| Ruler said: I havent made an argument on the article itself so i want to bring my take on it, gamestops test is stupid at so many levels - xbox one costs now 350$ and 400$ cost the stronger console in the first place the ps4. They simple took the x1 as ground base for arguing about console and pc spec despite everyone knew that x1 was more expensive due to the kinect. They clearly favored the x1 here because it was more expensive and was weaker than the ps4 in order for the pc to look good. Its a dirty play - they didnt include a blue ray drive. Its a necessity also for pc gaming as all the older games are only available as cd and dvd releases. - just because the ps4 and x1 are locked at 30 frames doesnt mean they cant do more. In assassins creed 4 its obvious that the ps4 is equal to performance to the amd rig. The ps4 could equally hit 42 frames per second @1080p but the developers locked it 30 to reduce any huge frame rate drops and 30 and 60 frames are the most efficient rates. 40 isnt looking so good i have read somewhere. -So basically you can say the amd pc is a bit stronger on more optimized games for dual cores but the ps4 still has 8 cores and 8gb gddr5 ram. In later games you will clearly see the advantages as more of these stuff is utilized. - and while this pc has some better performance and frame rate there is till a difference between reality and on paper. Reality is on the pc you will sit in-front of the monitor and see every little complaints you will encounter. No or less anti aliasing will be more visible than on consoles, lower resolutions and frame rates as well. Of course you can plug a controllers to play it on the TV as gamespot suggested but it isnt always optimized. The hud system for example is a huge issue if you want to play it far away like in console gaming. = so yeah in the end the pc costs you 200 bucks more just in order to get the same performance as on the strongest console , like i said they forgot to count a blue ray player which makes it 200. And plus it isnt as well optimized and great of an experience as playing on the consoles as i mentioned. |
- Xbox One costs $350 temporarily. Its real price is $400. And remember to add tax (which you can avoid with buying PC parts online.)
- Yet in Assasin's Creed Unity PS4 drops to 18 fps and maxes at 30fps. For next generation games the PS4 is a low-mid ranged PC build that has the advantage of optimization. 40 fps is fine if you use V-Sync (or the new synchronization methods.) V-sync is something consoles don't have.
- All current AMD processors have more four cores/threads or more, with vastly higher IPC than the Jaguar and Xbone cpus. Don't even think about comparing CPU speed. The next gen consoles are pathetic in that area. Having 8 threads won't change this. Especially when there are plenty of cheap AMD CPU's with 6 threads, and games have just started to utilize more than two threads.
- You don't need a Bluray player if you're going to be using it for older dvd/cd games. A $10 external DVD is sufficient for that. But almost all games are available for download anyway. I can't think of a single game you can't find on GOG or Steam that has been released in the last 15 years that you need to buy in disc format. This is a really odd and deceptive argument here. I can't help but think it is you showing intellectual dishonesty.
- You can always play PC on your TV. In fact I play mine on my TV more than my monitor. My 55 inch TV that is about 5 feet away from me tends to show off blemishes more than my 22 inch monitor two feet away from me though. Plus you can actually play at 1080p resolutions for all games with the comparable cards. On consoles you are stuck with 900p or even slightly more than 720p for some games.
- No it doesn't. It costs just about the same price today. I already showed previously in this thread that you can have a fully functioning PC for $450 that plays games at the same performance (if not slightly better) as a PS4, and allows you more versatility with framerate and resolution options.
