This topic is locked from further discussion.
6 core intel CPU will be useless for gaming that is not "top of the line".
Dual cores were useless in 2005.
Thats completely untrue, dual cores allowed for gaming to be less affected by what the system was doing. It may not have been a direct performance increase but it definitly helped squash performance hits from background apps. With higher cpu utilization also comes better gpu utilization so there may have been more indirect performance increases.
PC gaming has NOT A SINGLE game I want. All the games I want to play are upcoming console exclusives.
If you're talking about pc multi plats, then yes they will look better on PC, but they will be more fun on consoles like they always were.
And every single person in a developed country has a PC, so the market value argument holds no weight because not everyone buys consoles. Thats like saying people in Russia have more winter coats than people along the equator....NO SHIT!
lolwat?
How the experience changes exactly?
1st of all, it's subjective. 2ndly, experiences can change mainly due to how you play the game. Controller or keyboard & mouse.
Never knew you were forced to use the keyboard\mouse on PC.
If you're using a controller on the PC, how can the "gameplay" experience be different than on consoles?
When did I say that exactly?
I guess the experience just feels a lot more fun on consoles, you look at a console and you think thats a game machine made specifically for games and it just makes you want to play. nostalgia plays a big part too, some say nostalgia isn't real but that feeling is still there, takes me back to when I was a kid and getting that sega genesis for christmas with nhl 94 and all those classic games, same with the PS1....getting FF7 and metal gear solid (console exclusives). PC somehow ruins the experience, not fully but I would say 33% is ruined just by playing it on PC, something I used to do my homework on which made me hate even turning the damn thing on when I was a kid. Then having to fiddle with the setting just to get Quake to work, it was a bitch.
"when you were a kid" please... what like 2 years ago?
Basing your current life and image of technology around your thoughts on it as a child... yeesh.
Oh wait, its you... probably none of this is true.
Input and device should not be an issue, sad that you make it one.
you seem angry and upset. I guess your life sucks that much haha.
bum.
Yeah, I skimmed the wiki entry to refresh my memory, but I misread Warhead's release date as Crysis'.
Regardless of its correct release date, my point was that 8800s were never a minimum requirement except for a handful of recent (i.e. past few years), graphically intensive titles.
While I don't agree with the original comparison, I would say that the 360 was close to the graphical power of a 7800, but I'd disagree with the 360 being comparable to anything from NVIDIA's 8xxx series. The 8600s were released two years after the 360. Technology is not that static.
I'll take your word for it. I've only ever built a single AMD system. Even if the processor required to match the 360 did cost $500 at the time, the $2000 PC of 2005 which was required to match the unadulterated power of the Xbox 360 still doesn't hold up.
At the time, Intel also offered processors that were easily comparable or more powerful than the 360's PowerPC processor and they didn't cost $500.
Both console makers consistently take moronic losses on hardware costs and they expect to make it up on games sales.
Unfortunately, it seems that console gamers don't buy enough games to stem the bloodflow from their manufacturers' self-inflicted sucking chest wounds, so their generational lifespans keep lengthening to the detriment of the rest of the gaming industry.
Meanwhile, peasants continue to wonder why they're resented while simultaneously bitching about their own brethren from the previous generation restraining their "next-gen" potential.
Nice try? I proved you couldn't keep your 7800 if you wanted to play all games.
8800 minimum began in 2010 with Just Cause 2.
Nothing wrong with comparing the nividia's amd equivalent to the 360 gpu.
I asked what $200 card in 2006 and you link a 2007 card.
After 5 years if you bought top of the line and by that point we're talking 30 fps and 30 fps is choppier on a monitor than a tv.
Using msrp unless you can prove it was impossible to find stores selling 360's under msrp.
I'm using a 2005 build with athlon x2's which is the only cpu that would last you through 2010. The first wave of dual core's were very expensive as well were the motherboards. Lol using a 2010 cpu price for a 2005 build.
So your saying pc's can run games with the same amount of memory as consoles?
Console games run off the disc, pc games don't so I listed a typical size for the era.
One thing people need to understand the 360 had a gpu arcitecture that was ahead of the game until it became a standard a year later so all none unified shader based gpus trying to run shader heavy based games would have a issue.
No 2010 was not the beginning for minimum of 8800. The reason why Just cause 2 required a 8800 was because the game was native direct x 10 with focus on graphics. Many games like metro 2033, AVP, supported direct x 9 10 and 11 and slower gpu's. 2011 was more the minimum of needing 8800 based on requiring dx10+ gpu's. This of course is not including all multiplats where 90% used direct x 9.
The problem with comparing nvidia or AMD's gpu's is the gap in power after 2006.
Major problem in 2005/2006 was the hardware transitions in standards where MS spent a bucket load and lost profit to do so. This time around there is no new standards nor bleeding edge tech in the new consoles
However this statement implies they aren't present
"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."
But it's "relatively" hack free,derp.
Can't you read properly lostrib?
"Odds are much higher" is a quite straightforward statement implying there are cheaters on console but much more rare.
However this statement implies they aren't present
"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."
Console gaming is relatively hack free.
You guys have been hanging out too much
ps4 and xbox one have still not been hacked so yeah no hacking for you on those
One hacker every blue moon is basically hack free.
Can you back this up?
Can you refute it?
That isn't how this works.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
I'm actually hoping you've just been trolling in your SW anti-PC crusade, because if not, damn man...c'mon......you're really bad at debating.
Not only do you go massively off-topic, but you use glaring fallacies that a child could spot.
Yeah, I skimmed the wiki entry to refresh my memory, but I misread Warhead's release date as Crysis'.
Regardless of its correct release date, my point was that 8800s were never a minimum requirement except for a handful of recent (i.e. past few years), graphically intensive titles.
While I don't agree with the original comparison, I would say that the 360 was close to the graphical power of a 7800, but I'd disagree with the 360 being comparable to anything from NVIDIA's 8xxx series. The 8600s were released two years after the 360. Technology is not that static.
I'll take your word for it. I've only ever built a single AMD system. Even if the processor required to match the 360 did cost $500 at the time, the $2000 PC of 2005 which was required to match the unadulterated power of the Xbox 360 still doesn't hold up.
At the time, Intel also offered processors that were easily comparable or more powerful than the 360's PowerPC processor and they didn't cost $500.
Both console makers consistently take moronic losses on hardware costs and they expect to make it up on games sales. Unfortunately, it seems that consoles gamers don't buy enough games, so generation lifespans keep lengthening to the detriment of the rest of the industry.
The 8600 series came out in April 2007 not even 6 months after the 8800GTX in 2006. The 8600's were comparable to the 7800s performance wise with many workloads. 8800 series totally outclassed the 360's gpu.
In 2005 when the 360 released the console was not even fully used many game engines were still stuck using single thread , and non shader heavy engines. This is why you seen good single core cpu's or dual cores and geforce 7800's were performing as well or better because of the extra memory and under utilization of the 360's hardware. Now as time when on and the game engines matured to be more multithreaded and more complex. Those pc's built in 2005 could not keep up in 2006+. This is where they say you needed a 1.5-2k 2005 based pc to be comparable to the 360 which has some truth to it.
in 2005 intel was behind AMD in performance and had nothing to compare to the 360's triple core cpu. Intel was still on pentium 4's and the D's.
