PC gaming is crushing consoles

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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

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.

The 7800 can run very outdated games at 1600 but it struggles with newer games.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.

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.

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.

You will notice that the link you provided says the PC version Directx 10 version looks better than the console version.

Also keep in mind the Console version has low AF.

Here is a link to another site that benchmarked the 8600gt at max settings and you will see it could almost hold 30 fps at 1280x1024 which is around 40% more pixels than the console version.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gbyte_86_gts_silent/7.htm

And upon further looking the Xbox 360 seems to be between the stock 8600gt and 8600gts in performance.

A good oced 8600gt should be close to the power of the 360.

And an overclock can affect performance greatly.

Why do the examples need to be 2005 games? Whats wrong with comparing how well 2005 hardware performs down the road?

The examples were with better gpu's than the one in the 2005 hypothetical build.

I made a claim and backed it up.

I never said that they had to be 2005 games.

I said that if you're going to try and legitimately compare newer titles, then you should do so using the developer's RECOMMENDED GPU at the same 720p resolution using the same amount of reduced effects.

What's wrong is PCs don't exist on a console's generational lifetime and developers expect that PC gamers will upgrade their systems over time. This is reflected in the developer's RECOMMENDED settings.

The examples you chose were using GPUs that barely exceeded the developer's minimum settings. How surprisingly convenient.

You have yet to legitimately "back up" anything that you have claimed.

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You will notice that the link you provided says the PC version Directx 10 version looks better than the console version.

Also keep in mind the Console version has low AF.

Here is a link to another site that benchmarked the 8600gt at max settings and you will see it could almost hold 30 fps at 1280x1024 which is around 40% more pixels than the console version.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gbyte_86_gts_silent/7.htm

And upon further looking the Xbox 360 seems to be between the stock 8600gt and 8600gts in performance.

A good oced 8600gt should be close to the power of the 360.

And an overclock can affect performance greatly.

What does the dx 10 version have to do with these dx 9 benchmarks? The

Almost hold 30 fps? 28fps average means 15-45fps which is unplayable.

The 360 version of Bioshock allows you to turn off the 30 fps lock and it runs well above 30 fps most of the time.

4 fps difference at 1280x1024 isn't all that big of a deal.

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You will notice that the link you provided says the PC version Directx 10 version looks better than the console version.

Also keep in mind the Console version has low AF.

Here is a link to another site that benchmarked the 8600gt at max settings and you will see it could almost hold 30 fps at 1280x1024 which is around 40% more pixels than the console version.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gbyte_86_gts_silent/7.htm

And upon further looking the Xbox 360 seems to be between the stock 8600gt and 8600gts in performance.

A good oced 8600gt should be close to the power of the 360.

And an overclock can affect performance greatly.

What does the dx 10 version have to do with these dx 9 benchmarks? The

Almost hold 30 fps? 28fps average means 15-45fps which is unplayable.

The 360 version of Bioshock allows you to turn off the 30 fps lock and it runs well above 30 fps most of the time.

4 fps difference at 1280x1024 isn't all that big of a deal.

Ummmm why is the directx 10 version null?

The link I posted was max settings which means Directx 10 and it was higher settings than consoles.

Also sure 28fps might be low but it does not mean 15-45fps. It could be that the game stays at 28fps or maybe it is 30-26 for all we know.

But keep in mind that is with a 40% higher pixel count than the console version.

It's hard to find an old benchmark of the game with the resolution at 1280x720 but it would run a lot better than 28 fps because 1280x720 is not as demanding at 1280x1024.

Keep in mind I said in the last post the the Xbox 360 is between an 8600gt and 8600gts in performance (was confusing the gts with the gt earlier).

Although a good overclocked 8600gt should perform around the same as the 360 if the game is not a horrible port.

Also Overclocking affects games differently.

In F.E.A.R. the same overclocked 8600gt gets an 11 fps boost at 1280x1024 with over 30% better performance.

Because Cranler.

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You will notice that the link you provided says the PC version Directx 10 version looks better than the console version.

