Wii U vs PS4 vs Xbox One FULL SPECS (January 24, 2014)

[JEMC]

DigitalDevilSummoner said:

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By typical build I don't mean outdated/replaced hardware, I mean the average rig that a gamer might have.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 if 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).

 

That's the key part.

A gamer will build/buy a PC to play. He/she will go for the max performance possible given their budget, and given that we are talking about gamers, their budget will be a bit higher than the budget of a normal person, so a 200 $/€ CPU and a 200 $/€ GPU are very likely to be used.

Also, the Steam stadistics are fine for some things dut very useless for others because they include every PC where Steam is installed and that takes part on the survey, even the PCs that aren't build for gaming. Just look at it, do you really think a gamer would get a PC with a dual core and play using intel's GPU?