pc gaming superiority

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

Gaming in sub-HD/720P with crappy AA and the blurfest that is on the consoles DOES matter to some maybe not YOU. That's why people choose to watch movies in Blu-ray 1080P not the blurfest of DVD's. Just like PC gamers who game in Blu-ray's 1080P resolution with all the bells and whistles cranked to the max not the blur fest that is the consoles with lower graphical settings.

lespaul1919

movies and games are two different things. movies are at 24 fps and you don't control it. in games, performance matters most, not how pretty the screen is. if the bells and whistles are going to cause frame dips and cuase me to get killed or lose.......they are gone. If I can maintain 100 fps...or even 60, sure up everything....if not, it needs to go. how well you can play means so much more than how good it looks.

when my pc was crap, my halo looked like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL_gPXINa18

At least you can play on 60 fps on PC. You can lower the graphics to get a stable and smooth gameplay which you can't do on a console.

I don't know why you keep trying to insinuate that consoles have any frame-rate related benefits over PCs.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"] but his phenom II doesn't get crushed by your 8400. yes intel has better processors but you dont own one.Xtasy26

all AMD's did when I got my 8400 lol. if I were to get one now it would be the i5 or i7 sandy bridge....not AMD.

Exactly why would you need i5 and i7 Sandy Bridge. I have a AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition and combine that with my AMD XFX HD 6970 I get SILKY SMOOTH framerates in ALL MY GAMES in FULL HD 1080P. Why would I waste my money on an i5 or i7 when I could save that money and buy me MORE games off of Steam deals? It doesn't make sense. Gaming wise AMD is best solution for price/performance. And it absolutely MURDERS Intel's GPU's.

I do alot with HD video and audio editing...I'm a video DJ.......and my programs are very VERY CPU oriented and very intel friendly. actually they flat out say on the site they code with intel in mind.

so.......yes, they outperform AMD in games by 10-30 frames depending on the game.......but I have other motives.

I don't know why you keep trying to insinuate that consoles have any frame-rate related benefits over PCs.

Cyburr_Police

hate fluctuating frame rates. nothing like getting 45 frames then about 5-10 for a few seconds every mintue or two. consoles the framrates are pretty solid. In some cases they don't change period.

[QUOTE="fireballonfire"]

[QUOTE="Dr_Snood"] Bingo, exactly how a lot of people feel. Great post.Xtasy26

Well there are still people happy with VHS tapes and CRT TVs.

So true. Some people are satsified with running sub-HD which is a mess on Big screen running games like Modern Wafare 2, Black Ops and Crysis 2. PC gamers on the other hand like to play those games maxed out in stunning Blu-ray 1080P resolution with all the bells and whistles cranked.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

movies and games are two different things. movies are at 24 fps and you don't control it. in games, performance matters most, not how pretty the screen is. if the bells and whistles are going to cause frame dips and cuase me to get killed or lose.......they are gone. If I can maintain 100 fps...or even 60, sure up everything....if not, it needs to go. how well you can play means so much more than how good it looks.

when my pc was crap, my halo looked like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL_gPXINa18

lespaul1919

With PC you can get "pretty" graphics and performance. NOT SO with the consoles. And exactly how are movies and games are two different things. So, you are saying there's no DIFFERNCE between Blu-ray 1080P vs DVD or consoles sub-HD/720P vs PC's 1080p?

Framerate doesnt matter with movies, it does highly with games. especially fast paced quake like games. try playing quake at 24 fps and 100 fps and tell me there isn't a difference.

id take 720p @100 fps over 1080p @20 fps any day of the week.

I wasn't arguing framerates. I was arguing the quality. With PC's you could get 1080P and high framerates. SO, your argument that consoles are better because they get better framerates is pretty much nullified by the fact that PC's can not only play games like Crysis 2, Black Ops and MW2/3 in FULL HD 1080P with all the Bells and whistles cranked and get 50-60 FPS. And it would look a NIGHT and DAY difference than the console version AND still run silky smooth.

