By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Nvidia come out swinging for the PC at E3: “the PC is the most powerful gaming platform out there”

trixiemafia86 on 16 June 2013
Zkuq said:
trixiemafia86 said:

actually, it all depends on the price of the PC. My PC for instance is more expensive regardless of how cheap I buy games on steam and whatnot. 

Correct. That's why I said it's not necessarily true. Obviously a top-tier PC isn't the only thing you can compare to consoles, though. And if you buy a top-tier PC, you're either an entusiast to whom it's worth the cost or you're ignorant in some way. Or you could pay some extra for a crappy PC, who knows. In that case, too, you're ignorant. I'm guessing you fall in the enthusiast group, though.

Agreed. But One question: for a first time adopter, what PC price range will provide similar performance to nextgen consoles for atleast 2-3 years? I'll like to know what you think thats all.



Smartest nam evila

Current Platforms: HighendPC[rip]/PS4/PS3[rip]/Vita[rip]

Around the Network
Pemalite on 16 June 2013
trixiemafia86 said:

Agreed. But One question: for a first time adopter, what PC price range will provide similar performance to nextgen consoles for atleast 2-3 years? I'll like to know what you think thats all.


If you go thrifty and get Refurbished/Second Hand/Ex-Demo/Older Generation hardware you can get a pretty capable gaming PC incredibly cheap. (Think: $500-$600)

However, what you are asking is for someone to predict the future, no one knows what the hardware requirements of PC games are going to jump up to in 2-3 years time, because to put simply... PC games generally always have better graphics by default and are always improving.

However, with that said, the GPU is the main thing to worry about in a purely gaming PC, any quad core that's got a decent clock speed with 8gb of Ram is fairly capable of running any game you throw at it, provided you don't skimp on the GPU.
And it's not like you can't just lower image quality settings in 3 years time if you don't want to upgrade that GPU either.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

iron_megalith on 17 June 2013
Pemalite said:
trixiemafia86 said:
Zkuq said:
bananaking21 said:
and is the most expensive

Not necessarily true. You have a PC, no? How much did it cost? Do you have any idea how much extra you would have had to pay for it to be gaming-capable? Yeah, probably not more than the price of a new console. And then there's the fact that online gaming is free on PC (with the exception of MMOs and such) and that PC games cost ~$10 less than console games.

actually, it all depends on the price of the PC. My PC for instance is more expensive regardless of how cheap I buy games on steam and whatnot. 


You have to look at the long-term costs.

Lets break it all down.
Pay for online at $50 a year for 10 years. - $500.
Console itself. - $500
100 games at around $10 cheaper than the PC. - $1,000 (You can usually get them even cheaper than that, which brings that number up higher.)
3x Controllers. - $75
So, that's roughly at-least 2 grand.

Now, I know plenty of people who are still rocking with Core 2 Quads which launched at the start of the generation, albeit heavily overclocked to around 3.8ghz. - Throw in a couple of GPU upgrades over time and it will generally handle any game today just fine.

Then last week I built a "Gaming PC" for a mate of mine with an AMD FX 8320, 8Gb of ram, Radeon 7870 Ghz Edition all for $700 AUD. (Minus Monitor as it's being used on a TV.)
The CPU will clock to around 4.5-4.8ghz easy when the need arises, but I don't see it needing an entire rebuild anytime soon, the console CPU's are incredibly underpowered, so over the course of this next generation it will probably just be a new GPU every few years and maybe another 8Gb of ram.

PC gaming really *isn't* that much more expensive than consoles. If anything it's probably the other way around!
Sure you pay more for hardware, but everything else is cheaper or free, more DLC on the PC is free, free online... Even allot of free games.


A pc rig won't keep up for 10 years as well so goodluck with that. Also there's a difference with paying a huge ammount of money in one go than paying in terms. The latter is more manageable as you don't splurge your money right away.

So no... PC is still more expensive to build not to mention researching individual good parts which is quite a hassle for general consumers.

