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

Forums - PC - $130 will match or beat any console in terms of graphical fidelity.

Sqrl on 15 April 2008
Shadow)OS said:

It's wonderful that they can render so much and at high resolutions, but if I can't have AA and AF on I really don't care.


The purpose of AA is to make an image with a lower resolution appear to have the detail of a higher resolution. When you actually have a high resolution its effects are not only greatly diminished but it also becomes more taxing to utilize it.

As for AF, it is nice to have but honestly if you can run at 4xAF or higher on a high resolution you probably won't notice any blurring on textures viewed at oblique angles (which is what AF is there to prevent BTW) unless they are fairly distant and even then it probably won't look odd..particularly if its a fast pace game (which is likely).

 

Both AA and AF were really designed around a time when high resolutions weren't possible. Their effects are still beneficial but honestly at high resolutions their effects aren't nearly as impressive as they are at lower resolutions.



To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
Squilliam on 15 April 2008
Shadow)OS said:

Uhh... The original post is a tad misleading.

If you're going to get ANY (good) card that low, it would be the Radeon HD3850 256. I don't think it's gotten that low yet without deals, either.

I wouldn't purchase a card from Nvidia's 9000 series yet, because they all tend to crumble when you try to apply filters.

It's wonderful that they can render so much and at high resolutions, but if I can't have AA and AF on I really don't care.

 

 That being said, console gaming has been really turning me off lately. Why play a 360/PS3 shooter when I can play them on my PC with higher settings and frame rates? Not only that, but with more precision and speed (since developers tend to slow things down a tad for console play).


Thats CODIV with 8xAA and 16xAF @1280/1024 @ 60 FPS vs 1024/600 @ 60FPS With 2xAA. 1.3 megapixels with 8xAA and 16xAF vs 614,000 pixels with 2xAA THATS HUGE. Wow, I didn't realize the difference was that great! Pushing just over 2x the pixels with 8xAA and 16xAF! it doesn't match the consoles @ $130 - its just significantly faster. Over 2x the performance in this example!

Tease.

Million on 15 April 2008

Soon game consoles will be synonymous with PC's , with their increasing functionality (linux , web browser) it's somewhat innetivable.




TheRealMafoo on 15 April 2008
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
kingofwale said:
>But wait...Jimmy is not a thief and he will not steal operating system software...

>Windows Vista - 100 bucks.


Getting Windows Vista for 100 bucks probably classify you as a "thief". ;)

Personally, I think MS charging 100 bucks for it makes them a Thief :p 100% Agree

I have been a PC gamer for 25 years. I love PC gaming, but there is a lot to be said for console gaming.

 