MS took the bold step to get the bleeding edge in tech and it did paid off to some degree but they took major hits in costs and then poor design in cooling and quality of parts ate them up until 08/09.
Nice try? I proved you couldn't keep your 7800 if you wanted to play all games.
800 minimum began in 2010 with Just Cause 2.
No shit?
You actually never stipulated the need to play "all games," but redefining things seems to be your "thing."
My original point still stands.
You're not FORCED to upgrade unless you insist on playing the minority of games that actually require you to upgrade, or if you just want greater resolution and framerate.
If you can't afford to upgrade your GPU after 5 years, or you just happen to have a particular fondness for the cinematic feel of 30fps @ < 1080p, then you probably should stick to being a peasant.
My level of interest in the JC series is up there with that of Infamous Second Son, Prototype, or The Last of Us.
In other words, zero, but I guess I should be bothered by the fact that, I wouldn't have been able to play it if I hadn't already upgraded my GPU and assuming that I ever had any interest in the game.
Nothing wrong with comparing the nividia's amd equivalent to the 360 gpu.
Except when there are more valid comparisons of cards from the same manufacturer that produced the Xbox's chip and during a a time when NVIDIA's cards were stronger than AMD's.
I asked what $200 card in 2006 and you link a 2007 card.
You got me.
I linked a GPU from the SAME SERIES released a year later.
According to your own statement about Just Cause 2, 2010 finally saw the release of a game that actually required a minimum of an 8800.
It only took 4 years after the release of the 8xxx card series and 5 years after the release of the 360, for a developer to actually bother trying to produce a game that actually requires it; since consoles could never be expected to match it.
A handful of other games that required an 8800 would follow the next year. Again, if you can't afford to upgrade your PC every five years, if not more regularly, then you probably belong on a console.
@Cranler said:
Using msrp unless you can prove it was impossible to find stores selling 360's under msrp.
Let's just go with your ridiculous processor estimate for a moment, combined with my corrected estimates, and even then, you're still ~$600 short of your $2000 claim...
Nevermind, that most PC gamers also tend to cannibalize what they can of their previous system to save money on a newer one (i.e. HDDs, DVD/CD Burner, case, etc.).
So your saying pc's can run games with the same amount of memory as consoles?
No, I'm saying that 512GB of RAM matches the amount of RAM found in a 360.
Reread your original ludicrous statement:
You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005
Why are people arguing about PC prices in 2005?
Also, why are people arguing about hackers on PC? I don't think I've seen a hacker on the PC in at least a decade.
Get with the times. In 2014 an awesome PC isn't expensive, and multiplayer games aren't infested with hackers.
@Cranler "Top of the line" Prebuilts are about $1600
Your link takes me to a quad core with a 270x. 6 core from intel for top of the line and ssd as the main drive btw.
6 core intel CPU will be useless for gaming that is not "top of the line".
Dual cores were useless in 2005.
What do you know ? An i3 4360 beats a Quad core from 2005.
Not sure what your point is here. Do you have benches of games that are programmed to use all four cores efficiently? A cpu that comes out in 8 years doesn't mean shit when putting together a top of the line system now. Just wait til devs start making full use of the new consoles cpu's and you'll see 6 cores start to show their use.
@Cranler "Top of the line" Prebuilts are about $1600
Your link takes me to a quad core with a 270x. 6 core from intel for top of the line and ssd as the main drive btw.
6 core intel CPU will be useless for gaming that is not "top of the line".
Dual cores were useless in 2005.
What do you know ? An i3 4360 beats a Quad core from 2005.
Not sure what your point is here. Do you have benches of games that are programmed to use all four cores efficiently? A cpu that comes out in 8 years doesn't mean shit when putting together a top of the line system now. Just wait til devs start making full use of the new consoles cpu's and you'll see 6 cores start to show their use.
More cores does not = better performance just look at the AMD FX line. The console CPU's are crap.
6 core intel CPU will be useless for gaming that is not "top of the line".
Dual cores were useless in 2005.
Thats completely untrue, dual cores allowed for gaming to be less affected by what the system was doing. It may not have been a direct performance increase but it definitly helped squash performance hits from background apps. With higher cpu utilization also comes better gpu utilization so there may have been more indirect performance increases.
Got any benchmarks to back that up?
Nice try? I proved you couldn't keep your 7800 if you wanted to play all games.
8800 minimum began in 2010 with Just Cause 2.
Nothing wrong with comparing the nividia's amd equivalent to the 360 gpu.
I asked what $200 card in 2006 and you link a 2007 card.
After 5 years if you bought top of the line and by that point we're talking 30 fps and 30 fps is choppier on a monitor than a tv.
Using msrp unless you can prove it was impossible to find stores selling 360's under msrp.
I'm using a 2005 build with athlon x2's which is the only cpu that would last you through 2010. The first wave of dual core's were very expensive as well were the motherboards. Lol using a 2010 cpu price for a 2005 build.
So your saying pc's can run games with the same amount of memory as consoles?
Console games run off the disc, pc games don't so I listed a typical size for the era.
One thing people need to understand the 360 had a gpu arcitecture that was ahead of the game until it became a standard a year later so all none unified shader based gpus trying to run shader heavy based games would have a issue.
No 2010 was not the beginning for minimum of 8800. The reason why Just cause 2 required a 8800 was because the game was native direct x 10 with focus on graphics. Many games like metro 2033, AVP, supported direct x 9 10 and 11 and slower gpu's. 2011 was more the minimum of needing 8800 based on requiring dx10+ gpu's. This of course is not including all multiplats where 90% used direct x 9.
The problem with comparing nvidia or AMD's gpu's is the gap in power after 2006.
Major problem in 2005/2006 was the hardware transitions in standards where MS spent a bucket load and lost profit to do so. This time around there is no new standards nor bleeding edge tech in the new consoles
What difference does it make why the 8800 was minimum for Just cause 2? I was aware why it had that req, remember some hated debates back then and some people expecting a Halo 2 like hack to allow windows xp/dx9 play. Just Cause 2 was the beginning regardless of reason.
Metro 2033 had dx 9 mode and in that mode the graphics were still too much for most dx 9 cards. 7800 gtx would have to be played at very low settings. The dx9 mode was more for people who had dx 10 cards but wanted better performance.
That's why I said amd equivalent and not the most recently released amd card.
Yeah. It's common knowledge that the new consoles aren't as cutting edge as it's predecessors.
Nice try? I proved you couldn't keep your 7800 if you wanted to play all games.
800 minimum began in 2010 with Just Cause 2.
No shit?
You actually never stipulated the need to play "all games," but redefining things seems to be your "thing."
My original point still stands.
You're not FORCED to upgrade unless you insist on playing the minority of games that actually require you to upgrade, or if you just want greater resolution and framerate.
If you can't afford to upgrade your GPU after 5 years, or you just happen to have a particular fondness for the cinematic feel of 30fps @ < 1080p, then you probably should stick to being a peasant.
My level of interest in the JC series is up there with that of Infamous Second Son, Prototype, or The Last of Us.
