I couldn't careless about a multi-billion dollar company cause we all know billgates needs more money to roll around in.DJ_HeadshotIf you don't want to support Microsoft, then why not just use Linux instead? The fact of the matter is: you're not required to support MS, but if you choose not to, then you're not entitled to the benefits that would have come with doing so, namely the license to use Windows.
Why do people say PC gaming is more expensive?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] in 2008 when i bought the rig in my sig, the ps3 cost $600. i paid $400 for my pc, it easily outperforms any of the consoles and i have yet to upgrade it.ferret-gamer
Im pretty new to these forums how do i view it? Considering you dont even own a console I doubt that to be the case.
here are the specs if you cant read my sig for some reason. CPU: Core 2 Duo e4600 @ 3.16ghz RAM:4GB OCZ Fatal1ty DDR2-800 RAM @5-4-4-15 Graphics card: Gigabyte Radeon 3870 Case: Antec Performance one P160WThat is not going to consistnely outperform consoles , It may on some titles but not on all of them .
Im not being ignorant im just stating the facts. $400 doolars for a pc is not going to get you something that consistantly outpeforms a console. You can name crap like fC2 that was ported across platform but I can name a list of others that will outperofrm anything on a 400$ pc.The Motherboard, GPU , CPU and memory make up the bulk of the price anyways. Hell i even had to replace my case because my old one didnt have enough ventilation for my new setup it was also slightly to small for my GTx285.
PS. Do you honeslty think you can just make a 200$ upgarde to your current pc and then it will outperfom the PS4 and next xbox console are you really arguing that? Console hardware is sold at a loss. It cost sony around $850 to manufacture each ps3 at launch while pc manufactures sell everything for a small profit , its the reason why you get alot more bang for your buck with consoles and then theres the issues of game trade-ins and buying used games which is also a benefit to consoels.
TheSterls
those arent facts those are false assumptions.
a $400 pc would consist of
a dual core 2.8ghz
a 760g mobo
2gb ddr2 800
hd4670
HEC 585w and case
320gb hdd
windows 7 64bit
essentially what i used to have before i upgraded. and yes it will outperform the consoles. not by a whole lot. but still it does better. $450 even more so $500 even more $550 kills it $600 destroys.
O, so the might 360 cant play a 2004 based engine above medium settings?[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
LMAO PREY was a horrible console port. It used one of the 360s 3 cores it was being devloped before multiplat games even used muti core processing my pont still stands. Other then first gen 360 titles they will all pretty much outperform a 7800gtx .
TheSterls
You really need to read up on the development of the game. It used one of the 360's 3 cores so the game was as gimped as a port can get. It was also outscourced to a outside dev so the 360 and pc versions were devleoped seperatley. Prey at its highest settings on any pc looks average by todays visual standards on consoles. I dont think you could logically argue that. Gears of War came out shortly after and blew it outof the water and it also didnt look as good on a 7800gtx as it did the 360 so I pretty much prove my point there.
Cpu Cores have nothing to do with the graphics, yourarguing that the 360 is better then a Geforce 6600 graphically, All you need to see is in front of your eyes or any other true comparsion. Heck even if the game was a poor portit has nothing to do with texture details and resolutions. The Console GPU's are 2004 based gpus and are limited. Even with CoD 4 which was a console focused gamelooked alot better on a Pc with a7600gt then the 360 or PS3 version and could run it on higher settings and resolutions.
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"] a year ago it was possible for $320 just need to pirate the os. But Prices specifically ram have gone up so you can't build one quite so cheap nowadays without resuing parts.. but certainly no where near the $2000+ people say u need to get a decent gaming pc. and why does it need to include a monitor do you count the cost of the HDTV when buying a console?
heres a pick of that pc build i'll try to build one now see how cheap i can get within what i consider acceptable standards.
GTR2addict
LMAO "pirate the OS" yea im sure that helps make it cheaper hell its alot cheaper if we just pirate all the games to. :roll:
:lol: how predictable, always turning everything into a piracy blaming fest, bravo.DUde whenever you talk about pirating an OS that is simply not a logical debate in pricing a Pc vs a console .
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Im not being ignorant im just stating the facts. $400 doolars for a pc is not going to get you something that consistantly outpeforms a console. You can name crap like fC2 that was ported across platform but I can name a list of others that will outperofrm anything on a 400$ pc.The Motherboard, GPU , CPU and memory make up the bulk of the price anyways. Hell i even had to replace my case because my old one didnt have enough ventilation for my new setup it was also slightly to small for my GTx285.
PS. Do you honeslty think you can just make a 200$ upgarde to your current pc and then it will outperfom the PS4 and next xbox console are you really arguing that? Console hardware is sold at a loss. It cost sony around $850 to manufacture each ps3 at launch while pc manufactures sell everything for a small profit , its the reason why you get alot more bang for your buck with consoles and then theres the issues of game trade-ins and buying used games which is also a benefit to consoels.
washd123
those arent facts those are false assumptions.
a $400 pc would consist of
a dual core 2.8ghz
a 760g mobo
2gb ddr2 800
hd4670
HEC 585w and case
320gb hdd
windows 7 64bit
essentially what i used to have before i upgraded. and yes it will outperform the consoles. not by a whole lot. but still it does better. $450 even more so $500 even more $550 kills it $600 destroys.
That processor sucks and no it will not outpeform any console the ram blows also which is diffrent from the benchmarks you listed.
1. You guessed the settings of everyoneof those console game swith the exception of FC2
2. that ram isnot as good as what was used in hte benchmarks.
