Why do people say PC gaming is more expensive?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="mudman91878"]

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.

[QUOTE="mudman91878"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

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.

my_name_is_ron

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.

$50 a year for 5 years.....need a calculator?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] 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.04dcarraher

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 .

One , you are just making stuff up now and im going to stop responding to you as i said before you lost all creadablity. The PS3 GPU is equivlent to a 7900gt not a 7600 gt which is slightly better then the 7800gtx. Also I have played COD4 on a 7800gtx which is superior to the 7600 gt in every way and the PS3 version lookded identical in every aspect to its highest settings. Texture quality, draw distance ,smoke effectes etc the only visual advantage the pc version has is higher res and a 7600gt chugs on that game while the PS3 version runs it at 60fps.

ps. Why wont you answer my question? You think Prey on pc holds a candle to todays current console titles? Gears of War came out shortly after looks better then it did on a 7800gtx and destroys prey visually in every aspect. it was simply a crappy port nothing more.

Heres some more ownage for you

http://talkplaystation.com/ps3s-ram-and-rsx-explained/

Thats right the PS3 also has 256mb of XDR ram which is used to communicate with the Cell Processor. Why is that relevant? because the processor actually helps render visuals unlike the standard bog cpus in your pc yet you totally failed to factor that in to your equation.

Oh and heres Nivida stating the RSX is overall more powerful then the 7800gtx, They contacted team Xbox after they ran an article on how the RSX was a timped 7800gtx. Perhaps you should get your facts straight you are simply repeting stuff you heard on a forum and it has already been proven to be wrong.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

That is not going to consistnely outperform consoles , It may on some titles but not on all of them .

TheSterls

I looked up your reviews of games you do not own one game on a conosle how do you have expereince with the hardware?

[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

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.

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"][QUOTE="mudman91878"]

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.

mudman91878

$50 a year for 5 years.....need a calculator?

PS3-300$

Online gaming- Free

Games ? That all depends on how many you buy. I can wait 4 to 5 monthes for a title and get it for 40$ or I can rent a game from gamefly and pay 10 bucks a month . I proved my point its cheaper

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] 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.ferret-gamer

I looked up your reviews of games you do not own one game on a conosle how do you have expereince with the hardware?

But you not played any of those games on consoles and you are making assumptions on how they look in comparison my point is I dont think you even own a console and your talking about the vast performance advantage when you have nothing to compare it to.

Oh and heres Nivida stating the RSX is overall more powerful then the 7800gtx, They contacted team Xbox after they ran an article on how the RSX was a timped 7800gtx. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you sound like a fool.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/

TheSterls

lol they said faster not more powerful. the 7800gtx runs between 450-500mhz the RSX is at 550mhz so of course its 'faster' however it also has less shaders and a 128bit memory bus and less texture units.

its not more powerful only faster which is irrelevant.

the hd4670 at 700mhz is faster than a hd4850 but is significantly less powerful

the 7800gtx is more powerful, the only way the RSX 'outperforms' it is from optimizations and the use of the cell to offload the work. games arent being fully optimized for the 7800gtx which according to people here is a valid excuse.

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"][QUOTE="mudman91878"]

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.

mudman91878

$50 a year for 5 years.....need a calculator?

right ok, you didn't mention that.

the initial outlay would be cheaper for a 360 though. $300 + $50 for online compared to $700 for your pc. i make that half the price.

i would say the fact you can buy used console games and most stores don't sell used pc games would make the software price difference (if you're wise about your purchases) negligable with pc games working out just about cheaper.

i might just compare the bits and pieces i've just bought to see what's cheaper and what outperforms what;

True Story

i just bought this laptopfor £550 last weekend. now, compare that to a ps3from the same place for only £269. both have blu-ray, both have wireless, both have free access to online., the only noticeable difference i can see is that the hard drive on the laptop is bigger. that laptop certainly can't handle top of the range pc games at max whereas the ps3 can play the top ps3 games.

i therefore make the console cheper.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I looked up your reviews of games you do not own one game on a conosle how do you have expereince with the hardware?

TheSterls

But you not played any of those games on consoles and you are making assumptions on how they look in comparison my point is I dont think you even own a console and your talking about the vast performance advantage when you have nothing to compare it to.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="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 .

One , you are just making stuff up now and im going to stop responding to you as i said before you lost all creadablity. The PS3 GPU is equivlent to a 7900gt not a 7600 gt which is slightly better then the 7800gtx. Yet again you prove you have no caese here as you are simply make more crap up. Also I have played COD4 on a 7800gtx which is superior to the 7600 gt in every way and the PS3 version lookded identical in every aspect to its highest settings. Texture quality, draw distance ,smoke effectes etc the only visual advantage the pc version has is higher res and a 7600gt chugs on that game while the PS3 version runs it at 60fps.

ps. Why wont you answer my question? You think Prey on pc holds a candle to todays current console titles? Gears of War came out shortly after looks better then it did on a 7800gtx and destroys prey visually in every aspect. it was simply a crappy port nothing more.

