Lets have a high quality long lasting high-end PC for $600.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

False. The fact that a computer from 2004 can run most PC games on at least medium settings just shows how wrong that is. Why would anyone NEED to upgrade if you can play games on medium settings?karasill

So a $600 pc in late 2005 would have a budget card like a 6800gs. Show me some benchmarks on current demanding games that prove its not obsolete. I've already linked benches showing a 6800 getting 18 fps in Bioshock on medium.

At least I'm trying to provide evidence.

These threads about building a PC for $XXX need to do a better job of covering bases. Sure, leave out the cost of a Monitor or Speakers, but to many people that would make the PC totally useless. To some it would make sense because they already have the hardware.

Do a "from scratch" build and an "upgrade" build and you would be more accurate then what we have here.

Also, the console companies do indeed loose money on each unit sold for a period after launch. Deny it all you want. It's true.

All these arguments about how long a PC will last tend to leave out a lot of details, and also tend to ignore history. Back in eEarly 2005 the "budget" card that was a ton of bang for the buck was a 6600GT that ran about $200. It was a great card for the price back then. Try and tell me that card would still play recent games at a decent framerate and resolution. 640x480 is NOT decent. If I wanted that I'd buy a Wii. Many of today's cards that are in the same situation will fall into the same role in 3 years time.

Granted, the graphics card is the most obvious upgrade to do once your rig starts choking on new games. Such an upgrade would probably set you back another $200 today to replace it. Meaning, within three years that's another $200 or so.

It's just foolish to continue to try and compare console costs and PC costs. There is NO way to do this accurately.

It doesn't cost $3000 every few years, and it sure as hell isn't cheaper then console gaming. Console gaming by it's very definition is cheap.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

False. The fact that a computer from 2004 can run most PC games on at least medium settings just shows how wrong that is. Why would anyone NEED to upgrade if you can play games on medium settings?Cranler

So a $600 pc in late 2005 would have a budget card like a 6800gs. Show me some benchmarks on current demanding games that prove its not obsolete. I've already linked benches showing a 6800 getting 18 fps in Bioshock on medium.

At least I'm trying to provide evidence.

[QUOTE="wemhim"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="DisPimpin"]Really? How is that?DragonfireXZ95

It's not allowed to play consoles on regular TV's either, you NEED an HDTV, or you're NOT actually gaming on a console.

So I guess people without HDTV's and PC's without monitors aren't actually playing games. The world is weird that way, isn't it?

[QUOTE="amorbis1001"]

Problem with pc is if it last as long it will not looks as good as consoles, example.

my coop i got in 04 cant play HL2 as good as how it looks on thr original xbox.

karasill

What graphics card do you have in that 2004 rig?

These threads about building a PC for $XXX need to do a better job of covering bases. Sure, leave out the cost of a Monitor or Speakers, but to many people that would make the PC totally useless. To some it would make sense because they already have the hardware.

Do a "from scratch" build and an "upgrade" build and you would be more accurate then what we have here.

Also, the console companies do indeed loose money on each unit sold for a period after launch. Deny it all you want. It's true.

All these arguments about how long a PC will last tend to leave out a lot of details, and also tend to ignore history. Back in eEarly 2005 the "budget" card that was a ton of bang for the buck was a 6600GT that ran about $200. It was a great card for the price back then. Try and tell me that card would still play recent games at a decent framerate and resolution. 640x480 is NOT decent. If I wanted that I'd buy a Wii. Many of today's cards that are in the same situation will fall into the same role in 3 years time.

Granted, the graphics card is the most obvious upgrade to do once your rig starts choking on new games. Such an upgrade would probably set you back another $200 today to replace it. Meaning, within three years that's another $200 or so.

It's just foolish to continue to try and compare console costs and PC costs. There is NO way to do this accurately.

It doesn't cost $3000 every few years, and it sure as hell isn't cheaper then console gaming. Console gaming by it's very definition is cheap.

Bgrngod

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"]

Problem with pc is if it last as long it will not looks as good as consoles, example.

my coop i got in 04 cant play HL2 as good as how it looks on thr original xbox.

Bgrngod

What graphics card do you have in that 2004 rig?

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"]

Problem with pc is if it last as long it will not looks as good as consoles, example.

my coop i got in 04 cant play HL2 as good as how it looks on thr original xbox.

karasill

What graphics card do you have in that 2004 rig?