  • You know every game for your console is going to work Fair enough, but for that hassle we get mods, patches, and other benefits not currently possible on a console. Patches typically take months to hit the consoles after the PC gets them...and on that note the fact that some console games are beginning to need patches somewhat nullifies this point.
  • You don't have to put it together. If your a PC Hobbits (like everyone here), you have the spare parts you need to figure out what's wrong with the thing doesn't boot, or the understanding of where to spend your money smartly. Not everyone does. You're going to buy a PC anyways it doesn't matter if you build it or "they" build it.
  • You can play games that you can't play on the PC. A 50 million dollar PC will not play Uncharted, MG4, Halo 3, or GTA4. It's not a money thing. I'm not saying don't buy a console, I'm saying you need a PC anyways so you might as well make it a gaming rig if you like the games on the PC.
  • Some games play better in your living room. Yes, you can hook up a TV to your PC, but games made for consoles expect you to be sitting on a couch. PC games don't. On the console, the controls are better suited for siting in your living room on console games. I like this for sports games. And some games are far better suited for the PC, this just goes to the issue of "if you like PC games", if this seating arrangement is a problem for you then you would probably say "no I don't", and then you're justified not to spend the extra cash since you aren't missing something you want. But if you do want it then obviously its a good choice.
  • Consoles just keep getting better. Look, when the PS2 and XBox came out (and any console before it), you could buy a PC at that point that would blow it away. Here we are two years later (three for the 360), and we are comparing PC's to them. That's how good they are. By past standards, a 3 year old console should be a joke compared to the top of the line PC. Play COD4 on a 360, or a hot new PC rig, and they look very close to the same. Gears looks close to the same. UT3 looks close to the same. GT5p looks better then any racing game you can get on a PC. First, PCs are always getting better as well and allow incremental upgrades. Second your calendar is off, the 360 has been out 123 weeks, the PS3 73 weeks, and the Wii 71 weeks. As for looking close to the same I've played CoD4 on my PC (8800GT in SLI) and I see a noticeable difference between it and when I play CoD4 at the "Gaming Lab" on my campus between classes (the "Lab" has a 42" Plasma BTW).
  • These are living room appliances we are talking about here. Ones that are years old and cost $350-$400. And, in 4 years, that 350-400 will still be a viable gaming platform. Try playing a game in 4 years on a $350-$400 PC that you buy today. Several of my friends play current PC games on 4 year old systems, they might have to run at some lower settings than those with new rigs but they can still play. Conversely console owners 4 years into a consoles life will be playing games that are vastly inferior in pretty much every technical aspect as well...the same as my friends who play on lower settings who've disabled much of those newer options and effects.

 

Personally, I find PC gaming to be the ultimate gaming experience, but in no way is it a gaming value. If it's "bang for your buck" your looking for, consoles can't be beat. Except when you realise that you were going to buy a PC anyways. By the time you've purchased a typical library of games you very well might pay for the extra cost from  the savings you'll get from the cheaper PC games.


 


I am not arguing with you Sqrl, I agree with all your points, well, other then the one about people playing games on 4 year old rigs. The premise was play a game years later on a PC you paid $600 for. I am sure they paid a lot more then that 4 years ago if it's still playing games today.

I am arguing the premise that the inexpensive way to go for gaming is PC gaming.

You are absolutely right Sqrl. If you are looking to buy a PC anyway, spend the few extra dollars to make it a gaming PC. If your an RPG fan, don't buy a console. Get a gaming PC.

I could have made a list like the one above that talked about all the reasons you would want a gaming rig over a console. The only difference is cost of ownership would not be anywhere on it. My argument was if you have nothing, and are looking for the least expensive way to game, Consoles are it. 



Rainbird on 15 April 2008
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
 

Personally, I think MS charging 100 bucks for it makes them a Thief :p 100% Agree

I have been a PC gamer for 25 years. I love PC gaming, but there is a lot to be said for console gaming.

 

