PS3/XBOX vs 6 year old gaming PC?

I have 2005 graphics card playing medium on Crysis. So, PC>Consoles still.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"]I have 2005 graphics card playing medium on Crysis. So, PC>Consoles still.stiggy321

Pretty stupid to say PC, Consoles by far, even if you had a 8800GTX SLI from '06 it won't play Battlefield 3 similar to PS3 or 360. Though on the face of it PC are more powerfull in reality are like an American muscle car with a 5.0L engine but only 200BHP while a European hothatch with a 2.0L engine has a similar BHP output

Well, any decent pc from 2005 is today just a $60 gpu upgrade away from being up to par or even faster than consoles.

This is nothing more than a thread for consolites to desperately try to justify the 'value' of their console by comparing it to a 6 yr old PC.

It is true, for what you could pick up a 360 for in 2005 it would take a very expensive PC to run games that look like what was on the 360.

Now, for the one simple fact that kills the consolites argument that not a single person has mentioned yet.....

How many games in 2005 could the 360 play that looked that good?...That's right, there wasn't kaka available for the 360 in 2005 while there was a plethora of PC games that you could play.

I still can't figure out why people every now and then bring this argument back up.

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] Um ok, everything I said still stands ... except the saving would be about $150 for the PC as I don't need to include the monitor price ... :?

blue_hazy_basic

is it even a real point? the HDTV nonsense aside.... you are assuming you will be buying 12 games a year and have xbox live active every single day for six years. with those assumptions you are not saying pc is "cheaper", all you are saying is it WOULD be cheaper if you gamed under certain conditions.

since we are up to this, should i include $15 a month fee for six years to the pc's price for a WoW subscription?

I said NOT including the costs of the xbox or the tv (see again NOT and remember this is 2005 when most people didn't have HDTV's) I was comparing the cost of owning a PC vs a 360 for those 6 years. So while the initial cost is higher, the long term benefits balance that out. As for the assumptions, I would say MOST (see I said MOST) gamers on here that own a 360 have Live, and that MOST people would buy at least 1 game every 30 or days or so.

So for the person quoted I compared a reasonable cost of the 360 vs a PC.

EDIT glitchspot buried my post

You are still asumming stuff. Let's look at things the other way around, if only I buy 6 single player games a year and don't pay live then those $1000 you claim are added to console costs become $360. You are pretty much assuming people will game a certain way to justify PC being cheaper.

Again, I could also assume stuff and just add $15 a month for 6 years because I assume PC gamers will play WoW. You are doing the same thing.

I'm going to go with consoles on this one.

I'd take a PS3 or a 360 over a gaming PC of today. Definitely take one over a gaming PC back in 2005.

Pretty stupid to say PC, Consoles by far, even if you had a 8800GTX SLI from '06 it won't play Battlefield 3 similar to PS3 or 360. Though on the face of it PC are more powerfull in reality are like an American muscle car with a 5.0L engine but only 200BHP while a European hothatch with a 2.0L engine has a similar BHP output

OldSoldier123

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

So what is better; powerful 6 year old PC or PS3/Xbox?

SAGE_OF_FIRE

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

In 5fps

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="killzoneded"]

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

killzoneded

In 5fps

Our PC from 2005 with a 256mb 8800gt (The really *****y one) at 20FPS. The computer is a PoS but its better than consoles.

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="killzoneded"]

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

killzoneded

In 5fps

You can buy a 8800 GT on ebay for $30.

Strictly visual wise the 360 could out perform a powerful 2005 PC, not by much, but a little bit. It's called optimization.

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

So what is better; powerful 6 year old PC or PS3/Xbox?

killzoneded

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

you again...

you need to accept the truth, that a pc from 2006 can play every multiplat better than consoles.

Pretty stupid to say PC, Consoles by far, even if you had a 8800GTX SLI from '06 it won't play Battlefield 3 similar to PS3 or 360. Though on the face of it PC are more powerfull in reality are like an American muscle car with a 5.0L engine but only 200BHP while a European hothatch with a 2.0L engine has a similar BHP output

OldSoldier123

You are joking right? do you realize that one 8800GTX play every multiplat better than consoles.(and what i mean better is higher rez, fps, settings etc)

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

So what is better; powerful 6 year old PC or PS3/Xbox?

MK-Professor

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

you again...

you need to accept the truth, that a pc from 2006 can play every multiplat better than consoles.

Is there any proof that a 3 yo PC would run Crysis 2 like xbox 360 ?

I have not seen any

I'd say that the number of gamers with a PC in Nov. 2005 that could out perform the 360's capabilities was minuscule. :P

SecretPolice

Mine could... and I got it in august of 2004.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

killzoneded

you again...

you need to accept the truth, that a pc from 2006 can play every multiplat better than consoles.

Is there any proof that a 3 yo PC would run Crysis 2 like xbox 360 ?

I have not seen any

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

killzoneded

you again...

you need to accept the truth, that a pc from 2006 can play every multiplat better than consoles.