Doesnt change the fact that HL2 pc doesnt have hdr and updated shadows like the 360 version.

You could buy a 6800 vanilia for less then $200 in 2005. The card came out in Spring of 04 and launched at $300 so it did see price drops.karasill

The vanilla 6800 was still $300 in august 2004, and when the 6600GT rolled around in early 2005, it was a cheaper card at around $200. The comparison I made is completely valid.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"]

Problem with pc is if it last as long it will not looks as good as consoles, example.

my coop i got in 04 cant play HL2 as good as how it looks on thr original xbox.

Cranler

What graphics card do you have in that 2004 rig?

Doesnt change the fact that HL2 pc doesnt have hdr and updated shadows like the 360 version.

[QUOTE="karasill"]You could buy a 6800 vanilia for less then $200 in 2005. The card came out in Spring of 04 and launched at $300 so it did see price drops.Bgrngod

The vanilla 6800 was still $300 in august 2004, and when the 6600GT rolled around in early 2005, it was a cheaper card at around $200. The comparison I made is completely valid.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

False. The fact that a computer from 2004 can run most PC games on at least medium settings just shows how wrong that is. Why would anyone NEED to upgrade if you can play games on medium settings?karasill

So a $600 pc in late 2005 would have a budget card like a 6800gs. Show me some benchmarks on current demanding games that prove its not obsolete. I've already linked benches showing a 6800 getting 18 fps in Bioshock on medium.

At least I'm trying to provide evidence.

Where? I could sit here and say my old GF4600 can run Crysis. I want links backing up your claims.

7600gt is faster than the 6800gt and it can barely run Bioshock at 1024. Most people use an lcd and that res if available looks absolutely terrible on an lcd.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"]

Problem with pc is if it last as long it will not looks as good as consoles, example.

my coop i got in 04 cant play HL2 as good as how it looks on thr original xbox.

karasill

What graphics card do you have in that 2004 rig?

That card was $400 in 2004, and stayed that price into the beginning of 2005. I had one myself, and upgraded to a 7 series after not liking the framerates I was getting with it. I never played Bioshock on my current rig, but I have a hard time believing the 6800GT can play Bioshock better then the 360.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

False. The fact that a computer from 2004 can run most PC games on at least medium settings just shows how wrong that is. Why would anyone NEED to upgrade if you can play games on medium settings?Cranler

So a $600 pc in late 2005 would have a budget card like a 6800gs. Show me some benchmarks on current demanding games that prove its not obsolete. I've already linked benches showing a 6800 getting 18 fps in Bioshock on medium.

At least I'm trying to provide evidence.

Where? I could sit here and say my old GF4600 can run Crysis. I want links backing up your claims.

7600gt is faster than the 6800gt and it can barely run Bioshock at 1024. Most people use an lcd and that res if available looks absolutely terrible on an lcd.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

[QUOTE="karasill"]You could buy a 6800 vanilia for less then $200 in 2005. The card came out in Spring of 04 and launched at $300 so it did see price drops.karasill

The vanilla 6800 was still $300 in august 2004, and when the 6600GT rolled around in early 2005, it was a cheaper card at around $200. The comparison I made is completely valid.

Because I said "in early 2005". If you want to knock a year off the time frame I used in my comparison go right ahead. That card was still around $300 at the beginning of 2005, which is why I listed the 6600GT at $200 since it came out right around then and was the better value.

Are you really going to try and tell me the 6800 vanilla was cheaper then the 6600GT?

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"]

Problem with pc is if it last as long it will not looks as good as consoles, example.

my coop i got in 04 cant play HL2 as good as how it looks on thr original xbox.

Bgrngod

What graphics card do you have in that 2004 rig?

That card was $400 in 2004, and stayed that price into the beginning of 2005. I had one myself, and upgraded to a 7 series after not liking the framerates I was getting with it. I never played Bioshock on my current rig, but I have a hard time believing the 6800GT can play Bioshock better then the 360.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

[QUOTE="karasill"]You could buy a 6800 vanilia for less then $200 in 2005. The card came out in Spring of 04 and launched at $300 so it did see price drops.Bgrngod

The vanilla 6800 was still $300 in august 2004, and when the 6600GT rolled around in early 2005, it was a cheaper card at around $200. The comparison I made is completely valid.

