PC gaming is ridiculously expensive.

Let me start off by noting that I own both a PS3 and an XBOX 360. At 21 years old, my days of religious loyalty to one particular system are long over. I'm in the process of building a new all-purpose/gaming rig and I'm shocked after finding out the ugly turth behind pc gaming. For years, Hermits have claimed how awesome PC graphics are compared to consoles and have gone out of their way to build "cheap" computers that could supposedly max out many titles. Well Hermits, care to explain this? (courtesy of http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=4)



Cool, looks like a $1000 processor (Core i7 965) paired with a $600 video card (Nvidia GTX 295) can't even run Crysis Warhead at ~60FPS at 1080p.

I know, I know. The game is heavily GPU dependant and you don't exactly need a $1000 processor to get the same performance. So let's see how a $200 processor (AMD Phenom II X4) and same $600 GTX 295 fair on Crysis Warhead. Keep in mind Hermits were claiming Crysis Warhead was much better optimized than the original Crysis and would run a lot better on most computers.



Joke of the century am confirmed. So $800 worth of processors and video cards alone STILL can even run the game above 40FPS at 1080p. Add a harddrive, optical drive, powersupply, case, fans, ram, and cooling components and you're well in the $1500+ range.

There is NO video card on the market that can run a game like Crysis on high settings at 60FPS @ 1080p. So all the bullshots Hermits refer to when trying to claim ownage should come with a disclaimer reading: "This is not indicative of true real-world performance." This is one reason why I think PC gaming will eventually die. Computers, even custom computers built specifically to run games, aren't made to run games. Nothing short of building a $3000 extreme rig with some GTX 295's SLI'd will you get to power PC games at their full potential. You end up spending twice as much in video cards to get the similar performance compared to getting an entire multimedia system (PS3/360) for half the price. Makes perfect sense, right guys?


Summary: Modern computers cannot run games that came out years ago at the settings Hermits claim. PC gaming is overly expensive. A sub $400 build using deals of the century and tons of rebate offers isn't going to match a PS3/360. Sad but true.

You should try a proper comparison.

Check out what rigs like that do to RE5.

Crysis cannot be max, period. But try running tests on other games and see what fps you'll be getting there. The cheap builds were on Crysis high at 30+fps. Your misinformed about pc gaming, you don't have to max everything.

There is so much fail in this thread I don't know where to begin. It is even running in DX10, which means they are killing their frame rate for a next to none existent gain for the sake of it.

It is even using quad cores to ramp up the price when Crysis is only just optimized for dual.

My rig runs Crysis just fine at DX9 High settings, none of that over priced stuff is needed.

PC gaming itself isn't expensive, but modern PC gaming is. I am currently playing through KOTOR right now on my 5 year old cheap Gateway computer and I don't have any complaints. However, if you want to play the latest and greatest of PC games I agree that cost is a big issue. But every other PC game besides the ones with the high system demands is still a PC game.

I bought a 1.4k Rig 2 years ago, played Crysis on very high 30fps(with no AA though), beat it, got Crysis warhead, played it on very high, beat it, and you're whining that $1000 proccessor and a gtx 295 won't run crysis at 60 fps with a 1080p resolution. By all means, please, whine more, cuz im sure someone out ther cares what you think.

Ok? So the most power hungry game can't run on today's PCs at 60fps.

Do you know how many console games don't run at 60fps? Let alone how many games maintain stable framerates throughout the entire game? :D

This thread is a joke.

IMO, Crysis is something totally off the charts. Any claims that PC gaming is expensive based on Crysis performance should be dismissed.

If I recall correctly, the pc in my sig gave me 50+ fps in RE5 completely maxed at true 1080p (That's including 16xQ AA).

My jaw dropped when I saw the benchmark (not the gfx, seeing the game maxed only makes it obvious how good it does'nt look).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO3z4maE

Enjoy the ownage contained in this video. Crysis 2 on consoles looks like medium Crysis 1 confirmed.