Is there any proof that a 3 yo PC would run Crysis 2 like xbox 360 ?

I have not seen any

4 post above yours is this graph

and as you can see a 8800GT (that is a card that is slower than the 8800GTX from 2006) and play crysis 2 with much higher resolution and settings than xbox.....

Is there any proof that a 3 yo PC would run Crysis 2 like xbox 360 ?

killzoneded

A three years old GPU would outpower the whole Xbox 360 to such an extent it's not even funny. As others have stated, you can run Crysis 2 at a higher framerate and at higher settings with a soon-to-be five years old 8800 series GPU (let's not forget that the 8800GTX launched in 2006).

I have a GTX 280 myself (three years old) and I run said game at the Extreme graphics preset at a locked 30 FPS (it obviously won't reach 60, hence the cap, and 30 is certainly good enough since I play with a pad most of the time) at 1920*1080 and 1920*1200 respectively (TV and PC monitor). Since I don't have Fraps atm, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it.

EDIT: Regarding the benchmarks above, keep in mind that the Advanced preset they used is higher than that of the consoles as well. Consoles supposedly use 'High' settings, whereas Advanced is the Very High equivalent.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

killzoneded

you again...

you need to accept the truth, that a pc from 2006 can play every multiplat better than consoles.

Is there any proof that a 3 yo PC would run Crysis 2 like xbox 360 ?

I have not seen any

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axZ7lA5GR4A

Strictly visual wise the 360 could out perform a powerful 2005 PC, not by much, but a little bit. It's called optimization.

Giant_Panda

Exactly, keyword:optimzation. That I have to go with, Viva pinata was a purrty game. However back at 05 there was Battlefield with 64 player action with decent graphics! Dont forget hl2 was already around a year prior.

Consoles. It would take more powerful PC hardware to run games at comparable visual quality to consoles. You must take into account the overhead that developers are faced with on PC and the fact that PC hardware of today may have 10-30x the throughput of consoles, they certainly don't have games that look 10-30x better. Perhaps more along the lines of 2-4x the resolution, AF, and anti-aliasing with no new geometry or shaders. Vadamee

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

killzoneded

you again...

you need to accept the truth, that a pc from 2006 can play every multiplat better than consoles.

Is there any proof that a 3 yo PC would run Crysis 2 like xbox 360 ?

I have not seen any

A HD 4870 from 3 years ago says Hi!

So what is better; powerful 6 year old PC or PS3/Xbox?

charlesdarwin55

Hell, Ill choose my 360S over the PC I have now as a gaming machine.

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

No a better comparison is:

6-7 year old console vs 6-7 year old PC both costing $500.

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

EdenProxy

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

So what is better; powerful 6 year old PC or PS3/Xbox?

My 2 years old laptop does not even start Crysis 2 and my 1 year old PC (700$)runs it in 5-25fps

So, xbox 360 beats anything less than a super PC today

As for a 6 yo PC, i doubt it can even install Crysis 2, as for running it ....

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

EdenProxy

My Q2 2009 built Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop with AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4650 512MB GDDR3 runs consoles ports just fine.

My old Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz + AMD Radeon HD 3870 is more than 2 years old.

[QUOTE="EdenProxy"]

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

DragonfireXZ95

There is no 3 year old pc that can handle modern (crysis 2 , bulletstorm) games well

[QUOTE="EdenProxy"]

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

ronvalencia

My Q2 2009 built Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop with AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4650 512MB GDDR3 runs consoles ports just fine.

My old Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz + AMD Radeon HD 3870 is more than 2 years old.

Just think about it. Go back 7 years and build me a $500 dollar PC or laptop that can play Crysis 2 on MEDIUM minimum settings. Its just not going to happen.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="EdenProxy"]

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

EdenProxy

There is no 3 year old pc that can handle modern (crysis 2 , bulletstorm) games well

NVIDIA Geforce 8800 family says Hi e.g. Crysis 2 with Advanced settings.

-----------

Q3 2007 Radeon HD 3870(320 SP, 16 ROPs) is actually faster than Radeon HD 4670 (320 SP, 8 ROPs).

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="EdenProxy"]

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

EdenProxy

My Q2 2009 built Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop with AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4650 512MB GDDR3 runs consoles ports just fine.

My old Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz + AMD Radeon HD 3870 is more than 2 years old.

AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4650, 1024 МB DDR3 and Dead Space 2 PC at max settings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM90pUxy4xI

Due to console centric optimizations, Dead Space 2 PC is not a heavy game.

NVIDIA Geforce 8600M(Mobile) GT and Bulletstorm at max settingshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeoZ5uRhWjg

Most direct console ports plays well on Y2008-Y2009 medium range mobile GPUs. I bet most "multi-media" laptop PC owners likes console centric optimizations.

Dargon Age 2** + AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4650 + 1024 МB DDR3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lAiqmF5B-E

**AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4650 DX10.1 running Dargon Age 2 in DX11 runtime mode.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="EdenProxy"]

ps3 and 360. If you want to play the newest games you need a either a console, a 2 year old pc or a brand new performance laptop.