Because I said "in early 2005". If you want to knock a year off the time frame I used in my comparison go right ahead. That card was still around $300 at the beginning of 2005, which is why I listed the 6600GT at $200 since it came out right around then and was the better value.

Are you really going to try and tell me the 6800 vanilla was cheaper then the 6600GT?

You could find one for less then $200 in the year 2005. Whether it was cheaper or not when it was at that price point, I don't know. karasill

When in 2005? Because I know for sure it wasn't early 2005. Maybe at the tail end of 2005. A years is more then enough time for video card prices to drop so don't just casually toss out "in the year 2005" as if early or later on is no big deal. Based on what you are providing, the anology I made went from 3 years to need an upgrade to 2 years. Good job sport. You're just helping me.

HDR in Half Life 2 Epsidoe 2 was subtle and the original Half Life 2 did have a more primiative form of HDR. When you walk outside of a building in Half Life 2, the sunlight was intially bright and then dimmed down, and other effects like that. The improved shadows while they were cool are easily overlooked and isn't taxing at all since it's not truly dynamic like say in Doom 3. (which a 6800 GT easily ran at max settings)karasill

HL2 doesnt have hdr. Lost coast was the first thing on Source with hdr. And yes better shadows no matter how they compare to other games will make a game more demanding.

A gf4600 can run Splinter Cell and Deus Ex iw at max settings and they have dynamic shadows. So your comment about Doom 3 doesnt mean much.

[QUOTE="karasill"] You could find one for less then $200 in the year 2005. Whether it was cheaper or not when it was at that price point, I don't know. Bgrngod

When in 2005? Because I know for sure it wasn't early 2005. Maybe at the tail end of 2005. A years is more then enough time for video card prices to drop so don't just casually toss out "in the year 2005" as if early or later on is no big deal. Based on what you are providing, the anology I made went from 3 years to need an upgrade to 2 years. Good job sport. You're just helping me.

I don't see how I'm helping you, my old computer beside me right now can run every game I own (excluding Crysis) just fine. It's 4 years old now.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

False. The fact that a computer from 2004 can run most PC games on at least medium settings just shows how wrong that is. Why would anyone NEED to upgrade if you can play games on medium settings?karasill

So a $600 pc in late 2005 would have a budget card like a 6800gs. Show me some benchmarks on current demanding games that prove its not obsolete. I've already linked benches showing a 6800 getting 18 fps in Bioshock on medium.

At least I'm trying to provide evidence.

Where? I could sit here and say my old GF4600 can run Crysis. I want links backing up your claims.

7600gt is faster than the 6800gt and it can barely run Bioshock at 1024. Most people use an lcd and that res if available looks absolutely terrible on an lcd.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

Wheres your proof that the 6800 can run current games like stalker, cod4 and ut3 at 30+ fps?

[QUOTE="karasill"]

HDR in Half Life 2 Epsidoe 2 was subtle and the original Half Life 2 did have a more primiative form of HDR. When you walk outside of a building in Half Life 2, the sunlight was intially bright and then dimmed down, and other effects like that. The improved shadows while they were cool are easily overlooked and isn't taxing at all since it's not truly dynamic like say in Doom 3. (which a 6800 GT easily ran at max settings)Cranler

HL2 doesnt have hdr. Lost coast was the first thing on Source with hdr. And yes better shadows no matter how they compare to other games will make a game more demanding.

A gf4600 can run Splinter Cell and Deus Ex iw at max settings and they have dynamic shadows. So your comment about Doom 3 doesnt mean much.

I can't really read any more of this garbage.

So far, I get the argument that you can build a mediocre pc if you have $600. You need a monitor - most houses have tv's, most don't have monitors - I should steal the software, and I should do 'some' research after which I can spend a couple of hours putting together my leet gaming rig

or...

I can just go buy a console.

Seriously, I game on all platforms, I have been building pcs since 1994, I work with computers all day, and I have been gaming since the early 80's. And I call BS on this topic and on the fanboys using a really stupid argument in favor of pc gaming.

How about sticking to the truth? How about, if you want the best control in an fps or rts, and the best graphics at a given moment in time, AND if you're willing to make some or many upgrades along the way and that money is no object, that a pc might be the way to go.

OTOH

Consoles are cheaper, have a better control scheme for more genres out of the box, better comfort factor (hmmm, couch or office chair) and last longer.

