PC gaming is crushing consoles

There is no "respectable debating" with you because you're a troll and you don't have the first clue on how to structure a logically sound argument or defend your moronic claims.

You rely on the logic of an ignorant child. ("Derp, you can't use a user built PC because consoles are prebuilt, so you have to buy a prebuilt $2000-$3000 PC for comparison because I can't prove my claim otherwise")

All of your latest tangential claims re: 7800GTX performance, 5 years after the release of the 8xxxx series, has NOTHING to do with your original, indefensible, and thoroughly wrecked, "$2000 PC required to match 360 on launch," claim, but I know that you know this, and you are still trying to derail the thread away from your original point.

Btw, as we already have been over, PCs are not tied to console generations, and given that the 8xxxx series of cards were already released 5 years before Skyrim and that a 7600 was Skyrim's minimum requirement, a more legitimate comparison would be a demo of the game with the developer's RECOMMENDED tech (i.e. a 260GTX) vs, a 360 playing with the same 720p resolution and effects.

Unfortunately, that would be a legitimate comparison and that's not what you do.

I don't need to prove any of your posts wrong because I already have and you don't even bother to read my replies anyway. There is no point, but given what I've seen of your posts across multiple threads, it's also safe to say, that you're likely wrong in whatever you are saying.

We've been over how you've been owned numerous times now, but you never bother to read, so I guess it will just have to remain a mystery to you.

Here's a hint: "You have to compare using a prebuilt PC cuz teh consoles r prebuilt," 250GB hdd, $600 7800GTX price/comparison, irrelevant Bad Company 2 comparison, irrelevant Oblivion/Skyrim comparisons. etc.

Electrons are subatomic particles which have properties that allow us to conduct electricity.

A prebuilt with top of the line cpu and gpu would have been at least $2500 in 2005. Self built about $2000

Show me someone running skyrim on a 7600 gt.

You want to compare a pc with the gtx 260 to the 360. LOL! Not sure if serious. You realize if the tech in the recommended pc for skyrim had been available in 2005 it would have been a $5000 pc right?

Why do you keep bringing up the 8xxx series? Sounds liek you think the 7800gtx wasn't enough to match the 360.

Quote or link to where i got owned.

If pc ran games from the disc then you could go with a 20 gb hdd.

The pc in the Bioshock benchmark is even higher end than the hypothetical build from 2005 and it still can't match the 360.

Here's the specs

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (dual-core, 2.13GHz – 266 x 8); Asus Striker Extreme motherboard (nForce 680i SLI); 2 x 1GB Corsair XMS2-8500C5 (operating in dual channel at DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12-1T timings); Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 200GB SATA hard drive

true, i spent 2k on my pc in 2011, it's not that good anymore. But it ended being more than i thought

Comparing an exclusive to a multiplatform is just ridiculous. Yeah....Blizzard makes milltions with WOW and it's a PC exclusive.

FACT: the only thing that makes big money on PC are F2P games, MOBAs and big MMOs.....and those are becoming extinct. There was an actual article saying this exact thing.

Do you honestly think that there is no way for a WOW type game to be big on console? No. There just hasn't been one yet...that sort of thing isn't exclusive to PC. Of course WOW and Blizzard made more money on PC....b/c WOW is exclusive to PC....you can't compare that.

But when you look at all the AAA games released...Farcry 3, Watchdogs, COD, Assassin's Creed, Dark Souls, GTA,......they ALL sell better on console.

So however you justify it....however you spin it.....conosles are where the money is at.

And you just proved my point. PS4 has only 9 million or so consoles....and is a bigger seller for Ubisoft that aaaaalll those PC out there.

PlayStation 4: UndetectedPlayStation 3: Undetected Xbox One: Undetected Xbox 360: Undetected PC: Undetected So you were saying? 

That has a bullshit lie from reckz0r a lier wh never did hack the ps4

http://www.thetechgame.com/Archives/t=5946797/reckz0r-fake-there-is-no-jailbreak-for-the-ps4.html

http://arcadesushi.com/arcade-sushi-quick-tip-avoiding-the-ps4-jailbreak-scam/

and those trainers are literaly jus malware who have nothing in them and trying to get you sign all sorts of surveys, ps3 yes , xbox 360 yes and xbox 1 had shitload of trainers, but no neither xbox one or ps4 have been hacked yet

Hmm, yeah, I do agree that initially, it's pretty expensive to get a nice gaming rig that can blow consoles out of the water, but once you've made the initial investment, you don't have to do anything to your machine for the next several years before you need to think about upgrading, and then if you did your homework and invested in the right components, you might only have to upgrade the gpu and operating system down the line. I didn't do my homework and will have to get a new rig all together. I'm fine with that as I'm gonna make the right decisions this time.