Heres some more ownage for you

http://talkplaystation.com/ps3s-ram-and-rsx-explained/

Thats right the PS3 also has 256mb of XDR ram which is used to communicate with the Cell Processor. Why is that relevant? because the processor actually helps render visuals unlike the standard bog cpus in your pc yet you totally failed to factor that in to your equation.

Oh and heres Nivida stating the RSX is overall more powerful then the 7800gtx, They contacted team Xbox after they ran an article on how the RSX was a timped 7800gtx. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you sound like a fool.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Oh and heres Nivida stating the RSX is overall more powerful then the 7800gtx, They contacted team Xbox after they ran an article on how the RSX was a timped 7800gtx. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you sound like a fool.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/

washd123

lol they said faster not more powerful. the 7800gtx runs between 450-500mhz the RSX is at 550mhz so of course its 'faster' however it also has less shaders and a 128bit memory bus and less texture units.

its not more powerful only faster which is irrelevant.

the hd4670 at 700mhz is faster than a hd4850 but is significantly less powerful

the 7800gtx is more powerful, the only way the RSX 'outperforms' it is from optimizations and the use of the cell to offload the work. games arent being fully optimized for the 7800gtx which according to people here is a valid excuse.

The RSX with the combination of the Cell destroys the 7800gtx and its been pretty much proven on any current title gen title . The clock speed is releavent because the cell processor can handle many of the shader effects itself hence the reason it has a access to 256mb of ultra fast memory. Regardless the kid is quoting saying he thinks a 7600gt is more powerful when the RSX stomps it in every way.

[QUOTE="kidcool189"]

lol, this is going nowhere, i just end up repeating myself over and over

good day

washd123

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.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] 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 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.04dcarraher

One , you are just making stuff up now and im going to stop responding to you as i said before you lost all creadablity. The PS3 GPU is equivlent to a 7900gt not a 7600 gt which is slightly better then the 7800gtx. Yet again you prove you have no caese here as you are simply make more crap up. Also I have played COD4 on a 7800gtx which is superior to the 7600 gt in every way and the PS3 version lookded identical in every aspect to its highest settings. Texture quality, draw distance ,smoke effectes etc the only visual advantage the pc version has is higher res and a 7600gt chugs on that game while the PS3 version runs it at 60fps.

ps. Why wont you answer my question? You think Prey on pc holds a candle to todays current console titles? Gears of War came out shortly after looks better then it did on a 7800gtx and destroys prey visually in every aspect. it was simply a crappy port nothing more.

Heres some more ownage for you

http://talkplaystation.com/ps3s-ram-and-rsx-explained/

Thats right the PS3 also has 256mb of XDR ram which is used to communicate with the Cell Processor. Why is that relevant? because the processor actually helps render visuals unlike the standard bog cpus in your pc yet you totally failed to factor that in to your equation.

Oh and heres Nivida stating the RSX is overall more powerful then the 7800gtx, They contacted team Xbox after they ran an article on how the RSX was a timped 7800gtx. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you sound like a fool.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/

It wasnt a Sony rep that responded it wa a nvida rep. No im not a pure consolite im both. I own a high end gaming rig and enjoy it but the fact of the matter is i had to pay for it. Also you need 1.5 gb of pc memory to even dream of running current gen games pc requires more memory thats a fact.you have tried to argue with me that a 7600gt can outperform a ps3 and have even gone so far to tell me cod4 is equivlent to minimum settings and you have proven on all accounts that every statement you made is false.

The RSX with the combination of the Cell destroys the 7800gtx and its been pretty much proven on any current title gen title . The clock speed is releavent because the cell processor can handle many of the shader effects itself hence the reason it has a access to 256mb of ultra fast memory. Regardless the kid is quoting saying he thinks a 7600gt is more powerful when the RSX stomps it in every way.

