pc gaming owns everything.

If you are willing to put the money/time into a halfway decent build then consoles just get blown away in most cases. Its always good to have a console though, in case of bad PC ports on games like SC4. BoloTheGreat

Can you get me a PC for around $199.99 that can play Call of Duty 4 on the same level of quality as the Xbox 360 version?Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="consolegaminsol"]

Intel Celeron E1200 1.6GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor Model BX80557E1200 - Retail

Your Price:$48.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136033

DFI 662-TMG/G LGA 775 SiS 662 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard

$42.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148163

Crucial 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

$22.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143105

BFG Tech BFGE86256GTOCE GeForce 8600 GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 SLI Supported Video Card

$49.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147127

pc case 19$

USE UR CURRENT PC'S MONITER/KEYBOARD/MOUSE/SPEAKERS/HARDDRIVE/CDROM

PRICE 185$

LOL PWNED

whatsazerg

Celeron? Eww..... really scrapin' the bottom of the barrel in order to win an e-fight arent we?

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Can you get me a PC for around $199.99 that can play Call of Duty 4 on the same level of quality as the Xbox 360 version?imprezawrx500

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Can you get me a PC for around $199.99 that can play Call of Duty 4 on the same level of quality as the Xbox 360 version?consolegaminsol

yes

www.newegg.com go build it.

Thats impossible, to build a PC for $200 and have it keep up with 360 graphics.

PC gaming is a dying breed. Hardware sales are down and same with game sales. It owns nothing.djsifer01

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Can you get me a PC for around $199.99 that can play Call of Duty 4 on the same level of quality as the Xbox 360 version?Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="consolegaminsol"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Can you get me a PC for around $199.99 that can play Call of Duty 4 on the same level of quality as the Xbox 360 version?DarxPhil

yes

www.newegg.com go build it.

Thats impossible, to build a PC for $200 and have it keep up with 360 graphics.

it just does with a good pc you get cheaper games and better looking ones at that...THE ENDnoxboxlive

that card came out in 2003 so it's pretty obvious. plus look at the thread showing you new parts that destroy the 360 for $200 imprezawrx500

The sum of all the cost -- from tax to shipping has to be BELOW $224.99; I came up with that number because that's the most anyone can ever pay for a Xbox 360 Arcade in the states.(Chicago has a 10.25 sales tax rate -- highest in USA)

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] that card came out in 2003 so it's pretty obvious. plus look at the thread showing you new parts that destroy the 360 for $200 Stevo_the_gamer

The sum of all the cost -- from tax to shipping has to be BELOW $224.99; I came up with that number because that's the most anyone can ever pay for a Xbox 360 Arcade in the states.(Chicago has a 10.25 sales tax rate -- highest in USA)

Well that would be for gamign wise... if you want to play dirt cheap gaming. Console is the way... But then again, you'd only be playing single player COD4 on x360 for that price.

Also, we could put up a $200 PC that can do plenty of stuff that a X360 can't do if you take out gaming.

Well that would be for gamign wise... if you want to play dirt cheap gaming. Console is the way... But then again, you'd only be playing single player COD4 on x360 for that price. Also, we could put up a $200 PC that can do plenty of stuff that a X360 can't do if you take out gaming.Bebi_vegeta

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Well that would be for gamign wise... if you want to play dirt cheap gaming. Console is the way... But then again, you'd only be playing single player COD4 on x360 for that price. Also, we could put up a $200 PC that can do plenty of stuff that a X360 can't do if you take out gaming.Stevo_the_gamer

Offline multiplayer... does that make any sense?

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Well that would be for gamign wise... if you want to play dirt cheap gaming. Console is the way... But then again, you'd only be playing single player COD4 on x360 for that price. Also, we could put up a $200 PC that can do plenty of stuff that a X360 can't do if you take out gaming.Bebi_vegeta

Offline multiplayer... does that make any sense?

Last night i spent more time getting my new router to work with battle.net than i did actually playing warcraft 3. If you enjoy annoyance, frustration and having to configure your computer everytime you want to revisit an old game, get a new game or sometimes just play a game you played the other week - go with PC gaming.CreepyBacon

Agreed. But with version 1.10.256 I can play the game how it's meant to be played...except I already played it at version 1.5.128 and I'm bored with it now.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Offline multiplayer... does that make any sense?lowe0

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]There's no offline multiplayer on Call of Duty 4? :?lowe0

Offline multiplayer... does that make any sense?