[QUOTE="Cyburr_Police"]

I don't know why you keep trying to insinuate that consoles have any frame-rate related benefits over PCs.

lespaul1919

hate fluctuating frame rates. nothing like getting 45 frames then about 5-10 for a few seconds every mintue or two. consoles the framrates are pretty solid. In some cases they don't change period.

They're stuck at 30 and sometimes do go down lower than that. In PC you can get 60 or higher easily and you can lock it to not fluctuate. When it comes to fps the console is far from being superior.

[QUOTE="Cyburr_Police"]

I don't know why you keep trying to insinuate that consoles have any frame-rate related benefits over PCs.

lespaul1919

I know, it's pretty stupid right? Just because my PC sucks it doesn't mean the platform as a whole suffers the same. It's quite clear the PC's can maintain better frame rates than consoles.

It's aight man, I share your pain. My rig is an upgrade from my family's Pentium D and 9400GT. It was bad. *Shiver*

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="fireballonfire"]

Well there are still people happy with VHS tapes and CRT TVs.

Dr_Snood

So true. Some people are satsified with running sub-HD which is a mess on Big screen running games like Modern Wafare 2, Black Ops and Crysis 2. PC gamers on the other hand like to play those games maxed out in stunning Blu-ray 1080P resolution with all the bells and whistles cranked.

But then you are arguing the quality of the games. Just like in movies you could say it doesn't matter if a particular movies in Blu-ray 1080P if the movie is crap, which I would agree. But if I could watch/play a movie/game in Blu-ray's 1080P resolution then why would choose the inferiour option?

I honestly don't care about resolution lol. I played at 800x600 for years and it didn't bother me one bit.

I care about how well I play, not about how good the game looks. I don't play games from 10-12 years ago because I'm a graphics whore lol.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

all AMD's did when I got my 8400 lol. if I were to get one now it would be the i5 or i7 sandy bridge....not AMD.

lespaul1919

Exactly why would you need i5 and i7 Sandy Bridge. I have a AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition and combine that with my AMD XFX HD 6970 I get SILKY SMOOTH framerates in ALL MY GAMES in FULL HD 1080P. Why would I waste my money on an i5 or i7 when I could save that money and buy me MORE games off of Steam deals? It doesn't make sense. Gaming wise AMD is best solution for price/performance. And it absolutely MURDERS Intel's GPU's.

I do alot with HD video and audio editing...I'm a video DJ.......and my programs are very VERY CPU oriented and very intel friendly. actually they flat out say on the site they code with intel in mind.

so.......yes, they outperform AMD in games by 10-30 frames depending on the game.......but I have other motives.

And AMD's GPU's outperform Intel's by a factor of 50-100 frames in 1080P.

[QUOTE="Dr_Snood"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

So true. Some people are satsified with running sub-HD which is a mess on Big screen running games like Modern Wafare 2, Black Ops and Crysis 2. PC gamers on the other hand like to play those games maxed out in stunning Blu-ray 1080P resolution with all the bells and whistles cranked.

Xtasy26

But then you are arguing the quality of the games. Just like in movies you could say it doesn't matter if a particular movies in Blu-ray 1080P if the movie is crap, which I would agree. But if I could watch/play a movie/game in Blu-ray's 1080P resolution then why would choose the inferiour option?

I honestly don't care about resolution lol. I played at 800x600 for years and it didn't bother me one bit.

I care about how well I play, not about how good the game looks. I don't play games from 10-12 years ago because I'm a graphics whore lol.

lespaul1919

The same can be said about people who watch movies in DVD's as opposed to watching movies in Blu-ray's 1080P.

exactly why are you bringing up intel GPUs? who mentioned those? lol? we've been talking CPUs.....

at least bring up nvidia GPU's or something.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="Dr_Snood"] Which in the end doesn't matter because if that guy playin sub-HD is having fun, then there isn't anything wrong. I still play old PS1, Gamecube, PS2, ect. games and I get by just fine with SD graphics. In the end it is about having fun, not playing the best possible resolution. Honestly if I played a game like Terminator salvation (terrible game) at 1080p with 60 fps it wouldn't make the game any more enjoyable.Dr_Snood

But then you are arguing the quality of the games. Just like in movies you could say it doesn't matter if a particular movies in Blu-ray 1080P if the movie is crap, which I would agree. But if I could watch/play a movie/game in Blu-ray's 1080P resolution then why would choose the inferiour option?