  • You know every game for your console is going to work Fair enough, but for that hassle we get mods, patches, and other benefits not currently possible on a console. Patches typically take months to hit the consoles after the PC gets them...and on that note the fact that some console games are beginning to need patches somewhat nullifies this point.
  • You don't have to put it together. If your a PC Hobbits (like everyone here), you have the spare parts you need to figure out what's wrong with the thing doesn't boot, or the understanding of where to spend your money smartly. Not everyone does. You're going to buy a PC anyways it doesn't matter if you build it or "they" build it.
  • You can play games that you can't play on the PC. A 50 million dollar PC will not play Uncharted, MG4, Halo 3, or GTA4. It's not a money thing. I'm not saying don't buy a console, I'm saying you need a PC anyways so you might as well make it a gaming rig if you like the games on the PC.
  • Some games play better in your living room. Yes, you can hook up a TV to your PC, but games made for consoles expect you to be sitting on a couch. PC games don't. On the console, the controls are better suited for siting in your living room on console games. I like this for sports games. And some games are far better suited for the PC, this just goes to the issue of "if you like PC games", if this seating arrangement is a problem for you then you would probably say "no I don't", and then you're justified not to spend the extra cash since you aren't missing something you want. But if you do want it then obviously its a good choice.
  • Consoles just keep getting better. Look, when the PS2 and XBox came out (and any console before it), you could buy a PC at that point that would blow it away. Here we are two years later (three for the 360), and we are comparing PC's to them. That's how good they are. By past standards, a 3 year old console should be a joke compared to the top of the line PC. Play COD4 on a 360, or a hot new PC rig, and they look very close to the same. Gears looks close to the same. UT3 looks close to the same. GT5p looks better then any racing game you can get on a PC. First, PCs are always getting better as well and allow incremental upgrades. Second your calendar is off, the 360 has been out 123 weeks, the PS3 73 weeks, and the Wii 71 weeks. As for looking close to the same I've played CoD4 on my PC (8800GT in SLI) and I see a noticeable difference between it and when I play CoD4 at the "Gaming Lab" on my campus between classes (the "Lab" has a 42" Plasma BTW).
  • These are living room appliances we are talking about here. Ones that are years old and cost $350-$400. And, in 4 years, that 350-400 will still be a viable gaming platform. Try playing a game in 4 years on a $350-$400 PC that you buy today. Several of my friends play current PC games on 4 year old systems, they might have to run at some lower settings than those with new rigs but they can still play. Conversely console owners 4 years into a consoles life will be playing games that are vastly inferior in pretty much every technical aspect as well...the same as my friends who play on lower settings who've disabled much of those newer options and effects.

 

Personally, I find PC gaming to be the ultimate gaming experience, but in no way is it a gaming value. If it's "bang for your buck" your looking for, consoles can't be beat. Except when you realise that you were going to buy a PC anyways. By the time you've purchased a typical library of games you very well might pay for the extra cost from the savings you'll get from the cheaper PC games.


 


First of all, I agree that for gaming, mainly shooters, the PC is better.

But I'll also say I that for gaming in general I would take a next-gen console over the PC any time.

When you buy games for the console, you're certain that it will run at its best. It gets just as good support as the PC, and games will continue to get better all the time because the code can be more and more optimized for the machine. Crytek has said that the 360 and PS3 will be able to run the CryEngine2 on settings close the equivalent of high on a PC, even though the consoles are a lot weaker than a high end PC.

With a console you don't have to worry about your hardware getting outdated, and games just keep getting better and better as developers learn to optimize code for the consoles.

With the difficulty of pirating on the consoles combined with the aforementioned, developers start to make all the cool games for the consoles because it's easier to turn a profit on them. Before I had a PS3 I was pissed to find out that Ao2, Tom Clancy's EndWar, Star Wars: Force Unleashed and other games as well, were console exculsive.

There are few any games worth buying a PC for if you already have a console. And games like CS and WoW can run on almost any computer now a days.

So no matter how "superior" a PC may be to a console in terms of hardware, in my eyes it certainly isn't enough to out weigh a console and a cheap laptop or whatever old wreck you may have in the house already.

 

EDIT:

Just a small addition from here: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=186880

 It talks about the new map pack for CoD4 and you find this quote:

For PC owners, news isn't so positive: "I should also have some official news for you on the status of the potential map pack release on the PC along with the Community Map Contest news. So expect that news in the near future as well," Bowling says



Around the Network
mrstickball on 15 April 2008

Regardless, I still greatly prefer the closed-development platform of a console versus a PC.

The fact that you say you get the highest end stuff for $800 and such, and can play games X and Y on graphic setting B is rather funny. I've been a PC gamer (or I should say was), in the mid 1990's to early 2000's. I've had 2 computers in that timespan (plus the one I have).

Paid $2,500 for a Pionex rig - 120mhz, 16mb of ram, 1mb vid card, 1.6gb of HDD, 17" SVGA monitor, printer.

Gaming-wise, it lasted me about 2 years on the newest, and best games. After that, there was a huge dropoff in what games I could play when they started requiring 32mb of ram, and I didn't upgrade.