3. Um what processor all 2.8 processors are not the same.
4. You never answered my last question. Do you think you can just keep that current rig for the next 4 years and spend 200$ and it will outperform the next batch of consoles?lol
[QUOTE="washd123"]
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Im not being ignorant im just stating the facts. $400 doolars for a pc is not going to get you something that consistantly outpeforms a console. You can name crap like fC2 that was ported across platform but I can name a list of others that will outperofrm anything on a 400$ pc.The Motherboard, GPU , CPU and memory make up the bulk of the price anyways. Hell i even had to replace my case because my old one didnt have enough ventilation for my new setup it was also slightly to small for my GTx285.
PS. Do you honeslty think you can just make a 200$ upgarde to your current pc and then it will outperfom the PS4 and next xbox console are you really arguing that? Console hardware is sold at a loss. It cost sony around $850 to manufacture each ps3 at launch while pc manufactures sell everything for a small profit , its the reason why you get alot more bang for your buck with consoles and then theres the issues of game trade-ins and buying used games which is also a benefit to consoels.
those arent facts those are false assumptions.
a $400 pc would consist of
a dual core 2.8ghz
a 760g mobo
2gb ddr2 800
hd4670
HEC 585w and case
320gb hdd
windows 7 64bit
essentially what i used to have before i upgraded. and yes it will outperform the consoles. not by a whole lot. but still it does better. $450 even more so $500 even more $550 kills it $600 destroys.
That processor sucks and no it will not outpeform any console the ram blows also which is diffrent from the benchmarks you listed.
1. You guessed the settings of everyoneof those console game swith the exception of FC2
2. that ram isnot as good as what was used in hte benchmarks.
3. Um what processor all 2.8 processors are not the same.
4. You never answered my last question. Do you think you can just keep that current rig for the next 4 years and spend 200$ and it will outperform the next batch of consoles?lol
OMG you need to stop being in your own little world.[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] O, so the might 360 cant play a 2004 based engine above medium settings?
04dcarraher
You really need to read up on the development of the game. It used one of the 360's 3 cores so the game was as gimped as a port can get. It was also outscourced to a outside dev so the 360 and pc versions were devleoped seperatley. Prey at its highest settings on any pc looks average by todays visual standards on consoles. I dont think you could logically argue that. Gears of War came out shortly after and blew it outof the water and it also didnt look as good on a 7800gtx as it did the 360 so I pretty much prove my point there.
Cpu Cores have nothing to do with the graphics, yourarguing that the 360 is better then a Geforce 6600 graphically, All you need to see is in front of your eyes or any other true comparsion. Heck even if the game was a poor portit has nothing to do with texture details and resolutions. The Console GPU's are 2004 based gpus and are limited. Even with CoD 4 which was a console focused gamelooked alot better on a Pc with a7600gt then the 360 or PS3 version and could run it on higher settings and resolutions.Um yes cpu cores have a huge thing to do with the graphics its called a bottleneck. If its running on one core that means they have to sacrafice things like texture quality to keep the framerate up. Also are you arguing that a 6600 is superior to a ps3 and 360? Even from a spec standpoint both video cards blow that thing out of the water. Also you are straight up LYING and nothign more COD4 DOES NOT LOOK BETTER ON A 7600GT . You have lost all creadablity with me .
[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="washd123"]
those arent facts those are false assumptions.
a $400 pc would consist of
a dual core 2.8ghz
a 760g mobo
2gb ddr2 800
hd4670
HEC 585w and case
320gb hdd
windows 7 64bit
essentially what i used to have before i upgraded. and yes it will outperform the consoles. not by a whole lot. but still it does better. $450 even more so $500 even more $550 kills it $600 destroys.
04dcarraher
That processor sucks and no it will not outpeform any console the ram blows also which is diffrent from the benchmarks you listed.
1. You guessed the settings of everyoneof those console game swith the exception of FC2
2. that ram isnot as good as what was used in hte benchmarks.
3. Um what processor all 2.8 processors are not the same.
4. You never answered my last question. Do you think you can just keep that current rig for the next 4 years and spend 200$ and it will outperform the next batch of consoles?lol
OMG you need to stop being in your own little world.Dude you just said a 6600GT is more powerful then anything in todays consoles I think your the one in your own world.
i think the TS didn't think realistically about this
a pc that would outperform a console graphically is going to run you about $1000+ if prebuilt and around $800 to build it yourself. already more expensive than consoles.
also you get a console you know for a fact that all games will work on it. pc's you have to try to "future-proof" if you want the games to run at a decent speed and look good consistently
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Im not being ignorant im just stating the facts. $400 doolars for a pc is not going to get you something that consistantly outpeforms a console. You can name crap like fC2 that was ported across platform but I can name a list of others that will outperofrm anything on a 400$ pc.The Motherboard, GPU , CPU and memory make up the bulk of the price anyways. Hell i even had to replace my case because my old one didnt have enough ventilation for my new setup it was also slightly to small for my GTx285.
PS. Do you honeslty think you can just make a 200$ upgarde to your current pc and then it will outperfom the PS4 and next xbox console are you really arguing that? Console hardware is sold at a loss. It cost sony around $850 to manufacture each ps3 at launch while pc manufactures sell everything for a small profit , its the reason why you get alot more bang for your buck with consoles and then theres the issues of game trade-ins and buying used games which is also a benefit to consoels.
washd123
those arent facts those are false assumptions.
a $400 pc would consist of
a dual core 2.8ghz
a 760g mobo
2gb ddr2 800
hd4670
HEC 585w and case
320gb hdd
windows 7 64bit
essentially what i used to have before i upgraded. and yes it will outperform the consoles. not by a whole lot. but still it does better. $450 even more so $500 even more $550 kills it $600 destroys.
false it will preform better by a whole lot when you are running at same console resolution minus anti-aliasing.