Well I give you props for at least stating that you could build a $600 gaming PC and not the $2000 quote that some idiots state. :)

As a matter of fact the gaming rig I have in my sig (minus the XFX 6970) with a HD 4870 could play games in 1080P in DX9/10 with the exception of Crysis and Crysis Warhead and it cost me $640.

With respect to not everyone play games at 1080P with 60 FPS. You are correct. However, you don't need 60 FPS for a game to be playable. Halo Reach for example is at 30 FPS and that is VERY Playable. I for example, don't get 60 FPS in Crysis and Crysis Warhead but I get higher than 30 FPS easily and it is more than playable.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

I honestly don't care about resolution lol. I played at 800x600 for years and it didn't bother me one bit.

I care about how well I play, not about how good the game looks. I don't play games from 10-12 years ago because I'm a graphics whore lol.

Xtasy26

The same can be said about people who watch movies in DVD's as opposed to watching movies in Blu-ray's 1080P.

well....I guess. but that really doesn't relate becuase you can't be "so good" at watching movies lol. You don't get better performance out of a DVD for viewing a format with a lower resolution. but lowering the resolution on a game does give you benefits....which can make you a better player.

if you watch a DVD instead of a blu ray....you are at basically the same frame rate. at most off 5.

if you go from 1920x1080 to 800x600 your framerate will go through the roof. if it was at 30 @ 1080, you will at least double it and the quality of performance from 30 to 60 in a fast paced FPS game is huge. you will play much better.

exactly why are you bringing up intel GPUs? who mentioned those? lol? we've been talking CPUs.....

at least bring up nvidia GPU's or something.

lespaul1919

You mentioned how AMD's CPU's suck failing to mention how Intel's GPU's not only suck but they are downright HORRIBLE.

Whe you are comparing AMD's GPU's to Intel's GPU's Intel loses by 50-100 FPS in 1080P. LOL. That's FAR less than AMD's losing by 10-15 FPS.

It's pretty much overblown. There's a list of PC exclusive this year that supposedly have 100s of games yet it's already May and you haven't got **** yet except with a couple of games.

As far as graphics goes, it's also overblown. There's a significant difference in graphics but maybe in like 3 or 4 games. PC graphics right now should be amazingly realistic. But due to low support and piracy, PC gaming can't excel far enough.

$600 wouldn't be worth the effort.

for a new pc, you should at least get:

i5-2400k
4GB DDR3 (8 for me, video editing)
6950 1GB

then once you figure in mobo, PSU, etc you will be well over $600.

I will upgrade at some point (if no good PC games come out, I'll at least convert to sandy bridge for editing)

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

I honestly don't care about resolution lol. I played at 800x600 for years and it didn't bother me one bit.

I care about how well I play, not about how good the game looks. I don't play games from 10-12 years ago because I'm a graphics whore lol.

lespaul1919

The same can be said about people who watch movies in DVD's as opposed to watching movies in Blu-ray's 1080P.

well....I guess. but that really doesn't relate becuase you can't be "so good" at watching movies lol. You don't get better performance out of a DVD for viewing a format with a lower resolution. but lowering the resolution on a game does give you benefits....which can make you a better player.

if you watch a DVD instead of a blu ray....you are at basically the same frame rate. at most off 5.

if you go from 1920x1080 to 800x600 your framerate will go through the roof. if it was at 30 @ 1080, you will at least double it and the quality of performance from 30 to 60 in a fast paced FPS game is huge. you will play much better.

But the quality between Blu-ray 1080 and DVD is NIGHT and DAY. With respect "so good" at playing games with better framerates. That is easily rectified on the PC because you can not only get better framerates but you can get it maxed out in 1080P and get 60 FPS.

And Halo Reach is at 30 FPS, and people are still able to play it well.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

exactly why are you bringing up intel GPUs? who mentioned those? lol? we've been talking CPUs.....

at least bring up nvidia GPU's or something.

Xtasy26

You mentioned how AMD's CPU's suck failing to mention how Intel's GPU's not only suck but they are downright HORRIBLE.

