PC gaming is crushing consoles

LOL

I enjoy playing videogames, but trying to act like it's a way of life or something is ridiculous.

Why the hell should I care about how much money these companies like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo make? None of it is going into my pocket, so why do I give a shit?

And a shitload of the indie games that you're mentioning are free. So if I download one and it sucks...oh well. I didn't spend so much as a penny on it. No sweat.

If you're totally fine with playing the umpteenth installment of Halo, Gears of War, Mario, Zelda, etc....then suit yourself. But there's no question that PC has the most variety in genres of games. Meanwhile consoles mainly appeal to the mindless FPS and platformer demographic.

lol look at the cpu used in that video.... E2200 at 2.2 ghz the cpu barely breaks past min requirements. Another video shows with a E6750 at 2.6ghz getting average 30 fps at 1400x900 with no AA high textures and medium shadows with a 8600GTS. Then another video even shows a 8600GT 512mb with a quad core being able to do 35-40 fps average with mostly high settings with low shadows at 720.

Yet that cpu is probably better than the cpu's that cost $900 when the 360 launched.

That 1400x900 is using a core 2 duo which is much better than any cpu's at the 360 launch and the whole video is shot in one of the least demanding areas of the game.

He also says he gets freezes that last for a few seconds and fps drops into the teens.

Moving the goal posts again? Skyrim does not have the best coding for pc and originally only used two cores until a patch a few months later after release, Then memory allocation was poor like only allowing two a primary and 2nd 256mb buffer for cell's aka area your in and going to. Modders had to patch and fix many issues with the game. Put it this way.... an i7 2600k at 3.4 ghz with Skyrim only using two threads only allows 70 fps average with a GTX 580 max settings at 1680x1050. Speaks volumes how piss poor skyrim is coded.

But back to the 8600GTS it was a gpu comparable to the 360 and if you had the 512mb version higher quality setting are possible that aren't on the 360.

Clock per clock yes that E2200 is better then the cpu's in 2005 however that cpu is a striped down C2D that released in Q4 2007 meaning an AMD Athlon X2 at 3ghz from 2005/2006 can out process it.

A pc needed for it to match or surpass the 360 in 2005 was 1.5k+ because of the future standard architecture designed into it. Now in 2006 when new hardware standards came out along with cheaper prices left 360 in the dust.

Lol....you're such a tool.

YOU are the one that whined about me insulting you first. I can't help that you're just spinning and lying left and right and then throwing the "NUH UH....YOU DID IT!!!" crap at me and then calling me a child....it's the truth....what do you want me to say to your crying?

You THOUGHT I was mocking F2P games and MIOBAs.....you were wrong. Yet, you're still intent that I'm all for exclusives. So far...you haven't been right about anything....why would this be any different.

@Zelda187: OMG...why don't you exaggerate a little more. If you don't understand why, as a gamer and a fan of any system, you would want said system to do well....then maybe you shouldn't open your mouth and just let the grown ups talk.

It has nothing to do with gaming being a way of life.

You say you just enjoy playing games and that this isn't a "way of life" for you....yet you put down playing games that are generally fun.

I'm sorry you're jaded and the only fun experience you can get is out of some shitty half assed indy game where a bug that does something weird is the highlight of you day.....but for me....I don't mind playing another Uncharted or whatever. B/c I enjoy games.

I would rather play another Halo game than play Goat Simulator. I bought that for my step son and he played it for 2 days.....and OMG did he have fun with it....for 2 days....but those crap indy games only go so far.

Yeah it's cool and hip to play then and be a part of the cool PC clique for a day....but then you realize you wasted that money after it bores you to death with nothing to do on the 2nd day.

Why would shit games score 8/10 and 9/10's? We aren't talking about low scoring games....

Why would boring games for the mindless masses that you guys say is the only thing on consoles score 8/10....and 9/10.

So your point is moot.

Plus...I just realied Zelda is your handle...Zelda187.....yet you're all on Zelda and how it's a mindless game and just another in the series for the umpteenth time....maybe you like those games, but you just want to argue for the sake of PC gaming.

I smell something foul....and it's not my bref.

I never said that in that console only had mindless masses games....I just said indy games are high scoring and great, not just "crap" as you stated. They can easily be better than "big budget" games. Even better gfx sometimes (star citizen).

...and I'm not named Zelda.

Lay off whatever you are smoking...

Yet, I still don't care for PC gaming, and never will. This topic is further proving that indie companies start on PC (hence all the indie jokes regarding PC)...but then they end up on Handhelds or Consoles.