This is stupid. I can run Crysis at Very High setting with 4x AA at true 720p and get a good framerate. Most ps3 and 360 games don't run at native 720p let alone native 1080p. However I can max RE5 based off of the benchmark at 1080p and get an average framerate of 60 fps. PC gaming is not ridiculously expensive. It's just an excuse made by console fanboys that are jealous that they don't have the money to build a good rig.

Is this a joke? or a flaimbait?

anyway, to show the flaws in your logic, first of all, you chose the most heavy gpu/spu game out there.

Second..do you know what 1080p? this resolution is atleast x2 higher than most console games can dream of.

And besides, Crysis on very high -the sittings these benchmarks were based off- is bounds and leaps better looking than any game this gen. consoles can even dream of producing. No joke, crysis on high or even medium is more comparable to "high-end" console graphics.

Plus, I can run crysis on Very-high on 768p (most console games dream to reach this res.) on my 8800gt and E8400 and these are very cheap nowadays.

Please take your fanboy goggles off. PC gaming is awesome if you give it the chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO3z4maE

Enjoy the ownage contained in this video. Crysis 2 on consoles looks like medium Crysis 1 confirmed.

Brownesque

"Consoles can't play Crysis"

"Yeah, but we're getting Crysis 2"

"Yeah, but it will be utter garbage compared to the PC version"

"Yeah, but we'll still get it"

"Yeah, but it's the lesser version"

"Yeah, but consoles don't cost as much as Gaming PCs"

"Yeah, but if look hard enough you can build a cheap one with high specs."

etc.

Just watch.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO3z4maE

Enjoy the ownage contained in this video. Crysis 2 on consoles looks like medium Crysis 1 confirmed.

clubsammich91

nice bait, oh well I guess I'll add to the fire. At least PC games can run at 1080p, consoles games can barely get 720p :lol:

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"][QUOTE="Brownesque"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO3z4maE

Enjoy the ownage contained in this video. Crysis 2 on consoles looks like medium Crysis 1 confirmed.

Brownesque

nice bait, oh well I guess I'll add to the fire. At least PC games can run at 1080p, consoles games can barely get 720p :lol:

Espada12

"The Core i7 processors were again the most dominant, with all three models defeating all other series tested. Next in line was the Core 2 Duo series which were able to deliver slightly more performance than the Core 2 Quad processors, clearly Crysis Warhead is not well optimized for more than two cores. This is a problem for the Phenom II X4 processors, as they are also found to be slower than the Core 2 Duo's."

but but the core 2 duos cost thousands :o :o :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMZEO3z4maE

Enjoy the ownage contained in this video. Crysis 2 on consoles looks like medium Crysis 1 confirmed.

Brownesque

PC gaming itself isn't expensive, but modern PC gaming is. I am currently playing through KOTOR right now on my 5 year old cheap Gateway computer and I don't have any complaints. However, if you want to play the latest and greatest of PC games I agree that cost is a big issue. But every other PC game besides the ones with the high system demands is still a PC game.

clubsammich91

Which means if they tried to make Warhead run on a console it would explode. So what's your point? One game dosn't make all the diffrence in the world. You could still play the game with a much cheaper set up and still enjoy it as much as anyone else. Alot of people seem to believe that in order to get the full enjoyment out of something you need the best of the best. That's what happens when you listen to advertising too much. I still find it hard to believe people waste money on massive TV screens and sound systems for such a tiny increase in quality. People who buy these thingsusually gain absolutely nothing. It's just amazing how people have this notion in their head that everything is ruined if it's not topof line.People waste so much money....

How did they manage to get such low FPS?! This is a failpost for real. Take a look at this.

at 1680 X 1050 no AA i get an adverage of 30 FPS Dead on with a Q6700 (3.6Ghz) and a 1GB 4870 XXX (OC). My rig was £660 ALL told. i tend to play at 1280X1024 with either 2X AA or 4X AA with an adverage of 37 and 33 FPS respectively. Look at some of my benchmarking runs without my special brew DX9 config ( so this is performance killing DX10 mind you)

