By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DigitalDevilSummoner on 09 June 2013
Edit Thread
JEMC said:
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
superchunk said:

I'm not referring to any PC. I'm just using the typical PC settings as a relative comparison set.

What is " typical PC settings" supposed to mean ? Typical build ? I don't think a typical build PC can play stuff at ultra settings. 

An i5-2500K OC'ed, 8GB of RAM and anything higher than an AMD HD7870 can play Battlefield 3 at 1080p with a min. rate of 30fps, and averaging almost 50fps with all set to max (source). Even with only 4GB of RAM it still should be able to do it.

That's a 2 years (and 2 gens) old Intel CPU and a 1 year old mid class GPU from AMD that soon will be replaced aswell. That's what a typical gamimg PC would be to me, and plays almost everything on max at 1080p.


By typical build I don't mean up-to-date or fairly up-to-date hardware, I mean the average rig that a gamer might have.

Your suggestions are not what I would call widely adopted. The K version of 2500 retailed for 210$, a 7870 will set you back at least 200$ and 8 gb of ram will be 60$.

Steam statistics are a good indication http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I have my doubts about the "PC has better graphics" argument. You can't compare a constant -the console- (set price and realese date) VS a variable -the PC- (hardware date, price and adoption may vary).