Well...way to avoid the point of my reply and focus on something not directed at you.

I only have so many replies being new here so I'm trying to consolidate them....Zelda is another person....you're not the only one in my conversation universe there slick.

If you take out indy's I think pc still has more high scoring games than each console. If you take out indy's of ps4's library you end up with the smallest library this gen.

Think about that and then look at what you wrote^, hint: consoles get plenty of indy's too. I'd say the big budget/indy ratio is the same, PC gets more of both.

PC gets most multiplats, so I'm not worried about the devs "ending up" on consoles as long as they continue to make the better version on PC.

How am I moving the goalposts? The whole debate was about what kind of pc it would take to match the 360 at launch. I allowed the naysayers to move the goalpost by using hardware that came after the 360 launch because there really wasn't a pc available in 2005 that could match the 360.

The first Athlon X2 3ghz didn't even come out til 2008.

So this piss poor coding doesn't extend to the 360? Are ou claiming that Bethesda fully optimized the game for 360?

@Cranler:

The first Athlon x 2 at 3 ghz was not 2008 , "Windsor" chips Athlon X2's upto 3.2 ghz came out in late 2006 to early 2007 depending on location.You must be thinking of the Kuma or Regor versions of the Athlon X2's that were released in 2008/2009.

This is not even including overclocking ability to get most X2's 2.6ghz+ to 3 ghz.

Bethesda created the game for the consoles first which bypasses alot of the overheads and problems from porting. The consoles did have coding glitches too and had awful loading times because of their hdd's and slow cpu's. But pc version got nailed with a port job with some improvements later on but most being supplied from the users not the devs. Until the patch to support four threads came out most cpu's older and or slower then 2nd gen intel icores couldnt reach 60 fps even with medium to high end gpus.

Try using a better coded game say Bioshock infinite were an E6850 and 8600 GTS 256mb was able to deliver 1280x720 high settings 35+ fps at all times and peaked upto 70 fps.

I would not bother with him.

Cranler is a troll who will continue to move the goal posts because he knows that he's wrong.

Any benchmarks that he provides will always be using GPUs/CPUs that barely exceed the developer's minimum recommendations instead of supplying benchmarks that actually use the developers' recommended GPU/CPU for the most current gaming experience of a given time because he likes to pretend that PCs are bound by the technological restrictions of console generations.

He will also never shut up or admit that his evidence is distorted garbage.

You mean this video where he runs the game at lowest settings at 800x600? See 2:01

Hope he's using a crt because 800x600 will look absolutely awful on an lcd.

I move the goal posts to at least give the pc a little bit of a chance at matching the 360.

It's not my fault that the 360 can run games that $2000 pc's from 2005 can't.

Like 04dcarraher said that CPU is weak and Skyrim was very badly optimized for cpus.

I could point out many other games where the 8600gts matches or surpasses the Xbox 360.

What games? Now that the goal posts have been moved in favor of my opponents.

There is no reason why that guy should be running at 800x600.

Your just being a troll though..... The 8800GT is able to get 80 fps average maxed out at 720, so at 720 a 8600GTS should be able to do 35-40 average. Now there's a video of someone playing the game at 1440x900 with ultra settings with a 2.2 ghz intel cpu on a 8600GT DDR2 version not even GDDR3 version and in many cases gets close to 30 fps.

Now I'm whining and crying ? Is this another one of your sick stories that you're running in your head ?

At the beginning you told me I was 12, and then you're telling me I'm 10... I guess next post I'll be 8.

You're obviously all about exclusives, that's the only thing you've been talking about.

You know, I'm really starting to think that you're actually crazy.

How am I trolling? Your the one who brought up that 800x600 Bioshock video not me.

Now you bring up another video where the only footage is just walking around, no fighting and it's still sub 30 fps most of the time.

Especially this generation with the consoles about as powerful as a nice tablet.

Ok dude....go on wit yo bad self.

I swear....it's like some of you ppl didn't pass 3rd grade.

If I said "anything else worth a dam"....something has to be worth a dam first for there to be anything else...worth a dam.

So, I dunno.....I don't know if I'm being trolled but you never know....there are ppl actually this stupid out there....and I'd like to think I can fix stupid.

lol no your not trolling? and yes there was fighting , and whats funny is that a 2.2 ghz cpu and 8600GT with DDR2 was almost playable with ultra at 1440x900 now imagine a C2D at 3 ghz or any modern cpu and a normal 8600GTS with GDDR3 it would handle the game just as well as the 360 if not better. Problem is that we will never see true update benchmarks with gpu's that are nearly 7 years old and were mid ranged. Fact is that during their brief usage it did in many cases provided better results in multiplats like COD4, UT3 and 1st bioshock.