Play Time: 64.22s, Average FPS: 31.14
Min FPS: 18.48 at frame 138, Max FPS: 43.51 at frame 1008
Average Tri/Sec: -20126970, Tri/Frame: -646301
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.42
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 59.25s, Average FPS: 33.75
Min FPS: 18.48 at frame 138, Max FPS: 45.09 at frame 81
Average Tri/Sec: -21369268, Tri/Frame: -633099
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.45
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 59.48s, Average FPS: 33.62
Min FPS: 18.48 at frame 138, Max FPS: 45.25 at frame 984
Average Tri/Sec: -21229274, Tri/Frame: -631389
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.45
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 59.47s, Average FPS: 33.63
Min FPS: 18.48 at frame 138, Max FPS: 45.28 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -21275756, Tri/Frame: -632671
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.45
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Those are on Harbour!.

after about 12 runs of different benchmarks look at the overall result. 64 bit vista Dx10 maxed out at 1280X1024. 33FPS.

Console elitism has reached it's peak in this thread.

1. My PC costed $700 and can run Crysis at 1050p at beyond maximum settings (modded) at a constant 30FPS, which BTW is around 3 times the resolution of your "HD" consoles.

2. A $1000 CPU gives about 3% more performance than a $150 CPU, so really, good job at being a biased elitist.

3. Show me one, just ONE (1, uno) console games that runs at 1080p 60FPS. The closest you can hope for is 1080p 30FPS, but the game probably has N64 graphics. But you want Crysis, a game that makes console games look like Atari games, to run at 60FPS 1080p? Double standards = console elitism/fanboyism/trolling/flaming in my books.

4. You purposely chose the DX10 benchmark, which yields absolutely zero visual upgrade compared to DX9, but lowers the framerate by like 60%, just to keep the framerate low. Again, good job on proving that console fanboys are really desperate to bring PC gaming down.

BTW, if you don't respond to my post, you are trolling.

There is something fishy about those benchmarks, probably bad drivers or something like that.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=812&p=4

Anyway, PC is crap because you cannot max the most graphically intensive game ever. :roll:

LOL

Just look at the multiplat games benchmarks, these specs are totally overkill against consoles.

:lol:

Bait is fail. But everyone is taking it anyway.Cherokee_Jack

I honestly wouldn't put it past exclusive console users these days, he is likely being serious because his preferred platform has resulted in a limited understanding of PC hardware and games. I wouldn't have been surprised if he started pricing up server motherboards and Quadro's for what he considered a gaming PC would cost.

What he has done is looked at the low utilization of enthusiast level hardware in Crysis and declared PC gaming in its entirety too expensive. Never mind that the game is perfectly playable on much cheaper hardware at pretty much the same settings as these tests, the best of the best cannot get 60 so he rationalizes it must be unplayable on anything cheaper :roll:

What's sad is we are now going to get just as ignorant consolites jumping in this thread to declare ownage and/or damage control, even though the original post is severely flawed to anyone with even basic experience with the game.

For the hell of it here is the clearly unplayable High settings on my PC, running at 1680x1050 with 2x AA and custom post processing for god rays. Never mind the game looks smooth at even 25 fps, OP thinks anything below 60 is unacceptable. :roll:

And which console is running Crysis at 1080p at 60 fps? Oh right...

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]Bait is fail. But everyone is taking it anyway.AnnoyedDragon

I honestly wouldn't put it past exclusive console users these days, he is likely being serious because his preferred platform has resulted in a limited understanding of PC hardware and games. I wouldn't have been surprised if he started pricing up server motherboards and Quadro's for what he considered a gaming PC would cost.

What he has done is looked at the low utilization of enthusiast level hardware in Crysis and declared PC gaming in its entirety too expensive. Never mind that the game is perfectly playable on much cheaper hardware at pretty much the same settings as these tests, the best of the best cannot get 60 so he rationalizes it must be unplayable on anything cheaper :roll:

What's sad is we are now going to get just as ignorant consolites jumping in this thread to declare ownage and/or damage control, even though the original post is severely flawed to anyone with even basic experience with the game.