In other words, zero, but I guess I should be bothered by the fact that, I wouldn't have been able to play it if I hadn't already upgraded my GPU and assuming that I ever had any interest in the game.
Nothing wrong with comparing the nividia's amd equivalent to the 360 gpu.
Except when there are more valid comparisons of cards from the same manufacturer that produced the Xbox's chip and during a a time when NVIDIA's cards were stronger than AMD's.
I asked what $200 card in 2006 and you link a 2007 card.
You got me.
I linked a GPU from the SAME SERIES released a year later.
According to your own statement about Just Cause 2, 2010 finally saw the release of a game that actually required a minimum of an 8800.
It only took 4 years after the release of the 8xxx card series and 5 years after the release of the 360, for a developer to actually bother trying to produce a game that actually requires it; since consoles could never be expected to match it.
A handful of other games that required an 8800 would follow the next year. Again, if you can't afford to upgrade your PC every five years, if not more regularly, then you probably belong on a console.
@Cranler said:
Using msrp unless you can prove it was impossible to find stores selling 360's under msrp.
Let's just go with your ridiculous processor estimate for a moment, combined with my corrected estimates, and even then, you're still ~$600 short of your $2000 claim...
Nevermind, that most PC gamers also tend to cannibalize what they can of their previous system to save money on a newer one (i.e. HDDs, DVD/CD Burner, case, etc.).
So your saying pc's can run games with the same amount of memory as consoles?
No, I'm saying that 512GB of RAM matches the amount of RAM found in a 360.
Reread your original ludicrous statement:
You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005
Silly me for thinking a proper comparison would be for a pc that can play all the games that the competing console can. Not just games that you're a fan of.
What difference does it make how long it took for 8800 to be required? Look at 360 launch window games like CoD 2 and Oblivion. You needed a high end pc to match the 360.
I came out to about $1,900 with my build.
You come out $600 short because you're trying to match the 360 spec for spec including ram. Sorry, a 512mb pc will not handle games as well as the 360. Many games required 1 gb by 2006/7.
The 360 was comparable to a high end pc when it launched.
No.
More peasant bullshit and outright lies.
I owned both a "high end" PC and a 360 and the 360 never once came close to my PC; not even at the 360's launch.
Ffs, the 360 had 512MB of RAM. Even first gen smartphones had more RAM than the previous gen's consoles.
My PC of '05 was running 16 times the 360's RAM with 8GB. 9 years later, I now have 32X that amount of RAM and roll with 16GB.
Lol! 8gb in 2005? Why? That's $800 worth of ram!
BF 2 was the most demanding game ram wise in 2005 and saw no gain past 2gb.
that's like saying there's more people in China than Europe, therefore China is crushing Europe.
uhm, almost everyone has a pc and pc's are more expensive than consoles.
Why are people arguing about PC prices in 2005?
Also, why are people arguing about hackers on PC? I don't think I've seen a hacker on the PC in at least a decade.
Get with the times. In 2014 an awesome PC isn't expensive, and multiplayer games aren't infested with hackers.
Welcome to a guy called Cranler, basically he woke up about a month ago and decided to become a full on anti-pc gamer troll, trying to pass of fiction as fact.
The supposed next gen consoles are watered down pcs. Poor imitations, limited in scope, starved of power, shells of what they are based off of. I find so much amusement from console fanboys boasting of the power of their platforms that struggle to game at 1080p. 1080p is last gen console owners. You will always be behind in every conceivable way imaginable.
Yo Xenonauts. I know this thread had nothing to do with that game, but **** it. That game is legit as ****.
That game makes me like video-games again.
Dosent every PC game online just get hacked ?
Everyone playing better than you isn't a hacker.
Why are people arguing about PC prices in 2005?
Also, why are people arguing about hackers on PC? I don't think I've seen a hacker on the PC in at least a decade.
Get with the times. In 2014 an awesome PC isn't expensive, and multiplayer games aren't infested with hackers.
Welcome to a guy called Cranler, basically he woke up about a month ago and decided to become a full on anti-pc gamer troll, trying to pass of fiction as fact.
Lies! Here's the unbiased, non anti-pc comment I made a couple pages back that caused an uproar with a few people. Some of you seem to always overlook anything nice I have to say about pc. PC and consoles have their pros and cons yet some biased fanboys wont admit it.
PC gaming will most likely be a lot less expensive during this console gen than last due to the new consoles not being nearly as powerful for 2013 as ps360 were for their launch times. You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005 and now you can match the ps4 with a $600 pc. Add in the $50 a year for console mp and console becomes more expensive. Only thing we can't be sure of is if min req on pc games will go beyond ps 4 specs during the gen.
Dasein blows his top over the $2,000 comment. He tries to prove that you could build a pc to match the 360 for far less using a pc with a mere 512mb since that's what the 360 has. He's also clueless on cpu pricing from 2005 as well.
Why are people arguing about PC prices in 2005?
Also, why are people arguing about hackers on PC? I don't think I've seen a hacker on the PC in at least a decade.
Get with the times. In 2014 an awesome PC isn't expensive, and multiplayer games aren't infested with hackers.
Welcome to a guy called Cranler, basically he woke up about a month ago and decided to become a full on anti-pc gamer troll, trying to pass of fiction as fact.
Lies! Here's the unbiased, non anti-pc comment I made a couple pages back that caused an uproar with a few people. Some of you seem to always overlook anything nice I have to say about pc. PC and consoles have their pros and cons yet some biased fanboys wont admit it.
PC gaming will most likely be a lot less expensive during this console gen than last due to the new consoles not being nearly as powerful for 2013 as ps360 were for their launch times. You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005 and now you can match the ps4 with a $600 pc. Add in the $50 a year for console mp and console becomes more expensive. Only thing we can't be sure of is if min req on pc games will go beyond ps 4 specs during the gen.
Dasein blows his top over the $2,000 comment. He tries to prove that you could build a pc to match the 360 for far less using a pc with a mere 512mb since that's what the 360 has. He's also clueless on cpu pricing from 2005 as well.
Oh sure, anyone can praise/neutral comment another platform we have all done it. but you are still full of s*it.
Shouldn't it be on the CLAIMER e.g YOU to prove the $2000 price?
In early 2007 (Febuary) I made my computer that beat the snot out of the xbox360 for £750. and that was win the recently new Q6600 Quad core.4 GB ram (You are GROSSLY exagurating the RAM costs of the time.... REALLY badly.
so, prove to use the cost of a PC that matched the Xbox360 .... in 2005 was that much.
Not that its relevant to today anyway. the PS4/X1 are not even as impressive as Xbox360's first year with gears of war.... and PCs can beat them for £600. probably less.
Why are people arguing about PC prices in 2005?
Also, why are people arguing about hackers on PC? I don't think I've seen a hacker on the PC in at least a decade.
Get with the times. In 2014 an awesome PC isn't expensive, and multiplayer games aren't infested with hackers.
Welcome to a guy called Cranler, basically he woke up about a month ago and decided to become a full on anti-pc gamer troll, trying to pass of fiction as fact.
Lies! Here's the unbiased, non anti-pc comment I made a couple pages back that caused an uproar with a few people. Some of you seem to always overlook anything nice I have to say about pc. PC and consoles have their pros and cons yet some biased fanboys wont admit it.
