By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - CONSOLEs vs PC

Anyone that remotely know how I post will have gathered that I am strongly against this very type of comparisons. Thats primarily because I believe they are usually always done unfairly and unrealistically. So I made this thread to explain exactly why. Now I am invitng all the PC guys here and the console guys to agree or disagree with my reasoning. This will not stop some from still making such comaprisons but I hope this thread or post would serve as a very good way to put things in perspective. So onto the points.

 

  1. HARDWARE
    Ignoring the display. Lets start with what is in the box. For consoles, you go out and spend $350-$400 for a box that comes with a console, an OS, a controller, a HDMI cable, power cable, disc drive and a headset (and maybe a free game). Then you connect that box to your TV. If anyone will be comparing a PC to a console, shoudn't it only be fair to compare a PC that cost just as much and will give you the exact same things in the box? A PC that will come with at least a mouse/keyboard or a controller, a video cable, disc drive and an OS. For the exact same price of $350-$400.

  2. PERFORMANCE
    This ties directly into the above point. If I spend $1000 on a GPU alone. It sure as hell will out perform a GPU that costs $400 or even a GPU that costs $200. I think this is something any PC gamer can relate with. It would be a special kinda stupid to expect a $200GPU to perform as well as a $1000 or even a $3000 GPU. So if screenshots of PC games are put up for the sole purpose of comparing them to consoles, shouldn't the PC in question generating the in game screen shot be at least similarly priced to the console in question. Cause at the end of the day the real comparison is what you can get for your money. If you are comparing the performance of something that costs 4 times more than a console then doesn't that defeat the purpose? Thats like trying to drag race a honda civic with an enzo ferrari.

  3. CONSUMER TYPE
    There is a very very big difference between a hardcore PC gamer and a console gamer. Put simply, a console gamer just wants ease of access. A box they just buy and plug into their TV. A box that will do everything for them that needs to be done to run the game. So if a PC gamer is going to argue with a console gamer, shouldn't they at least consider that that console gamer is most likely not willing or interested in doing all the things that you may have to do to get a great PC rig at the afore mentioned $350-$400. Like scrounge for used/refurbished parts.. basically build your own RIG. These are ppl that wanna just go and buy a box that works. What sense does it now make to start a PC argument by "you can BUILD a system better than that with teh same amount of money if you are willing to get a little creative or resourceful".

    I also think that some PC gamers can be obnoxious. Cause they act like a consumer wnting to spend what he/she deems is all they need to spend for their gaming is stupid. Some people want to spend $350-$400 for a console. Some people are willing to spend way more for a PC if need be. Whats wrong with any of that?
Thats it. These are the things I think in all fairness needs to be considered. Its like the PS4 vs XB1. I am sure most will agree that the XB1 should at least be $50 cheaper than the PS4 because its less powerful hardware and it does not perform as well (even though this performance delta is mostly hard to see with the naked eye unless they are pointed out to some). What I don'tt understand is that if this applies to practically identical hardware in their function and pricing, why doesn't/shouldn't Pcs  follow suit. Shouldn't a $1000 PC naturally perform much better? So how in anyones right mind would comparing way more powerful and expensive hardware to something cheaper make any kinda sense.
And whats funny is that every year this price:performance argument gets steeper. Last year, the question was can you walk into a store and buy (not build) a PC for $400-$500 that performs just as well or would outperform a PS4/XB1. This year its for $350-$400 (and don't forget that theer are games even thrown in there too). Next year it could be $250-$350 and so on.... Cause at the point, for the spending floor in question, thats what you can get with a console. And the millions of people that buy consoles clearly shows that thats all some are willing to spend for their gaming needs.

 



Around the Network

You already did...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=186155&page=1



I will always choose consoles. No need to upgrade and I am not a graphics junkie. Plus those shiny exclusives do their part.



daredevil.shark said:
I will always choose consoles. No need to upgrade and I am not a graphics junkie. Plus those shiny exclusives do their part.

This



Intrinsic said:

Anyone that remotely know how I post will have gathered that I am strongly against this very type of comparisons. Thats primarily because I believe they are usually always done unfairly and unrealistically. So I made this thread to explain exactly why. Now I am invitng all the PC guys here and the console guys to agree or disagree with my reasoning. This will not stop some from still making such comaprisons but I hope this thread or post would serve as a very good way to put things in perspective. So onto the points.

 

  1. HARDWARE
    Ignoring the display. Lets start with what is in the box. For consoles, you go out and spend $350-$400 for a box that comes with a console, an OS, a controller, a HDMI cable, power cable, disc drive and a headset (and maybe a free game). Then you connect that box to your TV. If anyone will be comparing a PC to a console, shoudn't it only be fair to compare a PC that cost just as much and will give you the exact same things in the box? A PC that will come with at least a mouse/keyboard or a controller, a video cable, disc drive and an OS. For the exact same price of $350-$400.

