So... Playstation 4 has better GRAPHIC than PC games..

Just checked Newegg (God I hate that site)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116896

i5 4570 for $200

or for $40 more

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899

i5 4670K

For that extra $40 you get a higher clock speed as well as a higher boast clock

yes, but that does not mean just because you can't/wont pay $200+ for a CPU that you shouldn't build a gaming PC. There are other CPUs that will serve the purpose.

Yep if your on a budget the AMD FX6300 isnt a bad option and with the mutilthreaded nature of games anymore it can perform well.

In BF4 MP with a Titan on both cpu's in tests show the FX 6300 is on average is 7 fps slower then a i5 4670k both stock vs stock). Both cpu's perform close and both keep 66+ minimum fps.

Well, we're back to the whole upgrading thing. Do you cheap out and get the lesser CPU knowing you'll have to upgrade in a few years. We all know that will happen given the fact that the consoles have 8 core processors in them now. Or do you save a bit more and get a good CPU that will last you.

It really wont be that much of a difference unless we're talking a really cheapo CPU like a dualcore. Intel has quad cores under 200, and AMD has their Quad/Hexa/Octa cores under 200

Problem buying the "better cpu's" with the multithreaded nature of modern direct x 11 games is not clear cut anymore, those weaker clock per clock cpu's ie AMD 6 or 8 cored perform as well or better then those intel quads for more money. In BF4 for example an AMD FX6300 cpu thats $120 performs nearly as well as those ~$240 intel cpu's. The fact that these consoles are 8 cored only has the affect of games having true multithreaded support, those console cpu's are really weak.... clock per clock they are still slower then desktop cpu's from 2006. also should note that these consoles only have six of the eight available to use for gaming.

*edit*

just to put it in perspective AMD's jaguar architecture is on average only 15% faster clock per clock then AMD's Bobcat series which are slower then AMD's Athlon X2's even at same clockrates.

In cinebench 11.5 Athlon X2 5200 at 1.6 ghz was 27% faster then AMD bobcat at 1.6. So AMD jag at best would be on par, but most likely 10% slower. So a 6 core jag at 1.6ghz would still be slower then a sub 3 ghz Phenom 2 X4.

yea...no reason to enjoy coming to a video game website for anything other than trash talking someone else right?

Dat single pool of GDDR5 sure does help.

I gaurantee multiplats look/run better on PC.

Stopped reading there. You're a moron. Stop trolling.

Can the PS4 do that?

Didn't think so.

+1

In other words your making sh** up again..lol

You need windows moron almost all games 99.9999999999999999999% are windows based not Linux,so you need Windows,a$400 dollar PC has nothing on the PS4,and last time you posted a link it got destroyed...lol

No windows.

No mouse or keyboard.

No Blu-ray Drive.

Hermits are such a joke,alto i don't think your one you are basically a troll.

Who the hell needs Blu ray in this day and age when you can even install windows from a USB and you can buy every game on DD sites ? ( at worst case you need a $10 dvd drive )

Even if the vast majority of games is on Windows SteamOS still has more games that what PS4 and X1 have

Having said that a $400 pc is not the way to go but unlike what some consolites think you dont need a $1000 pc to beat consoles. A $600-650 pc will handily beat consoles ( something in the lines of fx6300 paired with an r270 ) and you dont have to pay to play onlne and have cheaper games ( plus all the other shit a pc can do consoles cant )

Funny that people are always posting these Killzone pics that makes it look so good but its not so pretty in person, a ton of blurry textures up close and even some jaggies. I was only impressed by the graphics for the first 5 minutes until I started to notice everything.

Any one who want to watch blu-ray movies,just because PC is behind when it comes to mediums doesn't mean consoles have to be,when you were using games on floppy consoles already had CD's,when PC where using CD's the consoles were already in DVD on consoles,and when PC was using DVD the PS3 was already using blu-ray.

Is good that you bring steam OS is just new and hasn't even release,the one use now runs ON WINDOWS.

WTF a PC needs windows you idiot and unless you buy an already build PC that comes with windows you will have to pay for it,god i hope you are not implying that you don't need to pay for OS because you can pirate it,because that would really spice up your argument and will really give a new meaning to your stupidity.