PC gaming will most likely be a lot less expensive during this console gen than last due to the new consoles not being nearly as powerful for 2013 as ps360 were for their launch times. You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005 and now you can match the ps4 with a $600 pc. Add in the $50 a year for console mp and console becomes more expensive. Only thing we can't be sure of is if min req on pc games will go beyond ps 4 specs during the gen.
Dasein blows his top over the $2,000 comment. He tries to prove that you could build a pc to match the 360 for far less using a pc with a mere 512mb since that's what the 360 has. He's also clueless on cpu pricing from 2005 as well.
Oh sure, anyone can praise/neutral comment another platform we have all done it. but you are still full of s*it.
Shouldn't it be on the CLAIMER e.g YOU to prove the $2000 price?
In early 2007 (Febuary) I made my computer that beat the snot out of the xbox360 for £750. and that was win the recently new Q6600 Quad core.4 GB ram (You are GROSSLY exagurating the RAM costs of the time.... REALLY badly.
so, prove to use the cost of a PC that matched the Xbox360 .... in 2005 was that much.
Not that its relevant to today anyway. the PS4/X1 are not even as impressive as Xbox360's first year with gears of war.... and PCs can beat them for £600. probably less.
I see many hermits who have never had one positive thing to say about consoles.
I want to figure out the full price of this Feb 2007 build you speak of. The CPU $851/ram $320 but we need hdd size, mb model, gpu of course, psu etc.
My 2005 ram price guess was close
| 2005.83 | 0.116 | 2005 | Nov8 | Pcmag | 67 | NewEgg.com | 1048576 | 119 | 1GB DIMM DDR2 -533 @ $119 |
http://www.jcmit.com/memoryprice.htm
It hasn't even been a full year for the new consoles yet. 360 launch window games weren't all that impressive either.
1. You need to buy a new HDD every year for £100?
2. You have a graphics card that doesn't exist?
3. You need to upgrade your hardware yearly for what reason?
----------------------------
1. Nope, you don't, bad trolling.
2. That statement already proves that you have no idea about PC gaming. Someone who thinks a GTX 380 exits clearly never build a PC or looked for parts online.
3. Nope, just another bad troll attempt. Hell, a PC that I've build 7 years ago still outperforms the Xbox 360 and PS3 im every multiplat when it comes to FPS, screen resolution and graphics settings.
And my newly build PC that cost me $730 will easily beat the Xbone and PS4 for this generation. It already does in games like Watch_Dogs, Thief and Battlefield 4.
do me a favor, read my other posts before spewing your absalute s**te
This again? A $2000 PC can turn out to cost less than a Xbone or PS4 depending on how many games you buy; the most important part of the equation which you conveniently left out.
You can last a whole console generation with one PC, if you buy a mid-high end PC. Without upgrading anything. I know that, because that is what I do.
you telling me a PC from 2006 can run Battlefield 4 at a reasonable framerate / visual fidelity? no.... sorry but it can't
Also if you buys 3 games a year (120 quid minimum) and i buy a PS4/you buy a £1200 PC ... the console will work out cheaper.. this is basic maths
you cannot argue that buying 50 indie games for the same price as 3 AAA games makes it more cost effective.... games don't come into this conversation.
Also whether i got the part names correct or no is mute... the maths still works and its still WAY more expensive to play on PC than PS4.... show me a breakdown to prove me wrong (including benchmarks to show BF4 running at at least 30fps 720)
1.It's funny how you talk about "basic math" but you think that 2014 - 7 years equals 2006. 14 - 7 = 7, that's basic math. And how do you know? Have you tried it? No? Then stop talking about things that you clearly don't know about. The game run very well at mostly low settings and some at med, 16xAF and High Post Process AA @720p. FYI, the last-gen versions run at below low PC settings, below 720p, no AA and no AF, also they don't have 64 player matches.
2. Also, if you buy 3 games a year (120 quid minimum) and I buy a golden PS4 for $5000 and you buy a £1200 PC... the PC will work out cheaper.. this is basic math! Though in the end no one needs a golden PS4, just like no one needs a £1200 (over $2050) PC. See, buying a PC for £1200 is a choice, not a necessity. If a $500 PC can already beat the PS4 in performance, why would you NEED a $2050 PC?
3. Do you even read what you're writing? In your last sentence you said "Also if you buys 3 games a year..." and then you continue with "games don't come into this conversation." Also, last week I bought BioShock, BioShock 2, The Darkness II, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified, Spec Ops: The Line and Mafia II for $5.42 in a bundle. What did you say about AAA games again?
4. So you build a PC but you don't know the names of the parts, then you upgrade that PC for very little performance gain and you got those parts wrong too and then you claim that you need a $2000 PC to play games. Yep, I can see how that made up math works.
Look, we get it, you prefer consoles, but that's no need to lie and make up stuff.
If pc gaming is cheaper and pc gamers are always bargain hunting then doesn't that make pc gamers the peasants?
@FreedomFreeLife: Not really
First of all there is no clear line to compare PC hardware sales to Console sales, unless you can link to a report that looks directly at what reason was stated for the pc purchase.
Second PC is not where game developers make their money, it has and still is consoles that makes the biggest sales for any developer, 32.5mill copies was sold of GTA V and even a game like minecraft has outsold pc sales on consoles/handheld.
So no PC is not crushing consoles.
@FreedomFreeLife:
Second PC is not where game developers make their money, it has and still is consoles that makes the biggest sales for any developer, 32.5mill copies was sold of GTA V and even a game like minecraft has outsold pc sales on consoles/handheld.
Can you back this up? Like, that all developers overall (not just 1 company) make more money off consoles?
The latest information shows PC software sales above all 6 consoles. The link was posted in this thread earlier.
If you can't find it i'll post it again, but it goes against what you are saying. Can you imagine PC vs 1 single console? Devastating results likely.
Why are people arguing about PC prices in 2005?
Also, why are people arguing about hackers on PC? I don't think I've seen a hacker on the PC in at least a decade.
Get with the times. In 2014 an awesome PC isn't expensive, and multiplayer games aren't infested with hackers.
Welcome to a guy called Cranler, basically he woke up about a month ago and decided to become a full on anti-pc gamer troll, trying to pass of fiction as fact.
Lies! Here's the unbiased, non anti-pc comment I made a couple pages back that caused an uproar with a few people. Some of you seem to always overlook anything nice I have to say about pc. PC and consoles have their pros and cons yet some biased fanboys wont admit it.
PC gaming will most likely be a lot less expensive during this console gen than last due to the new consoles not being nearly as powerful for 2013 as ps360 were for their launch times. You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005 and now you can match the ps4 with a $600 pc. Add in the $50 a year for console mp and console becomes more expensive. Only thing we can't be sure of is if min req on pc games will go beyond ps 4 specs during the gen.
Dasein blows his top over the $2,000 comment. He tries to prove that you could build a pc to match the 360 for far less using a pc with a mere 512mb since that's what the 360 has. He's also clueless on cpu pricing from 2005 as well.
Oh sure, anyone can praise/neutral comment another platform we have all done it. but you are still full of s*it.
Shouldn't it be on the CLAIMER e.g YOU to prove the $2000 price?