In the long run, it's cheaper. But a lot of us prefer the fast, at the moment cheaper route.IronBass
That and I live in dorms so I don't want to lug around all that gear every time I move.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
You really need to read up on the development of the game. It used one of the 360's 3 cores so the game was as gimped as a port can get. It was also outscourced to a outside dev so the 360 and pc versions were devleoped seperatley. Prey at its highest settings on any pc looks average by todays visual standards on consoles. I dont think you could logically argue that. Gears of War came out shortly after and blew it outof the water and it also didnt look as good on a 7800gtx as it did the 360 so I pretty much prove my point there.
Cpu Cores have nothing to do with the graphics, yourarguing that the 360 is better then a Geforce 6600 graphically, All you need to see is in front of your eyes or any other true comparsion. Heck even if the game was a poor portit has nothing to do with texture details and resolutions. The Console GPU's are 2004 based gpus and are limited. Even with CoD 4 which was a console focused gamelooked alot better on a Pc with a7600gt then the 360 or PS3 version and could run it on higher settings and resolutions.Um yes cpu cores have a huge thing to do with the graphics its called a bottleneck. If its running on one core that means they have to sacrafice things like texture quality to keep the framerate up. Also are you arguing that a 6600 is superior to a ps3 and 360? Even from a spec standpoint both video cards blow that thing out of the water. Also you are straight up LYING and nothign more COD4 DOES NOT LOOK BETTER ON A 7600GT . You have lost all creadablity with me .
Boy, Cpu bottlenecking is with framerate being affected because the cpu cant give the gpu enough information, NOT graphics!, Next the thing is that you know why they have to cut textures and resolution? Its not because of cpu limits its because of limit of memory and that the consoles gpu is 2004 tech which limited to 2004 abilites. Im arguing that in most 2005-2006 based games that were both on consoles and Pc's the "awful" Geforce 6600 has more power to display better looking graphics. Then about Cod 4, do you know that that game on the consoles only run at 1024x600 resolution with a mix of low/medium/ and few high settings. The 7600gt was/is able to play the game all on high settings at 1280x1024. That alone shows you that you dont know what your talking about.
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Im not being ignorant im just stating the facts. $400 doolars for a pc is not going to get you something that consistantly outpeforms a console. You can name crap like fC2 that was ported across platform but I can name a list of others that will outperofrm anything on a 400$ pc.The Motherboard, GPU , CPU and memory make up the bulk of the price anyways. Hell i even had to replace my case because my old one didnt have enough ventilation for my new setup it was also slightly to small for my GTx285.
PS. Do you honeslty think you can just make a 200$ upgarde to your current pc and then it will outperfom the PS4 and next xbox console are you really arguing that? Console hardware is sold at a loss. It cost sony around $850 to manufacture each ps3 at launch while pc manufactures sell everything for a small profit , its the reason why you get alot more bang for your buck with consoles and then theres the issues of game trade-ins and buying used games which is also a benefit to consoels.
washd123
those arent facts those are false assumptions.
a $400 pc would consist of
a dual core 2.8ghz
a 760g mobo
2gb ddr2 800
hd4670
HEC 585w and case
320gb hdd
windows 7 64bit
essentially what i used to have before i upgraded. and yes it will outperform the consoles. not by a whole lot. but still it does better. $450 even more so $500 even more $550 kills it $600 destroys.
what you listed right there would still come around to about $500+(based of the lowest prices at newegg), plus you need to add optical drive(s), mouse, keyboard,sound card, decent pair of of speakers/headset...So lets say... probably not the best deal but a PS3slim (£270)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-PlayStation-Console-250GB-Model/dp/B002OOWHKQ/ref=sr_tr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264973451&sr=8-1
Can someone build a PC from scratch (as you would have too... because you need to buy a new console) so only fair. But lets stay with just the tower. SO a fully usable PC £270 with bluray plus wireless. Need an OS as well I guess.
So the list is:
Processor. Ram. Mobo. graphics card. 250gb (min) harddrive. Bluray drive. Wireless. OS. PSU. (Full tower setup). ALL FOR LESS THAN £270
Someone said something about steam having cheap games... You can go to shops like CEX that sell games for similiar prices lol.
I am no console person but to say PC gaming is cheaper... I dont think it is lol
That processor sucks and no it will not outpeform any console the ram blows also which is diffrent from the benchmarks you listed.
1. You guessed the settings of everyoneof those console game swith the exception of FC2
2. that ram isnot as good as what was used in hte benchmarks.
3. Um what processor all 2.8 processors are not the same.
4. You never answered my last question. Do you think you can just keep that current rig for the next 4 years and spend 200$ and it will outperform the next batch of consoles?lol
TheSterls
1. no theres no need to. i have the pc version i can check the settings myself. even so putting those games on max or high isnt going to kill the framerate so much that its not outperforming the consoles.
2.the quality of the RAM isnt going to affect the framerates so much so. i mean you may see a 1-2fps difference by having faster RAM. DDR2 800 is damn good, im using it right now. stop grasping for straws
3.Thats true. but it really only comes into play with CPU heavy games or when you have a more powerful GPU. at this price range and hardware level the CPU plays a 'minor' role. and im refering to the amd x2 240 2.8ghz. which is 100mhz faster than the processor i have right now.
5. yes, very much so. i spent about $550 in total last gen for a crappy prebuilt, a x1950pro and 1gb RAM. if i had built it myself from the start it would have been about $400. that was in 2004 (the x1950pro was in 05). for this gen i bought a hd4830,4gb of DDR2 800, a 780g mobo, and a amd x2 7750 proc all for $200. right now that pc still will outperform the consoles by a large margin. its STILL out performing the consoles. i see no reason why in another 4 years i couldnt do the same.