  2. PERFORMANCE
    This ties directly into the above point. If I spend $1000 on a GPU alone. It sure as hell will out perform a GPU that costs $400 or even a GPU that costs $200. I think this is something any PC gamer can relate with. It would be a special kinda stupid to expect a $200GPU to perform as well as a $1000 or even a $3000 GPU. So if screenshots of PC games are put up for the sole purpose of comparing them to consoles, shouldn't the PC in question generating the in game screen shot be at least similarly priced to the console in question. Cause at the end of the day the real comparison is what you can get for your money. If you are comparing the performance of something that costs 4 times more than a console then doesn't that defeat the purpose? Thats like trying to drag race a honda civic with an enzo ferrari.

  3. CONSUMER TYPE
    There is a very very big difference between a hardcore PC gamer and a console gamer. Put simply, a console gamer just wants ease of access. A box they just buy and plug into their TV. A box that will do everything for them that needs to be done to run the game. So if a PC gamer is going to argue with a console gamer, shouldn't they at least consider that that console gamer is most likely not willing or interested in doing all the things that you may have to do to get a great PC rig at the afore mentioned $350-$400. Like scrounge for used/refurbished parts.. basically build your own RIG. These are ppl that wanna just go and buy a box that works. What sense does it now make to start a PC argument by "you can BUILD a system better than that with teh same amount of money if you are willing to get a little creative or resourceful".

    I also think that some PC gamers can be obnoxious. Cause they act like a consumer wnting to spend what he/she deems is all they need to spend for their gaming is stupid. Some people want to spend $350-$400 for a console. Some people are willing to spend way more for a PC if need be. Whats wrong with any of that?
Thats it. These are the things I think in all fairness needs to be considered. Its like the PS4 vs XB1. I am sure most will agree that the XB1 should at least be $50 cheaper than the PS4 because its less powerful hardware and it does not perform as well (even though this performance delta is mostly hard to see with the naked eye unless they are pointed out to some). What I don'tt understand is that if this applies to practically identical hardware in their function and pricing, why doesn't/shouldn't Pcs  follow suit. Shouldn't a $1000 PC naturally perform much better? So how in anyones right mind would comparing way more powerful and expensive hardware to something cheaper make any kinda sense.
And whats funny is that every year this price:performance argument gets steeper. Last year, the question was can you walk into a store and buy (not build) a PC for $400-$500 that performs just as well or would outperform a PS4/XB1. This year its for $350-$400 (and don't forget that theer are games even thrown in there too). Next year it could be $250-$350 and so on.... Cause at the point, for the spending floor in question, thats what you can get with a console. And the millions of people that buy consoles clearly shows that thats all some are willing to spend for their gaming needs.

 

Well just take the example of Assassins Creed Unity that need GTX 680 for the minimum spec (damn that's more then 3 terraflop capability there) But on console it only take 1,8 terra flop to utilize (well 1,3 for Xbox one). terraflop doesn't always equal to better graphic. It's depend on which console or platform optimize for.



Around the Network
Erwin-VGC said:
You already did...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=186155&page=1

I know right? Figured I made it more concise and focus only on the most relevant aspects. Or not i am sure people will find a way to argue some more over semantics or extremely slight variations.

Besides, this isn't a thread about the differences or which is better. This is in an attempt to arrive at some sort of baseline for comparisons to be made.



I will always choose a decent PC (for multiplatform games + PC exclusives) AND a PlayStation (for Sony exclusives) AND a Nintendo console (for Mario + Zelda).... Xbox is optional, since most "exclusives" land on PC anyways.



Conina said:
I will always choose a decent PC (for multiplatform games + PC exclusives) AND a PlayStation (for Sony exclusives) AND a Nintendo console (for Mario + Zelda).... Xbox is optional, since most "exclusives" land on PC anyways.


Agreed.



having a console is like having a beutiful girlfriend.

pc on the other side is a fat chick.



Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

HollyGamer said:

Well just take the example of Assassins Creed Unity that need GTX 680 for the minimum spec (damn that's more then 3 terraflop capability there) But on console it only take 1,8 terra flop to utilize (well 1,3 for Xbox one). terraflop doesn't always equal to better graphic. It's depend on which console or platform optimize for.

When it comes to Ubisoft and how they optimize, I think most will agree that they are the exception and not the rule. With watchdogs Ubi has shown that they are even crazy enough to have higher quality assets/code disabled even though they were shipped in the game on PCs. A company willing to do stuff like that scares the hell outta me.

Yes optimization is important. But in more cases than not, more terraflops does equal better performance.