In early 2007 (Febuary) I made my computer that beat the snot out of the xbox360 for £750. and that was win the recently new Q6600 Quad core.4 GB ram (You are GROSSLY exagurating the RAM costs of the time.... REALLY badly.
so, prove to use the cost of a PC that matched the Xbox360 .... in 2005 was that much.
Not that its relevant to today anyway. the PS4/X1 are not even as impressive as Xbox360's first year with gears of war.... and PCs can beat them for £600. probably less.
I want to figure out the full price of this Feb 2007 build you speak of. The CPU $851/ram $320 but we need hdd size, mb model, gpu of course, psu etc.
Lying isn't getting you anywhere. $851 for a Q6600? Funny, how did I manage to buy the exact same CPU in 2007 for less than $300? It was $270 if I remember correctly. Also that $320 for 4GB Ram is laughable as well. I've payed $60 for 2GB in 2007, so guess how much 4GB would've cost?
I'm a little hurt at being called a liar. Name calling is what hermits are best at it seems.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentsfield_(microprocessor)
WikipediaThe mainstream Core 2 Quad Q6600, clocked at 2.4 GHz, was launched on January 8, 2007 at US$851 (reduced to US$530 on April 7, 2007). July 22, 2007 ...
| 2007 | Feb28 | Web | NewEgg.com | 1048576 | 79.98 | 1GB DIMM DDR2-800 @ $74.99 + 4.99 |
1. You need to buy a new HDD every year for £100?
2. You have a graphics card that doesn't exist?
3. You need to upgrade your hardware yearly for what reason?
----------------------------
1. Nope, you don't, bad trolling.
2. That statement already proves that you have no idea about PC gaming. Someone who thinks a GTX 380 exits clearly never build a PC or looked for parts online.
3. Nope, just another bad troll attempt. Hell, a PC that I've build 7 years ago still outperforms the Xbox 360 and PS3 im every multiplat when it comes to FPS, screen resolution and graphics settings.
And my newly build PC that cost me $730 will easily beat the Xbone and PS4 for this generation. It already does in games like Watch_Dogs, Thief and Battlefield 4.
do me a favor, read my other posts before spewing your absalute s**te
This again? A $2000 PC can turn out to cost less than a Xbone or PS4 depending on how many games you buy; the most important part of the equation which you conveniently left out.
You can last a whole console generation with one PC, if you buy a mid-high end PC. Without upgrading anything. I know that, because that is what I do.
you telling me a PC from 2006 can run Battlefield 4 at a reasonable framerate / visual fidelity? no.... sorry but it can't
Also if you buys 3 games a year (120 quid minimum) and i buy a PS4/you buy a £1200 PC ... the console will work out cheaper.. this is basic maths
you cannot argue that buying 50 indie games for the same price as 3 AAA games makes it more cost effective.... games don't come into this conversation.
Also whether i got the part names correct or no is mute... the maths still works and its still WAY more expensive to play on PC than PS4.... show me a breakdown to prove me wrong (including benchmarks to show BF4 running at at least 30fps 720)
1.It's funny how you talk about "basic math" but you think that 2014 - 7 years equals 2006. 14 - 7 = 7, that's basic math. And how do you know? Have you tried it? No? Then stop talking about things that you clearly don't know about. The game run very well at mostly low settings and some at med, 16xAF and High Post Process AA @720p. FYI, the last-gen versions run at below low PC settings, below 720p, no AA and no AF, also they don't have 64 player matches.
2. Also, if you buy 3 games a year (120 quid minimum) and I buy a golden PS4 for $5000 and you buy a £1200 PC... the PC will work out cheaper.. this is basic math! Though in the end no one needs a golden PS4, just like no one needs a £1200 (over $2050) PC. See, buying a PC for £1200 is a choice, not a necessity. If a $500 PC can already beat the PS4 in performance, why would you NEED a $2050 PC?
3. Do you even read what you're writing? In your last sentence you said "Also if you buys 3 games a year..." and then you continue with "games don't come into this conversation." Also, last week I bought BioShock, BioShock 2, The Darkness II, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified, Spec Ops: The Line and Mafia II for $5.42 in a bundle. What did you say about AAA games again?
4. So you build a PC but you don't know the names of the parts, then you upgrade that PC for very little performance gain and you got those parts wrong too and then you claim that you need a $2000 PC to play games. Yep, I can see how that made up math works.
Look, we get it, you prefer consoles, but that's no need to lie and make up stuff.
If pc gaming is cheaper and pc gamers are always bargain hunting then doesn't that make pc gamers the peasants?
Nope, better graphics, performance, tech, possibilities, more freedom, more AA and AAA games, more and diverse indies, over 90% of better multiplats, free online and all the other crap PC has in favor kinda makes us not peasants. Also, paying less and waiting for sales is an option, it's not a necessity.
Sounds to me like pc gamers are just more tech savvy and or into gaming but not of a higher class.
Silly me for thinking a proper comparison would be for a pc that can play all the games that the competing console can. Not just games that you're a fan of.
What difference does it make how long it took for 8800 to be required? Look at 360 launch window games like CoD 2 and Oblivion. You needed a high end pc to match the 360.
I came out to about $1,900 with my build.
You come out $600 short because you're trying to match the 360 spec for spec including ram. Sorry, a 512mb pc will not handle games as well as the 360. Many games required 1 gb by 2006/7.
More like, you're silly for even trying to pretend that PCs operate in the same "generations" as kids' toys.
The difference is, you were trying to insinuate that PCs needed to upgrade a lot sooner than five years after the consoles' release in order to be able to play the majority of games. You did not need a "high end" PC to match the 360 at launch and you definitely did not need a $2000 PC to match the 360.
Your build is also, conveniently, way overpriced. Good work.
I realize that a 512MB PC would not handle a lot of games, but your claim was that a 2005 PC with "MATCHING" technology would have cost $2000.
It didn't. Add $110 to bump it up to 2GB and you're still nowhere near $2000.
Lol! 8gb in 2005? Why? That's $800 worth of ram!
BF 2 was the most demanding game ram wise in 2005 and saw no gain past 2gb.
Lol, some of us use our PCs for more than just playing games.
Madness, I know.
Silly me for thinking a proper comparison would be for a pc that can play all the games that the competing console can. Not just games that you're a fan of.
What difference does it make how long it took for 8800 to be required? Look at 360 launch window games like CoD 2 and Oblivion. You needed a high end pc to match the 360.
I came out to about $1,900 with my build.
You come out $600 short because you're trying to match the 360 spec for spec including ram. Sorry, a 512mb pc will not handle games as well as the 360. Many games required 1 gb by 2006/7.
More like, you're silly for even trying to pretend that PCs operate in the same "generations" as kids' toys.
The difference is, you were trying to insinuate that PCs needed to upgrade a lot sooner than five years after the consoles' release in order to be able to play the majority of games. You did not need a "high end" PC to match the 360 at launch and you definitely did not need a $2000 PC to match the 360.
Your build is also, conveniently, way overpriced. Good work.
I realize that a 512MB PC would not handle a lot of games, but your claim was that a 2005 PC with "MATCHING" technology would have cost $2000.
It didn't. Add $110 to bump it up to 2GB and you're still nowhere near $2000.