Period.

End of topic.

Epic fail.

Heh. Epic fail. That's ironic.

nullvision

You fail, and a mediocre PC? Ignorance FTW.

Wheres your proof that the 6800 can run current games like stalker, cod4 and ut3 at 30+ fps?Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

HDR in Half Life 2 Epsidoe 2 was subtle and the original Half Life 2 did have a more primiative form of HDR. When you walk outside of a building in Half Life 2, the sunlight was intially bright and then dimmed down, and other effects like that. The improved shadows while they were cool are easily overlooked and isn't taxing at all since it's not truly dynamic like say in Doom 3. (which a 6800 GT easily ran at max settings)karasill

HL2 doesnt have hdr. Lost coast was the first thing on Source with hdr. And yes better shadows no matter how they compare to other games will make a game more demanding.

A gf4600 can run Splinter Cell and Deus Ex iw at max settings and they have dynamic shadows. So your comment about Doom 3 doesnt mean much.

I played it the day it came out. It is possible to be a pc gamer and admit that its more expensive.

Valve calls that exposure control and it was added to Source in Lost Coast.

HL2 on 360 is more demanding than HL2 on pc. Simple fact.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Wheres your proof that the 6800 can run current games like stalker, cod4 and ut3 at 30+ fps?karasill

All you have to do is look for mid range performance and a similar card.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

HDR in Half Life 2 Epsidoe 2 was subtle and the original Half Life 2 did have a more primiative form of HDR. When you walk outside of a building in Half Life 2, the sunlight was intially bright and then dimmed down, and other effects like that. The improved shadows while they were cool are easily overlooked and isn't taxing at all since it's not truly dynamic like say in Doom 3. (which a 6800 GT easily ran at max settings)karasill

HL2 doesnt have hdr. Lost coast was the first thing on Source with hdr. And yes better shadows no matter how they compare to other games will make a game more demanding.

A gf4600 can run Splinter Cell and Deus Ex iw at max settings and they have dynamic shadows. So your comment about Doom 3 doesnt mean much.

My whole argument was that a card that cost $200 in early 2005, the 6600GT, would need to be replaced today to play PC games at more then 640x480. Meaning, a 3 year old card that was $200 (I picked early 2005 since that was 3 years ago) would need to get replaced today.

You chimed in by saying the 6800 vanilla was $200 in 2005, which it may have been toward the end, but it most definitely was not in early 2005. In early 2005 it was $300.

If you noticed, the guy that made this thread opted to go for a $200 card, and insists it will last a long time. I used recent history to prove that it won't. Thanks for following along.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Wheres your proof that the 6800 can run current games like stalker, cod4 and ut3 at 30+ fps?karasill

He's running them at the same resolution as SDTV to get those framerates.

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"]Wheres your proof that the 6800 can run current games like stalker, cod4 and ut3 at 30+ fps?Bgrngod

He's running them at the same resolution as SDTV to get those framerates.

Yuck. Most games at low settings just dont look right. I would wait til I could afford to upgrade. Replay games like Deus Ex, Gothic, Morrowind etc in the meantime.

One of the prime complaints i see in these kind of threads is that the components are not high quality and it wont last long and if i am spending that much money i may as well spend more to get a high-end that would last.Well here is one high quality one that will last as long as the ps3 and 360 atleast.There we go,

Casing.That's a stylish casing and has adequate cooling for the PC and is not a cheap one.

DVD burner.

7200 RPM Harddrive.

8800 Graphics Card.

Antec 430W Power Supply.This is a high quality PSU if you didnt know.

Corsair 2GB DDR2 800Mhz Ram.This is again high quality Ram.

Asus Intel motherboard.Asus is a very reliable motherboard manufacturer if you didnt know.

Intel E6750 core 2 duo CPU.This is one high end CPU for you.

Keyboard.

Mouse.

Total=$600.

Since your consoles come with a controller i included the keyboard and mouse as well.You can use your existing OS so you dont need that.The motherboard has 5.1 surround so we dont need a soundcard.Your console does not come with a TV or speakers so we will leave that as well.

This PC costs about 50% more than your consoles and is 100% more powerful than either console.It will last atleast as long as your console last.It will always be ahead of your consoles in the graphics department and ofcourse the PC is always ahead in the games department.