Same thing happened with my next rig - a 1.2ghz AMD, 128mb of ram, 40gb HDD, and I think a 32mb V-card, in 01. It was a great, cheap rig when I got it, but the ram got useless pretty quick. It saw maybe 1-2 years of the top-end games, then went DOA.

There are great tradeoffs with both systems - consoles are cheaper, and closed dev space, so your going to actually play new games for 5+ years from the start of the console's life cycle.

The PC will always get better graphics for whatever games, but it's absolute bull to say that a PC can play games for more than 4 years on ANY setting.


In fact, someone show me a rig from 3 years ago that has the minimum requirements for Crysis, and is under $2,000. Someone do that NOW if you want to prove PC superiority. But unless you can show be an affordable computer that can last 3+ years for good games, your full of crap.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

shio on 15 April 2008
mrstickball said:
Regardless, I still greatly prefer the closed-development platform of a console versus a PC.

The fact that you say you get the highest end stuff for $800 and such, and can play games X and Y on graphic setting B is rather funny. I've been a PC gamer (or I should say was), in the mid 1990's to early 2000's. I've had 2 computers in that timespan (plus the one I have).

Paid $2,500 for a Pionex rig - 120mhz, 16mb of ram, 1mb vid card, 1.6gb of HDD, 17" SVGA monitor, printer.

Gaming-wise, it lasted me about 2 years on the newest, and best games. After that, there was a huge dropoff in what games I could play when they started requiring 32mb of ram, and I didn't upgrade.

Same thing happened with my next rig - a 1.2ghz AMD, 128mb of ram, 40gb HDD, and I think a 32mb V-card, in 01. It was a great, cheap rig when I got it, but the ram got useless pretty quick. It saw maybe 1-2 years of the top-end games, then went DOA.

There are great tradeoffs with both systems - consoles are cheaper, and closed dev space, so your going to actually play new games for 5+ years from the start of the console's life cycle.

The PC will always get better graphics for whatever games, but it's absolute bull to say that a PC can play games for more than 4 years on ANY setting.


In fact, someone show me a rig from 3 years ago that has the minimum requirements for Crysis, and is under $2,000. Someone do that NOW if you want to prove PC superiority. But unless you can show be an affordable computer that can last 3+ years for good games, your full of crap.


So basically you know nothing of the current PC trend. The knowledge you've gained from 2 PCs of so long ago is pointless if you're trying to apply it today.

The prices of PCs have steadily decreased over the years, especially in the last 2 years. An average PC 10 years ago was $1500; 5 years ago was $1100; and today it's $800. That's a fact.

And also, PCs nowadays last longer for games than before. That's another fact. Games are slowly reaching a plateau financially and techonologically, while the technology is getting more and more popular with cheaper prices. My brother has a pc from 2003 (P4 2.8Ghz, ATI Radeon 9600se, 1gb DDR) and he cannot wait to play Starcraft 2 and Sam&Max S2, plus other games I might buy (SPORE, Stalker: Clear Sky, A Vampyre Story) since he doesn't search much for games. Hell, he even tried playing Crysis' demo (which worked on lowest settings, with some slowdown on cutscenes)



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Griffin on 15 April 2008

I've seen video's of people playing Crysis on quadcores with dual 8800 GTX's, with 3-4gb of ram and they can't even max out crysis, so i can't see how you guys say gaming on PC's is cheap. Also a 450-500 Power supply won't be enough for a good gaming rig. Add in the price of a good gaming keyboard and mouse and thats $150, add in your headset and thats another $50-$100.



Griffin on 15 April 2008
shio said:
mrstickball said:
Regardless, I still greatly prefer the closed-development platform of a console versus a PC.

The fact that you say you get the highest end stuff for $800 and such, and can play games X and Y on graphic setting B is rather funny. I've been a PC gamer (or I should say was), in the mid 1990's to early 2000's. I've had 2 computers in that timespan (plus the one I have).