Oh yes, I forgot Xbox Arcade comes with many many free contolerSSSSSS.:roll:

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Offline multiplayer... does that make any sense?Stevo_the_gamer

LOL, all that on 1 controler... that's a nice feature. :shock:

You, my friend, are very wrong:|

that celeron completely destroys that crappy ppc cpu in the x360 that can't even run out of order code :lol: a pentium 2 can do something the 360 can't.imprezawrx500

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] that celeron completely destroys that crappy ppc cpu in the x360 that can't even run out of order code :lol: a pentium 2 can do something the 360 can't.dc337

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

intel made hyperthreading as a way to handle multitasking, acts as another fake cpu core kinda, but it was mainly useful for singlecore.

that celeron doesnt really need it, no core 2 duos have hyperthreading unless you get the highend model.

but out of order cpu's are faster than in order code.

plus powerpc architecture pretty much sucks, see here.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10164398-64.html

A brief history of chip fibs, flops: Intel, IBM, AMD

In short, the PowerPC failed to challenge Intel in the PC market in a big way. (Though it has been reincarnated as IBM's Cell processor that powers Sony's PlayStation and the architecture still powers IBM servers.)

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Well that would be for gamign wise... if you want to play dirt cheap gaming. Console is the way... But then again, you'd only be playing single player COD4 on x360 for that price. Also, we could put up a $200 PC that can do plenty of stuff that a X360 can't do if you take out gaming.Bebi_vegeta

Offline multiplayer... does that make any sense?

against bots.

i'll stick to my ps3 thank you, I don't playing games on PC, I don't like using the mouse for a shooter. the only thing the PC has that i prefer is graphics but then again PS2 graphics are fine to me so why would i care da_illest101

you can use xbox360 controller or even ps3 controller on pc, plus use ur pc on ur hdtv if you got one, nice failed arguement.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] that celeron completely destroys that crappy ppc cpu in the x360 that can't even run out of order code :lol: a pentium 2 can do something the 360 can't.dc337

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

Something which was used with intel P4...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]There's no offline multiplayer on Call of Duty 4? :?fakeacountnum99

Offline multiplayer... does that make any sense?

against bots.

IN COD4... amazing, you guys keep on coming with better features every time.... why dont you play single while your at it.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] that celeron completely destroys that crappy ppc cpu in the x360 that can't even run out of order code :lol: a pentium 2 can do something the 360 can't.dc337

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

[QUOTE="dc337"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] that celeron completely destroys that crappy ppc cpu in the x360 that can't even run out of order code :lol: a pentium 2 can do something the 360 can't.fakeacountnum99

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

intel made hyperthreading as a way to handle multitasking, acts as another fake cpu core kinda, but it was mainly useful for singlecore.

that celeron doesnt really need it, no core 2 duos have hyperthreading unless you get the highend model.

but out of order cpu's are faster than in order code.

plus powerpc architecture pretty much sucks, see here.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10164398-64.html

A brief history of chip fibs, flops: Intel, IBM, AMD

In short, the PowerPC failed to challenge Intel in the PC market in a big way. (Though it has been reincarnated as IBM's Cell processor that powers Sony's PlayStation and the architecture still powers IBM servers.)

[QUOTE="fakeacountnum99"][QUOTE="dc337"]

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

ronvalencia

intel made hyperthreading as a way to handle multitasking, acts as another fake cpu core kinda, but it was mainly useful for singlecore.

that celeron doesnt really need it, no core 2 duos have hyperthreading unless you get the highend model.

but out of order cpu's are faster than in order code.

plus powerpc architecture pretty much sucks, see here.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10164398-64.html

A brief history of chip fibs, flops: Intel, IBM, AMD

In short, the PowerPC failed to challenge Intel in the PC market in a big way. (Though it has been reincarnated as IBM's Cell processor that powers Sony's PlayStation and the architecture still powers IBM servers.)

lol powerpc cpu's suck.

PowerPC
IBM's original PowerPC platform never lived up to the hype. Even when Motorola and IBM processors populated Apple computers.

The hype: "The PowerPC G5 changes all the rules. This 64-bit race car is the heart of our new Power Mac G5, now the world's fastest desktop computer," said Apple CEO Steve Jobs back in 2003. Jobs, a master of hype (also referred to as a Svengali-like reality-distortion field), continued with this precious quote. "IBM offers the most advanced processor design...and this is just the beginning of a long and productive relationship." (Emphasis added.)