So basically the ps3 and xbox 360 is a ripoff compared to PC and companies are not losing money on each console but only making a fool out of their consumer into believing that.

So the bottom line is this that console gaming is more expensive with ti expensive games and less price performance hardware and still provides an inferior experience to the PC despite being expensive.Well that is sad.

Good day.

Broken_Tulip

you have to include the price of an operating system both the 360 and PS3 have one. Plus how can you say use your existing operating system how many people have a copy of windows lying around:? That brings your total to $800 the price of XPHomefull, $900 with XP Professional full.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="lowe0"]

Mid-level Antecs are good PSUs (I had a TP430, and now have a TPTrio 550), but I don't think their 12v rail has enough current for an 8800. You may want to step that PSU up a little.

Also, I don't see an OS anywhere on that list.

EmperorSupreme

That's fine if your a student, but for people in the real world Vista is $99 for the basic edition (which is garbage) and up to $299 for Ultimate.

thats only for the upgrades you will need to full versions. Vista basic doesn't have a fullversion so it starts with home for about 250 on up

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="lowe0"]

Mid-level Antecs are good PSUs (I had a TP430, and now have a TPTrio 550), but I don't think their 12v rail has enough current for an 8800. You may want to step that PSU up a little.

Also, I don't see an OS anywhere on that list.

Vandalvideo

That's fine if your a student, but for people in the real world Vista is $99 for the basic edition (which is garbage) and up to $299 for Ultimate.

The problem is that the schools only allow one copy per student so what if the student needs his copy and all operating system software is one user license

Let's not and say we did.

Oh wait. :|

Ok if most houses have TVs(assuming HDTV)...hook your PC up to your TV? Also what the TC said is you could use your existing OS that you have right now(or else you woudln't be typing) for your new computer. Only reason you couldn't is if you bought from a company like Dell where their OS is tied to their MB. In that case you can easily pick up an OEM copy of windows for ~$80.bignice12

Its been years since new computers came with an operating disc and without a link to where you can get a windows OEM disc for 80 bucks I say you made that up

[QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="karasill"]

HDR in Half Life 2 Epsidoe 2 was subtle and the original Half Life 2 did have a more primiative form of HDR. When you walk outside of a building in Half Life 2, the sunlight was intially bright and then dimmed down, and other effects like that. The improved shadows while they were cool are easily overlooked and isn't taxing at all since it's not truly dynamic like say in Doom 3. (which a 6800 GT easily ran at max settings)Bgrngod

HL2 doesnt have hdr. Lost coast was the first thing on Source with hdr. And yes better shadows no matter how they compare to other games will make a game more demanding.

A gf4600 can run Splinter Cell and Deus Ex iw at max settings and they have dynamic shadows. So your comment about Doom 3 doesnt mean much.

My whole argument was that a card that cost $200 in early 2005, the 6600GT, would need to be replaced today to play PC games at more then 640x480. Meaning, a 3 year old card that was $200 (I picked early 2005 since that was 3 years ago) would need to get replaced today.

You chimed in by saying the 6800 vanilla was $200 in 2005, which it may have been toward the end, but it most definitely was not in early 2005. In early 2005 it was $300.

If you noticed, the guy that made this thread opted to go for a $200 card, and insists it will last a long time. I used recent history to prove that it won't. Thanks for following along.

How long the gamecube last?Ya 3 years.

Besides do you agree or dont that an 8800 will not come anyway near obsolence before a new console comes??

Step the power supply up a little. Not really enought for an 8800 (Nvidia state the minimum for an 8800 is 500W). Also, the 384MB GS's are not that great. change it with one of the newer 512MB GS or a GT as they are much better value. And finnaly that case may not fit a full length card.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="lowe0"]

Mid-level Antecs are good PSUs (I had a TP430, and now have a TPTrio 550), but I don't think their 12v rail has enough current for an 8800. You may want to step that PSU up a little.

Also, I don't see an OS anywhere on that list.