Paid $2,500 for a Pionex rig - 120mhz, 16mb of ram, 1mb vid card, 1.6gb of HDD, 17" SVGA monitor, printer.

Gaming-wise, it lasted me about 2 years on the newest, and best games. After that, there was a huge dropoff in what games I could play when they started requiring 32mb of ram, and I didn't upgrade.

Same thing happened with my next rig - a 1.2ghz AMD, 128mb of ram, 40gb HDD, and I think a 32mb V-card, in 01. It was a great, cheap rig when I got it, but the ram got useless pretty quick. It saw maybe 1-2 years of the top-end games, then went DOA.

There are great tradeoffs with both systems - consoles are cheaper, and closed dev space, so your going to actually play new games for 5+ years from the start of the console's life cycle.

The PC will always get better graphics for whatever games, but it's absolute bull to say that a PC can play games for more than 4 years on ANY setting.


In fact, someone show me a rig from 3 years ago that has the minimum requirements for Crysis, and is under $2,000. Someone do that NOW if you want to prove PC superiority. But unless you can show be an affordable computer that can last 3+ years for good games, your full of crap.


So basically you know nothing of the current PC trend. The knowledge you've gained from 2 PCs of so long ago is pointless if you're trying to apply it today.

The prices of PCs have steadily decreased over the years, especially in the last 2 years. An average PC 10 years ago was $1500; 5 years ago was $1100; and today it's $800. That's a fact.

And also, PCs nowadays last longer for games than before. That's another fact. Games are slowly reaching a plateau financially and techonologically, while the technology is getting more and more popular with cheaper prices. My brother has a pc from 2003 (P4 2.8Ghz, ATI Radeon 9600se, 1gb DDR) and he cannot wait to play Starcraft 2 and Sam&Max S2, plus other games I might buy (SPORE, Stalker: Clear Sky, A Vampyre Story) since he doesn't search much for games. Hell, he even tried playing Crysis' demo (which worked on lowest settings, with some slowdown on cutscenes)


I doubt he ran the crysis demo on that, my computer is better and the thing almost blew up when i started the demo.  On all the lowest settings and the lowest resoluton, my computer could not even display the game.



theRepublic on 15 April 2008
Sqrl said:

It would cost about $650 to build a rig with an E8200, 9600GT 512MB, 2GB DDR2, CD/DVD Burner, 320GB Hard Drive, Case and 400W-500W PSU.

 

So you get; Excellent CPU, Excellent GPU, Excellent Ram, Mid-Range mobo, Excellent Hard Drive, Typical Burner, and Typical Case & PSU.

 

Quite frankly I think anyone who buys a console and doesn't have a PC already has spent their money poorly. And anyone who is into gaming and doesn't buy a gaming capable PC has also spent poorly. Owning a PC is becoming a mandatory part of life, and buying a console over a PC is about as silly as it gets when you consider just how many things a PC makes easier. Now, if you're buying a PC as a gamer and not making it a gaming capable PC you've missed the fact that the difference between a PC you will would buy anyways and a gaming PC is almost certainly less than the cost of ANY current generation console.

Honestly the only two reasons, that I can think of anyways, not to spend the extra money to make your PC "gaming capable" is either ignorance of the actual cost difference or a dislike of PC games.  Outside of that I would chalk it up to fanboyism or just plain stubborness.


The problem with this argument is that Average Joe Consumer does not buy individual computer parts and then assemble them.  Average Joe goes to Best Buy, Circuit City, or Dell's website and buys a whole computer.  It's more expensive this way, but it is also some much easier for most consumers.  When trying to buy a gaming rig from one of these places, you end up paying even more of a premium.  You can go from paying $350 for a basic computer for the internet and word processing to paying $1000-3000 for a high end gaming rig.  That's why its just so much easier and cost effective for the vast majority of gamers to just go the console route.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)