So lets say... probably not the best deal but a PS3slim (£270)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-PlayStation-Console-250GB-Model/dp/B002OOWHKQ/ref=sr_tr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264973451&sr=8-1
Can someone build a PC from scratch (as you would have too... because you need to buy a new console) so only fair. But lets stay with just the tower. SO a fully usable PC £270 with bluray plus wireless. Need an OS as well I guess.
So the list is:
Processor. Ram. Mobo. graphics card. 250gb (min) harddrive. Bluray drive. Wireless. OS. PSU. (Full tower setup). ALL FOR LESS THAN £270
Someone said something about steam having cheap games... You can go to shops like CEX that sell games for similiar prices lol.
I am no console person but to say PC gaming is cheaper... I dont think it is lol
o0squishy0o
the intial hardware investment is not. anyone to say it is , is as ignorant as people trying to claim pc gaming automatically is more expensive.
the fact is those consoles are hugely subsidized by the gaming companies, its why games are $60 and not $50. they recoup their losses in royalties.
youll never build a pc to match a console for the same price.
It IS more expensive, no matter how to try to spin it. I was a PC gamer for about 3 years and I can tell you first hand, it's not worth the cost or the hassle. You're going to need yearly upgrades if you want to continue to be able to play new games at their highest settings. Now, you could say that's not totally necessary, but why wouldn't you? If you're gonna sit back on outdated tech and play all your games on crappy settings, why even game on PC in the first place when superior graphics to consoles is one of the only FEW advantages PC gaming has? So you're looking at an extra $150 or so a year depending on what needs upgrading which is usually your graphics card. Throw in a new CPU every 2-3 years and that's another AT LEAST $200, along with a new PSU to be able to power all this new tech and that's a couple hundred more. It all adds up to a buttload of money over the years and that's not even counting the initial PC which is at least $800 if you want something that's not a complete underpowered joke.
ThatGuyFromB4
hmm over the past 7 years now ive spent a total of $800 and thats over 2 console generations so far and my pc is roughly twice to three times as powerful as any console. im maxing everything out at 1080p. i must be doing something wrong.
if you needed consoles to do everything a new gaming PC did at the same hardware reliability and flexibility then consoles would cost the same as a new gaming PC (unless you're one of those people that buy Alienware which is similar to people who buy monster cable)
it's really a case of "you pay for what you get" (unless you buy an apple computer), with consoles you're paying for convenience
still depends on what each person really wants out of their money of course, personally the computer i had was getting old anyways so my decision to build a gaming pc had to do with more than just video games, of course PC games are always cheaper as well
what you listed right there would still come around to about $500+(based of the lowest prices at newegg), plus you need to add optical drive(s), mouse, keyboard,sound card, decent pair of of speakers/headset...
kidcool189
i just priced it on newegg.
and consoles come with speakers? i wasnt aware. and since when do you need a soundcard?
fact is that pc will out perform any console. for $400
[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"]
So lets say... probably not the best deal but a PS3slim (£270)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-PlayStation-Console-250GB-Model/dp/B002OOWHKQ/ref=sr_tr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264973451&sr=8-1
Can someone build a PC from scratch (as you would have too... because you need to buy a new console) so only fair. But lets stay with just the tower. SO a fully usable PC £270 with bluray plus wireless. Need an OS as well I guess.
So the list is:
Processor. Ram. Mobo. graphics card. 250gb (min) harddrive. Bluray drive. Wireless. OS. PSU. (Full tower setup). ALL FOR LESS THAN £270
Someone said something about steam having cheap games... You can go to shops like CEX that sell games for similiar prices lol.
I am no console person but to say PC gaming is cheaper... I dont think it is lol
the intial hardware investment is not. anyone to say it is , is as ignorant as people trying to claim pc gaming automatically is more expensive.
the fact is those consoles are hugely subsidized by the gaming companies, its why games are $60 and not $50. they recoup their losses in royalties.
youll never build a pc to match a console for the same price.
Yes but you can buy second hand games or even games from super markets. You could buy ModernWarfare2 day release for £27... Its still more than 30 on PC lol. How about WoW.. how much is that a year?. How about the sims and the expansion packs. PC gaming is only cheaper when you throw out the initial invesment. I.e. lets ignore that fact.. but then you can say I buy my games for a chipped xbox so they cost me £5 and you can play online etc (which you cant 90%) for PC games.[QUOTE="kidcool189"]
what you listed right there would still come around to about $500+(based of the lowest prices at newegg), plus you need to add optical drive(s), mouse, keyboard,sound card, decent pair of of speakers/headset...
washd123
i just priced it on newegg.
and consoles come with speakers? i wasnt aware. and since when do you need a soundcard?
fact is that pc will out perform any console. for $400
find me a pc that can for £270 with bluray and wireless :). I just want a tower :).Yes but you can buy second hand games or even games from super markets. You could buy ModernWarfare2 day release for £27... Its still more than 30 on PC lol. How about WoW.. how much is that a year?. How about the sims and the expansion packs. PC gaming is only cheaper when you throw out the initial invesment. I.e. lets ignore that fact.. but then you can say I buy my games for a chipped xbox so they cost me £5 and you can play online etc (which you cant 90%) for PC games. o0squishy0o
with that arguement i could just pirate all my games you know if i was a total scumbag
[QUOTE="kidcool189"]
what you listed right there would still come around to about $500+(based of the lowest prices at newegg), plus you need to add optical drive(s), mouse, keyboard,sound card, decent pair of of speakers/headset...