The 8600GT gets 36fps maxed out in 1280x1024 that is more than double the resolution of the 1024x600 so it's safe to assume that the 8600GT would get around 80fps maxed out in COD4 at same resolution.Then in UT3 it get's 39fps maxed out in 1600x1200.It is safe to say that the 8600GT would be able to 60 fps at 720p. And Then the 8600GT was able to run bioshock at 40 fps average at 720p. So I would say as long as you have the cpu performance the 8600GTS would be able to perform as well if not better then 360's settings.

Yeah that's what I taught, you bring poor arguments and got mad, in the end you had nothing to say.

Ok I found the video and it's easy to tell the average framerate is low 20's at best. Compare the opening rowboat section to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7z_kLdYl0

You know the framerate is bad when you can find a 30 fps video that looks much smoother.

So now you want to move the goalposts even further from 2005 pc tech to c2d's at 3 ghz? LOL!

Not sure what game you speak of in first sentence of your last paragraph. Sounds like Bioshock which is 1280x720 on 360. 36 fps means the fps will drop into the 20's often.

CoD 4 8600 gts/e 8400 3.6 ghz 1024x768 0x aa 63 fps. 360 is 1024x 600 2x aa. Don't try to tell me that an extra 168 pixels is more demanding than 2xaa.

If the pc in that bench had been available in 2005 it would have cost $4,000.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9800_GTX/6.html

Isn't it 172,032 extra pixels? Also. Are you guys referring to Bioshock or Bioshock Infinite or both?

I meant pixel rows and again, small res differences don't affect performance as much as aa.

Not moving the goal posts lol, you are...... all im talking about is a 8600GTS is able to match or surpass the 360 even with modern games we are not talking about 2005 anymore we already know there was nothing besides the top tier cpu's that could compete with 360 back then.

Also lol 168 pixels..... 1024x768 vs 1024x600 is 22% difference in pixels and lets not forget that the 360 Xenos also had the edram daughter die that was used for AA. If you had a good cpu your framrates didnt vary much with bioshock. Look at CoH performance with 8600GTS or Quake wars at 1280x1024 43 fps with 2x AA vs 360's 1280x720 (no AA), or with UT3 at 1280x1024 with no AA being able to do nearly 60 fps.

Fact is you are not willing to come to terms that a 8600GTS performance was in the same league as the 360's gpu.

You speak as if there's going to be a huge performance difference between those two resolutions. I just tested FC 3 since it allows you to change res in game. Between 1280x960 and 1280x800 I had a 1 fps difference.

I wasn't aware of a 360 version of CoH. Doom 3 engine is known to run like crap on 360.

And it seems you're using the bench I listed for your UT 3 bench. UT 3 is known to be a very cpu intensive game. That bench is with a E8400 @ 3.6 GHz

You lack the basic skills for reading most ppl have by the end of grade school.

YOU GET NOTHING.....GOOD DAY, SIR!!

No i was not speaking as if there was going to be huge differences but you can if you are running the 512mb version of the card where it allows higher quality assets. With testing Farcry 3 at those resolutions on what gpu btw? memory bandwidth and bus play a big part in feeding the gpu. and 22% increase can change the game. just like with a 8800GT going from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 can make a game unplayable even though its only a 15% difference. 1280x1024 to 1680x1050 also is only a 16% difference but can change the FPS by upto 25%. With UT3 AMD dual cores at or above 2.6 ghz runs that game just fine.

It's really not a good idea to use percentages with the resolutions. 1920x1080 and 1680x1050 have much bigger pixel count differences than 1024x768 and 1024x600. Find some benches that compare close resolutions to prove there would be more than a few fps difference.

The FC 3 test was on a gtx 680.

UT 3 is all about the cpu. A core 2 duo 2.2 ghz beats a x2 athlon 3.2 ghz in UT 3. 7900 gtx gets 55 fps at 1280x1024 yet on Bioshock and other UE 2.5-3 games you'd be looking at 30 fps or less with that card. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2352/8

PLEASE LET THIS THREAD DIE

Pixel percentages gives in general the difference in rendering the image. and when we are talking about resolutions close to each other gpu only being able to do 1280x**** or lower those percentages can make a difference because of the memory limits let alone gpu processing.