EdenProxy

There is no 3 year old pc that can handle modern (crysis 2 , bulletstorm) games well

They've already proved you wrong. Here, I'll put it in this post again, in case you missed it last time(or the 5 other times).

And look, here's another one. The 4890 runs at 31 fps even on Extreme quality.

So again I ask, proof?

The 2005 gaming PC would likely be running on a higher resolution, antialiasing and other image quality settings, which would negatively affect its performance in relation to a console. It would also be more considerably expensive as that hardware has not been produced for a very, very long time.

Just think about it. Go back 7 years and build me a $500 dollar PC or laptop that can play Crysis 2 on MEDIUM minimum settings. Its just not going to happen.

SRTtoZ

There is no 3 year old pc that can handle modern (crysis 2 , bulletstorm) games well

EdenProxy

Where do people get these ideas? An outright lie. As I said earlier, the GTX 280 has little to no problems maxing out Crysis 2 at the Extreme preset (i.e. highest settings available today) at resolutions way higher than that of consoles, all the while maintaining smoother framerates.

As for Bulletstorm, that game is even easier on the GPU (and don't get me started on Dead Space 2). At 1920x1080 and the highest settings (add to that a fair amount of AA) the framerate never went below 40 during my entire playthrough.

People need to realize that this whole 'consolization' results in very low system requirements for mult-platform games. If you run games at the settings equivalent to that of the consoles, even the very low-end GPUs of today (and, dare I say, a few years back?) will perform significantly better than either console.

1280x720 was by many considered low-end even before the Xbox 360 launched. I think it's safe to say that six years later, it's not something that will bring very many PCs to their knees.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic. While a PC the age of the consoles probably won't handle Crysis 2 as good as the latter (unless, as stated earlier, you would count the 8800GTX, launching around the same time as the PS3), it's just ridiculous to argue whether or not three year old hardware will.

[QUOTE="UC3Drake"]

2011 - 6 = 2005

You could still own a computer with an amazing graphics card. So PC.

markinthedark

7800 GTX was the best card on the market in 2005, and it was incredibly expensive.... and i would imagine it falls below the minimum requirements for alot of recent games.

PS3/X360 were very expensive back then aswell... I remember how perfect dark, one of the first game on X360, looks awefull today.

I enjoy it when console gamers wanna compare what you can get out of PC at the same price of a console. As if consoles somehow are able to do the same things PC can. lmao

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

is it even a real point? the HDTV nonsense aside.... you are assuming you will be buying 12 games a year and have xbox live active every single day for six years. with those assumptions you are not saying pc is "cheaper", all you are saying is it WOULD be cheaper if you gamed under certain conditions.

since we are up to this, should i include $15 a month fee for six years to the pc's price for a WoW subscription?

I said NOT including the costs of the xbox or the tv (see again NOT and remember this is 2005 when most people didn't have HDTV's) I was comparing the cost of owning a PC vs a 360 for those 6 years. So while the initial cost is higher, the long term benefits balance that out. As for the assumptions, I would say MOST (see I said MOST) gamers on here that own a 360 have Live, and that MOST people would buy at least 1 game every 30 or days or so.

So for the person quoted I compared a reasonable cost of the 360 vs a PC.

EDIT glitchspot buried my post

You are still asumming stuff. Let's look at things the other way around, if only I buy 6 single player games a year and don't pay live then those $1000 you claim are added to console costs become $360. You are pretty much assuming people will game a certain way to justify PC being cheaper.

Again, I could also assume stuff and just add $15 a month for 6 years because I assume PC gamers will play WoW. You are doing the same thing.

The reason consoles are usually better than any of the other hardware out is because companies are paid obscene amounts of money to develop cutting edge hardware exclusively for those systems and keep the technology under the hat.

The reason consoles are usually better than any of the other hardware out is because companies are paid obscene amounts of money to develop cutting edge hardware exclusively for those systems and keep the technology under the hat.

-Unreal-

I don't think I can agree with that. Sure, there is the case of Cell. But PS3 and 360 simply tapped their GPUs from what ATI and Nvidia already had in development for PC.

Xbox 360 is more powerful or atleast better for gaming than the high end PC's of 2005, only biased gamers deny that. Even if it isnt more powerful, games are optimized on it better as a DX9 card certainly doesnt give you the same performance as the consoles. Games are simply not optimized anymore for the geforce 7 series and ATI X1900 cards so even if theoratically they are the same as consoles, you wont get the same performance in todays games.

PS3 on the other hand is no comparasion to the high end PC of it's time. An 8800GTX/GTS definitely runs crysis 2 much better than either console.

A fast dual core struggles in a few games now but then again there are many games that consoles dont run smooth either so you dont really need a quad core to match consoles but if you have one then consoles are left way behind in the dust.

So dual core + 8800 = Better than consoles in the majority of games.

Tri or quad core + 8800 = Better than consoles every single time.