TheSterls

but the thing is that the card itself is. youre comparing the ps3 to the 7800gtx not the RSX to the 7800gtx.

the 7600gt is roughly the same as the RSX. the RSX may have the edge slightly due to its speed.

but the only reason that it appears the 'RSX' out performs the 7800gtx is simply due to the fact that a developer isnt optimizing the 7800gtx however they can optimize the ps3. so its not the RSX alone.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Oh and heres Nivida stating the RSX is overall more powerful then the 7800gtx, They contacted team Xbox after they ran an article on how the RSX was a timped 7800gtx. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you sound like a fool.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/

TheSterls

lol they said faster not more powerful. the 7800gtx runs between 450-500mhz the RSX is at 550mhz so of course its 'faster' however it also has less shaders and a 128bit memory bus and less texture units.

its not more powerful only faster which is irrelevant.

the hd4670 at 700mhz is faster than a hd4850 but is significantly less powerful

the 7800gtx is more powerful, the only way the RSX 'outperforms' it is from optimizations and the use of the cell to offload the work. games arent being fully optimized for the 7800gtx which according to people here is a valid excuse.

The RSX with the combination of the Cell destroys the 7800gtx and its been pretty much proven on any current title gen title . The clock speed is releavent because the cell processor can handle many of the shader effects itself hence the reason it has a access to 256mb of ultra fast memory. Regardless the kid is quoting saying he thinks a 7600gt is more powerful when the RSX stomps it in every way.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The RSX with the combination of the Cell destroys the 7800gtx and its been pretty much proven on any current title gen title . The clock speed is releavent because the cell processor can handle many of the shader effects itself hence the reason it has a access to 256mb of ultra fast memory. Regardless the kid is quoting saying he thinks a 7600gt is more powerful when the RSX stomps it in every way.

washd123

but the thing is that the card itself is. youre comparing the ps3 to the 7800gtx not the RSX to the 7800gtx.

the 7600gt is roughly the same as the RSX. the RSX may have the edge slightly due to its speed.

but the only reason that it appears the 'RSX' out performs the 7800gtx is simply due to the fact that a developer isnt optimizing the 7800gtx however they can optimize the ps3. so its not the RSX alone.

No its not, the 7600gt has 178 million transisters compared to the rsx 300 million + not to mention its more efficent then either one and thats half the benefit of a console is efficency and opitmization. The bottom line is hes arguing that a 7600gt even a 6600gtOUTPERFORM the PS3 and the 360 and other then Prey and Quake 4 which were to horribly ported first gen titles hes wrong in every aspect.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="kidcool189"]

lol, this is going nowhere, i just end up repeating myself over and over

good day

kidcool189

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.

760g mobo $50 from Asrock (or $40 if you go open box)

hd4670 is $60 or hell even a hd4650 if OCed will outperform a console.

hd4650 preOCed $50

HEC case with 585w psu $47

thats already $40 off that pc.

also if youre including those in the price of the pc include them for the console as well.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

lol they said faster not more powerful. the 7800gtx runs between 450-500mhz the RSX is at 550mhz so of course its 'faster' however it also has less shaders and a 128bit memory bus and less texture units.

its not more powerful only faster which is irrelevant.

the hd4670 at 700mhz is faster than a hd4850 but is significantly less powerful

the 7800gtx is more powerful, the only way the RSX 'outperforms' it is from optimizations and the use of the cell to offload the work. games arent being fully optimized for the 7800gtx which according to people here is a valid excuse.

04dcarraher

The RSX with the combination of the Cell destroys the 7800gtx and its been pretty much proven on any current title gen title . The clock speed is releavent because the cell processor can handle many of the shader effects itself hence the reason it has a access to 256mb of ultra fast memory. Regardless the kid is quoting saying he thinks a 7600gt is more powerful when the RSX stomps it in every way.

There not powerhouses in comparison to high end rigs but they currently beat the 7600 and the 7800gtx on any current multiplat. AC2, DMC4, RE5 and yes COD4 as well. You even went on to lie and say the console versions were at minium settings LMAO.

No its not, the 7600gt has 178 million transisters compared to the rsx 300 million + not to mention its more efficent then either one and thats half the benefit of a console is efficency and opitmization. The bottom line is hes arguing that a 7600gt even a 6600gtOUTPERFORM the PS3 and the 360 and other then Prey and Quake 4 which were to horribly ported first gen titles hes wrong in every aspect.

TheSterls

hypocrit much? Q4 and prey cant be used as examples because theyre not optimized for the 360 yet you can use all other games to show that the RSX is more powerful even though theyre not optimized for the 7600gt and the 6600gt.

and no the RSX alone has the same structure as the 7800/7900 series. all it is , is a cut down g71 core.

Explains it all.

Explains it all.