Also keep in mind the Console version has low AF.

Here is a link to another site that benchmarked the 8600gt at max settings and you will see it could almost hold 30 fps at 1280x1024 which is around 40% more pixels than the console version.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gbyte_86_gts_silent/7.htm

And upon further looking the Xbox 360 seems to be between the stock 8600gt and 8600gts in performance.

A good oced 8600gt should be close to the power of the 360.

And an overclock can affect performance greatly.

What does the dx 10 version have to do with these dx 9 benchmarks? The

Almost hold 30 fps? 28fps average means 15-45fps which is unplayable.

The 360 version of Bioshock allows you to turn off the 30 fps lock and it runs well above 30 fps most of the time.

4 fps difference at 1280x1024 isn't all that big of a deal.

Ummmm why is the directx 10 version null?

The link I posted was max settings which means Directx 10 and it was higher settings than consoles.

Also sure 28fps might be low but it does not mean 15-45fps. It could be that the game stays at 28fps or maybe it is 30-26 for all we know.

But keep in mind that is with a 40% higher pixel count than the console version.

It's hard to find an old benchmark of the game with the resolution at 1280x720 but it would run a lot better than 28 fps because 1280x720 is not as demanding at 1280x1024.

Keep in mind I said in the last post the the Xbox 360 is between an 8600gt and 8600gts in performance (was confusing the gts with the gt earlier).

Although a good overclocked 8600gt should perform around the same as the 360 if the game is not a horrible port.

Also Overclocking affects games differently.

In F.E.A.R. the same overclocked 8600gt gets an 11 fps boost at 1280x1024 with over 30% better performance.

It doesn't specify dx10.

Come on now. Without any kind of framerate lock in place framerates will fluctuate all over the place in every game. Don't play dumb. Lok at the Bioshock benches I posted to get an idea of how low the fps can go below the average.

The 1024 bench only gets 39 fps average which means it will drop below 30 often.

Also remember this is on a pc that wasn't even available in 2005. This discussion was about a 2005 pc being able to match the 360 and here we are comparing the 360 to a 2007 pc.

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You will notice that the link you provided says the PC version Directx 10 version looks better than the console version.

Also keep in mind the Console version has low AF.

Here is a link to another site that benchmarked the 8600gt at max settings and you will see it could almost hold 30 fps at 1280x1024 which is around 40% more pixels than the console version.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gbyte_86_gts_silent/7.htm

And upon further looking the Xbox 360 seems to be between the stock 8600gt and 8600gts in performance.

A good oced 8600gt should be close to the power of the 360.

And an overclock can affect performance greatly.

What does the dx 10 version have to do with these dx 9 benchmarks? The

Almost hold 30 fps? 28fps average means 15-45fps which is unplayable.

The 360 version of Bioshock allows you to turn off the 30 fps lock and it runs well above 30 fps most of the time.

4 fps difference at 1280x1024 isn't all that big of a deal.

Ummmm why is the directx 10 version null?

The link I posted was max settings which means Directx 10 and it was higher settings than consoles.

Also sure 28fps might be low but it does not mean 15-45fps. It could be that the game stays at 28fps or maybe it is 30-26 for all we know.

But keep in mind that is with a 40% higher pixel count than the console version.

It's hard to find an old benchmark of the game with the resolution at 1280x720 but it would run a lot better than 28 fps because 1280x720 is not as demanding at 1280x1024.

Keep in mind I said in the last post the the Xbox 360 is between an 8600gt and 8600gts in performance (was confusing the gts with the gt earlier).

Although a good overclocked 8600gt should perform around the same as the 360 if the game is not a horrible port.

Also Overclocking affects games differently.

In F.E.A.R. the same overclocked 8600gt gets an 11 fps boost at 1280x1024 with over 30% better performance.

It doesn't specify dx10.

Come on now. Without any kind of framerate lock in place framerates will fluctuate all over the place in every game. Don't play dumb. Lok at the Bioshock benches I posted to get an idea of how low the fps can go below the average.