For the hell of it here is the clearly unplayable High settings on my PC, running at 1680x1050 with 2x AA and custom post processing for god rays. Never mind the game looks smooth at even 25 fps, OP thinks anything below 60 is unacceptable. :roll:

Have you never seen double standards being used by fanboys? This is nothing new, just typical console fanboy fallacies.

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]Bait is fail. But everyone is taking it anyway.AnnoyedDragon

I honestly wouldn't put it past exclusive console users these days, he is likely being serious because his preferred platform has resulted in a limited understanding of PC hardware and games. I wouldn't have been surprised if he started pricing up server motherboards and Quadro's for what he considered a gaming PC would cost.

What he has done is looked at the low utilization of enthusiast level hardware in Crysis and declared PC gaming in its entirety too expensive. Never mind that the game is perfectly playable on much cheaper hardware at pretty much the same settings as these tests, the best of the best cannot get 60 so he rationalizes it must be unplayable on anything cheaper :roll:

What's sad is we are now going to get just as ignorant consolites jumping in this thread to declare ownage and/or damage control, even though the original post is severely flawed to anyone with even basic experience with the game.

For the hell of it here is the clearly unplayable High settings on my PC, running at 1680x1050 with 2x AA and custom post processing for god rays. Never mind the game looks smooth at even 25 fps, OP thinks anything below 60 is unacceptable. :roll:

So now we're forcing PC games to run at 60 FPS when almost every console game only runs at 30 FPS or even less? Is this a joke thread?

Man ultra with 4X AA looks soooo much better :|, my rig wins again :PBoloTheGreat

If I wanted to impress people I'd hide in the plants and look at the sun for some god rays. The screenshot wasn't intended to show off the games visuals, it was to show the performance with the settings I stated.

Console elitism has reached it's peak in this thread.

1. My PC costed $700 and can run Crysis at 1050p at beyond maximum settings (modded) at a constant 30FPS, which BTW is around 3 times the resolution of your "HD" consoles.

2. A $1000 CPU gives about 3% more performance than a $150 CPU, so really, good job at being a biased elitist.

3. Show me one, just ONE (1, uno) console games that runs at 1080p 60FPS. The closest you can hope for is 1080p 30FPS, but the game probably has N64 graphics. But you want Crysis, a game that makes console games look like Atari games, to run at 60FPS 1080p? Double standards = console elitism/fanboyism/trolling/flaming in my books.

4. You purposely chose the DX10 benchmark, which yields absolutely zero visual upgrade compared to DX9, but lowers the framerate by like 60%, just to keep the framerate low. Again, good job on proving that console fanboys are really desperate to bring PC gaming down.

BTW, if you don't respond to my post, you are trolling.

Hanass

Great post, but just to be a pain in the ass....

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

NBA 08 is listed as 1920x1080 resolution native and it runs at 60 frames per second. http://www.nba.com/videogames/nba08_overview.html

Confirmed by reviewers. The problem really is this: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/sports/nba08/review.html

And it looks like this:

There is NO video card on the market that can run a game like Crysis on high settings at 60FPS @ 1080p. So all the bullshots Hermits refer to when trying to claim ownage should come with a disclaimer reading: "This is not indicative of true real-world performance." This is one reason why I think PC gaming will eventually die. Computers, even custom computers built specifically to run games, aren't made to run games. Nothing short of building a $3000 extreme rig with some GTX 295's SLI'd will you get to power PC games at their full potential. You end up spending twice as much in video cards to get the similar performance compared to getting an entire multimedia system (PS3/360) for half the price. Makes perfect sense, right guys?

CStheGreat

Oh man, you just made my day...

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]Bait is fail. But everyone is taking it anyway.Hanass

I honestly wouldn't put it past exclusive console users these days, he is likely being serious because his preferred platform has resulted in a limited understanding of PC hardware and games. I wouldn't have been surprised if he started pricing up server motherboards and Quadro's for what he considered a gaming PC would cost.

What he has done is looked at the low utilization of enthusiast level hardware in Crysis and declared PC gaming in its entirety too expensive. Never mind that the game is perfectly playable on much cheaper hardware at pretty much the same settings as these tests, the best of the best cannot get 60 so he rationalizes it must be unplayable on anything cheaper :roll:

What's sad is we are now going to get just as ignorant consolites jumping in this thread to declare ownage and/or damage control, even though the original post is severely flawed to anyone with even basic experience with the game.

