think I really mean that your PC will just break after 6 months is really incorrect, I'm saying that news games within 6 months of a budget PC will be beyond the capabilities of that PC and to play them on said budget PC at a decent spec.

Most people do NOT already have a monitor, mouse, keyboard, and speakers. To think this is believeing that gamers already own their own desktop PC and don't share with anybody. Instead most gamers use a family PC (I did until 2006 when I got my laptop) or have a laptop of which they cannot use the parts to aid with their PC. You can't just strip the monitor, mouse, and keyboard from your family PC. I don't think that would go over well with your family.

If you are to build a budget PC at $600 today, you will not beable to run the games at high settings for long. If youre building a PC that can compete with a game consoles, what's the point? Whats the point of building a PC that can't run the modern games at high settings?

The real thing is, PC gaming is not cheap. If you want a legit PC that will stand up to a few years of use before really needing an upgrade to stay current, you will need to drop a bit of money. Once you drop the money, the PC pays for itself. I bought cheap games off of steam, I get free games, mods, and I use my PC for much more than gaming. It's still a heafty intitial expense. I am just sick of PC gamers saying that it is a cheap intital expense for a PC that can keep up to par with games for many years. That is a lie.

come on Wasdie i know you know better than this, look at what you saying.

according to your statement i shouldnt be playing MW2, metro, or alien swarm.

****

also please specify "decents spec". at any spec (low, mid, or high) the game is fully playable.

when you compare a console to a pc the console would be inferior does that make the console indecent?

so its ultra settings or nothingwith you.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Did you forget to log into another account, or did you just want to shamelessly bump your quote? :P

Iantheone

the 2nd option.

if you made the point earlier i must have missed it.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

markinthedark

great point, everyone should read this!

except its not true :|

just ran the official final fantasyXIV benchmark on high resolution on 1080p. Its broken up seperate parts where it then procedes to load the next part so used fraps to benchmarks each part of the benchmarks heres the average framerate of each one higher then what the ps3 will do 30fps at 720p.

1 - 53fps

2- 60fps

3- 47fps

4- 45fps

5- 55fps avg

except its not true :|

just ran the official final fantasyXIV benchmark on high resolution on 1080p. Its broken up seperate parts where it then procedes to load the next part so used fraps to benchmarks each part of the benchmarks heres the average framerate of each one higher then what the ps3 will do 30fps at 720p.

1 - 53fps

2- 60fps

3- 47fps

4- 45fps

5- 55fps avg

DJ_Headshot

What rig are you running it on and what score did you get?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

look this is all pointless.

a $600 ps3 purchased in 2006 can run FFXIV, a $600 pc purchased today cant.

argument done, console gaming is cheaper.

DJ_Headshot

great point, everyone should read this!

except its not true :|

just ran the official final fantasyXIV benchmark on high resolution on 1080p. Its broken up seperate parts where it then procedes to load the next part so used fraps to benchmarks each part of the benchmarks heres the average framerate of each one higher then what the ps3 will do 30fps at 720p.

1 - 53fps

2- 60fps

3- 47fps

4- 45fps

5- 55fps avg

*clap* well done sir.

anyone else wish to be shot down:P

come on Wasdie i know you know better than this, look at what you saying.

according to your statement i shouldnt be playing MW2, metro, or alien swarm.

****

also please specify "decents spec". at any spec (low, mid, or high) the game is fully playable.

when you compare a console to a pc the console would be inferior does that make the console indecent?

so its ultra settings or nothingwith you.

CagedOkami

I am NOT comparing PC gaming to console gaming. I'm just saying there is NO budget PC for under $800 that can play the modern games at max settings with a decent framerate (30+ fps) and there is no way that these budget PCs can handle the next generation of games at near max settings with a playable framerate.

These budget PCs have mediocre dual core processors and mid-rang DX10 cards for their time, which passed a year ago. There is just no way it is worth buying such a PC. You'll be upgrading just to play the multiplats in a few months!

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

the 2nd option.

lundy86_4

I figured that, but I felt like making a joke out of it.

Nothing wrong with shamelessy bumping, though I do disagree with the topic of FFXIV. My rig which consists of an e8400 @ 4ghz, a 4870 (heavy overclock) and 4gb RAM is seemingly struggling with the FFXIV benchmark right now. I have to set it to the 720p version to get a score of around 3500, out of a total 8000 or so.

It's either dreadfully optimized, or the PS3 version will run with stick men :P

i know, i think its a horrible example... but im really running out of ways to make the point that PC gaming is far more expensive.

essentially there are all these posts of "well i can build a pc today that can perform better than one thats 5 years old... so its cheaper" how do you argue with this?

all these people think gaming pcs are cheaper than console gaming because today they can build a better pc for $500 than the 360. when the 360 is 5 years old... and the 360 doesnt cost close to 500 bucks. But somehow its a better value... even if you end up building 2-3 PCs during the period of a single console's life cycle. We dont add those costs, or consider the value of having a gaming system for 5 years... we simply go off the day's prices.

its almost liked this generation of consoles was launched today.... and havent been around for years.