04dcarraher

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-4.html

Yea it does 7600gt gets a whopping 19fps compare dot the consoles 60. The res is downscaled but the settings were the same . Look at the minimum settings and you tell me that looks like the console version? Your as blind as can be and the proofs right there . Game over

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-4.html

Yea it does 7600gt gets a whopping 19fps compare dot the consoles 60. The res is downscaled but the settings were the same . Look at the minimum settings and you tell me that looks like the console version? Your as blind as can be and the proofs right there . Game over

TheSterls

no but the consoles certainly arent on max. high yes. max no.

even so hows that a valid example?? COD4 was optimized for the 7600gt

[QUOTE="kidcool189"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

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.

washd123

760g mobo $50 from Asrock (or $40 if you go open box) (its actually $55...and :lol: at open box motherboards)

hd4670 is $60 or hell even a hd4650 if OCed will outperform a console. (skimpin down even more huh?)

hd4650 preOCed $50(well its actually $60 until mail in rebate which ususally takes up to months)

HEC case with 585w psu $47

thats already $40 off that pc.

also if youre including those in the price of the pc include them for the console as well.(including what?, everything in the included price is required)

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

No its not, the 7600gt has 178 million transisters compared to the rsx 300 million + not to mention its more efficent then either one and thats half the benefit of a console is efficency and opitmization. The bottom line is hes arguing that a 7600gt even a 6600gtOUTPERFORM the PS3 and the 360 and other then Prey and Quake 4 which were to horribly ported first gen titles hes wrong in every aspect.

washd123

hypocrit much? Q4 and prey cant be used as examples because theyre not optimized for the 360 yet you can use all other games to show that the RSX is more powerful even though theyre not optimized for the 7600gt and the 6600gt.

and no the RSX alone has the same structure as the 7800/7900 series. all it is , is a cut down g71 core.

Prey and Q4 didnt even come out for the PS3 they were only on the 360 and the point is we are looking at the overall quality of games. The fact of the matter is the games that run and look better on the ps3 and 360 over the 7800gtx look far superiorto quake or Prey . You are basically saying an ugly very technically unimpressive title running on a 7800gtx better then the 360 is more impressive then say RE5 running better on the 360 .

you're missin the big picture here, you just keep watering down and skimping on parts and key accessories to sacrifice the price, when in the end all you're really doing is limiting yourself from a true pc gaming experience...the complete opposite of one of the biggest advantages of pc gaming

kidcool189

and youre missing the entire point

can you build a pc that outperforms the consoles for $400? yes.

end of story, doesnt matter how 'waterdown' it is, it still will outperform the consoles. thats all this was about it was never about can you build a killer rig for $400. you cant. you can build a pc that will outperform the consoles.

thats the point you seem to miss. and i wasnt aware the consoles came with killer sound cards, and speaker systems. thats cool maybe ill pick one up.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-4.html

Yea it does 7600gt gets a whopping 19fps compare dot the consoles 60. The res is downscaled but the settings were the same . Look at the minimum settings and you tell me that looks like the console version? Your as blind as can be and the proofs right there . Game over

washd123

no but the consoles certainly arent on max. high yes. max no.

even so hows that a valid example?? COD4 was optimized for the 7600gt

He is arguing that a 7600 gt would trounce the PS3 and 360 even a 6600 gt and you are defending him? We need to put you in the same boat then I think . And yes it was optimzed for a 7600gt and the PS3 and 360 versions still look better which kind of proves my point.

Prey and Q4 didnt even come out for the PS3 they were only on the 360 and the point is we are looking at the overall quality of games. The fact of the matter is the games that run and look better on the ps3 and 360 over the 7800gtx look far superiorto quake or Prey . You are basically saying an ugly very technically unimpressive title running on a 7800gtx better then the 360 is more impressive then say RE5 running better on the 360 .

TheSterls

no im simply using your arguement.

he posted prey and Q4 you said theyre not valid because they arnt optimized for the 360. so by that logic any time the ps3 or 360 outperforms the 7600gt its not valid since the games arent optimized for the 7600gt

He is arguing that a 7600 gt would trounce the PS3 and 360 even a 6600 gt and you are defending him? We need to put you in the same boat then I think . And yes it was optimzed for a 7600gt and the PS3 and 360 versions still look better which kind of proves my point.

TheSterls

im not defending him im 'attacking' your weak logic. hes just as wrong as your logic is poor.

and no it wasnt optimized for the 7600gt.

Sure you gotta lay down a staple price (like 800$ but 400$ if you just build one

falldogout

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

He is arguing that a 7600 gt would trounce the PS3 and 360 even a 6600 gt and you are defending him? We need to put you in the same boat then I think . And yes it was optimzed for a 7600gt and the PS3 and 360 versions still look better which kind of proves my point.

washd123

im not defending him im 'attacking' your weak logic. hes just as wrong as your logic is poor.

and no it wasnt optimized for the 7600gt.