The reality: Apple dumped IBM, Motorola, and the PowerPC in 2005 and it was revealed later that the Mac operating system had been leading "a secret double life" for about five years. But the PowerPC platform had really failed long before 2005. Look no further than these comments from an IBM marketing manager in this 1997 Electronic News article: "Many business school case histories will be written about this failure," Jesse Parker, marketing manager at IBM Micro, said at that time. "No one of the three companies involved in PowerPC executed on their plans. IBM didn't. Motorola didn't. And Apple didn't," he said.

The original PowerPC project was conceived by John Sculley, president and CEO of Apple, and Jack Kuehler, vice chairman of IBM. Phil Hester, an IBM manager at the time, and David Mothersole, a Motorola executive, where also instrumental in starting the project, known initially as "Somerset." But as the PowerPC came to market, Mr. Sculley was pushed out of Apple (and) Mr. Kuehler retired. Their replacements did not have the same enthusiasm for the PowerPC alliance, dooming the project.

In short, the PowerPC failed to challenge Intel in the PC market in a big way. (Though it has been reincarnated as IBM's Cell processor that powers Sony's PlayStation and the architecture still powers IBM servers.)

And I have my own vignette to relate that illustrates one reason why Apple eventually dropped the PowerPC. When Apple first began to crow about the dual-processor Power Mac (circa 2003), a neighbor of mine at the time bought into the hype and purchased an Apple Power Mac tower with two IBM G4 processors (this preceded the dual-processor G5 tower that followed soon after). This thing was a furnace. It quite literally raised the temperature in the room it was in, had about five fans too many, and was deafening, to boot. That was the first time I fully understood the magnitude of Apple's fabrications about IBM's "superior" PowerPC designs. (IBM's less-than-impressive--at that time--chip manufacturing process that was used for PowerPC processors also contributed to the problem.)

[QUOTE="consolegaminsol"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Can you get me a PC for around $199.99 that can play Call of Duty 4 on the same level of quality as the Xbox 360 version?DarxPhil

yes

www.newegg.com go build it.

Thats impossible, to build a PC for $200 and have it keep up with 360 graphics.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="fakeacountnum99"]

intel made hyperthreading as a way to handle multitasking, acts as another fake cpu core kinda, but it was mainly useful for singlecore.

that celeron doesnt really need it, no core 2 duos have hyperthreading unless you get the highend model.

but out of order cpu's are faster than in order code.

plus powerpc architecture pretty much sucks, see here.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10164398-64.html

A brief history of chip fibs, flops: Intel, IBM, AMD

In short, the PowerPC failed to challenge Intel in the PC market in a big way. (Though it has been reincarnated as IBM's Cell processor that powers Sony's PlayStation and the architecture still powers IBM servers.)

ohnothebutton

lol powerpc cpu's suck.

PowerPC
IBM's original PowerPC platform never lived up to the hype. Even when Motorola and IBM processors populated Apple computers.

The hype: "The PowerPC G5 changes all the rules. This 64-bit race car is the heart of our new Power Mac G5, now the world's fastest desktop computer," said Apple CEO Steve Jobs back in 2003. Jobs, a master of hype (also referred to as a Svengali-like reality-distortion field), continued with this precious quote. "IBM offers the most advanced processor design...and this is just the beginning of a long and productive relationship." (Emphasis added.)

The reality: Apple dumped IBM, Motorola, and the PowerPC in 2005 and it was revealed later that the Mac operating system had been leading "a secret double life" for about five years. But the PowerPC platform had really failed long before 2005. Look no further than these comments from an IBM marketing manager in this 1997 Electronic News article: "Many business school case histories will be written about this failure," Jesse Parker, marketing manager at IBM Micro, said at that time. "No one of the three companies involved in PowerPC executed on their plans. IBM didn't. Motorola didn't. And Apple didn't," he said.

The original PowerPC project was conceived by John Sculley, president and CEO of Apple, and Jack Kuehler, vice chairman of IBM. Phil Hester, an IBM manager at the time, and David Mothersole, a Motorola executive, where also instrumental in starting the project, known initially as "Somerset." But as the PowerPC came to market, Mr. Sculley was pushed out of Apple (and) Mr. Kuehler retired. Their replacements did not have the same enthusiasm for the PowerPC alliance, dooming the project.

