eva01beserk said:
Now thats just unrealistic. |
Oh really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiS9LC6X55Q
QuintonMcLeod said:
Oh really? |
Yes really. This rig is better then an xbox one no doubt, but the ps4 is really close to it in performance and $166 cheaper so its still the better choice. And the point you where making before about the split resourses, this rig wouldnot be able to maintaing to diferent games of diablo 3 runing simultaneisly on lan. So it is still much cheaper to get a ps4 to play local multiplayer and probably would deliber a better performance than a $1000 rig split resources to play local multyplayer.
It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.
| eva01beserk said:
Yes really. This rig is better then an xbox one no doubt, but the ps4 is really close to it in performance and $166 cheaper so its still the better choice. And the point you where making before about the split resourses, this rig wouldnot be able to maintaing to diferent games of diablo 3 runing simultaneisly on lan. So it is still much cheaper to get a ps4 to play local multiplayer and probably would deliber a better performance than a $1000 rig split resources to play local multyplayer. |
I can tell you didn't watch the video. The rig in the video was able to run all the games (save two - ACIV is a very unoptimized game and runs like garbage even on high-end machines) at 1080p and 60 fps locked on high settings. These are settings well beyond what the PS4 is capable of doing. The PS4's performance isn't anywhere close to this. If you honestly believe it is, then you are lying to yourself. This rig can certainly run Diablo 3 in multiple instances (Diablo 3 isn't a demanding game by any stretch of the imagination). Considering you didn't know this lets me know that you honestly don't understand the PC.
Here's an even cheaper PC with a beefier GPU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECnV5kATo4E
But there is a parity clause so MS would have just paid millions so that Blizzard would make them both 900p.
QuintonMcLeod said:
I can tell you didn't watch the video. The rig in the video was able to run all the games (save two - ACIV is a very unoptimized game and runs like garbage even on high-end machines) at 1080p and 60 fps locked on high settings. These are settings well beyond what the PS4 is capable of doing. The PS4's performance isn't anywhere close to this. If you honestly believe it is, then you are lying to yourself. This rig can certainly run Diablo 3 in multiple instances (Diablo 3 isn't a demanding game by any stretch of the imagination). Considering you didn't know this lets me know that you honestly don't understand the PC. Here's an even cheaper PC with a beefier GPU:
|
I watched the video,saw your second video and seen many videos like it before. second build did not include windows so its actually more expensive. I never said it was not more powerfull, it definetly is. But to asume that just cuz of that it will be able to run 2 games at the same time is just crazzy. I know I cant change your mind but diablo is a demanding game, graphics alone is not what makes a game demandig, all the stuff going on and the amount of characters, particle efetcs, mobs, npcs and a lot of things make tthe game demanding. Even if the game was not demanding, runing 2 at thhe same time is insane and neither of thse builds will be able to run it.
It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.
| eva01beserk said:I watched the video,saw your second video and seen many videos like it before. second build did not include windows so its actually more expensive. I never said it was not more powerfull, it definetly is. But to asume that just cuz of that it will be able to run 2 games at the same time is just crazzy. I know I cant change your mind but diablo is a demanding game, graphics alone is not what makes a game demandig, all the stuff going on and the amount of characters, particle efetcs, mobs, npcs and a lot of things make tthe game demanding. Even if the game was not demanding, runing 2 at thhe same time is insane and neither of thse builds will be able to run it.
|
As for Diablo 3's graphics. Here are the minimum PC requirements for the game:
Windows® XP/Vista/7 (latest service packs) with DX 9.0c
Intel Pentium® D 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4400+
NVIDIA® GeForce® 7800 GT or ATI Radeon™ X1950 Pro or better
1 GB RAM (XP), 1.5 GB (Vista/7)
12 GB available HD space
DVD-ROM (required for retail disc versions only)
Broadband** Internet connection
1024x748 minimum resolution
And if you're running the expansion, an additional gig of RAM. Just look at those requirements! The X1950 is equivelent to what's in the Xbox 360 - a card that's almost a decade old!, and you're saying Diablo 3 is a graphically demanding game? LOLOL!
And this is your issue. You're underestimating what a PC is capable of and overestimating what the PS4 can do.
Look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riYtP69Z2xQ
If people are able to play 4 player co-op of Left 4 Dead 2 using a single GPU that is equivlent to what's in the $500 dollar PC, why would PC gamers not be able to do the same with D3 today? I will admit the processor in the example is still a bit pricey, so allow me to give you another example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfqHRHpiC28
If they can run 3 games (one of which is an entirely different game!) on a single AMD 5570, why wouldn't they be able to do the same with Diablo 3?
Look, man. The PC trumps the PS4, no matter which way you swing it. The PC version of Diablo 3 will obviously be the superior version, whether you like it or not. Those are facts. I'm sorry.
So all MS has to do is tell devs that only 1080p is acceptable. Hardware problem solved. 
I always thought that it was weird Diablo III couldn't run in 1080p on Xbone. The game runs well even on mid end pcs.