Whe you are comparing AMD's GPU's to Intel's GPU's Intel loses by 50-100 FPS in 1080P. LOL. That's FAR less than AMD's losing by 10-15 FPS.

pretty sure intel doesn't really try to compete in the GPU market.(not high endgaming GPUs) thats like LOLing a kid in a wheelchair because he isn't in the NBA.

the point is, intel wins the CPU contest and has for years.

It's pretty much overblown. There's a list of PC exclusive this year that supposedly have 100s of games yet it's already May and you haven't got **** yet except with a couple of games.

As far as graphics goes, it's also overblown. There's a significant difference in graphics but maybe in like 3 or 4 games. PC graphics right now should be amazingly realistic. But due to low support and piracy, PC gaming can't excel far enough.

XenogearsMaster

What do call sub-HD/720 to PC's 1080P? Not a significant difference? LOL. Yeah it could be better but to say there's NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between sub-HD/720P vs PC's 1080P with all the bells and whistles cranked to the max, is pure ludicrous.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

exactly why are you bringing up intel GPUs? who mentioned those? lol? we've been talking CPUs.....

at least bring up nvidia GPU's or something.

lespaul1919

You mentioned how AMD's CPU's suck failing to mention how Intel's GPU's not only suck but they are downright HORRIBLE.

Whe you are comparing AMD's GPU's to Intel's GPU's Intel loses by 50-100 FPS in 1080P. LOL. That's FAR less than AMD's losing by 10-15 FPS.

pretty sure intel doesn't really try to compete in the GPU market.(not high endgaming GPUs) thats like LOLing a kid in a wheelchair because he isn't in the NBA.

the point is, intel wins the CPU contest and has for years.

And whose fault was that they can't compete on the GPU market? Have you heard of Intel's Larrabee?

The point is, AMD wins the GPU contest and has for years and that's ALL THAT matters when doing High Definition and graphically intensive applications.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

The same can be said about people who watch movies in DVD's as opposed to watching movies in Blu-ray's 1080P.

Xtasy26

well....I guess. but that really doesn't relate becuase you can't be "so good" at watching movies lol. You don't get better performance out of a DVD for viewing a format with a lower resolution. but lowering the resolution on a game does give you benefits....which can make you a better player.

if you watch a DVD instead of a blu ray....you are at basically the same frame rate. at most off 5.

if you go from 1920x1080 to 800x600 your framerate will go through the roof. if it was at 30 @ 1080, you will at least double it and the quality of performance from 30 to 60 in a fast paced FPS game is huge. you will play much better.

But the quality between Blu-ray 1080 and DVD is NIGHT and DAY. With respect "so good" at playing games with better framerates. That is easily rectified on the PC because you can not only get better framerates but you can get it maxed out in 1080P and get 60 FPS.

And Halo Reach is at 30 FPS, and people are still able to play it well.

I'd be better at 60 though.

my point is, if you CAN'T MAX AND GET 60. what if you max and get 20? would you still max? or would you down it to playable frames?

not everyone hasa PC that can max every game and get 100 fps. so in that case, performance > pretties. but hey, if my opponents want to play at 20 fps so it looks good, thats fine. I'm sure they'll enjoy the prettiness during the respawn screen.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

You mentioned how AMD's CPU's suck failing to mention how Intel's GPU's not only suck but they are downright HORRIBLE.

Whe you are comparing AMD's GPU's to Intel's GPU's Intel loses by 50-100 FPS in 1080P. LOL. That's FAR less than AMD's losing by 10-15 FPS.

Xtasy26

pretty sure intel doesn't really try to compete in the GPU market.(not high endgaming GPUs) thats like LOLing a kid in a wheelchair because he isn't in the NBA.

the point is, intel wins the CPU contest and has for years.

And whose fault was that they can't compete on the GPU market? Have you heard of Intel's Larrabee?