washd123
i just priced it on newegg.
and consoles come with speakers? i wasnt aware. and since when do you need a soundcard?
fact is that pc will out perform any console. for $400
but theres the issue, nobody who invests in a new pc setup is going to skip out on getting a some kind of decent speakers or headset/headphones, and few will not atleast get a $30 budget sound card with much superior sound to onboard, especially like one on a 760g motherboard you listed... and as the above poster said, how about bluray drive and wireless adapter, as what the ps3 comes with. still all way above $400but theres the issue, nobody who invests in a new pc setup is going to skip out on getting a some kind of decent speakers or headset/headphones, and few will not atleast get a $30 budget sound card with much superior sound to onboard, especially like one on a 760g motherboard you listed... and as the above poster said, how about bluray drive and wireless adapter, as what the ps3 comes with. still all way above $400kidcool189
so you speak for everybody now? quit making assumptions. were not talking about what 'everyone' does. the claim was made that you can build a pc for $400 that will outperform the consoles. the proof has been provided. the claim has been proven and is now fact. anything else is irrelevant.
personally i dont have a sound card and im using a 2.1 setup i got with a dell prebuilt about 7 years ago. and at this point in time onboard sound is good enough considering most mobos including the 760g can pump out 7.1 surround sound. sound cards are nice but not a necessity.
and im done explaining the blu-ray crap.
[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Cpu Cores have nothing to do with the graphics, yourarguing that the 360 is better then a Geforce 6600 graphically, All you need to see is in front of your eyes or any other true comparsion. Heck even if the game was a poor portit has nothing to do with texture details and resolutions. The Console GPU's are 2004 based gpus and are limited. Even with CoD 4 which was a console focused gamelooked alot better on a Pc with a7600gt then the 360 or PS3 version and could run it on higher settings and resolutions.
04dcarraher
Um yes cpu cores have a huge thing to do with the graphics its called a bottleneck. If its running on one core that means they have to sacrafice things like texture quality to keep the framerate up. Also are you arguing that a 6600 is superior to a ps3 and 360? Even from a spec standpoint both video cards blow that thing out of the water. Also you are straight up LYING and nothign more COD4 DOES NOT LOOK BETTER ON A 7600GT . You have lost all creadablity with me .
Boy, Cpu bottlenecking is with framerate being affected because the cpu cant give the gpu enough information, NOT graphics!, Next the thing is that you know why they have to cut textures and resolution? Its not because of cpu limits its because of limit of memory and that the consoles gpu is 2004 tech which limited to 2004 abilites. Im arguing that in most 2005-2006 based games that were both on consoles and Pc's the "awful" Geforce 6600 has more power to display better looking graphics. Then about Cod 4, do you know that that game on the consoles only run at 1024x600 resolution with a mix of low/medium/ and few high settings. The 7600gt was/is able to play the game all on high settings at 1280x1024. That alone shows you that you dont know what your talking about.A bottleneck occurs whenever one part is to weak for the other. They basically had to downgrade the visuals so the game could run at a playable framerate as it was running on one gimped core. Regardless are you arguing that Prey is visually impressive compared to todays current console titles? Also please post proof that COD4 is put on low settings. Yes I have played the game on both platforms and the 360 and PS3 versions destroy the pc version on low settings so basically you are proving again that you are simply making stuff up .The res was downscaled but the texture quality, smoke effects and geometry are all above the low settings of the pc version.You simply just make up random crap at will to prove your point .
[QUOTE="washd123"][QUOTE="kidcool189"]
what you listed right there would still come around to about $500+(based of the lowest prices at newegg), plus you need to add optical drive(s), mouse, keyboard,sound card, decent pair of of speakers/headset...
kidcool189
i just priced it on newegg.
and consoles come with speakers? i wasnt aware. and since when do you need a soundcard?
fact is that pc will out perform any console. for $400
but theres the issue, nobody who invests in a new pc setup is going to skip out on getting a some kind of decent speakers or headset/headphones, and few will not atleast get a $30 budget sound card with much superior sound to onboard, especially like one on a 760g motherboard you listed... and as the above poster said, how about bluray drive and wireless adapter, as what the ps3 comes with. still all way above $400And while you're at it, you have to include the cost to pay a hacker to help you install Microsoft Office, Sony Vegas, Autodesk 3DS Max and Adobe Photoshop. But programs like 3DS Max take a ****load of RAM, so you're going to have to pay him to mod the PS3 so that you can add RAM to it. But then the power supply won't be powerful enough, so you'll have to pay for a new one and pay that hacker to install it for you.
The PC also has mouse/keyboard support, so the guy you hired also needs to hack the OS and every single game you have so that you can play with M/KB.
here are the specs if you cant read my sig for some reason. CPU: Core 2 Duo e4600 @ 3.16ghz RAM:4GB OCZ Fatal1ty DDR2-800 RAM @5-4-4-15 Graphics card: Gigabyte Radeon 3870 Case: Antec Performance one P160W[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Im pretty new to these forums how do i view it? Considering you dont even own a console I doubt that to be the case.
TheSterls
That is not going to consistnely outperform consoles , It may on some titles but not on all of them .
can i see some proof of this claim, every multiplat i have runs faster and/or on higher settings than the consoles. show me proof. id really like to see what you can make up in comparison to my actual experience with the hardware.[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
That processor sucks and no it will not outpeform any console the ram blows also which is diffrent from the benchmarks you listed.
1. You guessed the settings of everyoneof those console game swith the exception of FC2
2. that ram isnot as good as what was used in hte benchmarks.