EmperorSupreme

That's fine if your a student, but for people in the real world Vista is $99 for the basic edition (which is garbage) and up to $299 for Ultimate.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="karasill"][QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]that would be great if I knew how to put it together...lolkarasill

its not as difficult as it used to be, most or all components come with decent instructions telling you what to do

Ok if most houses have TVs(assuming HDTV)...hook your PC up to your TV? Also what the TC said is you could use your existing OS that you have right now(or else you woudln't be typing) for your new computer. Only reason you couldn't is if you bought from a company like Dell where their OS is tied to their MB. In that case you can easily pick up an OEM copy of windows for ~$80.bignice12

Its been years since new computers came with an operating disc and without a link to where you can get a windows OEM disc for 80 bucks I say you made that up

lmao!

il give you a link, UK site as i am in the UK however the same applies to most of the world inculding the US

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Products.ASP?CatID=37&FilterCategories=310&Thumbnails=yes

OEM versions of vista :P and yes 50 to 60£ in the UK is damn cheap for windows.

Hermit seem to save $$$ on their PC... something that costs 2000-3000 in stores they make it for 600$... How about I send to some of you guys 700$ Can. You make me a PC that can run Crysis on medium/high settings. And if you can even build it for less than 700$ then take the rest of the money.haris12121212

lol for real? I just upgraded my PC to play Crysis, I play on high nice and smooth. I just purchased a 9600 GT ($185 CDN), my CPU is a socket 939 Athlon X2 3800+ overclocked... I purchased it for $90 CDN sometime last year. The rest is stuff I bought two years ago and would be dirt cheap by now.

If you're in Toronto and actually are looking to build a cheap PC, let me know and I can atleast point you in the right direction.

The problem is, PCs don't last as long as consoles... have you tried playing Far Cry on a high-end PC built in 2001? Theoretically the PC should be able to handle it, if it "lasts as long as a console."Funkyhamster

Farcry didn't come out in 2001, but 3 years later.

Can you play Call of Duty 4 on your Xbox?

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

My whole argument was that a card that cost $200 in early 2005, the 6600GT, would need to be replaced today to play PC games at more then 640x480. Meaning, a 3 year old card that was $200 (I picked early 2005 since that was 3 years ago) would need to get replaced today.

You chimed in by saying the 6800 vanilla was $200 in 2005, which it may have been toward the end, but it most definitely was not in early 2005. In early 2005 it was $300.

If you noticed, the guy that made this thread opted to go for a $200 card, and insists it will last a long time. I used recent history to prove that it won't. Thanks for following along.

Stranger_7

How long the gamecube last?Ya 3 years.

Besides do you agree or dont that an 8800 will not come anyway near obsolence before a new console comes??

The Xbox was 4 years and the GC was 5 years before it's replacement came out.

I can't say for sure that the 8800GS that the TC used in his $600 "long lasting PC" would need to be replaced within 3 years. I'd guess, based on history, that it would need to be replaced. By the end of 3 years it will probably be coughing out 640x480 at best, which really means in needs replacing since those are SDTV resolutions. The equivalent card in March 2005 was the 6600GT at around $200, and it definitely would need to be replaced today.

[QUOTE="Stranger_7"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

My whole argument was that a card that cost $200 in early 2005, the 6600GT, would need to be replaced today to play PC games at more then 640x480. Meaning, a 3 year old card that was $200 (I picked early 2005 since that was 3 years ago) would need to get replaced today.

You chimed in by saying the 6800 vanilla was $200 in 2005, which it may have been toward the end, but it most definitely was not in early 2005. In early 2005 it was $300.

If you noticed, the guy that made this thread opted to go for a $200 card, and insists it will last a long time. I used recent history to prove that it won't. Thanks for following along.

Bgrngod

How long the gamecube last?Ya 3 years.

Besides do you agree or dont that an 8800 will not come anyway near obsolence before a new console comes??

The Xbox was 4 years and the GC was 5 years before it's replacement came out.

I can't say for sure that the 8800GS that the TC used in his $600 "long lasting PC" would need to be replaced within 3 years. I'd guess, based on history, that it would need to be replaced. By the end of 3 years it will probably be coughing out 640x480 at best, which really means in needs replacing since those are SDTV resolutions. The equivalent card in March 2005 was the 6600GT at around $200, and it definitely would need to be replaced today.

:roll: the 8800 GS is not like a 6600 GT during that itme.. Good try though.. Secondly it entirely depends on what genre he is going to be playing and how much longer Crysis will stay on top, which it could be a veyr long time seeing what i can do.

[QUOTE="f50p90"]I still don't care about PC gaming, sorryclone01

second that.

How long did the original xbox last again?Ya 4 years.

How long the gamecube last?Ya 3 years.