My weak logic? He named two poor looking pc games and i can name any of todays current titles that look better on consoles then those cards and thats poor logic? You hermits want to argue that you can build a pc that will outperform a console for the same price and the fact is you cant. So then you keep naming older and cheaper GPU's and when you pull up the benchmarks the fact is they dont hold up. Can pc gaming look better? Absolutley but you will be paying signifantly more then any console.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-4.html

Yea it does 7600gt gets a whopping 19fps compare dot the consoles 60. The res is downscaled but the settings were the same . Look at the minimum settings and you tell me that looks like the console version? Your as blind as can be and the proofs right there . Game over

TheSterls

no but the consoles certainly arent on max. high yes. max no.

even so hows that a valid example?? COD4 was optimized for the 7600gt

He is arguing that a 7600 gt would trounce the PS3 and 360 even a 6600 gt and you are defending him? We need to put you in the same boat then I think . And yes it was optimzed for a 7600gt and the PS3 and 360 versions still look better which kind of proves my point.

Honestly, I think If we're talking 360 vs PC or PS3 vs PC in terms of price, PC actually comes out cheaper. For the most part, 99% (if not 100%) of gamers own a PC whether or not they use it for gaming. Console gamers own non-gaming PCs that are worth about $500 (or way more if you buy a Mac). You can buy a very nice gaming PC for about $800. $800-$500 = $300. This extra $300 can be used for better parts for your computer, which benefits PC gaming (not to mention your PC will be faster). Also, lets say you buy 10 new games for a console. 60x10= $600. PC games are generally $10 cheaper for new releases, so if you buy 10 PC games for $50 ($500), you are actually saving $100. Not to mention, Steam has PC games on sale all the time and at huge discounts. Currently it has the game Tropico 3 on sale for 75% off at $13.60. This same game will be released on Xbox 360 next month for $40. In the long run, it's cheaper and has better graphics and controls.

can you build a pc that outperforms the consoles for $400? washd123

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

no but the consoles certainly arent on max. high yes. max no.

even so hows that a valid example?? COD4 was optimized for the 7600gt

04dcarraher

He is arguing that a 7600 gt would trounce the PS3 and 360 even a 6600 gt and you are defending him? We need to put you in the same boat then I think . And yes it was optimzed for a 7600gt and the PS3 and 360 versions still look better which kind of proves my point.

And my link just proved you wrong , the 7600gt gets troucned on cod4 averaging at 19fps . Yes its being played at a higher res but thats not gonna make up fo ra 41fps difference. My point is the consoles dominate any of the GPU's that came out before them rather it be by raw power or optmization the fact still stands they outperform them and the gamespot benchmark painfully proves my point .. Also ram limiaton is not as much of an issue on all games and certinaly not as much of an issue on something like COD4 which is on a very small scale. Yes its an issue on large scale games but with new texture streaming technologies that is becoming less of an issue. Not to mentio a PC needs at least 1.5 gb of Ram to equal what 512mb of ram in a console will do.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

He is arguing that a 7600 gt would trounce the PS3 and 360 even a 6600 gt and you are defending him? We need to put you in the same boat then I think . And yes it was optimzed for a 7600gt and the PS3 and 360 versions still look better which kind of proves my point.

TheSterls

And my link just proved you wrong , the 7600gt gets troucned on cod4 averaging at 19fps . Yes its being played at a higher res but thats not gonna make up fo ra 41fps difference. My point is the consoles dominate any of the GPU's that came out before them rather it be by raw power or optmization the fact still stands they outperform them and the gamespot benchmark painfully proves my point .. Also ram limiaton isn not a issue on all games and certinaly not as much of an issue on something like COD4 which is on a very small scale. Yes its an issue on large scale games but with new texture streaming technologies that is becoming less of an issue. Not to mentio a PC needs at least 1.5 gb of Ram to equal what 512mb of ram in a console will do.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] No Im saying , because of the PS3/360 limitations(mainly low memory) have trouble surpassing any gpu from geforce 6/ 7 era all because their from that era. With plenty of ram & cpu behind the Pc is not being held back in terms of graphics and abilites even with same era of gpu's . 04dcarraher

And my link just proved you wrong , the 7600gt gets troucned on cod4 averaging at 19fps . Yes its being played at a higher res but thats not gonna make up fo ra 41fps difference. My point is the consoles dominate any of the GPU's that came out before them rather it be by raw power or optmization the fact still stands they outperform them and the gamespot benchmark painfully proves my point .. Also ram limiaton isn not a issue on all games and certinaly not as much of an issue on something like COD4 which is on a very small scale. Yes its an issue on large scale games but with new texture streaming technologies that is becoming less of an issue. Not to mentio a PC needs at least 1.5 gb of Ram to equal what 512mb of ram in a console will do.

There is noting on the console version that is being run on low are medium settings and the pictures prove that , the comparison is right in front of your eyes. Low settings have no shadows, no specualar mapping and far lower res textures the fact I have to even argue this with you proves you havent even seen the console versions. Two there is not any feature cod4 has on it that cant be done on consoles, look at codMW 2it troucned it in everyway even the texture quality was better so yet again im just wasting my time.

http://www.overclock.net/video-game-news/609603-gamespot-mw2-graphics-comparison.html

Hmmm wonder how a 7600gt is gonna run that lmao.

[QUOTE="Mitjastiskovski"]

[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

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.

Why do I need a blu-ray drive for? You stated that you want to see a PC with a blu-ray drive which is totally unnecessary in a PC. Your way of thinking is totally wrong, the only thing you look at is starting prices but you don't want to see what happens over a whole gen 5-6 years.

Sure the start up price is more expensive, since you have to cover your own cost for hardware, not sony covering the $100-$150 lost per console sold. But in return you get games cheaper while on consoles, sony needs to recover the money lost from hardware and they charge for games/accessories more.

PC Gaming is simply a better value. Cost is less or equal to a console but in return you can do everything you want on a PC. The difference is PC costs are not hidden, while console costs are hidden. Pay to play online, Games cost more, Accessories are a total rip-off etc.

Console fanboys use their argument PC cost $800, yeah sure it does, you make a one time payment but then for the next 4-5 years you get that money back from cheaper games. While console cost less, you pay $300 but then for the next 4-5 years your are paying way more for games/accessories while in the mean time a PC gamer who has spend more cash for starting up, buys the same games cheaper and plays them with better graphics.

Simple maths really, it's sad to see people not getting that point.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

And my link just proved you wrong , the 7600gt gets troucned on cod4 averaging at 19fps . Yes its being played at a higher res but thats not gonna make up fo ra 41fps difference. My point is the consoles dominate any of the GPU's that came out before them rather it be by raw power or optmization the fact still stands they outperform them and the gamespot benchmark painfully proves my point .. Also ram limiaton isn not a issue on all games and certinaly not as much of an issue on something like COD4 which is on a very small scale. Yes its an issue on large scale games but with new texture streaming technologies that is becoming less of an issue. Not to mentio a PC needs at least 1.5 gb of Ram to equal what 512mb of ram in a console will do.

TheSterls

There is noting on the console version that is being run on low are medium settings and the pictures prove that , the comparison is right in front of your eyes. Low settings have no shadows, no specualar mapping and far lower res textures the fact I have to even argue this with you proves you havent even seen the console versions. Two there is not any feature cod4 has on it that cant be done on consoles, look at codMW 2it troucned it in everyway even the texture quality was better so yet again im just wasting my time.

http://www.overclock.net/video-game-news/609603-gamespot-mw2-graphics-comparison.html

Hmmm wonder how a 7600gt is gonna run that lmao.

[QUOTE="mudman91878"]

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"] lol, how did you make online cost $250? were you fleeced out of some fake live codes by a dodgy website?TheSterls

$50 a year for 5 years.....need a calculator?

PS3-300$

Online gaming- Free

Games ? That all depends on how many you buy. I can wait 4 to 5 monthes for a title and get it for 40$ or I can rent a game from gamefly and pay 10 bucks a month . I proved my point its cheaper

What about the PC that you have to buy so that you can come on here and make your ridiculous statements?

Also, if you're going to say $300 for a PS3 then you had to wait 3 years for it to drop to that price.

You can't argue that something is cheaper in the manner that you're attempting to.

It's like you're trying to tell me that a bicycle with no wheels for $100 is cheaper than a bicycle with wheels for $150. Sorry, there's more to it than that.

You're just a typical shortsided consolite who refuses to look at every single expense encountered when choosing to be a console gamer vs choosing to be a PC gamer.

I'll consider that you're still alive when you consider ALL the FACTS. I doubt that will happen since posting facts is something you're yet to do.

[QUOTE="mudman91878"]

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"] lol, how did you make online cost $250? were you fleeced out of some fake live codes by a dodgy website?my_name_is_ron

$50 a year for 5 years.....need a calculator?

right ok, you didn't mention that.

the initial outlay would be cheaper for a 360 though. $300 + $50 for online compared to $700 for your pc. i make that half the price.

i would say the fact you can buy used console games and most stores don't sell used pc games would make the software price difference (if you're wise about your purchases) negligable with pc games working out just about cheaper.

i might just compare the bits and pieces i've just bought to see what's cheaper and what outperforms what;

True Story

i just bought this laptopfor £550 last weekend. now, compare that to a ps3from the same place for only £269. both have blu-ray, both have wireless, both have free access to online., the only noticeable difference i can see is that the hard drive on the laptop is bigger. that laptop certainly can't handle top of the range pc games at max whereas the ps3 can play the top ps3 games.

i therefore make the console cheper.