For the hell of it here is the clearly unplayable High settings on my PC, running at 1680x1050 with 2x AA and custom post processing for god rays. Never mind the game looks smooth at even 25 fps, OP thinks anything below 60 is unacceptable. :roll:

Have you never seen double standards being used by fanboys? This is nothing new, just typical console fanboy fallacies.

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I honestly wouldn't put it past exclusive console users these days, he is likely being serious because his preferred platform has resulted in a limited understanding of PC hardware and games. I wouldn't have been surprised if he started pricing up server motherboards and Quadro's for what he considered a gaming PC would cost.

What he has done is looked at the low utilization of enthusiast level hardware in Crysis and declared PC gaming in its entirety too expensive. Never mind that the game is perfectly playable on much cheaper hardware at pretty much the same settings as these tests, the best of the best cannot get 60 so he rationalizes it must be unplayable on anything cheaper :roll:

What's sad is we are now going to get just as ignorant consolites jumping in this thread to declare ownage and/or damage control, even though the original post is severely flawed to anyone with even basic experience with the game.

For the hell of it here is the clearly unplayable High settings on my PC, running at 1680x1050 with 2x AA and custom post processing for god rays. Never mind the game looks smooth at even 25 fps, OP thinks anything below 60 is unacceptable. :roll:

clubsammich91

Have you never seen double standards being used by fanboys? This is nothing new, just typical console fanboy fallacies.

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"][QUOTE="Hanass"]

Have you never seen double standards being used by fanboys? This is nothing new, just typical console fanboy fallacies.

Brownesque

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I honestly wouldn't put it past exclusive console users these days, he is likely being serious because his preferred platform has resulted in a limited understanding of PC hardware and games. I wouldn't have been surprised if he started pricing up server motherboards and Quadro's for what he considered a gaming PC would cost.

What he has done is looked at the low utilization of enthusiast level hardware in Crysis and declared PC gaming in its entirety too expensive. Never mind that the game is perfectly playable on much cheaper hardware at pretty much the same settings as these tests, the best of the best cannot get 60 so he rationalizes it must be unplayable on anything cheaper :roll:

What's sad is we are now going to get just as ignorant consolites jumping in this thread to declare ownage and/or damage control, even though the original post is severely flawed to anyone with even basic experience with the game.

For the hell of it here is the clearly unplayable High settings on my PC, running at 1680x1050 with 2x AA and custom post processing for god rays. Never mind the game looks smooth at even 25 fps, OP thinks anything below 60 is unacceptable. :roll:

clubsammich91

Have you never seen double standards being used by fanboys? This is nothing new, just typical console fanboy fallacies.

Great point. Only problem is, I never said that a PC that can run Crysis was cheaper than consoles. And it's not like your $200 Xbox 360 can run Crysis at medium-high either (before you try to play the Crysis 2 card, the Xbox 360 version runs at 720p, no AA [if not then 2X AA max], low textures, most settings on medium, so...).

You judge PCs on a badly optimized tech demo, you sure are cool. How about we take the benchmarks for multiplat games and compare them instead?

1. My PC costed $700 and can run Crysis at 1050p at beyond maximum settings (modded) at a constant 30FPS, which BTW is around 3 times the resolution of your "HD" consoles.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="clubsammich91"]And it is a PC fanboy fallacy to claim that if a person wants to play a game like Crysis on the higher settings they're gonna have to shell out more $ then that of a console. Tell you what, I can go out right now and get a 360 for 200$ if you can post a list of hardware so I can bould a gaming rig that can run Crysis on around medium-high to high settings for 200$ or less You will prove me wrong and I will never disrespect PC gaming ever again. Heck I build that rig for that amount of mony.clubsammich91

Are you trying to prove something, or do you just like to troll by saying something that EVERYONE is aware of? What is it? You hate PC gaming? Say it; nobody is going to kill you. After all, it's the Internet...