Tell you what, though. I'm gonna be rocking Skyrim on all max settings with that new rig when I do get it. Can't say the same about the PS4 or Xbone since they can't even run the game at all. One of the other advantages of the PC as an open platform. Doubt Skyrim would look as good on those systems as it would on that new beastly machine I'm gonna own.

I like how the guys arguing completely ignored your post.

It's sad that this gen consoles are so under powered compared to last gen.

A CPU from 2008 and an Oced GPU from 2010 could perform better than the PS4 or Xbox One.

You would never see something like that in the past.

That would be like seeing a Pentium III CPU and Nvidia GeForce4 Ti4600 perform better than the Xbox 360.

It all depends on how smart of a shopper you are.

Around 2007 I built a new computer for around 600-700USD and it still performs much better than either the PS3 or 360.

That was mostly thanks to the cheap price of an 8800gt which was Nvidia's golden card IMO.

except these indie games are garbage

I'd rather thin my backlog than waste my money and time on indie games

Yea the PC is my go-to platform for half-assed indie games! There's like an infinite supply of them!

If your dumb enough to buy them you deserve everything you get same goes with many of the AAA over hyped lack luster games that gets done over and over again on consoles too.

@hehe101: yes bro, every game on pc gets hacked, thats why people keep playing games on pc...OR the hackers are kicked and banned after the anti cheat detects the hacker or the other players report them and everyone keeps playing the game....you know, because devs wouldnt let hackers ruin their game!!

@The_Last_Ride: Partially true, a budget pc can be build for 600, pc gaming has become alot cheaper than it was.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/45-cpu-110-gpu-run-crysis-3-at-high-settings-on-consoles-framerates/

Its the start that is hard, after that you can upgrade wherever you feel like it and you save money from cheaper games and no mp fees.

@mr_huggles_dog:The pc version outsold the x360 version, not bat at all for a bad port and thanks to steam it will outsell the ps3 version soon.

If only ubisoft was like valve and cd projekt. Their games would sell very well on pc.

@dakan45: true, the games are cheaper because no one takes a big cut like Sony or MS and the online is free. But console games are more convenient for many and cheaper than a pc. Also many don't buy that many games on console. So it's cheaper for them on that platform

PC games are cheaper... but console games are cheaper?

Or did you mean a console is cheaper than a PC? If this is your thought, you should check out some of the $400-500 console-killer PC configurations on sites like reddit.

lol yeah

Sorry, didn't phrase that right. A console is cheaper depending on if you buy games cheap and don't play that many games. If you're a pc gamer aswell, it is more "expensive" of a platform if you only play an mmo for example.

well actually those that only play an mmo likely spend less than those that buy 5 games a year (at standard or close to standard price). a years MMO is £108. thats less than 3 standard release price console games.

yeah, that was my point, if you only play an mmo it is cheaper. But that doesn't apply to all gamers as it doesn't on the console. It would probably be cheaper for me with all of the games i buy to have a pc, but i don't buy games at full price. So i don't really notice it and games cost 100/120 bucks here anyways

Why do these threads devolve into arguing over really old hardware from 2005?

Because it's one of the first things that is pointed out when comparing console and PC hardware. People forget that the 360 was sold at a decent loss for the first couple years at least. It's also important to note that older pre-unified shader GPU hardware is not well to the games of the past few years. What is interesting this round is that the PC hardware to match consoles is comparatively much cheaper than in 2005. A $200 graphics card will get you along way. $300 worth of graphics (R9 280) card will easily last you through this generation.

The rise of F2P games, better multiplatforming, and a very long console generation really helped the PC to become a new haven for high end development. In concert, the popularity of Youtube stars like PewDiePie have gone a long way to promote the PC as the indie platform of choice as well and even game mods like DayZ and those for Skyrim really show off the freedom of the PC.

And I like how consolites are still trying to equate the Xbox 360's GPU to a $600 7800GTX and not the CORRECT 7800GT/X1800.

It's only been 9 years...

I asked it a few pages back, and it just kept going.......

I don't even get how it's an argument. Everyone knows that PCs were much more expensive than consoles a long time ago. Nowadays you can get a great PC for a much more comparable cost to a console (especially when you think of what you get out of it), and if you want, you can still opt to go the enthusiast route and drop $1500+ on a computer.