But really nothing really beats PC in performance. You just need to be stinking rich to keep up with it.



zarx on 17 June 2013
mjk45 said:

Seems the reason that Nvidia is going all out is they don't like the fact that amd is getting publicity by being manufacturer of choice in the consoles and so they go from the president saying we love working with Sony and it's been great and benificial for both parties and we see a long term partership ,to we don't want your stinking consoles .


You can bet if they had their tech in either PS4 or XBone the tune would be very different , and a we can't meet your requirements becomes spun into we didn't want to do it , where the reality seems to be Nvidia really didn't have a design that ticked off all the directional needs of the next gen consoles to match amd's apu road map and unified memory design ,and because no one likes to look as if they couldn't compete at a certain point , even if that just comes about by not having like your opponent a x86 licence to make things easier and thus having a different focus.
So really it's Nvidia trying to tell the world it was them declining rather than any thing done better by amd that got them into the consoles.

They are trying to premote their products, it's not like this is new for them.

http://www.destructoid.com/nvidia-pc-game-sales-will-surpass-console-game-sales-212102.phtml

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/10/nvidia-says-pc-gaming-in-midst-of-revival/

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/10/03/without-twimtbp-pc-gaming-would-be-dead/1

And having their tech in the OG Xbox and PS3 didn't change anything. Even while screwing MS over with licensing fees.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Alby_da_Wolf on 17 June 2013

I agree about the PC, but for my needs I still prefer ATI/AMD, sorry, NVidia, don't be butthurt and... 'nvidious!



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 June 2013
iron_megalith said:
Pemalite said:
trixiemafia86 said:
Zkuq said:
bananaking21 said:
and is the most expensive

Not necessarily true. You have a PC, no? How much did it cost? Do you have any idea how much extra you would have had to pay for it to be gaming-capable? Yeah, probably not more than the price of a new console. And then there's the fact that online gaming is free on PC (with the exception of MMOs and such) and that PC games cost ~$10 less than console games.

actually, it all depends on the price of the PC. My PC for instance is more expensive regardless of how cheap I buy games on steam and whatnot. 


You have to look at the long-term costs.

Lets break it all down.
Pay for online at $50 a year for 10 years. - $500.
Console itself. - $500
100 games at around $10 cheaper than the PC. - $1,000 (You can usually get them even cheaper than that, which brings that number up higher.)
3x Controllers. - $75
So, that's roughly at-least 2 grand.

Now, I know plenty of people who are still rocking with Core 2 Quads which launched at the start of the generation, albeit heavily overclocked to around 3.8ghz. - Throw in a couple of GPU upgrades over time and it will generally handle any game today just fine.

Then last week I built a "Gaming PC" for a mate of mine with an AMD FX 8320, 8Gb of ram, Radeon 7870 Ghz Edition all for $700 AUD. (Minus Monitor as it's being used on a TV.)
The CPU will clock to around 4.5-4.8ghz easy when the need arises, but I don't see it needing an entire rebuild anytime soon, the console CPU's are incredibly underpowered, so over the course of this next generation it will probably just be a new GPU every few years and maybe another 8Gb of ram.

PC gaming really *isn't* that much more expensive than consoles. If anything it's probably the other way around!
Sure you pay more for hardware, but everything else is cheaper or free, more DLC on the PC is free, free online... Even allot of free games.


A pc rig won't keep up for 10 years as well so goodluck with that. Also there's a difference with paying a huge ammount of money in one go than paying in terms. The latter is more manageable as you don't splurge your money right away.

So no... PC is still more expensive to build not to mention researching individual good parts which is quite a hassle for general consumers.

But really nothing really beats PC in performance. You just need to be stinking rich to keep up with it.


You're joking right?  A PC will totally keep up with a console for 10 years.

If anything the opposite is true.  In 10 years it's the PS4//Xbone that won't be keeping up, while the PC will be able to run games that won't even be on the PS4.


Heck, the PC rig will probably keep up with the PS5/nextbox if you just buy a graphics card that will be cheaper then the PS5/nextbox likely will be.