The 1024 bench only gets 39 fps average which means it will drop below 30 often.

Also remember this is on a pc that wasn't even available in 2005. This discussion was about a 2005 pc being able to match the 360 and here we are comparing the 360 to a 2007 pc.

My link says they benchmarked the game at max settings which means dx10 was enabled.

Frame Rate does not have to fluctuate that much.

I play games all the time that stay around a 2-3 fps difference especially when they are demanding games on older video cards which get around 35 fps.

Sure if I stare at the floor or sky in some games the frame rate will greatly differ but for regular gameplay the frame rate stays around the same.

The only big jumps I notice in frame rate is going from a corridor level to a more open level which does not occur in Bioshock.

Also my response was to your remark about the 8600gt and only that.

Keep in mind that both Nvidia and AMD release driver updates which can improve the performance in games.

Usually I will go back to play an older game and notice it runs better than before.

Benchmarks on websites are usually done when a video card is new and not as stable as it will be a year or more down the line.

yeah... But we have insane taxes, the PS4 costs 800 bucks

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You will notice that the link you provided says the PC version Directx 10 version looks better than the console version.

Also keep in mind the Console version has low AF.

Here is a link to another site that benchmarked the 8600gt at max settings and you will see it could almost hold 30 fps at 1280x1024 which is around 40% more pixels than the console version.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gbyte_86_gts_silent/7.htm

And upon further looking the Xbox 360 seems to be between the stock 8600gt and 8600gts in performance.

A good oced 8600gt should be close to the power of the 360.

And an overclock can affect performance greatly.

What does the dx 10 version have to do with these dx 9 benchmarks? The

Almost hold 30 fps? 28fps average means 15-45fps which is unplayable.

The 360 version of Bioshock allows you to turn off the 30 fps lock and it runs well above 30 fps most of the time.

4 fps difference at 1280x1024 isn't all that big of a deal.

Ummmm why is the directx 10 version null?

The link I posted was max settings which means Directx 10 and it was higher settings than consoles.

Also sure 28fps might be low but it does not mean 15-45fps. It could be that the game stays at 28fps or maybe it is 30-26 for all we know.

But keep in mind that is with a 40% higher pixel count than the console version.

It's hard to find an old benchmark of the game with the resolution at 1280x720 but it would run a lot better than 28 fps because 1280x720 is not as demanding at 1280x1024.

Keep in mind I said in the last post the the Xbox 360 is between an 8600gt and 8600gts in performance (was confusing the gts with the gt earlier).

Although a good overclocked 8600gt should perform around the same as the 360 if the game is not a horrible port.

Also Overclocking affects games differently.

In F.E.A.R. the same overclocked 8600gt gets an 11 fps boost at 1280x1024 with over 30% better performance.

It doesn't specify dx10.

Come on now. Without any kind of framerate lock in place framerates will fluctuate all over the place in every game. Don't play dumb. Lok at the Bioshock benches I posted to get an idea of how low the fps can go below the average.

The 1024 bench only gets 39 fps average which means it will drop below 30 often.

Also remember this is on a pc that wasn't even available in 2005. This discussion was about a 2005 pc being able to match the 360 and here we are comparing the 360 to a 2007 pc.

My link says they benchmarked the game at max settings which means dx10 was enabled.

Frame Rate does not have to fluctuate that much.

I play games all the time that stay around a 2-3 fps difference especially when they are demanding games on older video cards which get around 35 fps.

Sure if I stare at the floor or sky in some games the frame rate will greatly differ but for regular gameplay the frame rate stays around the same.

The only big jumps I notice in frame rate is going from a corridor level to a more open level which does not occur in Bioshock.

Also my response was to your remark about the 8600gt and only that.

Keep in mind that both Nvidia and AMD release driver updates which can improve the performance in games.

Usually I will go back to play an older game and notice it runs better than before.

Benchmarks on websites are usually done when a video card is new and not as stable as it will be a year or more down the line.

