PS3/XBOX vs 6 year old gaming 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.

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

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

Brendissimo35

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

If so...

Cost and specs of setup please ?

Perhaps you in the pic ? :P

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

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.

blue_hazy_basic

The 360 didnt have anything at launch that PC's werent doing but a geforce 7900 or ATI X1900 cannot really produce some of X360's best graphical efforts later in it's life.

Even if it wasnt more powerful Xbox 360 was certainly a console with graphics as one of the priorities, PS3 on the other hand was a joke compared to the power of the 8800 and it still is.

You just skip a year ahead and 2006 high end PC's are actually still doing fairly well, it's just that the 8800 was such a revolution that the industry hasnt experienced such since then.

The xbox360 came out in november 05. This is before intel core 2 processors came out and before the geforce 8 series. The 360 has a tripple core cpu and the gpu was ahead of the gpu curve utilising some features of ATIs unreleased R600.

At launch the 360 was HOT S**T. All but the top end super expensive PCs could match it.

A year later, gaming pcs were wiping the floor with it. And were wiping the floor with the ps3 before it even came out.

I just have one question, why a 6 year old PC? That is like saying lets compare a six year old 360 with a six year old Playstation console (which would be the PS2). What is the point of the comparison since the next gen Playstation came out only 5 years ago, in the same way that the next generation of PC graphics card came out 5 years ago.

All the arguments assume that PC gamers would go out and buy new hardware at the end of the graphic card life cycle, instead of waiting a year for the next generation of cards simply because the 360 came out that year, which is a ridiculous suggestion. Might as well assume Playstation gamers would go out and buy another PS2 instead of waiting a year for the PS3 simply because the 360 came out that year. Each platform has its own life cycle and to make any form of comparison with restrictions based solely to favor a platform at the start of its life cycle is ridiculous.

PC's are well and good for those that can affored them but a console is way more value for money for example I can run Crysis Warhead on everything max, full HD 4xAA and yea it does look good but it doesnt make killzone 3 look like a last gen game or anything like that. And then factor in the price a PC that can run Crysis that those setting still costs twice as much as a PS3 at the least.

a computer from several years ago would have to have been even more expensive to run it at similar settings.

I agree that PC games look better but with developers making the PC ever more like consoles (no mods, drm) I think its getting less and less worth to spend 2 to 3 times as much on a PC just so the games looks a bit better.

Certainly thosewho claim that PCmakes consoleslook like last gen or that Crysis on max is nex gen don't know what their talking about I mean San AndreasPC on the highest settings will look nowhere near the same as GTA 4 PS3

PC's are well and good for those that can affored them but a console is way more value for money for example I can run Crysis Warhead on everything max, full HD 4xAA and yea it does look good but it doesnt make killzone 3 look like a last gen game or anything like that. And then factor in the price a PC that can run Crysis that those setting still costs twice as much as a PS3 at the least.

I agree that PC games look better but with developers making the PC ever more like consoles (no mods, drm) I think its getting less and less worth to spend 2 to 3 times as much on a PC just so the games looks a bit better.

Certainly thosewho claim that PCmakes consoleslook like last gen or that Crysis on max is nex gen don't know what their talking about I mean San AndreasPC on the highest settings will look nowhere near the same as GTA 4 PS3

OldSoldier123

-Really? Take away the blur and Killzone 3 is below average for PC games. Its quite ugly but has great textures. Too bad it isn't on PC because it'd look fantastic with just some high resolution textures and 1080p. Still a great game. And no, a $400 PC can max Crysis at least at 720p.

-Consoles are becomming more like PC, not the other way around. And LOL at you if you think its only a visual upgrade.

-Certified troll right there. Yet GTA4 PC looks MILES better than its console counterparts.

I just have one question, why a 6 year old PC? That is like saying lets compare a six year old 360 with a six year old Playstation console (which would be the PS2). What is the point of the comparison since the next gen Playstation came out only 5 years ago, in the same way that the next generation of PC graphics card came out 5 years ago.

All the arguments assume that PC gamers would go out and buy new hardware at the end of the graphic card life cycle, instead of waiting a year for the next generation of cards simply because the 360 came out that year, which is a ridiculous suggestion. Might as well assume Playstation gamers would go out and buy another PS2 instead of waiting a year for the PS3 simply because the 360 came out that year. Each platform has its own life cycle and to make any form of comparison with restrictions based solely to favor a platform at the start of its life cycle is ridiculous.

Philmon

he is saying 6 years old because the 360 came out in 2005. It should be 5 years and 4 months if you want to exact. The fair comparision would be a launch 360 vs a 5 year and 4 month old PC.

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] Include the person I quoted: "Thats what I was thinking.. Can we compare a 2005 $400 dollar pc to the 360? I really don't have a clue about pc costs."

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

blue_hazy_basic

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 actually curious as to how many people here actually buy one game every month. I personally don't. Now I would find it curious that hermits are complaining about dumbed down games if most of them are actually buying a new game every month.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="alfredooo"]

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.

alfredooo

I'm actually curious as to how many people here actually buy one game every month. I personally don't. Now I would find it curious that hermits are complaining about dumbed down games if most of them are actually buying a new game every month.

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] Well yes in that case a PC would be a bad investment if you're a very casual gamer. An outlay of that much money for 6 games a year would be silly.blue_hazy_basic

I'm actually curious as to how many people here actually buy one game every month. I personally don't. Now I would find it curious that hermits are complaining about dumbed down games if most of them are actually buying a new game every month.

if you are then lol that's impressive.

I myself don't buy that many games, I could never find the time to play that many. But then again I like to complete my games 100% and frequently replay them on higher difficulties. I can name quite a few games that I have a 100+ hours of playtime this gen 8). I don't buy a lot of games but I wouldn't exactly call myself a casual for that either.