Like..... What are people even arguing about by bringing up old prices? I don't get it. It has absolutely ZERO relevance to PC/Console gaming in the year 2014.

360 is faster and more advanced then the 7800GTX was. So dont even compare the 7800GT which is weaker yet.

Lets look at the 7800GTX

512mb GDDR3

24 pixel shader pipelines

8 vertex shader pipelines

It operated around 165 GFLOPS

The 360 Xenos

>512mb GDDR3 (averages half for buffer"256mb")

48 Unified Shader processors able to do both pixel & vertex workloads in any combination

it operates at 240 GFLOPS

The only thing the 7800 series had over the 360 Xenos was more memory and faster bandwidth.

Then why was the 7800GTX capable of higher resolutions and more simultaneous effects?

Greater gflops and additional shaders mean little at lesser resolutions, with fewer simultaneous effects, etc.

If you google the Xbox 360's most commonly associated equivalent full-size GPU, then you'll find that it's the 7800GT or the X1800 that are most commonly cited.

There is no exact comparison because it was a proprietary chip.

There's also the laws of thermodynamics and heat dissipation that are much more pronounced in a graphics chip/console environment versus a discrete, independently cooled full-size GPU.

These will also limit the chip's ability.

Which ultimately combined to make it a stronger GPU in spite of any of the Xbox GPU's paper potential.

I imagine that the Cell's only two real problems in rendering were texture mapping and z-buffering since it doesn't have TMUs or ROPs. It's hard to make up for a lack of specialized hardware, hence why the PS3 needed a real GPU. Vertex generation and culling was best suited towards offloading to Cell probably because the RSX didn't have enough vertex shaders to meet the future needs of developers versus the unified shader arch of Xenos. The Cell has an excess of GFLOPs that can be dedicated to rendering, as long as you have enough left over for animation and physics.

The RSX did not operate at 195 GFLOPS, the RSX was a gimped G70 chipset aka geforce 7800 , The true processing performance is around 150 GFLOPS. The theoretical Cell processing power of 240 GFLOPS is false can never be reached because of memory bandwidth limitations. The best the Cell can do is 218 GFLOPS.

Yea 1st party devs after a period of time were able to offload graphical workloads to the SPE's to help out the RSX. The Cell normally has 8 SPE's but 7 are only used because of production yields, the PPE was used for OS and normal cpu tasks . SPE's were originally designed for gpu work to be the "gpu" But the performance was lack luster to the standards.

just no just no

gpu's can render higher resolutions because of the openness of options and then the 7800GTx had more memory which allowed it too. You can run 2048×1536 on a FX 5200....

what? greater flops does not mean less resolution they limit resolutions for performance and mainly from lack of vram. greater processing performance mean more complex effects and able to run better at higher resolutions if you have the memory resources.

you can compare the gpu's and both the 7800GTx and 360 Xenos had around 100w TDP

ultimately the 7800GTX was the inferior gpu because of the older architecture design

Yes, exactly.

More overall memory and bandwidth contributes to greater resolutions and more simultaneous effects, which ultimately equals a more powerful card in terms of actual capability.

I know that more GFLOPs does not mean less resolution.

It just means more potential for advanced floating point mathematical operations, and in this case, at a less demanding resolution.

You're right about greater processing performance allowing access to more complex effects and the ability to run at higher resolutions, but ONLY if, as you say, "...you have the memory resources."

The 360 simply didn't have the necessary memory resources to overpower a 7800GTX.

The 360 was playing games at a 720p (1280x720) resolution with 512MB RAM.

PCs using 7800 series cards generally were playing at 1600x1200 with more effects and usually a minimum of 2GB of system RAM, nevermind the GPU's dedicated 512MB of RAM.

If a PC gamer were playing @720p, with the exact same amount of reduced effects, then maybe the 360's GPU would have outperformed or looked better than a 7800GTX with the 360's newer shader architecture, but I don't know of a PC gamer that would even opt to play at 720p when they could've used 1600x1200.

The 360's chip had newer shader architecture that should have helped it perform better according to its paper specs, but it didn't in terms of real-world performance because of its lack of RAM and bandwidth.

The 7800 can run very outdated games at 1600 but it struggles with newer games. Try running Bioshock at 1600x1200. Even the 8600 can barely run Bioshock above 1024x768 while the 360 runs it at 1280x720 without breaking a sweat.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the games in question are NEWER and PCs don't exist on a console generation timeline technologically?