The pc's in both the Bioshock benchmarks have similar specs. So why would a similar setup not have the same fluctuations?

Makes no sense that you would have a max fps of 35 and then not get more than a 2-3 fps drop in areas where there's more going on than normal.

I played Bioshock on 360 without the frame limiter and the fps got into the 50's quite often so seems to me that the 8800gts is the weakest card that can beat the 360 in Bioshock.

Once again, why are we arguing over specs from 2005?

I am wondering the same thing... This has gone 7 pages too long.

Wow... where the heck is that lol ?

In England we pay 20% on everything.

Well that's not that bad, I pay 15% in Canada.

Welcome to Norway my friend

All these benchmarks are ridiculous regardless of when they are from.

I have a gaming PC and I've been primarily a PC gamer since about 2001. But it's gotten to the point where graphics look great whether or not they are blisteringly beautiful on PC with all the bells and whistles or whatever/however they look like on the PS4. Even the PS3 was good to my eyes towards the ending.

But the point is....it doesn't matter if your PC can play Bioshock at 100fps with all the bells and whistles on it....b/c it can't play The Last of Us, Halo, Uncharted, Infamous, Driveclub, The Order, Medal Gear Solid, Red Dead Redemption, Hot Shots Golf, Gears of War, Killzone, and many other console exclusives.....PC even had to wait for the biggest game of this passed console generation....GTA V. We've all played it....and when it comes to PC....it'll make $100K.....whoopy.

I didn't know GTAV was on PS4 and Xone.

I also didn't know you could play all those games on one console.

plus gears of war is on pc. metal gear solid was also released on pc.

but anyway it's another one of those personal preference blanket statements. nonsense really.

Oh look....a couple of those spinning replies to try and make my point invalid.

MGS4 is NOT on PC

Gears of War 2/3 is NOT on PC

GTA V is NOT on PC

GTA V was ALREADY on PS3 and 360

80% of those games being on one console and 20% of them being on another is BESIDES THE POINT.

Just b/c you need to spin something thats true like "oh yeah...we've got MGS....it's 15 years old but still technically MGS is on PC" ....yeah...like that's the MGS anyone ever talks about. "OH YEAH!!111!!....we've got Gears of War....it's the one thats a decade old....BUT STILL1!!!11!!"

HA!

Justify it any way you want....about the only exclusive PC has is a few indy games....and it doesn't matter anyway....b/c it's not a personal preference blanket statement.....I have them on PC along with my other 196 games on Steam.

If it was a personal preference....I wouldn't be so into PC gaming. I'm not a console fanboy....I just don't need to spin things to make it look good for my platform of choice.

B/c my platform of choice is cnosole and PC.

well this is the first time you stipulated it was mgs4? innit?

we can only reply to the words you write young human.

This inane argument about 2005 hardware is boring me. Some cars to spice things up.

...that's two (or more) platforms

You act as if it matters to me to wait, you act as if I can't buy a console.

It's great that you're naming me exclusive on consoles, anybody care ? Should I go on and name games that aren't on the PS3 but are on PC ? Or that are not on X360 but are on PC ?

Also, I don't care about your made up numbers, 80% wutttt ?

You know what, why don't you go buy GTAV twice because you played the poor version of the game.

Oh please do enlighten me then :)

You assume I'm doing the things you're saying I'm doing.

The thread title said "PC gaming dominating"....yet my specific counter argument was that the BIGGEST game of last gen....was late....very late....to PC.

And as a matter of fact....those console exclusives....yes....ppl care. Thats EXACTLY one of the reason why ppl buy consoles over PC.

I threw out a guesstamate % with the exclusives I mentioned...stop being over dramatic....it's reading comprehension time.

You're takin this personally.....I find the fact that I struck a chord with you very interesting as I must be telling a truth that you seem to find aggravating. GO BUY A CONSOLE....I DON'T CARE.

