vlad321 said:
disolitude said:
Scoobes said:
disolitude said:
Umm...400 dollar today PC can not run games that are better looking than consoles.
I have a GTX295 video card and the damn thing alone cost me more than a PS3 would. Yes it runs Crysis maxed out at 30-40 frames per second and that looks better than any game on consoles...but my PC cost 1500 bucks to build.
If you want to run anything that totally blows away the consoles...you need to spend 1000 bucks at least. Hell, getting something middle of the road like a GTS250 or 4850 will put you in a hole 150 bucks...which is almost the price of the whole Xbox360 and it games won't look any better.
Try running Crysis Warhead on "Gamer" setting (don't even bother with enthusiast setting) with those cards and let me know how it turns out...
|
Isn't the GTX295 known for being a bit overpriced (as well as very powerful). I thought you could get a near equivalent ATI card for a lot cheaper, which would also bring down the cost of your PC. Also, don't forget that for the price you also get a lot more functionality than just better graphics. It all depends on what you want. I know I couldn't survive without a PC, so it's convenient for me to use it for a lot of my games too.
|
The ATI's equivalent card to that is 4870x2. You really can't find those for sale any more but if you do...they will be about 500 bucks.
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=222278827&vpn=EAH4870X2%2FHTDI%2F2G%2FA&manufacture=ASUS%20TeK
There really isn't a cheap option. Games that are developped for consoles and Pc at the same time are more sensible...and can be enjoyed with lesser video graphics hardware...but those PC games don't blow away the console ports in visuals unless they are played on very high settings, which low end video cards can't do. Games that do showcase PC superiority...like Crysis, Metro 2033...unless you spend 300 bucks on the video card alone, forget it. A graphics card under 150 bucks won't be able to run Metro 2033 at its lowest settings at 30 frames per second @ 720p. Frame rate will be in the low 20s and that is pretty unplayable in my eyes. And I can guarantee you that the 360 version of Metro 2033 looks better than a PC version running on ATI4650 or 9600GT video cards.
|
I don't know what you are talking about but you are full of shit.
I have a single 9800 GT for 80 bucks and I am running Metro 2033 on High, not Very high, and it has been consistently above 30 FPS. I was also running at 1620x1050 or whatever. So no, Metro 2033 High which makes the 360 versoin look like a pile of shit, runs perfectly fine on an $80 card.
|
First of all I am not surprised you get banned once a week since you are rude and completely lack human decency when posting.
Secondly, the bolded line applies to you here as I know for a fact that a stock GTX260 dips under 30 frames per second any time you have heavy gun fight with 5-6 dudes or are outside with a gas mask on. This is on high (not very high) and at 1680x1050.
And 9800GT is about 2 grades lower than a GTX260... With an 9800GT, I know that when you are in a tunnel walking with a buddy you can get up to 60 FPS...but when you go outside...heh not so much. Im guessing you lower the AA and are still most likely seeing frame rate drops in the low 20s (10s on Crysis) when the action heats up. Im sure its still quite playable, but with all those compromises, does it really "blow away" the consoles? Also, how would you know what Metro 2033 looks like on the 360?
But hey, I could be wrong and youve must have overclocked your card and are cooling it with liquid nitrogen or something...