why did you do this?

YES! to this.

1.You are aware your first point was not about gpus, but that was your 2nd point in the OP?

And performance is compared between gpus to establish deminishing returns....so again, failing to see your point. Of course the $1000 will be more expensive, but is it x4 faster? Not a chance. Have you even seen one of the dozens of benchmarking websites? You would simply run the Metro benchmark to work out which is best.....

Obviously all us PC people don't understand your point as you don't understand the PC market and how things work, ergo everyone is getting pretty confused.

2. "lol"? No, I am right. Go look at the specs and get a degree in the subject rather than acting like you know anything about this topic.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-018-OG&groupid=43&catid=2479

Bam - done.

Also you keep avoiding the point that a computer does way more than a console, so of course most cost more than the consoles. You are essentially complaining that a house with more bedrooms, in a better location, larger garden etc costs more *facepalm*

The issue is that you have no idea about the PC market, how it works, how consoles or electronics work, and you are trying to debate it with people who do understand it.

Hey guys, I haven't seen this picture here, but it could help with discussion.

Source: http://nullmag.com/consoles-vs-pc-bigger-picture/

I find this to be a very optimistic appraisal.

1) Eight years would be the longest console cycle by about a third. While most consoles can last that long and even longer, the guideline for PCs is to replace them every 5 years for light use and every 3 years for heavy use. The graph understates the cost of PC hardware by about 50% because almost no PC gamer will ever use only one unupgraded tower for a whole decade. Every individual component needs to be replaced at least once, preferably twice.

2) It assumes new cost games. This depends on the buyer. When you discuss used games, Steam is still cheaper, but not by as much as you'd think. In general, Steam and Sony have the lowest bargain-bin prices while Nintendo has the highest.

3) It assumes 40 games. My largest library for any console is ten games, and I know people with collections over 200. Standard deviations on that measure is off the charts.

I know the cost of ownership for ME would be twice what it is for a console because I actually did the math. The Wii U is the best value, the PS4 offers the most options per dollar for about 30-40% more, and the PC has the worst value at 30% higher than that. Assume you're buying ten new games a year and not three or four bargain used deals and those numbers completely flip.

Thank you....

1. I can understand that a console costs more or than that in some places. But I was using the prices in NA as a baseline. And the point I was making still applies.  A year later you may get the same hardware for PCs for less, but the same could be said about consoles. In just a year the XB1 costs $150 less than it did when it launched. My "excagerated point" is not supposed to be taken is the norm,  but just theer to make a point. That I do not see why hardware that are not even in the same performance clas are being compared to eachother.
   
   
2. I don't know how anyone would determine what GPU being used, but I have an idea. How about you take the console in its launch year, take a third of that price and give it to the GPU and find a GPU from that year on the market that is similarly priced. Or etter yet, just match it to the performance of a GPU that from teardowns or analysis is said to be equal in power to it. That way, when a  gme running on PC is compared to a game running on consoles its a level playing feild. As the hardware in all machines is practically identical. 
   
   And about the comaprisons. What you said makes perfect sense. If you if the point of the compariosn is to show people looking for a PC the depth of options they have, then you should build a setup that will cover low, Medium, High and Ultra. Thats a fair way to do it cause the components in all these systems will cost the same and you can also, as you said, show them the best they can get for their money. And this ties into the whole point of this thread. The compariosns in question are not between PCs. Its between PCs and consoles. And how those that do it seem to feel its a fair comparison to make when using hardware that can run a game at Ultra and comparing it to hardware that will run the game at medium or high. And make it seem like that is how the game will look like on every PC. All i am saying is that if anyone is going to make graphical comparisons between PCs and consoles, then they should use hardware that are at least in the same universe.
   
   
3. Point i was making here, was two fold. One that I believe its impossible to build a PC/walk into a store and buy one that could match a console in performance any given year at the price of the console in question. Eg in 2013, the most expensive console cost $400 (if we assume the cost of kinect is $100) I don't thik that in that year it would have been possible to build a PC that could outperform a PS4 and at least have a controler device, video cable, headset, a HDD, a blu-ray drive and come with an OS. However, I believe that is possible to build such a PC if you are willing to scrounge for parts and bargains and repurpose whatever hardware you can get your hands on.
   
   Basically, to make it possible would be way more complicated than just building a normal PC without trying to meet an alost impossible price ceiling. Gamestop tried to do this last year, and they had to go over board and ended up with something that cost them over $550. But at least they were bring fair. They built a rig that you could build if using just a little more money than you would have used for a PC. Thats the kinda rig that a PC gamer should use if making comaprisons to a game running on PCs and running on consoles. Or else such a comparison would make as little sense as comparing a $1000GPU to a $200 GPU. 
   

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. But hey, knack yourself out. And thanks for teaching me a thing aor two about how PCs work and PC gamers. :)

Just saying "you're wrong" shows you are now scraping the barrel and no longer have anything left to defend your weak argument.

Also please explain to everyone just how much you do know about PCs and electronics as you are acting like you know everything by saying "if you say so", but then sarcastically end with the crap above. Another console owner bitter at PC owners.

Where did GabeN touch you???

Sure a PC does a lot more, but all those things it does more are now satisfied by my laptop, including light gaming. (I wouldn't call civ beyond earth exactly 'light' but fps doesn't matter for that) The PC hardly gets used anymore and would need more than just a gpu upgrade to out perform the ps4. It was fine for satisfying my need to play in native resolution on my projector during last gen. The ps4 and my laptop are doing that now

So for every one that doesn't need a big desktop for work and is satisfied with smart phone, tablet and/or laptop for their daily needs, a pc, solely for playing games at max settings, is a big investment.

How do I convince my wife I need another $800+ box just to play games when I can't even convince myself :)

Console!

Again, seems like we finished a little earlier today, anyone wants to grab a beer before going home?