The PS4 hardware comes with software that makes it work out of the box,the PC your building doesn't i don't know how fu**ing new you are to PC but without an OS they are useless.

You need an OS period and the GPU you pick is weaker than the PS4.

I'm looking for this magical PS4 that runs BF4 at max settings at 1080p at a solid 60fps. I can't seem to find one. Maybe he has the one that's had the magic pixie dust sprinkled on it.

Anyway I like how consolites like to mark up the price of PC. You need a monitor (who doesn't have one these days), you need a mouse and keyboard (again who doesn't have one). You need and OS (no you just need a product key but ok sure). If you are going to do that then lets be fair. You are not paying $400 to play BF4 on console. That is a lie. Flat out incorrect statement. The FACT is you are paying $450 this year to play. By next year that cost is $500. Then $550. Then $600. But lets say you plan on playing BF4 till BF5 comes out. That's two years. So it's really $500 minimum to play BF4 not including the price of the actual game. If you are demanding that a monitor and keyboard be included in cost then you HAVE to include the cost of PSN and stop lying to yourself that you only pay $400 to play BF4. So I'm no longer doing $400 dollar PCs. I'm dong $500 PCs. Hell let's include a TV as well for console. Y'all play on teh 60" plasma that you like to brag about right? Surely for you console set up you need a TV. You also need a second controller right? I mean you aren't hermits right? Yeah add $60 more bucks to that. If we want to mark up PC cost lets start marking up console costs.

So where are we at now. $400 for console. $100 for PSN for two years. 200-2000 for TV. $60 for second controller minimum. So we are at $760 MINIMUM for a true console set up over the next two years. Each year after that add $50 to the price. Lets say this generation lasts 5 years that is $910 for that console set up over the life of that consoles generation. Now take that same $910 you will spend and spend it on a PC set up and you will be running laps backwards around "next-gen" consoles. So can we cut the bullshit about this build a "$400" PC to match the PS4 inf BF4. First show me a PS4 that costs $400 to play BF4 on.

Hermits have been making this same argument for how long now? A tv's main objective isnt to play games. Its purpose is to watch tv. MORE homes have a tv then a console. This argument is just plain stupid. You dont count the tv bro.lol

Now this is how you damage control...

Go to walmart buy a damn $400 PC and tell me that you can run BF4 on it,most PC sold out there are already build cheap ones are the ones that sold the most period it has been like this for endless year,and they come with all windows,keyboard and mouse,so you wanting to compare the damn price of just a GPU to try to claim PC gaming is cheaper is a joke.

A stand alone GPU does sh** without a PC and most people buy a PC complete not by part,in fact the whole part thing on PC exist because PC need constant repairing as well,and since they were so expensive on the early days,it was better to buy a floppy drive to replace it than to buy a new PC for a damn floppy drive.

You can build your own PC most people don't and my first PC wasn't build and cost me $800 alone no monitor no GPU an HP back on the 90's,my first GPU like $180 an Ati Rage,i am not new to the world of PC and building one,i could save the OS sure,fact is you are not even allow to install windows on a second PC if you don't have an additional license yeah that is call piracy,you may as well walk out of the store and not pay for it.

I would not add the price of a monitor to a PC in fact i have mine hooked to my 42 inch TV,and i browse the internet from my couch.

But if you are going to add every stupid thing for consoles should i bring the money i save by having a console that use way less electricity than my PC.?

Because a year alone on a titan would more than make for PSN+ i am sure.

Steam OS was released as a beta

What watching blu-ray movies has anything to do with games and why should anyone need to put a blu-ray player on his pc when gaming is his/her priority in this day and age when not a single game is released on blu-ray on pc ( what an idiotic argument you made here ) ? You know there are other alternatives to watch movies like oh i dont know netflix etc ?

Also what PS4 has now ? A subpar AAA game called KZ a flopped called knack and a few good multiplatform and indie games

SteamOS ? MetroLL, Left4dead games, Dota2,Amnesia,TF2, Europa Universallis IV, killiing floor , Serious Sam 3, Xcom enemy unknown,crusader kings II, Wargame european escalation, and lots of indie games . Games that are AA+ . Way more than what Ps4 has

and yet you count the monitor when every house has a computer ? Heck even if you dont have a monitor what exactly stops you connecting your pc to Tv ? The idiotic argument that you have to count a monitor or a tv in the cost goes both ways

Consolites at their finest.