The point is, AMD wins the GPU contest and has for years and that's ALL THAT matters when doing High Definition and graphically intensive applications.

wont argue there, I've had a 4850 for years.........but intel processors.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

well....I guess. but that really doesn't relate becuase you can't be "so good" at watching movies lol. You don't get better performance out of a DVD for viewing a format with a lower resolution. but lowering the resolution on a game does give you benefits....which can make you a better player.

if you watch a DVD instead of a blu ray....you are at basically the same frame rate. at most off 5.

if you go from 1920x1080 to 800x600 your framerate will go through the roof. if it was at 30 @ 1080, you will at least double it and the quality of performance from 30 to 60 in a fast paced FPS game is huge. you will play much better.

lespaul1919

But the quality between Blu-ray 1080 and DVD is NIGHT and DAY. With respect "so good" at playing games with better framerates. That is easily rectified on the PC because you can not only get better framerates but you can get it maxed out in 1080P and get 60 FPS.

And Halo Reach is at 30 FPS, and people are still able to play it well.

I'd be better at 60 though.

my point is, if you CAN'T MAX AND GET 60. what if you max and get 20? would you still max? or would you down it to playable frames?

not everyone hasa PC that can max every game and get 100 fps. so in that case, performance > pretties. but hey, if my opponents want to play at 20 fps so it looks good, thats fine. I'm sure they'll enjoy the prettiness during the respawn screen.

OF course I won't max it if get 20 at 1080P. But the major hole in your argument is that on PC that can be easily be rectified by the fact that you can if you wanted to CAN game at 1080P and get 60 FPS.

Secondly, you don't necessarily need 60 FPS. If that was the case than how would explain Halo Reach because that is at 30 FPS?

dont ever assume someone can afford new parts.

oh I hate the low frames in halo. I wish it was 60. but, I don't have a choice and halo is my favorite game. trust me, if it was on PC I'd buy it in a second just to have high frames. I never play an online PC FPS below 60.

reach is the reason I have a 360 and a XIM3.

Obvious answer is max and get stable enough frames to play. Why would you need such good framerates? it's not like you'll notice the differenceOlimar_the_Min

there is a world of difference between 30 and 60. a world.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

[QUOTE="SamiRDuran"] but his phenom II doesn't get crushed by your 8400. yes intel has better processors but you dont own one.Xtasy26

all AMD's did when I got my 8400 lol. if I were to get one now it would be the i5 or i7 sandy bridge....not AMD.

Exactly why would you need i5 and i7 Sandy Bridge. I have a AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition and combine that with my AMD XFX HD 6970 I get SILKY SMOOTH framerates in ALL MY GAMES in FULL HD 1080P. Why would I waste my money on an i5 or i7 when I could save that money and buy me MORE games off of Steam deals? It doesn't make sense. Gaming wise AMD is best solution for price/performance. And it absolutely MURDERS Intel's GPU's.

There are great games on consoles, just as there are on the PC. Games like Uncharted 2, Alan Wake, and LA Noire are just a few console games that I loved.

That said, when I argue that the PC is superior as a gaming platform I am talking about the fact that all multiplatform games are clearly and demonstrably superior in terms of graphics and performance. I am also talking about things like mods, better online gaming, Steam, cheaper games, and more flexibility and options in general.

Oh, and anybody that says that the graphical difference between PC and consoles is not significant is talking out of their @ss. They either haven't played games on a decent PC or they are one of those casual players that have super low standards. Those are the kind of people that would probably be happy watching VHS movies on a standard def tv.

Obvious answer is max and get stable enough frames to play. Why would you need such good framerates? it's not like you'll notice the differenceOlimar_the_Min

Let me get this straight, the TC's title is already conceding the PC gaming IS superior WITHOUT question, and just merely asks to what degree this absolute superiority is perceived to be by its fans and/or haters? Genius... PC just won system wars forever.

eidt: lol, why do you use AMD? seriously? is it just blind patronage or what? AMD gets crushed in benchies. ewwwww. if I upgrade it will be sandy bridge

lespaul1919

[QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

I dwouldn't know, all I know is that certain users on this site are very cocky and condescending when it comes to PC gaming. NOT saying they all are; many are quite chill people actually. Just that some are.

turtlethetaffer

Likewise for certain PC gamers here.

I meant that some PC gamers on this site come off as elitist.

