Pemalite said:
disolitude said:
I've been gaming on PCs for well over a decade and have 3X 1080p monitors in Nvidia surround resolution of 5980x1080p (bezel corrected 5760x1080). I also have a 120 hz monitor which I give a go from time to time.
At these resolutions gaming becomes a game of trade-offs.
Do I want full rez and 60 fps (or even 120)? Well I have to lower the game details and AA.
Do I want all details and AA turned on? I may lower the resolution to do so...
Does anyone ever want a dipping stuttering frame rate? No they dont... So don't give me the BS that variable frame rate is an OK tradeoff as long as resolution and details are high.
|
Pretty much.
However, the advantage the PC has is you can just throw more hardware at the performance problem.
You could achieve 120fps with everything on max in most games if you wen't with 3-4x Titans or Radeon 290's.
Basically, if you are willing to spend the cash, you can have zero compromises, where-as with consoles you are given what you get, regardless if you like it or not.
Besides on the PC, todays demanding game is essentially tomorrows solitair.
|
While I agree to an extent that PCs have a lot more flexibility in terms of performance relative to $$$ spent... at some point spending 2X the money to get more 15% extra performance becomes a little too much, especially when you could lower the settings slightly and usually accomplish the same thing.
Like I have 2X GTX 770 4GB in SLI. Could I add a 3rd and improve performance? Sure...Maybe sell them and get GTX 780TIs? You bet... But everything runs butter smooth on 3X1080p as long as I utilize FXAA and alternate between high and ultra details, depending on the game. So spending another 400 bucks to me just isn't worth it for an extra texture here and there.
But to conclude...PCs win this whole thread due to their flexibility, since you can lower setting and choose 1080p or 60 fps. You want it all? Get a PC...