LMAO. Pure ignorance over there.

A PC with Titan in idle consumes only 136W. In comparison, PS4 in idle consumes 90W. The difference is minimal if we take into account power saving mods of PC that bring power consumption to pretty low levels of some 30W.

Power consumption is boosted but dring gaming. But how much do you game ? Three hours a day ? It's hardly will increase costs of your electric bills. LOL

And when you compare PSN+ with paying electric bills for PC, don't you have to pay electric bills if you own a console ? Or consolites are exempt of that charge ?

Lol. Classic Tormentos. Always twisting the reality.

Let alone 7850 gpu is one of the best overclockers easily hitting 1150-1200mhz without vcore increase putting 7850 almost on par with a 7870 though i much rather spend an extra $15-20 and get the 2gb version since you will run out of vram with just 1gb on some games like Crysis 3,tomb raider and skyrim with mods

So,do you include the TV to your PS4?

That adds an extra 1000$

....jesus people. I am amazed so many would take a thread called with "better graphic" in the title so seriously. OP sounds like a fucking five year old. Just ignore it.

Your elitist snob stance disgusts me. Yes we all know you got a 240$ CPU and 600$ GPU gosh darn it.

Many people enjoy pc gaming for many more reasons than just the graphics.

Mods, old games in the infinite library Windows has (i still play Seven Kingdoms AA and AOE 1), emulators, flash games so on and so forth.

Not to mention that at the end of the day what you get is still a freakin PERSONAL COMPUTER with all that entails for work/study and entertainment purposes.

Some people don't have the money to match your shiny build clyde, especially in this sad state of economy, you don't have to be an arse about it.

If one is able to match ps4 performance with same or little more cost with all the added benefits of it being a PC, you should be happy.

Exactly. Besides even with a rather modest budget of $650 nowdays is doable to build something that will run almost any game maxed or close to max settings and be substantially better than consoles and going over the $650-800 price range ( which imo is the sweet range for a great gaming pc ) there are diminishing returns when comes to the graphics you get out of pc. The extra $150 between a $500 pc and a $650pc go a long way compared to say the extra $200 from an $800 pc to a $1000 pc but sure if you have the money for that extra stuff still is great

At the bare minum it is $500 to play BF4 on PS4. Minimum. Not including cost of the actual game (which you can get for free btw with certain video cards) it is $500. You cannot spin this. This is a fact. You are not buying BF4 to play the single player. You are buying it to play online and that means PSN+. You also have have to pay for electricity as well as pay for multiplayer, so your point is moot. The fact is for what you really pay to play BF4 on PS4 you can take that money and get a better experience on PC. The cost is about the same no matter how you want to spin it. Gaming is an expensive hobby whether you game on PC or console. The question is what do you prefer. The superior hardware of PC or easy accessibility of console. Or both if you are like me. Either way you will spend money so give it rest you are not getting some type of uber deal by getting a console.

@walloftruth said:

@Pray_to_me said:

Who cares what the polls say? You know that half of Eastern Europe is gonna come in and vote PC anyway LOL But the sad truth is that for all that power they're still stuck playing half baked last gen 360 ports like Crysis 3 LMFAO!

Sorry to bust your butthurt Hermits but just because Crytek's horribly coded grass physics makes your CPU choke doesn't mean that the game is technically impressive. Here have a cry:

Wow, you're bragging about that? Really? I think the first Xbox had better graphics than that.

And lmao, dat Xbox 360 port still looks better than Clownzone.

lol thats cute that you used a bull shot try in game

@Pray_to_me said:

@walloftruth said:

@Pray_to_me said:

Who cares what the polls say? You know that half of Eastern Europe is gonna come in and vote PC anyway LOL But the sad truth is that for all that power they're still stuck playing half baked last gen 360 ports like Crysis 3 LMFAO!

Sorry to bust your butthurt Hermits but just because Crytek's horribly coded grass physics makes your CPU choke doesn't mean that the game is technically impressive. Here have a cry:

Wow, you're bragging about that? Really? I think the first Xbox had better graphics than that.