Besides do you agree or dont that an 8800 will not come anyway near obsolence before a new console comes??

Stranger_7

Even after the next xbox is launched there will still be games made for the 360. So this gen its more than 5 years.

The topic creator said the 8800gt will last 5 years. Next gen consoles will be out in 2-3 years. If history has taught us anything the next xbox will probably have a card thats 2-3 times faster than Nvidias next monster card. Most games will be built around that tech so the tc's pc will need a graphics upgrade and probably cpu as well. So that would be at least $1k spent in 3 years time.

If you bough a mid range pc when the 360 launched you would already be needing to upgrade.

So basically the ps3 and xbox 360 is a ripoff compared to PC and companies are not losing money on each console but only making a fool out of their consumer into believing that.

Broken_Tulip

When the 360 launched it had performance that could only be matched by a top of the line $1500 self built pc. They are making a profit now but not much.

Find me a $400 prebuilt that can run COD4 on medium high settings at 1024 with a constant 60fps.

Even after the next xbox is launched there will still be games made for the 360. So this gen its more than 5 years.

The topic creator said the 8800gt will last 5 years. Next gen consoles will be out in 2-3 years. If history has taught us anything the next xbox will probably have a card thats 2-3 times faster than Nvidias next monster card. Most games will be built around that tech so the tc's pc will need a graphics upgrade and probably cpu as well. So that would be at least $1k spent in 3 years time.

If you bough a mid range pc when the 360 launched you would already be needing to upgrade.

Cranler

I don't quite follow. ATI and NVidia make the GPUs for the 360 and the PS3. At the moment, nVidia is ahead of ATI by quite a bit, in terms of gpu technology. So, you are you suggesting that ATI will create a GPU 2-3x faster then nVidia in the next 2-3 years? or did you not know what makes up the components inside your console?

What usually happens is (the last two generations), is ATI and nVidia create custom cards based on their best single card gpu models. Note, I am refering to the architecture itself, not the entire cards specifications.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

Even after the next xbox is launched there will still be games made for the 360. So this gen its more than 5 years.

The topic creator said the 8800gt will last 5 years. Next gen consoles will be out in 2-3 years. If history has taught us anything the next xbox will probably have a card thats 2-3 times faster than Nvidias next monster card. Most games will be built around that tech so the tc's pc will need a graphics upgrade and probably cpu as well. So that would be at least $1k spent in 3 years time.

If you bough a mid range pc when the 360 launched you would already be needing to upgrade.

rimnet00

I don't quite follow. ATI and NVidia make the GPUs for the 360 and the PS3. At the moment, nVidia is ahead of ATI by quite a bit, in terms of gpu technology. So, you are you suggesting that ATI will create a GPU 2-3x faster then nVidia in the next 2-3 years? or did you not know what makes up the components inside your console?

What usually happens is (the last two generations), is ATI and nVidia create custom cards based on their best single card gpu models. Note, I am refering to the architecture itself, not the entire cards specifications.

I said the next xbox's gpu will be 2-3 times faster than Nvidias next monster card which is due this year. Dont see why ATI wont have tech much faster than that in 2 or 3 years.

You must not be keeping up with gpu tech. The 3870x2 is on par with the 8800 ultra.

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"]The Xbox was 4 years and the GC was 5 years before it's replacement came out.

I can't say for sure that the 8800GS that the TC used in his $600 "long lasting PC" would need to be replaced within 3 years. I'd guess, based on history, that it would need to be replaced. By the end of 3 years it will probably be coughing out 640x480 at best, which really means in needs replacing since those are SDTV resolutions. The equivalent card in March 2005 was the 6600GT at around $200, and it definitely would need to be replaced today.

sSubZerOo

:roll: the 8800 GS is not like a 6600 GT during that itme.. Good try though.. Secondly it entirely depends on what genre he is going to be playing and how much longer Crysis will stay on top, which it could be a veyr long time seeing what i can do.

What makes you think the 8800GS is not today's 6600GT? The pricing for the 8800GS is similar today as to what the 6600GT's was 3 years ago. That's a pretty rock solid comparison.

Infact, the 8800GS is a bit cheaper now. We can bump up to a $200 card like the 9600GT that just came out. That would be a fair comparison. Do you really think that the 9600GT won't be in need of replacement in 3 years from now? Depending on how games progress, based on history, it probably will if it wants to play the newer games around early 2011.