[QUOTE="CagedOkami"]

come on Wasdie i know you know better than this, look at what you saying.

according to your statement i shouldnt be playing MW2, metro, or alien swarm.

****

also please specify "decents spec". at any spec (low, mid, or high) the game is fully playable.

when you compare a console to a pc the console would be inferior does that make the console indecent?

so its ultra settings or nothingwith you.

Wasdie

I am NOT comparing PC gaming to console gaming. I'm just saying there is NO budget PC for under $800 that can play the modern games at max settings with a decent framerate (30+ fps) and there is no way that these budget PCs can handle the next generation of games at near max settings with a playable framerate.

These budget PCs have mediocre dual core processors and mid-rang DX10 cards for their time, which passed a year ago. There is just no way it is worth buying such a PC. You'll be upgrading just to play the multiplats in a few months!

i know, i think its a horrible example... but im really running out of ways to make the point that PC gaming is far more expensive.

essentially there are all these posts of "well i can build a pc today that can perform better than one thats 5 years old... so its cheaper" how do you argue with this?

all these people think gaming pcs are cheaper than console gaming because today they can build a better pc for $500 than the 360. when the 360 is 5 years old... and the 360 doesnt cost close to 500 bucks. But somehow its a better value... even if you end up building 2-3 PCs during the period of a single console's life cycle. We dont add those costs, or consider the value of having a gaming system for 5 years... we simply go off the day's prices.

its almost liked this generation of consoles was launched today.... and havent been around for years.

markinthedark

You can't argue with it. Personally i'm of the opinion that you *can* build a low-mid end gaming rig for that price, however it's convenience will wear out fast when you have to start decreasing settings considerably to achieve reasonable -- or above reasonable -- fps.

On the other hand, you have the PC vs. console price comparison, which makes zero sense considering how the big 3 either outsource production or mass produce in their own facilities, severely driving down the cost of hardware, not to talk about buying parts in massive bulk, even further reducing the cost. How can that be directly compared to the price of a reasonable PC, where the same thing happened at the manufacturing level, and it's been shipped to numerous businesses before reaching the end user -- further driving up costs of components.

I say, initially it is not cheaper -- as I built my rig for $1500-1800 2 years ago -- but it could be in the long run. However that is entirely dependant on the end-user, and whether the wait for masive reduction in game prices, such as when my brother bought The Witcher for $6 in the last Steam sale etc. However console owners do have access to avenues for cheaper games as well, so like i say it's all dependant on the individual.

[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.

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8713/630pc.jpg

$630.39 with the $20 mail in rebate on the PSU.

Also another thing is because something is cheap doesn't mean its crap. I've had a "cheap" dynex PSU powering my PC for years now with my 8800GT OC and now my 5870 OC. That PSU has been great.

EDIT: The reason the price point remains so high is because I wanted to keep the GTX 460 in there which is at a $200 price point. Though I could just as easily replace it with the $130 ASUS 5770. That would give me a price point of $560.39 for a PC with quality parts and a load of power.

[QUOTE="CagedOkami"]

come on Wasdie i know you know better than this, look at what you saying.

according to your statement i shouldnt be playing MW2, metro, or alien swarm.

****

also please specify "decents spec". at any spec (low, mid, or high) the game is fully playable.

when you compare a console to a pc the console would be inferior does that make the console indecent?

so its ultra settings or nothingwith you.

Wasdie

I am NOT comparing PC gaming to console gaming. I'm just saying there is NO budget PC for under $800 that can play the modern games at max settings with a decent framerate (30+ fps) and there is no way that these budget PCs can handle the next generation of games at near max settings with a playable framerate.

These budget PCs have mediocre dual core processors and mid-rang DX10 cards for their time, which passed a year ago. There is just no way it is worth buying such a PC. You'll be upgrading just to play the multiplats in a few months!

Complain more? Here for $30 more I put all the HQ parts you had a problem with and doubled the HDD.

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8713/630pc.jpg

$630.39 with the $20 mail in rebate on the PSU.

Also another thing is because something is cheap doesn't mean its crap. I've had a "cheap" dynex PSU powering my PC for years now with my 8800GT OC and now my 5870 OC. That PSU has been great.

NVIDIATI

Personally it's a trust thing with me and PSUs, I'd really only go cosair and thermaltake at this point, a garbage PSU will die and take friends with it...

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="CagedOkami"]

come on Wasdie i know you know better than this, look at what you saying.

according to your statement i shouldnt be playing MW2, metro, or alien swarm.