3. Um what processor all 2.8 processors are not the same.
4. You never answered my last question. Do you think you can just keep that current rig for the next 4 years and spend 200$ and it will outperform the next batch of consoles?lol
washd123
1. no theres no need to. i have the pc version i can check the settings myself. even so putting those games on max or high isnt going to kill the framerate so much that its not outperforming the consoles.
2.the quality of the RAM isnt going to affect the framerates so much so. i mean you may see a 1-2fps difference by having faster RAM. DDR2 800 is damn good, im using it right now. stop grasping for straws
3.Thats true. but it really only comes into play with CPU heavy games or when you have a more powerful GPU. at this price range and hardware level the CPU plays a 'minor' role. and im refering to the amd x2 240 2.8ghz. which is 100mhz faster than the processor i have right now.
5. yes, very much so. i spent about $550 in total last gen for a crappy prebuilt, a x1950pro and 1gb RAM. if i had built it myself from the start it would have been about $400. that was in 2004 (the x1950pro was in 05). for this gen i bought a hd4830,4gb of DDR2 800, a 780g mobo, and a amd x2 7750 proc all for $200. right now that pc still will outperform the consoles by a large margin. its STILL out performing the consoles. i see no reason why in another 4 years i couldnt do the same.
1. Putting it on max or high can easily get it to drop below 30fps. You have to keep in mind while you argue pc benchmarks you are taking the average benchmarks. All conosle titles are locked so you get a frame rate of either 30 or 60. RE5 may average 40 but it drops well below 30 in many cases the 360 version rarely ever drops below 30 which is my point you cannot accurately judge the settings of all console titles. I also doubt you have played each console version you mention to properly compare them to those pc games.
2. Um that depends on the game really
3. The diffrence could still be between 5 and 10fps which is relevatnt in terms of it outperforming the console.
4. Its highly doubtful , consdering the next consoels will blow todays current high end hardware out of the water.Also you built your first card at the same time the 360 lauched in 05 and then you did a 400$ upgrade recently which bascially means you have already owned 2 GPU's during this console generation which kind of proves my point right there.
[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] here are the specs if you cant read my sig for some reason. CPU: Core 2 Duo e4600 @ 3.16ghz RAM:4GB OCZ Fatal1ty DDR2-800 RAM @5-4-4-15 Graphics card: Gigabyte Radeon 3870 Case: Antec Performance one P160Wferret-gamer
That is not going to consistnely outperform consoles , It may on some titles but not on all of them .
can i see some proof of this claim, every multiplat i have runs faster and/or on higher settings than the consoles. show me proof. id really like to see what you can make up in comparison to my actual experience with the hardware.I looked up your reviews of games you do not own one game on a conosle how do you have expereince with the hardware?
i have 60 games on my steam account and i haven't even spent £100 on it
@Hanass
the argument is based upon being able to build a pc to outdoing consoles in every way for under a certain amount of money...not the other way around
[QUOTE="mudman91878"]
The single biggest reason that PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming (for the vast majority of people) is because those who buy consoles are also forced to buy a PC.
Console are so limited in what they can do that people have to go buy a PC to do what their console can't.
Anybody who takes a step back and realizes this will see that when it comes to cost, it's not even close, PC gaming is cheaper.
Now, PC gaming CAN be more expensive if you want to constantly have the best hardware available, but that is a choice and not necessary to be a PC gamer.
TheSterls
LOL no its not pc gaming is far more expensive for the hardware alone. PS3 was about 500$ my rig is about $1500. Most people who game hardcore on consoles dont game on pc's so they cost have nothing to do with each other .
Stop for 1 second and actually think about what you're saying. If buying a console FORCES you to buy a PC, then yes, you ABSOLUTELY have to consider that cost. Also, the fact that you're gaming PC costs $1500 is in no way a reflection on what the majority of gaming PC's cost.
Yet again (for the dense folks out there), for most people, console gaming is more expensive and there is zero argument otherwise. The limitations of consoles force you to spend money elsewhere which makes it more expensive in the long run (along with the higher priced games).
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
[QUOTE="mudman91878"]
The single biggest reason that PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming (for the vast majority of people) is because those who buy consoles are also forced to buy a PC.
Console are so limited in what they can do that people have to go buy a PC to do what their console can't.
Anybody who takes a step back and realizes this will see that when it comes to cost, it's not even close, PC gaming is cheaper.
Now, PC gaming CAN be more expensive if you want to constantly have the best hardware available, but that is a choice and not necessary to be a PC gamer.
mudman91878
LOL no its not pc gaming is far more expensive for the hardware alone. PS3 was about 500$ my rig is about $1500. Most people who game hardcore on consoles dont game on pc's so they cost have nothing to do with each other .
Stop for 1 second and actually think about what you're saying. If buying a console FORCES you to buy a PC, then yes, you ABSOLUTELY have to consider that cost. Also, the fact that you're gaming PC costs $1500 is in no way a reflection on what the majority of gaming PC's cost.
Yet again (for the dense folks out there), for most people, console gaming is more expensive and there is zero argument otherwise. The limitations of consoles force you to spend money elsewhere which makes it more expensive in the long run (along with the higher priced games).
My console doesnt cook my food either so do i need to factor in the price of a microwave also? You simply make no sense I can own a 300$ pc from 10 years ago and do things that my console cant so as i said you have no point. i game on consoles for the exclusives that cant be found on pc's and I happen to own a nice pc as I dont see the reason to buy a crappy one.
Also factor in trade ins and used games and yes console gaming is cheaper in every aspect.