Lol! 8gb in 2005? Why? That's $800 worth of ram!
BF 2 was the most demanding game ram wise in 2005 and saw no gain past 2gb.
Lol, some of us use our PCs for more than just playing games.
Madness, I know.
Call of Duty 2 in dx9 mode was very demanding. Only a 7800 gtx or the amd equivalent could match the 360's performance in that launch game. 7800 gtx was not just high end but top of the line in 2005.
$110 to go from 512mb to 2gb in 2005?
What were you running that needed 8gb?
@Cranler no your absolutely right, I have no records of my purchase date... only parts from before (feb) ... turns out the price I payed was July onwards.
But anyways, that slammed the xbox360 for many years.... I only upgraded to an i5 last year and the need wasn't even great.
the Core 2 Duo's outperformed the xbox360 at the time anyway, and some outperformed the Q6600 especially with overclocking.... I'm not sure what the entirity of my systme was ... I think I had an nvidia 6800? (the cheaper one which again outperformed the xbox360) and 2GB ram was like £45 for 2GB ( I have never payed more than that for RAM until the latest build of 16GB). If I recall I probably re-used RAM.
HDD? probably 500gb.... and would not pay more than £60 at the time. Motherboards I NEVER buy expensive ones, around 50-70 tops.
but anyway this is all going way off track. fact of the matter is a 6800, E6XXX core 2 duo and 2-3 gb of ram could outperform the xbox360.
I think I went from 6800 to 8800 around crysis time. that ofcourse... left it in the dust.
Silly me for thinking a proper comparison would be for a pc that can play all the games that the competing console can. Not just games that you're a fan of.
What difference does it make how long it took for 8800 to be required? Look at 360 launch window games like CoD 2 and Oblivion. You needed a high end pc to match the 360.
I came out to about $1,900 with my build.
You come out $600 short because you're trying to match the 360 spec for spec including ram. Sorry, a 512mb pc will not handle games as well as the 360. Many games required 1 gb by 2006/7.
More like, you're silly for even trying to pretend that PCs operate in the same "generations" as kids' toys.
The difference is, you were trying to insinuate that PCs needed to upgrade a lot sooner than five years after the consoles' release in order to be able to play the majority of games. You did not need a "high end" PC to match the 360 at launch and you definitely did not need a $2000 PC to match the 360.
Your build is also, conveniently, way overpriced. Good work.
I realize that a 512MB PC would not handle a lot of games, but your claim was that a 2005 PC with "MATCHING" technology would have cost $2000.
It didn't. Add $110 to bump it up to 2GB and you're still nowhere near $2000.
Lol! 8gb in 2005? Why? That's $800 worth of ram!
BF 2 was the most demanding game ram wise in 2005 and saw no gain past 2gb.
Lol, some of us use our PCs for more than just playing games.
Madness, I know.
Call of Duty 2 in dx9 mode was very demanding. Only a 7800 gtx or the amd equivalent could match the 360's performance in that launch game. 7800 gtx was not just high end but top of the line in 2005.
$110 to go from 512mb to 2gb in 2005?
What were you running that needed 8gb?
Yet a 7800 only cost $400 in 2005, where today's "top of the line" regularly ask for $700+. If you had an existing PC, upgrading to a 7800 was cheaper than buying either console.
The price of 2GB of RAM in 2005 was $200. I had already estimated $90 for 512MB. Subtract the difference = $110 more.
Now that I think about it, in '05 I was probably running 4GB, but I later upgraded to 8GB when I switched to Vista and 16GB when I switched to Win 7.
Arc GIS, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Sony Vegas, various 3D modeling programs.
@lglz1337:
spreadsheet race won. Crunching the number of how many console gamers converted to pc
chair gamers and sofa isolated from the real world with friends
benchmark this shit m8 and be proud of what you made instead given a box and a controller.
sad lemming hiding behind pc becuase we feel bad about console gamers getting screwed once again by the big 3. internet bill on top of daddy and mommy i want to buy more time to play. feels weird sony and xbox treat you like a child still.
@Cranler no your absolutely right, I have no records of my purchase date... only parts from before (feb) ... turns out the price I payed was July onwards.
But anyways, that slammed the xbox360 for many years.... I only upgraded to an i5 last year and the need wasn't even great.
the Core 2 Duo's outperformed the xbox360 at the time anyway, and some outperformed the Q6600 especially with overclocking.... I'm not sure what the entirity of my systme was ... I think I had an nvidia 6800? (the cheaper one which again outperformed the xbox360) and 2GB ram was like £45 for 2GB ( I have never payed more than that for RAM until the latest build of 16GB). If I recall I probably re-used RAM.
HDD? probably 500gb.... and would not pay more than £60 at the time. Motherboards I NEVER buy expensive ones, around 50-70 tops.
but anyway this is all going way off track. fact of the matter is a 6800, E6XXX core 2 duo and 2-3 gb of ram could outperform the xbox360.
I think I went from 6800 to 8800 around crysis time. that ofcourse... left it in the dust.
It should have slammed it considering you bought it almost 2 years after the 360 launch and it cost a lot more than a 360.
6800 e6xxx outperformed the 360? Got any benches to back that? I got a bench to disprove that claim. Heres a 8600 gt/core 2 duo struggling to run Bioshock at 1280x1024 medium settings.
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9
Upgrading the gpu that cost almost as much as the 360 in 2005 to the 8800 left it in the dust. Ought to with all that money spent.
Silly me for thinking a proper comparison would be for a pc that can play all the games that the competing console can. Not just games that you're a fan of.
What difference does it make how long it took for 8800 to be required? Look at 360 launch window games like CoD 2 and Oblivion. You needed a high end pc to match the 360.
I came out to about $1,900 with my build.
You come out $600 short because you're trying to match the 360 spec for spec including ram. Sorry, a 512mb pc will not handle games as well as the 360. Many games required 1 gb by 2006/7.
More like, you're silly for even trying to pretend that PCs operate in the same "generations" as kids' toys.
The difference is, you were trying to insinuate that PCs needed to upgrade a lot sooner than five years after the consoles' release in order to be able to play the majority of games. You did not need a "high end" PC to match the 360 at launch and you definitely did not need a $2000 PC to match the 360.
Your build is also, conveniently, way overpriced. Good work.
I realize that a 512MB PC would not handle a lot of games, but your claim was that a 2005 PC with "MATCHING" technology would have cost $2000.
It didn't. Add $110 to bump it up to 2GB and you're still nowhere near $2000.
Lol! 8gb in 2005? Why? That's $800 worth of ram!
BF 2 was the most demanding game ram wise in 2005 and saw no gain past 2gb.
Lol, some of us use our PCs for more than just playing games.
Madness, I know.
Call of Duty 2 in dx9 mode was very demanding. Only a 7800 gtx or the amd equivalent could match the 360's performance in that launch game. 7800 gtx was not just high end but top of the line in 2005.
$110 to go from 512mb to 2gb in 2005?
What were you running that needed 8gb?
Yet a 7800 only cost $400 in 2005, where today's "top of the line" regularly ask for $700+. If you had an existing PC, upgrading to a 7800 was cheaper than buying either console.