****

also please specify "decents spec". at any spec (low, mid, or high) the game is fully playable.

when you compare a console to a pc the console would be inferior does that make the console indecent?

so its ultra settings or nothingwith you.

SakusEnvoy

I am NOT comparing PC gaming to console gaming. I'm just saying there is NO budget PC for under $800 that can play the modern games at max settings with a decent framerate (30+ fps) and there is no way that these budget PCs can handle the next generation of games at near max settings with a playable framerate.

These budget PCs have mediocre dual core processors and mid-rang DX10 cards for their time, which passed a year ago. There is just no way it is worth buying such a PC. You'll be upgrading just to play the multiplats in a few months!

Offcourse you don't want to "underspend" on a computer but at the same time making claims that "you will upgrade in 6 months" or "you will have to upgrade in 1 year" is some strong opinions to be making.

[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"]

except its not true :|

just ran the official final fantasyXIV benchmark on high resolution on 1080p. Its broken up seperate parts where it then procedes to load the next part so used fraps to benchmarks each part of the benchmarks heres the average framerate of each one higher then what the ps3 will do 30fps at 720p.

1 - 53fps

2- 60fps

3- 47fps

4- 45fps

5- 55fps avg

lundy86_4

What rig are you running it on and what score did you get?

My pc consist of 5770 1G,3G dd3 1333mhz ram, and i7 920 3.6ghz got a score of 2842 the lowest the framerate got to was 30fps and stayed at 40-60 fps most of the time.DJ_Headshot

Nice. I wanted to know for comparisons sake.

You got quite a bit higher than me -- unsurprisingly -- as I clocked in at 2226 on High settings. I hear the benchmark isn't all that well optimized and that the final game will run better.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i know, i think its a horrible example... but im really running out of ways to make the point that PC gaming is far more expensive.

essentially there are all these posts of "well i can build a pc today that can perform better than one thats 5 years old... so its cheaper" how do you argue with this?

all these people think gaming pcs are cheaper than console gaming because today they can build a better pc for $500 than the 360. when the 360 is 5 years old... and the 360 doesnt cost close to 500 bucks. But somehow its a better value... even if you end up building 2-3 PCs during the period of a single console's life cycle. We dont add those costs, or consider the value of having a gaming system for 5 years... we simply go off the day's prices.

its almost liked this generation of consoles was launched today.... and havent been around for years.

lundy86_4

You can't argue with it. Personally i'm of the opinion that you *can* build a low-mid end gaming rig for that price, however it's convenience will wear out fast when you have to start decreasing settings considerably to achieve reasonable -- or above reasonable -- fps.

On the other hand, you have the PC vs. console price comparison, which makes zero sense considering how the big 3 either outsource production or mass produce in their own facilities, severely driving down the cost of hardware, not to talk about buying parts in massive bulk, even further reducing the cost. How can that be directly compared to the price of a reasonable PC, where the same thing happened at the manufacturing level, and it's been shipped to numerous businesses before reaching the end user -- further driving up costs of components.

I say, initially it is not cheaper -- as I built my rig for $1500-1800 2 years ago -- but it could be in the long run. However that is entirely dependant on the end-user, and whether the wait for masive reduction in game prices, such as when my brother bought The Witcher for $6 in the last Steam sale etc. However console owners do have access to avenues for cheaper games as well, so like i say it's all dependant on the individual.

there is the argument of cheaper games... but honestly... if you pre ordered red dead redemption... got the $20 amazon gift card, sold your pre order bonus code for $10 on ebay(heard these sold for 20 bucks).. beat the game inside of 1 month and traded it in for $35 through amazon... you just bought and beat a game and made money in the process and you played the game on the release date. Console games can be much cheaper because when you buy a console game, you are also buying the rights to resell it.

you can also wait a year and buy a console game used if you want... and once you beat it and are done.... you can probably sell it and not lose more than a couple bucks. I dont actively resell my games, but if you do... i think its actually quite a bit cheaper to buy them on consoles. I know people who actually made 10-20 bucks off red dead redemption.

UPDATE NEW BUILDS: (differences in bold)

$630 with rebates:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8713/630pc.jpg

· Case

· DVD Drive

· 550W PSU

· KB/M + Speakers

· AMD Quad Core Black Edition 2.5ghz

· CPU Fan

· AM2+ MOBO

· Windows 7

· 2GB DDR2 800

· 320GB HDD 7200rpm

· GTX 460

· FREE: Just Cause 2

$560 with rebates:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1973/560pc.jpg

· Case

· DVD Drive

· 550W PSU

· KB/M + Speakers

· AMD Quad Core Black Edition 2.5ghz

· CPU Fan

· AM2+ MOBO

· Windows 7

· 2GB DDR2 800

· 320GB HDD 7200rpm

· ATI 5770

· USB TV Tuner