1. Putting it on max or high can easily get it to drop below 30fps. You have to keep in mind while you argue pc benchmarks you are taking the average benchmarks. All conosle titles are locked so you get a frame rate of either 30 or 60. RE5 may average 40 but it drops well below 30 in many cases the 360 version rarely ever drops below 30 which is my point you cannot accurately judge the settings of all console titles. I also doubt you have played each console version you mention to properly compare them to those pc games.
2. Um that depends on the game really
3. The diffrence could still be between 5 and 10fps which is relevatnt in terms of it outperforming the console.
4. Its highly doubtful , consdering the next consoels will blow todays current high end hardware out of the water.Also you built your first card at the same time the 360 lauched in 05 and then you did a 400$ upgrade recently which bascially means you have already owned 2 GPU's during this console generation which kind of proves my point right there.
TheSterls
1. most of the benchmarks are showing numbers well above 40fps even above 50fps even at 1080p. upping the settings at 720p isnt going to make a huge enough drop unless its a game like crysis. most games arent. and console games have drops all the time. and i actually have. the benfits of having a roomie with a ps3. we literally would do comparisons from his ps3 to my laptop.
2.not really, not at all. 4gb of DDR3 1600 isnt going to show a significant increase in performance over 4gb of DDR2 800. especially not at this price range or hardware level.
3.no. not at this price range and hardware level. a core i7 920 verse a AMD x2 240 isnt going to net you 5-10fps of difference with a hd4670
4.not really. my second gpu was unnecessary. my x1950pro still plays games on mediumlow settings 30fps at 720p. the 360 is maybe a little bit better at best. also that was just the gpu. my cpu was from 2003. as was the motherboard. as was most of the pc. and my hd4830 kills the consoles, the difference isnt minor its a lot. so the x1950 was able to last me 4 years into this gen. then a $200 upgrade which if i simply wanted to just barely outperform the consoles would have been only $150 allowed me to kill the consoles in performance.
@washd
so you have to water down the pc and pc gaming just to be able to squeeze the bill under $400?...even though what you listed before comes to around $500
Boy, Cpu bottlenecking is with framerate being affected because the cpu cant give the gpu enough information, NOT graphics!, Next the thing is that you know why they have to cut textures and resolution? Its not because of cpu limits its because of limit of memory and that the consoles gpu is 2004 tech which limited to 2004 abilites. Im arguing that in most 2005-2006 based games that were both on consoles and Pc's the "awful" Geforce 6600 has more power to display better looking graphics. Then about Cod 4, do you know that that game on the consoles only run at 1024x600 resolution with a mix of low/medium/ and few high settings. The 7600gt was/is able to play the game all on high settings at 1280x1024. That alone shows you that you dont know what your talking about.[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]
Um yes cpu cores have a huge thing to do with the graphics its called a bottleneck. If its running on one core that means they have to sacrafice things like texture quality to keep the framerate up. Also are you arguing that a 6600 is superior to a ps3 and 360? Even from a spec standpoint both video cards blow that thing out of the water. Also you are straight up LYING and nothign more COD4 DOES NOT LOOK BETTER ON A 7600GT . You have lost all creadablity with me .
TheSterls
A bottleneck occurs whenever one part is to weak for the other. They basically had to downgrade the visuals so the game could run at a playable framerate as it was running on one gimped core.Regardless are you arguing that Prey isvisually impressivecompared to todays current console titles?Also please post proof that COD4 is put on low settings. Yes I have played the game on both platforms and the 360 and PS3 versions destroy the pc version on low settings so basically you are proving again that you are simply making stuff up .The res was downscaled but the texture quality, smoke effectsand geometry are all above the low settings of the pc version.You simply just make up random crap at will to prove your point .
No , the bottleneck your talking about has nothing to with graphics!!!, The "graphics" is done with the GPU. If the cpu is the limiting factor the only thing it affects is framerate and cpu intenstive operations like AI or physics, not in how the game looks :roll: How can I make this simple for you , here on BOTH consoles are limited to 256mb of system and video video memory totalling 512mb of memory usable. Now the RSX which is close to the early ATI 2000's series gpu and the PS3 has a gimped version of a 7800GT which pretty much translates to a 7600GT type of performance nothing to do with how the game looks. Ok now hopefully you know that first off both consoles versions of CoD 4 or even CoD MW2 run at 1024x600 with a mix of low medium and high settings. Why? you ask, its because the console can only store upto 256mb of information at any given time with viseo and system sperate which means lower settings, resolutions, draw distances, small levels or linear levels. Lowering resolutions only do so much for freeing up resources and if you think that the 360 or PS3 can match a Pc with a 7600GT even at 720 with Cod 4, you need to get your eyes checked.@washd
so you have to water down the pc and pc gaming just to be able to squeeze the bill under $400?...even though what you listed before comes to around $500kidcool189
what do you mean water down? the pc still outperforms the consoles thats all that matters.
and no its not i just priced it its $400
[QUOTE="ThatGuyFromB4"]
It IS more expensive, no matter how to try to spin it. I was a PC gamer for about 3 years and I can tell you first hand, it's not worth the cost or the hassle. You're going to need yearly upgrades if you want to continue to be able to play new games at their highest settings. Now, you could say that's not totally necessary, but why wouldn't you? If you're gonna sit back on outdated tech and play all your games on crappy settings, why even game on PC in the first place when superior graphics to consoles is one of the only FEW advantages PC gaming has? So you're looking at an extra $150 or so a year depending on what needs upgrading which is usually your graphics card. Throw in a new CPU every 2-3 years and that's another AT LEAST $200, along with a new PSU to be able to power all this new tech and that's a couple hundred more. It all adds up to a buttload of money over the years and that's not even counting the initial PC which is at least $800 if you want something that's not a complete underpowered joke.
washd123
hmm over the past 7 years now ive spent a total of $800 and thats over 2 console generations so far and my pc is roughly twice to three times as powerful as any console. im maxing everything out at 1080p. i must be doing something wrong.