The price of 2GB of RAM in 2005 was $200. I had already estimated $90 for 512MB. Subtract the difference = $110 more.
Arc GIS, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Sony Vegas, various 3D modeling programs.
Took me 2 seconds to find this http://www.anandtech.com/show/1717
The GeForce 7800 GTX will cost a solid $600. Of course, we do expect retailers to charge a premium for the early adopters. Prices we are seeing at launch are on the order of $650.
That's more than I paid for my GTX 680 at launch.
I doubt those programs were designed to use that much ram since most users os in 2005 only detected 4gb.
Took me 2 seconds to find this http://www.anandtech.com/show/1717
The GeForce 7800 GTX will cost a solid $600. Of course, we do expect retailers to charge a premium for the early adopters. Prices we are seeing at launch are on the order of $650.
That's more than I paid for my GTX 680 at launch.
I doubt those programs were designed to use that much ram since most users os in 2005 only detected 4gb.
It's a shame you didn't use those two seconds to find a price quote for the correct model, the 7800GT and not the GTX.
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT GPU-based graphics cards are available immediately for a suggested retail price of $449.
However, they could be purchased from Newegg for $400. You're, again, conveniently, citing the price of the top of the line model, the GTX. The Xbox's closest 7800 equivalent model was the GT NOT the GTX.
Doubt all you like, you've apparently never worked with 100s of images simultaneously, done any video editing, or used any 3D modeling software. They'll gobble up as much RAM as you're willing to throw at them and then ask for more.
It's the reason people tend to go with as much RAM as they can afford because no one wants to leave their PC rendering for 24+ hours.
Took me 2 seconds to find this http://www.anandtech.com/show/1717
The GeForce 7800 GTX will cost a solid $600. Of course, we do expect retailers to charge a premium for the early adopters. Prices we are seeing at launch are on the order of $650.
That's more than I paid for my GTX 680 at launch.
I doubt those programs were designed to use that much ram since most users os in 2005 only detected 4gb.
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT GPU-based graphics cards are available immediately for a suggested retail price of $449.
However, they could be purchased from Newegg for $400. You're again, conveniently, citing the price for the top of the line model the GTX.
Doubt all you like, you've apparently never worked with 100s images simultaneously or used any 3D modeling software. They'll gobble up as much RAM as you're willing to throw at them and then ask for more.
You're argument is all over the place. You bring up $700 top end gpu's and talking how 2005 gpu's were cheaper. So you're comparing pricing for todays top of the line gpu's vs 2nd tier gpu's from 2005? Totally nonsensical.
The 7800 gt is akin to the gtx 770 which had a $400 launch price so that throws you're whole today's 2nd tier gpu's are more expensive argument.
Most people were using xp or 2000 back then which couldnt use more than 4gb. I doubt you were using xp 64 and I wouldn't beleive you if you said you were.
You're argument is all over the place. You bring up $700 top end gpu's and talking how 2005 gpu's were cheaper. So you're comparing pricing for todays top of the line gpu's vs 2nd tier gpu's from 2005? Totally nonsensical.
The 7800 gt is akin to the gtx 770 which had a $400 launch price so that throws you're whole today's 2nd tier gpu's are more expensive argument.
Most people were using xp or 2000 back then which couldnt use more than 4gb. I doubt you were using xp 64 and I wouldn't beleive you if you said you were.
No, my argument has remained focused on refuting your stupid, "You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005," comment.
You're the one that continues to try and derail the topic since your point has been repeatedly disproven by multiple people.
The 7800GT is the WEAKEST of the 7800 series. There's a world of difference in power and price between a GT and GTX model.
I was never arguing that today's 2nd tier GPUs are more expensive, but I see that you're now grasping at straws since you tried to pass off linking the wrong model and price 7800 to support your claim.
You were wrong and you were called on it. No amount of backpedaling, trying to put words into my mouth, or attempting to claim that I was making arguments I was never making will change the fact that you are wrong, but by all means, continue digging your hole.
Ffs, I know the Windows OS' memory restrictions, I even corrected myself and stated that I was using XP and 4GB, but later upgraded to 8 with the release of Vista and 16 with Win 7. You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the exact dates when these changes were made considering that 2005 was 9 years ago and I have built another system during that time.
I'll be honest, I'm not terribly concerned with the opinion of a trolling kid who makes hyperbolic, indefensible statements and then tries to back them up using evidence that fails to even support his claim.
You're argument is all over the place. You bring up $700 top end gpu's and talking how 2005 gpu's were cheaper. So you're comparing pricing for todays top of the line gpu's vs 2nd tier gpu's from 2005? Totally nonsensical.
The 7800 gt is akin to the gtx 770 which had a $400 launch price so that throws you're whole today's 2nd tier gpu's are more expensive argument.
Most people were using xp or 2000 back then which couldnt use more than 4gb. I doubt you were using xp 64 and I wouldn't beleive you if you said you were.
No, my argument has remained focused on refuting your stupid, "You needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005," comment.
You're the one that continues to try and derail the topic since your point has been repeatedly disproven by multiple people.
The 7800GT is the WEAKEST of the 7800 series. There's a world of difference in power and price between a GT and GTX model.
I was never arguing that today's 2nd tier GPUs are more expensive, but I see that you're now grasping at straws since you tried to pass off linking the wrong model and price 7800 to support your claim.
You were wrong and you were called on it. No amount of backpedaling, trying to put words into my mouth, or attempting to claim that I was making arguments I was never making will change the fact that you are wrong, but by all means, continue digging your hole.
Ffs, I know the Windows OS' memory restrictions, I even corrected myself and stated that I was using XP and 4GB, but later upgraded to 8 with the release of Vista and 16 with Win 7. You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the exact dates when these changes were made considering that 2005 was 9 years ago and I have built another system during that time.
I'll be honest, I'm not terribly concerned with the opinion of a trolling kid who makes hyperbolic, indefensible statements and then tries to back them up using evidence that fails to even support his claim.
You were the one who brought up todays top of the line gpu pricing and compared it to the 7800gt for some unknown reason.
Let me requote you here:"Yet a 7800 only cost $400 in 2005, where today's "top of the line" regularly ask for $700+."
I'm not derailing anything just responding to your posts.
Wrong on what? No one has posted a build that's far less than $2,000
Where did you correct yourself on ram in your 2005 build?
You seem quite concerned actually and I have yet to see anyone refute my claims.
However this statement implies they aren't present
"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."
But it's "relatively" hack free,derp.
Can't you read properly lostrib?
"Odds are much higher" is a quite straightforward statement implying there are cheaters on console but much more rare.
However this statement implies they aren't present
"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."
Console gaming is relatively hack free.
You guys have been hanging out too much
ps4 and xbox one have still not been hacked so yeah no hacking for you on those
You really should check the truth of a statement before making it
http://www.inferse.com/10909/sonys-playstation-4-successfully-jailbroken/
This next one, I'm not going to post a link too but here's a feature list from a hack site for COD Ghosts (took all of 5 seconds to find this on Google)
AimbotWallhack + ESP (See the status of other players including their position and health) Speed Hack (Run at triple the normal speed) Unlimited AmmoHide Username (Your name will be invisible) No Recoil (No movement of the gun when firing constantly) SuperJump (Jump 6x higher than normal) God Mode (Nothing can kill you) Prestige Hack (Make yourself any level and prestige you want)
Current state: UndetectedCurrent Version: v1.6.3
PlayStation 4: UndetectedPlayStation 3: Undetected Xbox One: Undetected Xbox 360: Undetected PC: Undetected
So you were saying?