That's not the dam point. Frankly....I didn't like GTA V as much as GTA IV....so I won't be buying it again.....that said....at least I can form an opinion on the game...if you're solely a PC gamer....you ain't got diddly squat for an opinion on that game.....b/c you haven't played it.

I'm amazed that little ole me with my insignificant opinion....makes you all so upset.

^definitely cares

Hmmm... Is there something in this setup that could prevent one from using the dx10 mode?

• Processor: Intel E6700 Core 2 Duo 266x10
• Motherboard: ECS P35T-A
• Memory: 2 x 1GB Mushkin XP9200 400FSB 5-4-4-12
• Video Card(s): Gigabyte GeForce 8600 GT( Silent pipe II Technology Cooled)
• Power Supply: Ultra X3 Modular Power supply
• Hard Drive: 2 x WD 250GB 16MB cache SATA
• Opticals: BenQ DW-1655 Lightscribe DVD-R, Sony DVD-ROM
• O/S: Windows XP Service Pack 2
• Comparison Card 1: XFX 8600GTS XXX
• Comparison Card 2: Sapphire X1950 PRO Ultimate
• Comparison Card 3: XFX 8600GT Fatal1ty

Because Dasein is reality reluctant.

^ definitely just wants attention

Seriously. I get the whole, yeah this GPU can last you a whole gen thing, but really? Who the **** is so god damn poor that they can't afford to spend like $100 some dollars every 2 or 3 years or so for an upgrade!? Shit, it cost me thirty fucking dollars to upgrade my 560ti to a 7870--thirty dollars (after selling the 560ti on ebay and getting a $50 rebate). Sure, you could keep a GPU for 5 or 6 years, but why would you!? Just to prove a point to internet peasants?

Well I guess he didn't use dx10 because of Windows XP.

But it was still max dx9 settings which I believe was still a tad about the 360 settings as the dx10 switch was more for performance than visuals in Bioshock.

Again:The PC graphics at high quality are comparable to the Xbox 360's, but the PC still offers higher resolutions and extreme anti-aliasing support.

High is max. So pc has higher res and aa to take it above the 360 but the 8600 can't handle aa or higher res.

Ha, I didn't know I was upset and then you acuse me of reading comprehension ? HAAA!

Biggest game last gen according to who ? You ?

Those exclusives are also exclusive to each individual console, not consoles as a whole.

Reading comprehension time, more like let's make up stats that mean nothing time.

That's great that you form an opinion about the game, I already know I'll be able to say the game looks better then what you played. Game wise, the game won't be any less fun by the time I get to play it. It's funny how you think you're better then me because you played the game first... hahaahahah!

lol you missed "comparable" which tells you its using a slew of settings from low to high , its not running full high nor medium etc

See....this is why I'm saying reading comprehension.

The topic is PC vs Consoles. How PC is dominating console.

Why would you not think that console exclusives are a part of that discussion? B/c you're spinning the view point. It's beside the point that some of those games are on one console.

Fine then....the Playstation has better exclusives....there are you happy. Good god...is this the level of integrity and intelligence Gamespot/SW has to offer. Bickering over the ridiculous fact that "OMG THATS NOT JUST ONE CONSOLE.....THATS NOT FAIR!!!!!"

Man....it sounds like I'm arguing with a 12 year old.

If the 360 wasn't full high then they would surely have said that the pc has a slight advantage. You're reading way too much into their use of the term comparable.

Either way the weakest gpu that could beat the 360 in Bioshock and most other multiplats is the 8800.

well you sound like a 12 year old

You do know that you're on system wars, and bickering about ridiculous things is exactly what system wars is all about... right ? And you're here talking about integrity and intelligence, as if gamespot had any relevance to deffine that ? And seriously, those lame attemps to insult... you need to be more creative.

Anyway, back on topic. If we're comparing all console to PC, it just shows you how PC is dominant. While we're at it, what generation are we even talking about, where do we set the timeline to compare this original topic that's never been discussed ever.

Simple facts is, you named a few exclusive games and for some reason that alone substract PC domination ? Great post!