Um the specs you showed me couldnt max every pc game at 1080p sorry but there is no way especially not Crysis. Im maxing it at 1080p on a GTX285 and am getting about 35fps so its doutbful your doing it on your rig or even close to it.
@Hanass
the argument is based upon being able to build a pc to outdoing consoles in every way for under a certain amount of money...not the other way aroundkidcool189
Nope, I am simply using your logic. In order to make it "fair" the PC has to do everything the PS3 can do? Sure, why not. But you're going to have to let it go both ways, otherwise it's called double standards.
[QUOTE="kidcool189"]
@washd
so you have to water down the pc and pc gaming just to be able to squeeze the bill under $400?...even though what you listed before comes to around $500washd123
what do you mean water down? the pc still outperforms the consoles thats all that matters.
and no its not i just priced it its $400
lol, this is going nowhere, i just end up repeating myself over and overgood day
So lets say... probably not the best deal but a PS3slim (£270)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-PlayStation-Console-250GB-Model/dp/B002OOWHKQ/ref=sr_tr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264973451&sr=8-1
Can someone build a PC from scratch (as you would have too... because you need to buy a new console) so only fair. But lets stay with just the tower. SO a fully usable PC £270 with bluray plus wireless. Need an OS as well I guess.
So the list is:
Processor. Ram. Mobo. graphics card. 250gb (min) harddrive. Bluray drive. Wireless. OS. PSU. (Full tower setup). ALL FOR LESS THAN £270
Someone said something about steam having cheap games... You can go to shops like CEX that sell games for similiar prices lol.
I am no console person but to say PC gaming is cheaper... I dont think it is lol
o0squishy0o
First off you don't need to buy a new PC, you can just upgrade the one your already got and save hundreds of pounds. No need to make rules up to benefit your argument. I can also make my own rules up, you need an HDTV to get the full benefit of a PS3 and that alone can cost a couple of hundred pounds.
And Since you want a PC that can do everything that PS3 can do, let's do the same for PS3. I want to use my PS3 for my job that I have, can I do that? Big Fat NO
See I can also spin the BS the way I want to.
PC Gaming over the whole gen comes in cheaper than consoles. Lower game prices, MOD support for most PC games which extends games for up to hundreds of hours. You can also use your PC for everything, work, shopping etc something a PS3 can't do FACT.
Um the specs you showed me couldnt max every pc game at 1080p sorry but there is no way especially not Crysis. Im maxing it at 1080p on a GTX285 and am getting about 35fps so its doutbful your doing it on your rig or even close to it.
TheSterls
the $800 includes my last upgrade which was completely unnecessary. my hd4890.
lol, this is going nowhere, i just end up repeating myself over and over
good daykidcool189
finally realizing you have no arguement against cold hard facts?
i made the claim that you can build a pc that outperforms the console in gaming for $400, i posted benchmarks, i posted the parts.
thats was it, i never said it was a huge margin never said it would be an awesome gaming rig. nothing other than $400 to outperform.
i suppose you can conclude from this thread is that it is possible to make a pc that's cheaper and can outperform a console. however, doing this requires some knowledge of what to look for and where to get the cheapest components which is something i have no idead about.
i don't believethe people (me being one of them)that don't have the know how to source the right components let alone put them together into a working computer would want to spend the time learning how to do it because making a pc that's cheaper than a console would surely only show a marginal graphical and framerate improvement.
what theyd rather do is just go to their local game store, pay the same amount for a ocnsole that they just have to plug into the wall and their tv and get on with playing some cracking games.
yes, console only gamers miss out on some great pc titles. but then the same can be said for pc gamers missing out on console exclusives.
so i guess just purchase as much as you can afford and enjoy the games you have access to
[QUOTE="mudman91878"]
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]
LOL no its not pc gaming is far more expensive for the hardware alone. PS3 was about 500$ my rig is about $1500. Most people who game hardcore on consoles dont game on pc's so they cost have nothing to do with each other .
TheSterls
Stop for 1 second and actually think about what you're saying. If buying a console FORCES you to buy a PC, then yes, you ABSOLUTELY have to consider that cost. Also, the fact that you're gaming PC costs $1500 is in no way a reflection on what the majority of gaming PC's cost.
Yet again (for the dense folks out there), for most people, console gaming is more expensive and there is zero argument otherwise. The limitations of consoles force you to spend money elsewhere which makes it more expensive in the long run (along with the higher priced games).
My console doesnt cook my food either so do i need to factor in the price of a microwave also? You simply make no sense I can own a 300$ pc from 10 years ago and do things that my console cant so as i said you have no point. i game on consoles for the exclusives that cant be found on pc's and I happen to own a nice pc as I dont see the reason to buy a crappy one.
Also factor in trade ins and used games and yes console gaming is cheaper in every aspect.
You're dead wrong and you have yet to post an even remotely reasonable argument as to why.
360 - $300
online - $250
games - $10 - $20 more each and I don't care how you get them. If you wait and buy used, well, a PC game would have went down even more in cost.
---------------------------------------------
PC - $700
PC gaming is cheaper....period.
That's not even considering that you have to buy a PC so you can come on here and make your absolutely RIDICULOUS arguments.
and PLEASE, don't try and factor in the value from trading in games because if you need that, then you're basically saying that the only way to make console gaming cheaper is to, at the end of the generation, have zero games left to play.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment