Quantcast
You will need ~$650 bucks to match next gen consoles on PC

Forums - Gaming Discussion - You will need ~$650 bucks to match next gen consoles on PC

I would opt for the GTX 760 ($250) in a low end system like this. According to Tom's Hardware "this is the upper end of the spectrum for gaming on a 1920x1080 display, and it's more accessible than ever"

Frame rates consoles vs PC is hard to compare because consoles have draw distance and other settings dialed back to maximize frame rates for the hardware. Where as in the PC realm there are so many cards in use that this requires tweaking your settings.

I would also never get an i3 chip. Just not enough power for me... since I do more than game. I would opt for and i5-4570 at $190 (mking the op spec $60 more expensive) though I would want the i7-4770k for any real work.

Of course if you wanted WiiU level graphics (which are very respectable) I might opt for a really cheap box with an AMD A10-6800K at $150 that was both cpu and gpu and makes the op system very expensive looking ($230 cheaper with this option). The drivers for steambox/linux are respectable too.

The i7-4770R is a decent all in one chip solution ($392) that will give a decent gaming experience but is more expensive than the AMD one, but still cheaper than a decent cpu and discrete card.



Around the Network

allenmaher said:

I would opt for the GTX 760 ($250) in a low end system like this. According to Tom's Hardware "this is the upper end of the spectrum for gaming on a 1920x1080 display, and it's more accessible than ever"

I would also never get an i3 chip. Just not enough power for me... since I do more than game. I would opt for and i5-4570 at $190 (mking the op spec $60 more expensive) though I would want the i7-4770k for any real work.

Personally I'd go with the i5-4670K.

Getting it at the speed of the 4770K is easy and hyper-threading doesn't mean much most of the time, yet the 100 € less that it costs are the difference between a GTX760 and a GTX 770, and that would be very noticeable in games.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:

allenmaher said:

I would opt for the GTX 760 ($250) in a low end system like this. According to Tom's Hardware "this is the upper end of the spectrum for gaming on a 1920x1080 display, and it's more accessible than ever"

I would also never get an i3 chip. Just not enough power for me... since I do more than game. I would opt for and i5-4570 at $190 (mking the op spec $60 more expensive) though I would want the i7-4770k for any real work.

Personally I'd go with the i5-4670K.

Getting it at the speed of the 4770K is easy and hyper-threading doesn't mean much most of the time, yet the 100 € less that it costs are the difference between a GTX760 and a GTX 770, and that would be very noticeable in games.

Yep. The speed difference is negligable at best when it comes to games performance. For general usage the i7 would be better, but for games.. it much more worthwhile to invest the best GPU you can afford.



I've said before stick with an old pc run emulators and you access to the largest and most addictive game library ever. You wont miss this generation one bit



"...the best way to prepare [to be a programmer] is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and fished out listings of their operating system." - Bill Gates (Microsoft Corporation)

"Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's house before I did and took the TV doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo." - Bill Gates (Microsoft Corporation)

Bill Gates had Mac prototypes to work from, and he was known to be obsessed with trying to make Windows as good as SAND (Steve's Amazing New Device), as a Microsoft exec named it. It was the Mac that Microsoft took for its blueprint on how to make a GUI.

 

""Windows [n.] - A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.""

ethomaz said:

tarheel91 said:

That CPU is fine.  The Jaguar performs much worse per cycle per core.

That's basically the same GPU as the PS4, and you'll be able to overclock it since you're not restricted to a tiny case with poor cooling.

Just because the PS4 has 7GB of VRAM available doesn't mean it can/will use it all for graphics.  8GB RAM + 2GB VRAM should be fine (I agree the OP needs to up the DDR3).

If you don't have a keyboard by now, that's depressing.

Who needs a BD-ROM when all of your games are digital.

Yeah.... the CPU in single thread is better but in multithread not because the CPU listed is a dual-core... he needs at least a quad-core in this case.

It's already proved that GPU on consoles reach close to 100% efficience and in PC is more 50-60% efficience... it is the same power but to match a console you will need a way powerful GPU on PC... PC have a lot of overhead... consoles is close to metal.

Killzone (the only game that we knows for sure how much RAM is using) used 3GB VRAM... he needs to increase both VRAM to 4GB RAM and SystemRAM to at least 6GB RAM (the OS and apps on PC uses close to 2GB)... so the PC will have 4GB VRAM and ~4GB System RAM available to games... with the disadvantage of not being shared.

I don't have keyboard... I have a notebook... I think every desktop PC you need to buy something to control the game lol.

PS4 have BD-ROM... you want a PC to match the PS4... so you need a BD-ROM to do the fair comparison.


The CPU has hyperthreading so 4 threads.  It will do fine. 

Where have these efficiencies been "proven?"  I'm going to need to see a source on that.  Again, you can overclock a PC GPU, which should lead to gains of 20-30% depending on if you want to modify voltages or not (I'm speaking from my experience overclocking a 7xxx card).  The coded to the metal stuff is vastly overstated, especially when the PS4 and X1 share the same architecture with the PC (and share the same GPU architecture).

The fact that you mention 6GB RAM tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.  You'd go either 4GB or 8GB to takes advantage of dual channel memory with identical RAM sticks.  As I said, he should upgrade to 8GB DDR3 (very cheap).  You don't need the exact same memory solution as the PS4.  The X1 has 8GB DDR3 and ESRAM.  2GB GDDR5 + 8GB DDR3 should be sufficient.

I'd imagine you are the exception and not the rule when it comes to not having a keyboard or a mouse.

I don't need a BD-ROM when all of my games and media content are either downloaded or streamed.



Around the Network

PS4 as I read in combination with the processor will have around 2 TERA FLOP of power, to mach that on a PC u need a card like GTX 660 that cost more or less 200 $ it's not much, but a graphic card cant work by it self so if we add a good motherboard with 4-6 GB of good DDR3 RAM + a good Quad core processor, power supply, tower, blah-blah-blah all the peripherals & a descent  monitor u will need more or less at least 700-800 $ imo no less no more, that's double the money a PS4 cost but ofc a PC doe's a lot more than a console & there is always games on a PC u cant play on consoles.