QuintonMcLeod said:
As for Diablo 3's graphics. Here are the minimum PC requirements for the game:
And if you're running the expansion, an additional gig of RAM. Just look at those requirements! The X1950 is equivelent to what's in the Xbox 360 - a card that's almost a decade old!, and you're saying Diablo 3 is a graphically demanding game? LOLOL! And this is your issue. You're underestimating what a PC is capable of and overestimating what the PS4 can do. Look at this video: If people are able to play 4 player co-op of Left 4 Dead 2 using a single GPU that is equivlent to what's in the $500 dollar PC, why would PC gamers not be able to do the same with D3 today? I will admit the processor in the example is still a bit pricey, so allow me to give you another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfqHRHpiC28 If they can run 3 games (one of which is an entirely different game!) on a single AMD 5570, why wouldn't they be able to do the same with Diablo 3?
Look, man. The PC trumps the PS4, no matter which way you swing it. The PC version of Diablo 3 will obviously be the superior version, whether you like it or not. Those are facts. I'm sorry. |
I have to admit that that was impresive.
But still, the cpu alone of the first one runing 4 games was as expensive as a ps4/xb1.
On the second one I have to say that it might be possible to run 2 games of diablo 3. Maybe, not entirely convinced but sure it would not be max setting as the 3 games runing on the video you could of played them on a gamecube.
There is no way that cost $500, first it said it nowhere on the video and as I looked online for the components it said it had, that rig was at least $600. Second you would had to add the server device wich you showed me it was around $100. Then the monitors wich I only looked on amzon and could not find anything cheaper then $130 for a 23" 1080p monitor so lets asume you get 3 at $390. Mouse and keyboard easy $15 for both, 3 of them would be $45.
That adds up to $1035 asuming that it has windows installed, the one you said cost $500 did not havewindos wich is why it cost $500 with it it was around $600. But what ever. So for 2 people to play, it would be $$880, for 3 $1035 and for 4 $1190. Ands this still me beliving that rig ccant handle it and probably it can do 2 people with very unstable framerate. The ps4 is tested 4 people 1080p 60hz.
Do you still think is better economicly to play on the computer Diablo 3 then on the ps4, or even performance wise?
It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.
| eva01beserk said:
1) I have to admit that that was impresive. But still, the cpu alone of the first one runing 4 games was as expensive as a ps4/xb1. 2) On the second one I have to say that it might be possible to run 2 games of diablo 3. Maybe, not entirely convinced but sure it would not be max setting as the 3 games runing on the video you could of played them on a gamecube. 3) There is no way that cost $500, first it said it nowhere on the video and as I looked online for the components it said it had, that rig was at least $600. Second you would had to add the server device wich you showed me it was around $100. Then the monitors wich I only looked on amzon and could not find anything cheaper then $130 for a 23" 1080p monitor so lets asume you get 3 at $390. Mouse and keyboard easy $15 for both, 3 of them would be $45. 4) That adds up to $1035 asuming that it has windows installed, the one you said cost $500 did not havewindos wich is why it cost $500 with it it was around $600. But what ever. So for 2 people to play, it would be $$880, for 3 $1035 and for 4 $1190. Ands this still me beliving that rig ccant handle it and probably it can do 2 people with very unstable framerate. The ps4 is tested 4 people 1080p 60hz. Do you still think is better economicly to play on the computer Diablo 3 then on the ps4, or even performance wise? |
1) I've addressed this and gave you two videos - but even so, the point was to show its possible to do local co-op on a single machine at a low cost. Keep in mind, on both systems, no additional hardware was added. They used a software called SoftXpand.
2) Diablo 3 isn't a demanding game, so, I'm sure the second PC can run 3 on low to mid settings.
3) The Gamespot video showed a PC that was $566 dollars. However, who said you needed Windows to play Diablo 3? You can play Diablo 3 in Linux. Since Linux is a multi-user OS by design, you wouldn't need any additional hardware or software to set up multiple users on a single box.
Let's get something out of the way first before I continue. In the PS4 version of Diablo 3, you're confined to one screen. The screen is not split. Meanwhile, the PC is capable of providing a whole screen per player, and no one needs to share the screen. By your own admittance, the old AMD 5700 PC is capable of running Diablo 3 in two instances. That machine was very old and could cost much less than the Gamespot PC. The fact to the matter is, even that old PC is capable of running Diablo 3 co-op better than the PS4.
I can see that you're desparately grasping for straws here.
Listen, you can play local co-op on the PC using just one monitor. There's a free tool called Splitscreen PC tool:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3176217
You can also use a 3D TV to use full screen 2 player gaming. So, buying another monitor isn't necessary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqeebO_-G44
4) That's a ridiculous number you came up with. Like I said earlier, there are televisions that allow 2 player full screen gaming. Check out the video I gave you. You also assume the framerate will be unstable even after I explained to you that Diablo 3 isn't a demanding game. Diablo 3 runs on the PS3 and Xbox 360 for crying out loud. Pull yourself together, man.
Yes, it's cheaper to own a PC than it is a console. Even if you paid over $500 dollars on the PC itself, the games are cheaper, and when it comes to matching your PC to the next generation of consoles, you don't need to throw away your old PC and buy a new one (much like you have to throw away your old console and buy a new one), you just pull out your old graphics card and purchase a new one which would still be cheaper than buying a console outright.
Do you own a gaming PC? Maybe you should consider buying a gaming PC and just see for yourself how much better gaming is with it. You're just holding yourself back by confining yourself to a console.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