First, I'm not arguing that the initial cost of PC gaming is cheaper, because it's not, but....that's not what this thread was about.

Your 'true story' is pretty much my whole point. If your PS3 were a PC, maybe you wouldn't need to spend the extra 550 for the laptop. The limitations of a console and the price of it's games are what make console gaming more expensive.

Somewhere somehow you will have to spend money to make up for a consoles limitations and that means you will be buying a PC to make up for those limitations. PC gamers never have to do that because it's all in one.

Also, the price of games is always more expensive for consoles even if you buy used. Steam offers deals that will never be had on consoles. Many people bought the THQ pack over thanksgiving for $50 and it includes all company of heroes, frontlines fuel of war, full spectrum warrior and expansion, juiced 2, all red factions, stalker soc, saints row 2, titan quest and exp, and all dawn of wars.

There's nothing even close to that on consoles.

My weak logic? He named two poor looking pc games and i can name any of todays current titles that look better on consoles then those cards and thats poor logic? You hermits want to argue that you can build a pc that will outperform a console for the same price and the fact is you cant. So then you keep naming older and cheaper GPU's and when you pull up the benchmarks the fact is they dont hold up. Can pc gaming look better? Absolutley but you will be paying signifantly more then any console.

TheSterls

no your logic. simple as this. you said he cant use prey because it wasnt optimized for the 360 so of course it looks better on the 6600.

with that logic since no pc game is ever optimized for an individual card you cant make any comparison where the console outperform the pc.

any one to say you can build a pc that can outperform the consoles for the same price as a console is joking or a moron.

No... you can't Why would you spend 500 dollars to BUILD something that's only giving you 15 fps better than something that costs 300 dollars... and has low quality parts? You can't build a good PC for less than 600 dollars... and you can't buy one for less than 900.stiggy321

get over it i already posted parts and benchmarks. you can. it wont outperform it by a whole lot, but it will outperform it. ie you can build a $400 pc that will outperform a console. and no the parts arent 'low quality'. theres a difference between not the best and low quality. low quality implies its going to break or be obsolete in a week. all the parts listed ive personally used or know people who have or have used the brands.

a good pc is irrelevant. i never said you can build a great gaming pc for $400 you really cant. you can build one that outperforms the consoles.

[QUOTE="falldogout"]

Sure you gotta lay down a staple price (like 800$ but 400$ if you just build one)

AND you gotta upgrade (what 60$ every 1-2 years??)

But when it comes down to it. Games on the pc are very cheap. Pc has steam which is dead cheap.

And pc is a multi tasking system which means it does more than just play games

But most games i see on pc are a lot cheaper than a console game.

EDIT

While on a console you got your 300$ and your 50$ for accessories. And your 60$ a year (depends on console you choose but ps3 is getting premium also) for gaming online. And each new game is almost 70$ now. (Takes forever for them to drop in price you just slap those 70 big ones) Also you got your extra controllers (Extra 50$ or used which is like 20$)

Also your playing on a console thats not even graphically on par with pc.

x-2tha-z

PC has it's advantages and disadvantages. Yes, games are cheaper on PC, but that might be coming to an end if Assassins Creed 2 is anything to go by. Also, very few games cost $70. I'm not sure how long it takes prices for console games to drop in America, but in the UK they drop quite fast.

PC also gets some new releases quite late. Publishers probably do this to try to minimise the impact PC piracy has on total sales. You can't trade in your PC games either. Once you buy it, you're stuck with it.

Also, PC doesn't play every game. You can't get God of War 3, MGS4, Demon's Souls, Uncharted 2, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, Gears of War 2, Halo 3, Motorstorm, Bayonetta, Okami, No More Heroes, Valkyria Chronicles etc etc, on your PC, no matter how powerful it might be. If any of these games interest you, you need the console they're exclusive to. That's why I bought all of them, and a gaming PC. My gaming PC cost the same as six PS3's. Id say PC gaming is expensive. Lol.

well thats why your pc cost so much, you bought a 295 bet you fell stupid now

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"]

if you know how or can be bothered to buikd your own pc then it would probably work out cheaper. but most gamers, myself included, don't know the first thing about building computers so have to rely on manufactured pcs and laptops from big electrical stores that cost a lot of money.

when people invest in a console they can be confident that any game they buy for the platform will run on their console.

of course there's the common misconception that pc's need upgrading every couple of years and i'm sure that in the long run they work out cheaper financially than consoles. but they're very much more expensive in terms of hassle and stress if you don't know how to build, work and fix them