Oh....so SW is about stupidity and idiocy? You mean there is no reason to converse or argue or discuss anything here b/c it's all just a bunch of trolls like that guy with the knight avatar who keeps replying to me as if I care what he thinks....as if I can't tell he NEEDS attention?

That the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. People who argue with facts are the ones that don't need to care about what anyone says b/c facts say a lot. I don't need to act like an idiot or "omg, you totally need new insults LOLWTFBBQSAUCE!!!"....b/c first...that wasn't my intent...I stated something that if fact.

YOU and your PC gamer need for everyone to think PC gaming is dominating has to spin every word I say.

IT'S PC vs CONSOLE. That INCLUDES the 4 current consoles most ppl are enjoying.

It's not PC vs whoever I decide to be my opponent at the time so I can win an argument. Personally I think the PC is 100000x better than the 360. BUT......the PS3 has too many great AAA exclusives to say PC is dominating the "PC gaming is better" argument. And soon....the PS4 will be in the same boat.

I named a FEW??? I named like 8 exclusives AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES I COULD THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

Again....I'm not mad...I don't have to be...console gaming is clearly more profitable, has better exclusives, and whatever else....but you and the lackies felt the need to insult my integrity first which more than likely means you know I'm right.....and then you spin everything I say.....THATS why I type in caps.

B/c you seem to need to be able to read IN BIG LETTERS.

Ok, so you''re telling me system wars is really a serious debate forum ? As in you want to debate my preference over your preference?

Your intent or not, it is it what it is. You clearly tried to insult me, there's no turning back on that.

Yes, and there's a shit load of exclusive for PC that could take on the whole console list.

More profitable ? Why as a gamer should I care for that ?

Better exclusive ? According to who, you ?

Whatever else ? Oh nice point, can't argue something you don't know what you're even talking about.

You keep on repeating yourself about the spinning thing, the only thing spinning is your broken record.

Wrong...I stated my view point and then you and the lackies started assaulting my integrity saying in nerd talk "Oh...it's just a self preference b.s. opinion". Thats when I started acting like a prick...b/c fire with fire and all that crap.

The exclusives on PC are like a shit load of indy games with 90% of them are crap.

As a gamer you SHOULD care. B/c if companies know that a platform is more profitable...then they are more likely to make their game for that platform. As it is...MOBAs, F2P games and other non standard games are the only things that sell well on PC....so practically EVERYTHING ELSE worth a dam comes to consoles.

Better exclusives goes back to what I said earlier....there's shit for exclusives aside from indy games on PC...so yeah...like I said AAA games like the ones I mentioned....not "Harry's Weird Adventure: Episode 1" which is some sort of platformer with a minor twist that PC herald as the revolutionary second coming.

Again....anyone with half a brain knows the bullshit argument you put up with "WAAAAAH....you can't include consoles in general....b/c PC will get beat up in that argument!!!" is nothing but spin.

Man, what non-sense are you talking about ? because fire with fire and that crap ? hahaha what ?

You just made more stats up, keep em coming.

As a gamer, the only thing I care about is games that I can enjoy. If that said game is good, it will sell itself.

And seriously, I don't see the issue with F2P games unless you hate gaming.

There's plenty of variety of games on PC. Like I said, there's a shit load of games on PC, there's plenty of AAA and AA exclusive and multiplats on PC.

If you were smart enough, you wouldn't encourage games being exclusive. You wouldn't need to buy 2-3 consoles every gen.

Better exclusive is subjective, you can't argue that.

It's funny how you said I was 12... you can't be far that off.

Dude....stop making up lies.

I don't know where you're getting that I'm encouraging exclusives....probably just trying to get good with ppl who are light hearted about gaming and who aren't into the system wars thing and will be like "yeah...he's a good guy....he doesn't like exclusives....I agree with him".

Again...stop making up lies....I never said F2P games were bad.....again....you're making things up and putting words in my mouth.

I'll buy you the next AAA game that comes out that you want if you can point out where I said F2P games are bad.