Given that a 6600GT is listed as Bioshock's minimum requirements and the fact that you're a known liar, I'm just going to flush you now.

So a $500 gpu isn't supposed to run games that come out 2 years later at an acceptable resolution and setiings?

6600 is for low settings 800x600 25 fps. The 8600 gt bench is medium settings and it struggles at 1024x768. Do i need to link the bench a 3rd time? It's in my fav list. 360 runs high settings at 1280x720 btw.

/flush

The 8600gt could run Bioshock just fine at 1280x720 at console settings and I know this since my friend had one.

The 8600gt is around the same in power to the 360 with it being weaker in some areas and stronger in others.

But one thing you forget is that you can overclock PC GPUs for a boost in performance.

I did this with my old 8800gt and even after 7 years it is still kicking.

My GTX 570 performs around 30% better with the overclock I have on it.

Some people just can't concede gracefully.

Yet even the 7900 gtx stuggles at 1600x1200 in Oblivion

From Gamespot

PC High Quality vs. Xbox 360

The PC graphics at high quality are comparable to the Xbox 360's, http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bioshock-pc-vs-xbox-360/1100-6178185/

Here the 8600 gt gets unplayable fps at 1280x1024 at medium settings. Dropping to 1280x720 and upping the settings to high will result in about the same fps. An overclock isn't going to make it run as well as 360 does.

There's nothing to concede to an idiot who fails to realize that he needs a majority of multiplat games from the previous generation that perform better on the 360 than a PC playing at 720p with the same amount of reduced effects in order to actually prove whatever he thinks he's now proving.

Your poorly optimized, isolated examples that provide no corresponding console stats under the EXACT same graphical conditions proves nothing when everyone knows that the majority of multiplat games of the previous console generation performed better on PC.

/plunge

//double flush

Prove me wrong then. Your word alone isn't enough even though your ego makes you think it is.

What, 2k in 2011... you'd still have a great PC...

That's not how this works.

The burden of proof is still on YOU to prove that the MAJORITY of multiplat games played better on a 360 than on a PC playing @720p with the same amount of reduced effects and that it took a $2000 to match an Xbox 360 at release.

These are your claims that you can't prove.

I provided a few examples of games that run better on 360 than the best pc's from 2005 while you've provided nothing to support your stance.

LOL

So says the kid with 3,000 posts in 8 months

You provided a few examples of games that were not even released in 2005, playing with GPUs that were less than those recommended by the games' developers, at resolutions higher than the Xbox360 could produce, with more additional effects than those available for the Xbox360 while simultaneously not providing corroborating console stats.

Again, I'm not the one that needs to prove anything considering these are your claims and not mine.

All I've done is destroy everything you try to present as evidence in support of your trolling.

The RSX does not run at 192 GFLOPS, its another Sony theoretical statement, The RSX was a stripped down slightly altered version of the G70 chip which is what the 7800 series were. The RSX runs at 500 mhz with slightly faster clocked memory at 1.4 ghz. but the RSX has half the bus width and half the ROPS then a normal 7800GTX . But the RSX does have 50% more texture cache per pipeline vs the 7800GTX which helps with the 128 bit bus and ROPS. The RSX is stuck with 22.4 GB/s memory bandwidth vs 7800GTX's 54 GB/s.

Heck even the Geforce 7600GT has a theoretical limit of 192 GFLOPS when we know The 7800GTX only does an actual of 165 GFLOPS at around 450 mhz at 1.2 ghz with 256 bus and 16 ROPS. The PS3's memory limits again chokes the theoretical max just like the Cell 240 theoretical limit when in fact it limited to 218, same applies to the RSX.

@Zelda187: who are you newbie ? you have no rights!

yes i love to spam lemmings, so what?!

And consoles are the go-to platform for the same half-assed shit that you've played a thousand times over.

LOL

Halo? GTA? Gears of War? Call of Duty? Zelda? Mario?

How many times can people play the same shit over and over again and keep getting super excited for the next run of the mill installment?

I used to talk shit about indie games too until I sat down and tried a few of them. At least Indie developers try different things and actually bring some original ideas to the table. And a lot of the games are fun as hell with some truly groundbreaking gameplay components.

You also have access to emulators on PC. Which means I can play any game dating from the original Atari all the way up through the PS2 and XBOX for absolutely free. The same games that they'll charge your ass at least $4.99 for on XB Live or the PS Store.