In short, the PowerPC failed to challenge Intel in the PC market in a big way. (Though it has been reincarnated as IBM's Cell processor that powers Sony's PlayStation and the architecture still powers IBM servers.)

And I have my own vignette to relate that illustrates one reason why Apple eventually dropped the PowerPC. When Apple first began to crow about the dual-processor Power Mac (circa 2003), a neighbor of mine at the time bought into the hype and purchased an Apple Power Mac tower with two IBM G4 processors (this preceded the dual-processor G5 tower that followed soon after). This thing was a furnace. It quite literally raised the temperature in the room it was in, had about five fans too many, and was deafening, to boot. That was the first time I fully understood the magnitude of Apple's fabrications about IBM's "superior" PowerPC designs. (IBM's less-than-impressive--at that time--chip manufacturing process that was used for PowerPC processors also contributed to the problem.)

[QUOTE="ohnothebutton"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] That article talks about Intel Centrino vs AMD Turion i.e. Intel System Platform vs AMD CPU. It should be Intel Centrino (system platform) vs AMD Puma (system platform).ronvalencia

lol powerpc cpu's suck.

PowerPC
IBM's original PowerPC platform never lived up to the hype. Even when Motorola and IBM processors populated Apple computers.

The hype: "The PowerPC G5 changes all the rules. This 64-bit race car is the heart of our new Power Mac G5, now the world's fastest desktop computer," said Apple CEO Steve Jobs back in 2003. Jobs, a master of hype (also referred to as a Svengali-like reality-distortion field), continued with this precious quote. "IBM offers the most advanced processor design...and this is just the beginning of a long and productive relationship." (Emphasis added.)

The reality: Apple dumped IBM, Motorola, and the PowerPC in 2005 and it was revealed later that the Mac operating system had been leading "a secret double life" for about five years. But the PowerPC platform had really failed long before 2005. Look no further than these comments from an IBM marketing manager in this 1997 Electronic News article: "Many business school case histories will be written about this failure," Jesse Parker, marketing manager at IBM Micro, said at that time. "No one of the three companies involved in PowerPC executed on their plans. IBM didn't. Motorola didn't. And Apple didn't," he said.

The original PowerPC project was conceived by John Sculley, president and CEO of Apple, and Jack Kuehler, vice chairman of IBM. Phil Hester, an IBM manager at the time, and David Mothersole, a Motorola executive, where also instrumental in starting the project, known initially as "Somerset." But as the PowerPC came to market, Mr. Sculley was pushed out of Apple (and) Mr. Kuehler retired. Their replacements did not have the same enthusiasm for the PowerPC alliance, dooming the project.

In short, the PowerPC failed to challenge Intel in the PC market in a big way. (Though it has been reincarnated as IBM's Cell processor that powers Sony's PlayStation and the architecture still powers IBM servers.)

And I have my own vignette to relate that illustrates one reason why Apple eventually dropped the PowerPC. When Apple first began to crow about the dual-processor Power Mac (circa 2003), a neighbor of mine at the time bought into the hype and purchased an Apple Power Mac tower with two IBM G4 processors (this preceded the dual-processor G5 tower that followed soon after). This thing was a furnace. It quite literally raised the temperature in the room it was in, had about five fans too many, and was deafening, to boot. That was the first time I fully understood the magnitude of Apple's fabrications about IBM's "superior" PowerPC designs. (IBM's less-than-impressive--at that time--chip manufacturing process that was used for PowerPC processors also contributed to the problem.)

old's mac computers used to use powerpc cpu's dude, the cpu's sucked that's why apple ditched them for intel.

that celeron completely destroys that crappy ppc cpu in the x360 that can't even run out of order code :lol: a pentium 2 can do something the 360 can't.imprezawrx500

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

Something which was used with intel P4...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="dc337"]

The PS3's cell is also an in-order-cpu, so any celeron must destroy it as well, right?

You do realize that the 360's xenon is a triple core cpu with each core running at 3.2 ghz, right? Each core is also capable of handling two threads much like intel's hyperthreading. Hmm wait hypertheading is something that core 2 duo cpus can't do, so by your logic they must be crappy.

Because not having a specific feature makes a cpu crappy. Every cpu is then crappy.

You have some reading to do.

MadExponent

Something which was used with intel P4...

Pretty much useless for gaming...

[QUOTE="MadExponent"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Something which was used with intel P4...

Bebi_vegeta

Pretty much useless for gaming...