And lmao, dat Xbox 360 port still looks better than Clownzone.

lol thats cute that you used a bull shot try in game

That's actually in game with the words Crysis 3 superimposed on it, you dumb ****. Crytek unlike Sony's First party don't do bullshots. And by doing that thanks for telling us that Crysis 3 shits all over PS4/Crapzone. Refer g-puking's killzowned Crysis 3 thread for many screenshots of the same scene posted by people from their very own rig.

And just to rub more salt on your wounds, Ryse towers all your precious Shadow Fail.

@zeeshanhaider said:

@Pray_to_me said:

@walloftruth said:

@Pray_to_me said:

Who cares what the polls say? You know that half of Eastern Europe is gonna come in and vote PC anyway LOL But the sad truth is that for all that power they're still stuck playing half baked last gen 360 ports like Crysis 3 LMFAO!

Sorry to bust your butthurt Hermits but just because Crytek's horribly coded grass physics makes your CPU choke doesn't mean that the game is technically impressive. Here have a cry:

Wow, you're bragging about that? Really? I think the first Xbox had better graphics than that.

And lmao, dat Xbox 360 port still looks better than Clownzone.

lol thats cute that you used a bull shot try in game

That's actually in game with the words Crysis 3 superimposed on it, you dumb ****. Crytek unlike Sony's First party don't do bullshots. And by doing that thanks for telling us that Crysis 3 shits all over PS4/Crapzone. Refer g-puking's killzowned Crysis 3 thread for many screenshots of the same scene posted by people from their very own rig.

And just to rub more salt on your wounds, Ryse towers all your precious Shadow Fail.

Wow pray to me needs to get out of denial already, cant tell real in game graphics vs bullshots.....

That last shot looked too realistic, like it came straight out of a movie or something.

@Pray_to_me said:

Read http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/2013/10/interview-the-driving-force/ on PC vs consoles.

AMD INTERVIEW: “THE PC WILL ALWAYS BE OUT IN FRONT”

I think it depends on the games you looked at. It was still very early with the tools and environment for a lot of those games. I think if you looked at the lectures given by Mark Cerny, a lot of the things that Microsoft and Sony are doing to customise the performance out of these machines, I think you’re going to see some fantastic looking games. At the same time, the PC has always been on the front. With the increase in performance over the last couple of years, we’re literally at a breakneck pace, delivering more and more graphics performance for PC game devs. I think that’s going to continue to be the case. The PC will always be out in front, because the cost of the part, and the type of the part we supply, are much more expensive, bigger and hotter than anything you’re going to see in a console. Games are going to look great on both sides, but if you look at pure visual fidelity, the PC is able to display on multiple screens, driving a tremendous number of pixels on the PC, compared to the consoles which use a single 720p/1080p screen. - Neal Robison, Senior Director of Global Software Alliances at AMD

PC gaming is not expensive if one links their PC expenses with their income tax, income producing projects and alt-coin mining (at this time, optimal only on AMD GCN). A gaming PC is also a business PC i.e. it runs the same business PC apps.

PC has a better potential for ROI (return on investments) when compared to consoles.

Needs more images.

yes..because US consolites are continuously worrying with building a PC that can match our consoles. YES because US consolites are continuously trying to talk others into our platform..YES because we consolites are so insecure that we have to build $$$1000++ rigs to come to a game forum and brag about when instead we should be playing games..get bent kid.

Actually it seems most "consolites" do those things or something equivalent.

Blablabla...

My PS4 is better than your 400$ PC !! ..

My PC costs 800$ though and kick PS4 ass !!! You have 6-7 years to go in order to surpass it consolite!! Wait some years for PS5

Odd..thats how consolites feel towards hermits..humm...then maybe if we all shut the f&*k up and get off these godforsaken forums it will all end,we will go back to playing games,and quit bi&* and comparing d&*k sizes..

1. ****
2. Bitching
3. Dick

Bro, don't be afraid to swear, yo.

There was a thread comparing dick sizes? glad I missed that

**** Yeah!

Are you sure both max graphics are on the same level?

Also it's no secret that devs optimize games better for consoles

Crysis 3

Killzone 4

I see bad textures and shadowing on Killzone

BF4 does not run max setttings at 1080p at 60fps on PS4. he is just talking out his ass. The reality is it's 900p. high - very high. at 50ish fps on average with dips to the 40s at time and ony at 60 when nothing is going on.