Doing FC3 on a GTX 680 doing those low resolutions is wrong since that gpu has the extra processing power and memory width and bus to handle those resolution with ease hence the 1 fps. Try doing 1680x1050 vs 1920x1200 you see a 10 fps difference easily. Or even doing 1280x1024 to 1680x1050 can see more then 20fps difference.

False a C2D at 2.2 ghz is slightly slower then 3 ghz Athlon X2. Cinebench R10 Athlon X2 6000 vs E4500 X2 gets 5595 vs c2d's 4806. or even pasmark 1600 vs 1262.

... its like saying an 8800GT cant do UC3 because it does not have the Cell+RSX. And again direct x has no bearing on gpu performance or ability as long you have a cpu that take up the overhead, using the same rendering standards . But since we are talking about direct x 9 yes could not get the same tools and features since the 360's API and hardware is some what more advanced then standard direct x 9 api and hardware. However the 360 gpu is still limited to shader model 3 which is a standard in dx 9. The 8600GTS is a direct x 10 gpu able to do shader model 4 something the 360 can not do.

Direct x is not a scapegoat....

You haven't proven anything and I still say 1024x600 2xaa is more demanding than 1024x768 no aa and of course the aa difference would be easily noticable while the res difference would be just about impossible to notice. So CoD 4 360 version beats the 8600 gts.

Actually it was the 2.3 ghz e6550 that beats even the x2 6400 in UT 3. Even if you clocked the e6550 down to 2.2 it would still beat the x2 6400. Point is that UT 3 isn't a good game to use for gpu benches.

lol 8600GTS creams 360 in CoD 4

Now lol with thinking the e6550 out right beats the Athlon X2 3.2ghz with the X2 6000 at 3 ghz passmark e6550 :1508 vs 1599 with x2 6000 then with Cinebench 5167 vs 5595. now with some things the e6550 does edge out the 6000 like with sysmark 2007 overall score 149 vs 133 a whole 11% difference. with an Athlon X2 6400 it edges out the cpu even more in the areas the 6000 did and overall sysmark score is less and with 3d portition of that test the 6400 beats it overall the difference is only 7%. Which means the performance would be nearly the same.

Hopefully DX12 will actually be a leap forward compared to DX10/11.

I already linked the 8600 gts bench where the only way it can get 60 fps in CoD 4 is at 1024x768 no aa. 360 gets 60 fps with 1024x600 which is indistinguishable from 1024x768 and also has 2x aa so 360 wins.

I said the e6550 beats it in UT 3. it even beats the x2 6400. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2352/7

Developers are not 'frustrated" over direct x in general anymore it was having to abide to the older direct x 9 API limits and older code for multiplats. 2011 was year where we started seeing developers taking advantage of the modern directx 11 features and abilities and afterward all these direct x limiting claims disappeared. Carmark's past statements are not as relevant because of the shift of modern games being dx 10+ or just plain dx 11 only.

On consoles you can directly write commands to the GPU buffer, and you will write the commands directly in a format that the GPU hardware understands. It's just a few lines of code to add a single draw call.PC has both user space and kernel space drivers that process the draw calls. More than one software can be adding GPU commands simultaneously, and the driver must synchronize and store/return the GPU state accordingly). The GPU commands must be translated by the driver to a format understood by the GPU (many different manufacturers and GPU families). The commands and modified data must be sent over to the GPU.

Drawcall's on pc is handled directly by the CPU before going to the gpu like as I stated earlier as long as you have the cpu to bulldoze through the overhead. The overhead on direct x 11 is no where like the version in the past and the gains from a low level API "Mantle" bypassing direct x has not given any real gains with modern intel cpu's. The differences are only slight. Your idea of of direct x limiting gpus are over exaggerated.

You haven't proved anything dont ignore the fact that 8600GTS is able to get 36 fps average maxed at over double the resolution of the 360.

The only reason why the e6550 beats the Athlon 's slightly :by 10%" is because the bottleneck created by the use of such a low resolution. Come back when you have a proper excuse when we know that 8600GT is able to get nearly 40 fps average maxed out in 1600x1200 even still Athlon x2 3 ghz+ provided more then120fps average which means that athlon x2 can feed the gpu enough data to keep 60 fps.

36 fps in what game?

So you know better than Anandtech about cpu benchmarking?

What game does the 8600 gt get 40 fps at 1600? You need to be more specific when citing benchmarks.