Lastly...don't start acting like I'm crazy or something....you're the one that started whining about being insulted and getting your feelings hurt. Like I said....all I did was give my viewpoint and then....well, I'm not repeating myself....anyone following this conversation can either read the last couple of pages or reread my last couple of posts.

You started at me....not the other way around.

Don't pick a fight if you can't deal with ppl treating you like you treat them....like a 10 year old does.

the 8800 was around 3x the power of the 360 so it was quite a bit stronger.

The GPU that is comparable to the 360 is inbetween an 8600gt and 8600gts.

You're obviously encouraging exclusive since they matter so much for you.

And seriously what are you going on with : probably just trying to get good with ppl who are light hearted about gaming and who aren't into the system wars thing and will be like "yeah...he's a good guy....he doesn't like exclusives....I agree with him". ? It almost sound like you're making a story in your head about me saying those things. HAHAH!

Sorry I was under the impression you were mocking F2P/MOBAs games.

Oh the "you started it" quote with the "10 year old" quote... yeah goes really well together. LOL!!

I have found myself playing console gaming exclusively and before 2011 when I got an Xbox 360, I was an exclusive PC gamer. Used to do LAN parties and all that and hauling a burly desktop with monitor and all related stuff was a pain in the butt...then had to deal with other folk who had computer issues as not everyone at the LAN party is a PC specialist....so you know you become the PC technician for their system so you can get all up and running. Then not everyone in the LAN party would have a decent rig to game on...had guys show up with Walmart entry level Celeron's trying to play BF2142 and you can tell they were not having a good time as they had to play it at low settings and even then....not the best.

So with that said, the downside to PC gaming is the same as it's upside. If you want to play the latest games at a decent speed and resolution, you have to invest $$ in a good system with good components and every 2 -3 years you are in constant upgrading mode as the technology in hardware and games improve. I have in the 10 years I was PC gaming, went through over 8 computers between the upgrading this and that...I had enough spare parts laying around to put together complete systems.

My brother and cousin got Xbox 360 a year or so before I bought mine and it took alot of them harping at me to get me to switch over. I eventually got one and I enjoyed the experience...alot easier to pack a 360 to LAN parties than it was a complete computer system...and the best part is everyone had the same hardware and you didn't have to play PC tech anymore - just plug it up, connect to network, and game away. Took a while to get used to the controller - was real frustrating at first but eventually got used to it and now I can fully enjoy the experience.

Although Microsoft isn't my favorite company - they are notorious for "fixing" things that don't need fixed and not fixing what does need fixed. They constantly think they have to jack around with GUI's and remove features with new consoles that were awesome. For example, the Xbox 360 could be configured as a Windows Media Extender so I could watch movies I had on my PC on the console...on the Xbox One - no deuce... they removed it after they claimed the Xbox One would be the replacement for all entertainment devices....it couldn't even replace the Xbox 360 - because I have to use that to enjoy the Xbox 360 games and watch movies that I have on my PC.

So consoles have demons of their own. But in general, I do enjoy console gaming.

As far as the GAWD is concerned the PC is indeed the superior platform. When the G-O-Dizzle references his platinum ice cube that grants him the boon of flawless knowledge he is able to see that this ''master race'' chanting makes console exclusive games develop inferiority complexes.

THE GOD IS NOT PLEASED.

Cocaine Biceps AKA Game God AKA Ice G-O-Dizzle decrees that consoles and PCs deserve equal respect and have their own well-earned spots in the pantheon of gaming hardware.

ICE CUBES IN THIS BITCH.

The article seems to have been written by a die hard PC fanboy. Before you guys judge me, I own a PC and never owned any xbox or playstation. I started PC gaming in 1994 but this whole PC vs console bashing makes me wonder about humanity. To each his own I guess - I will be enjoying games on my PC whilst I'll let others enjoy consoles (who prefer).

Skyrim runs better on 360 than a pc with 8600 gts. gets 30 fps at lower setting than 360 version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r58nEXV5EV0