It takes 5 minutes to learn how to build a computer... You don't need special tools (only your hands), you don't need a bachelor's degree in computer science, you don't even need to know how computers work.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] LOL , dont you know that the console version arent even running max settings nor even high settings . THEY ARE RUNNING A MIX OF LOW MEDIUM AND HIGH SETTINGS JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR RAM LIMITS!!!! And my old Sempron 3300 1gb and 7600gs ran it on high at 1024x768 and got 30+ fps, Now also with max setting includes 4x AA which is a fps killer, and you have graphics and features that the console versions dont have or even can run so your arguement is flawed

04dcarraher

There is noting on the console version that is being run on low are medium settings and the pictures prove that , the comparison is right in front of your eyes. Low settings have no shadows, no specualar mapping and far lower res textures the fact I have to even argue this with you proves you havent even seen the console versions. Two there is not any feature cod4 has on it that cant be done on consoles, look at codMW 2it troucned it in everyway even the texture quality was better so yet again im just wasting my time.

http://www.overclock.net/video-game-news/609603-gamespot-mw2-graphics-comparison.html

Hmmm wonder how a 7600gt is gonna run that lmao.

That detail is negligle at best on cod MW2 if you had seen both versions you wouldnt even argue this. A 7600 gt could not do any of the DX10 features so its basicalaly doing it on the exact same settings at consoles at a sligly higher res and its getting obliterated by nearly 41fps no a 7600gt will not outperform a console end of story.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

My weak logic? He named two poor looking pc games and i can name any of todays current titles that look better on consoles then those cards and thats poor logic? You hermits want to argue that you can build a pc that will outperform a console for the same price and the fact is you cant. So then you keep naming older and cheaper GPU's and when you pull up the benchmarks the fact is they dont hold up. Can pc gaming look better? Absolutley but you will be paying signifantly more then any console.

washd123

no your logic. simple as this. you said he cant use prey because it wasnt optimized for the 360 so of course it looks better on the 6600.

with that logic since no pc game is ever optimized for an individual card you cant make any comparison where the console outperform the pc.

any one to say you can build a pc that can outperform the consoles for the same price as a console is joking or a moron.

Um thats the benefit of console hardware and the reason why it holds up so much longer then any comparable hardware for the pc at the time of its release. Its the benefit of having speicific parts designed to work with each other. Denying that advantage is simply ridiculous at the end of the day 9 timesout of 10 the consoles beat those older cards and thats all that matters.

Also you just posted benchmarks of a of a pc on games that were all optmized for the latest end cards and built for the pc and you are now saying it outperforms the consoles? You even randomly assigned the settings on the console to help your argument. Hipporcrit much?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="mudman91878"]

$50 a year for 5 years.....need a calculator?

mudman91878

PS3-300$

Online gaming- Free

Games ? That all depends on how many you buy. I can wait 4 to 5 monthes for a title and get it for 40$ or I can rent a game from gamefly and pay 10 bucks a month . I proved my point its cheaper

What about the PC that you have to buy so that you can come on here and make your ridiculous statements?

Also, if you're going to say $300 for a PS3 then you had to wait 3 years for it to drop to that price.

You can't argue that something is cheaper in the manner that you're attempting to.

It's like you're trying to tell me that a bicycle with no wheels for $100 is cheaper than a bicycle with wheels for $150. Sorry, there's more to it than that.

You're just a typical shortsided consolite who refuses to look at every single expense encountered when choosing to be a console gamer vs choosing to be a PC gamer.

I'll consider that you're still alive when you consider ALL the FACTS. I doubt that will happen since posting facts is something you're yet to do.

Im not sure what is so hard for you to comprehend ? I could reply on here with a 15 year old pc that is worth nothing if I wanted to. Hell I could get a PS3 with linux on it and reply on here If i wanted to . I am a gamer i buy platforms for exclusives so its basically no diffrent then me saying well if I buy a PC i need to buy a PS3 so I can play GOW3 so I guess I should add that in the price of my platform as well?

Also if you are going to compare todays pc prices to consoles then its only fair I use todays console prices. What do we now compare todays lowered pc parts with last years $600 PS3?

Um if im a typical shortside PC gamer why am I typing to you from a $1500 dollar pc I built myself? The fact is you are a typical hermit that apparently does not have the money to enjoy the true advantages of pc gaming thus you lie to yourself and say you get this elite expereince by paying less then the consoles and thats simply not the case.PC gaming has its advantages I know this but you pay for them and if you dont pay for them you simply dont get it thats the diffrence between you and i. I own both platforms you owna cheap pc which makes your entire argument illogical at best.

What have i posted that is not a fact? Is the PS3 not $300? Is the online not Free? Those by definition are facts you simply dont read well.