Kasz216 on 17 June 2013
Alby_da_Wolf said:
I agree about the PC, but for my needs I still prefer ATI/AMD, sorry, NVidia, don't be butthurt and... 'nvidious!


Hopefully with AMD being on the consoles we won't have to worry about as many games running like shit on AMD hardware.

Though they'll still need to up their driver game.



Kasz216 on 17 June 2013
mjk45 said:

Seems the reason that Nvidia is going all out is they don't like the fact that amd is getting publicity by being manufacturer of choice in the consoles and so they go from the president saying we love working with Sony and it's been great and benificial for both parties and we see a long term partership ,to we don't want your stinking consoles .


You can bet if they had their tech in either PS4 or XBone the tune would be very different , and a we can't meet your requirements becomes spun into we didn't want to do it , where the reality seems to be Nvidia really didn't have a design that ticked off all the directional needs of the next gen consoles to match amd's apu road map and unified memory design ,and because no one likes to look as if they couldn't compete at a certain point , even if that just comes about by not having like your opponent a x86 licence to make things easier and thus having a different focus.
So really it's Nvidia trying to tell the world it was them declining rather than any thing done better by amd that got them into the consoles.


Nvidia has APUs(Fancy word for ARMs) and Unified memory architecture... why do people keep thinking they don't?

Nvidia's videogame revenue was extremely disapointing last gen, they just didn't want to chase after the low ass margins the consoles provide, let alone at the even lower margins that AMD were offering because well....

AMD is desperate.   They lost a billion dollar last year.

 

Really AMD's situation mirrors Sony, (Right up to selling their headquarters) except Sony has the advantages of being on the top in their field at one point and having good profitable buisnsesses.

Well, and Sony actually moved their headquareters after they sold the building, they weren't desperate enough to sell their offices then just lease those exact same offices from the company who bought them.  That's just... really bad.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-underdog-stuck-it-to-intel/

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/amd-on-ropes-from-the-top-of-the-mountain-to-the-deepest-valleys/3/  (to skip to the console part)

This is something people who are coming in from consoles might not know but... really this is a last chance gamble for AMD.

 

I think they're REALLY hoping somehow the Xbox One becomes huge as a TV Box.



HoloDust on 17 June 2013
Kasz216 said:
iron_megalith said:


A pc rig won't keep up for 10 years as well so goodluck with that. Also there's a difference with paying a huge ammount of money in one go than paying in terms. The latter is more manageable as you don't splurge your money right away.

So no... PC is still more expensive to build not to mention researching individual good parts which is quite a hassle for general consumers.

But really nothing really beats PC in performance. You just need to be stinking rich to keep up with it.


You're joking right?  A PC will totally keep up with a console for 10 years.

If anything the opposite is true.  In 10 years it's the PS4//Xbone that won't be keeping up, while the PC will be able to run games that won't even be on the PS4.


Heck, the PC rig will probably keep up with the PS5/nextbox if you just buy a graphics card that will be cheaper then the PS5/nextbox likely will be.

Uhm, think he meant without upgrading. But even if you want to upgrade, beside the point that you can't wait 10 years (10 years ago, for example, GPUs were still running on AGP), there are a lot of people (majority, I'd say) that simply don't want to bother with that.

While PC gaming certainly has lot of benefits, having closed box that's paid for once and wll serve you for next 8 or more years (like in this cycle) also has its own benefits. Unless it breaks down, that is...but that happens to PCs as well.



Jumpin on 17 June 2013

The charts are bs, and the argument for PC gaming is both flawed and based on false evidence.

The PC gaming revenue is mostly casual browser games like those on facebook and the 7 million clones of Evony Online, and not these games that depend on graphical high end games like the first post is attempting to lead people to believe. 

Essentially what the first post is trying to do is using low end browser games and trying to pass them off as the sales of high end PC games.

The PC market usually has 1-3 games that even break into the top 20 game sales, and the charts are otherwise dominated by console games.

Also, the chart conveniently left Nintendo off the list, even in its current low period it is still in the ~7 billion revenue range, and would have accounted for more than 50% of the industry a few years ago.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.