I don't understand this attitude. When PC gamers argue the superiority of their prefered platform they are labeled elitist, but apparently when console gamers say consoles are superior they aren't elitist.

People say things like "consoles are superior to PC for gaming" (a comment from this very thread) and people like you just overlook it. But when PC gamers actually put forth good arguments instead of a bare assertion like the one I just quoted you want to call them "elitist".

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

Likewise for certain PC gamers here.

kalipekona

I meant that some PC gamers on this site come off as elitist.

I don't understand this attitude. When PC gamers argue the superiority of their prefered platform they are labeled elitist, but apparently when console gamers say consoles are superior they aren't elitist.

People say things like "consoles are superior to PC for gaming" (a comment from this very thread) and people like you just overlook it. But when PC gamers actually put forth good arguments instead of a bare assertion like the one I just quoted you want to call them "elitist".

[QUOTE="SajuukSW"][QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

literally would never play any of those.

lespaul1919

quake
UT
warsow
cs
halo
BF
CoD (dispite my distaste for it....its popular eh)
gears
alan wake
GTA/RDR/LA Noire/anything rockstar
portal
crysis
resident evil
doom
condemned
riddick

Next game I get on PC will be BF3. That looks NICE. very NICE. but then, it's on consoles too......so doesn't pertain to this argument.

A fps-loving bro gamer doesn't like the PC? Oh no.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

I can play halo reach and gears of war 3 with a mouse and keyboard. :]

have fun trying to do that on PC.

also, $600 is a pretty standard upgrade. CPU, mobo, GPU, RAM. which my E8400/HD4850 have aged quite a bit.

so I can play any new FPS on 360 with mouse/keyboard by spending $150 rather than $600 (plus any future upgrades). plus on xbox the game will work and have a steady framerate. as a PC gamer, you should understand that framerate is directly tied to mouse sensitivity.

eidt: lol, why do you use AMD? seriously? is it just blind patronage or what? AMD gets crushed in benchies. ewwwww. if I upgrade it will be sandy bridge

lespaul1919

Have fun playing with 1280x720, 25-30fps, low-medium settings, small FOV, no dediceted server, and a k/m that is not configure properly(acceleration, aim assist etc).

this is where you need to read about XIM3. it takes care of all that. all those other things dont matter. I play online FPS games at low quality/no effects/low resolution to make sure my frames never even think about dipping under 100.

XIM3 will not configure properly the k/b because mouse acceleration, aim assist and all that are all build in the game code and the XIM3 cannot do anything about that. Why are you tell me that you play with everything on low to get 100fps? that this have to do with anything? and if you like to play with 100fps how then you play on consoles with 25-30fps:?

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="SamiRDuran"] Too bad the games you mentioned all play better on pc. Plenty of big budget exclusives for pc like Diablo 3, Guild wars 2, Arma 3, Star wars the old republic and Battlefield 3 is pc focused. On the other hand consoles have almost no exclusives these days only Gears of war 3 for the 360 and uncharted 3 for the ps3.Mograine

What? Multiplats playing better on PC is non negotiable.

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] "play better on the pc is YOUR opinion" Also consoles have no exclusives? Really? Ok forget i said anything then.dakan45

What? Multiplats playing better on PC is non negotiable.

Mograine is rightMultiplats on pc are better, and that is not an opinion but a FACT.

also what do you mean someone pointed gta 4? LOL do you realize that GTA4 on pc is much better than the console version?

GTA4 PC version (on my pc)
* Mods
* option to use k/b or 360-controller or whatever controller you like.
* Faster loading
* video editor
* online with 32 players
* Don't require to use the dvd in order to play the game just double-click
* much better graphics
* 1920x1200
* fps 50-70fps
* high textures rez
* large view distance
* more traffic(casr, pedestrians)
* much better shadows
* other effects on high etc.


GTA 4 console version
* no Mods
* slower loading
* online with 16 players
* require to use the dvd in order to play the game
* Looks unbelievable bleary...
* 1280x720 – 1152x640(ps3)
* low fps 20-25fps
* low textures rez
* low view distance
* low traffic(cars, pedestrians)
* poor shadows
* other effects on low etc.

and the other game that you point out are better on pc.

I don't really care when people say PC is superior. It bothers me when , in certain thread, a person will ask which console to get a game on and the PC gamer will automatically say "Get it for PC". If the person had a good enough gaming PC or wanted to game on their PC, don't you think they would have included it as one of their choices? But that's about all that bothers me. mrmusicman247

Most games are multiplats ie 3rd party games. Most people have a pc that witha little work can become a gaming pc. It makes most gamers open to get the pc version as a option. If you don't have the money then console is a great option but it is the 2nd best one.

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] "play better on the pc is YOUR opinion" Also consoles have no exclusives? Really? Ok forget i said anything then.dakan45

What? Multiplats playing better on PC is non negotiable.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

all AMD's did when I got my 8400 lol. if I were to get one now it would be the i5 or i7 sandy bridge....not AMD.

mitu123

Exactly why would you need i5 and i7 Sandy Bridge. I have a AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition and combine that with my AMD XFX HD 6970 I get SILKY SMOOTH framerates in ALL MY GAMES in FULL HD 1080P. Why would I waste my money on an i5 or i7 when I could save that money and buy me MORE games off of Steam deals? It doesn't make sense. Gaming wise AMD is best solution for price/performance. And it absolutely MURDERS Intel's GPU's.

Thank you Mitu! Someone who actually knows the truth! And I also have been an Intel user all my life only switched to AMD in 2008 because Intel's processors was WAY TOO expensive. I mean for crying out loud they are charging like $600 for some Core i7:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115066

I mean $600 for a CPU! :shock: Give me a break! I could buy a AMD HD 6970 + AMD Phenom II Quad Core for the same price. And it will absolutely DESTROY this Intel Core i7 + Intel HD 3000 GPU when running games like Crysis Warhead in 1080P.

And this not even the Extreme Edition Core i7 which costs $999, LOL:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115079

The COMEDY pricing of Intel's CPU's is too much! :lol:

For $999 I could buy me a HD 6990 + a high end AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition for the same price and I would be able to run Crysis Warhead at 2560x1600. LOL. Try running Crysis Warhead at 2560x1600 on an Intel Core i7 990X Extreme Edition with Intel HD graphics and see how it runs. :P

Guys I was just curious out there if any of you think that the "greatness" and "superiority" of PC gaming has been greatly inflated by its fanboys? I play both PC and console games and while I find games on both platforms to be fun, I just dont see this vast superiority that the hardcore PC gamers do. I know that my lack of having a true gaming rig has something to do with my opinion, but with games like ME2, BFBC2, Black Ops, MW 2, Crysis 2, DAO/DA2, Brink, FNV and others I simply dont see the advantage to playing them on PC over console. Your thoughts?

kungfuchaos

Wow - Kevin Van Ord saw the difference in DA:O on the PC, and scored it 9.5 over both consoles. Then he mentioned the graphics problems on the consoles.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

eidt: lol, why do you use AMD? seriously? is it just blind patronage or what? AMD gets crushed in benchies. ewwwww. if I upgrade it will be sandy bridge

mitu123

Simply for games amd has the better value and they don't change sockets like I change my underware. Sure intel is faster but they are not the best value. Now if price is not a object then intel is the way to go. However if you go amd the money you save could go to a ssd and better gpu. This would make your gaming system much more balanced and faster than just a fast cpu.

a sandy bridge that beats any AMD is around $200. come on, that's not a bad price at all.

XIM3 will not configure properly the k/b because mouse acceleration, aim assist and all that are all build in the game code and the XIM3 cannot do anything about that. Why are you tell me that you play with everything on low to get 100fps? that this have to do with anything? and if you like to play with 100fps how then you play on consoles with 25-30fps:?

MK-Professor

I say it again, you need to read about XIM3. It takes care of the acceration they add for analogs. The smart translators bring it to 1:1 movement. exactly like PC. the only limitations are set by the max turn speed for the game. If it has a really high one, then it works perfect.

aim assist....can't do anything about that.....but it only helps anyway lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxLPmrZbWjw thats 360 footage with XIM3. controls just as good as PC. silky smooth and ultra fast.