Dosent every PC game online just get hacked ?
Everyone playing better than you isn't a hacker.
was this meant to offend me? I don't even play PC also I imagine someone who has ulimited ammo and can spawn tanks and crap isn't a good player
You were the one who brought up todays top of the line gpu pricing and compared it to the 7800gt for some unknown reason.
Let me requote you here:"Yet a 7800 only cost $400 in 2005, where today's "top of the line" regularly ask for $700+."
I'm not derailing anything just responding to your posts.
Wrong on what? No one has posted a build that's far less than $2,000
Where did you correct yourself on ram in your 2005 build?
You seem quite concerned actually and I have yet to see anyone refute my claims.
I was responding to your: "Call of Duty 2 in dx9 mode was very demanding. Only a 7800 gtx or the amd equivalent could match the 360's performance in that launch game. 7800 gtx was not just high end but top of the line in 2005."
I saw you mention the GTX model and recognized that you were trying to claim that the 360's GPU was roughly equivalent to a GTX and not a GT.
I quoted you the price of a GT in 2005 ($400) and you, foolishly, took the bait and responded with, "The GeForce 7800 GTX will cost a solid $600. Of course, we do expect retailers to charge a premium for the early adopters. Prices we are seeing at launch are on the order of $650."
it's pretty straight forward if you know how to read.
I posted a build that was well below $2000 after revising your ridiculous estimates (i.e. $150 motherboard to match a 360. No.).
Yet a 7800 only cost $400 in 2005, where today's "top of the line" regularly ask for $700+. If you had an existing PC, upgrading to a 7800 was cheaper than buying either console.
The price of 2GB of RAM in 2005 was $200. I had already estimated $90 for 512MB. Subtract the difference = $110 more.
Now that I think about it, in '05 I was probably running 4GB, but I later upgraded to 8GB when I switched to Vista and 16GB when I switched to Win 7.
Arc GIS, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Sony Vegas, various 3D modeling programs.
You mistake concern for passing the day by making you look ridiculous with your attempts to derail or actually prove any of your claims so far.
As many have already pointed out, the burden of proof lies with you, and so far, you have failed in your every attempt to substantiate your claim; even going so far as to pull the incorrect model and pricing information for a video card that was NVIDIA's top of the line at the time and trying to claim that it was comparable to the 360's graphics chip.
However this statement implies they aren't present
"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."
But it's "relatively" hack free,derp.
Can't you read properly lostrib?
"Odds are much higher" is a quite straightforward statement implying there are cheaters on console but much more rare.
However this statement implies they aren't present
"Yeah but if you want to play mp hack free then console is the way to go."
Console gaming is relatively hack free.
You guys have been hanging out too much
ps4 and xbox one have still not been hacked so yeah no hacking for you on those
You really should check the truth of a statement before making it
http://www.inferse.com/10909/sonys-playstation-4-successfully-jailbroken/
This next one, I'm not going to post a link too but here's a feature list from a hack site for COD Ghosts (took all of 5 seconds to find this on Google)
AimbotWallhack + ESP (See the status of other players including their position and health) Speed Hack (Run at triple the normal speed) Unlimited AmmoHide Username (Your name will be invisible) No Recoil (No movement of the gun when firing constantly) SuperJump (Jump 6x higher than normal) God Mode (Nothing can kill you) Prestige Hack (Make yourself any level and prestige you want)
Current state: UndetectedCurrent Version: v1.6.3
PlayStation 4: UndetectedPlayStation 3: Undetected Xbox One: Undetected Xbox 360: Undetected PC: Undetected So you were saying?
And at the end of the jailbreaking tutorial it says
You were the one who brought up todays top of the line gpu pricing and compared it to the 7800gt for some unknown reason.
Let me requote you here:"Yet a 7800 only cost $400 in 2005, where today's "top of the line" regularly ask for $700+."
I'm not derailing anything just responding to your posts.
Wrong on what? No one has posted a build that's far less than $2,000
Where did you correct yourself on ram in your 2005 build?
You seem quite concerned actually and I have yet to see anyone refute my claims.
I was responding to your: "Call of Duty 2 in dx9 mode was very demanding. Only a 7800 gtx or the amd equivalent could match the 360's performance in that launch game. 7800 gtx was not just high end but top of the line in 2005."
I saw you mention the GTX model and recognized that you were trying to claim that the 360's GPU was roughly equivalent to a GTX and not a GT.
I quoted you the price of a GT in 2005 ($400) and you, foolishly, took the bait and responded with, "The GeForce 7800 GTX will cost a solid $600. Of course, we do expect retailers to charge a premium for the early adopters. Prices we are seeing at launch are on the order of $650."
it's pretty straight forward if you know how to read.
I posted a build that was well below $2000 after revising your ridiculous estimates (i.e. $150 motherboard to match a 360. No.).
Yet a 7800 only cost $400 in 2005, where today's "top of the line" regularly ask for $700+. If you had an existing PC, upgrading to a 7800 was cheaper than buying either console.
The price of 2GB of RAM in 2005 was $200. I had already estimated $90 for 512MB. Subtract the difference = $110 more.
Now that I think about it, in '05 I was probably running 4GB, but I later upgraded to 8GB when I switched to Vista and 16GB when I switched to Win 7.
Arc GIS, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Sony Vegas, various 3D modeling programs.
You mistake concern for passing the day by making you look ridiculous with your attempts to derail or actually prove any of your claims so far.
As many have already pointed out, the burden of proof lies with you, and so far, you have failed in your every attempt to substantiate your claim; even going so far as to pull the incorrect model and pricing information for a video card that was NVIDIA's top of the line at the time and trying to claim that it was comparable to the 360's graphics chip.
No, you brought up the price of todays top of the line gpu's and said they were more expensive than 2005 top of the line gpu's. Then I quoted the 7800gtx price and you realized that gpu's weren't much cheaper back then either so you backpedalled to the 7800 gt to save some face.
Remember that the 360 gpu has unified shaders which the 7800 gtx was incapable of. Both have their strength and weaknesses and end up being equal.
You mean the build with a $150 cpu that's far below the 360's cpu? The build with 512mb ram? LOL!
Have fun trying to run GTA 4 on that weak 2005 cpu. GTA 4 min req is athlon x2 64 2.4ghz which was an $800 cpu in 2005 and the mb for that in 2005 wasn't exactly cheap either.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1676
I knew two people who built "top-of-the-line" PCs in 2005. One used a 7800gtx, and the other used the x1800xt (I believe), and both people spent in the range of $1400 on their PC.
And both were outdated relatively quickly due to the unified shading architecture of the 360's graphics chip which was not introduced in PC GPUs until the nvidia 8 series, and the ATI 2000 series. It's not that the 360 was more powerful necessarily, but you needed much beefier PC hardware to compete on a similar level, and were still not in the best spot.
Since that point, however, PC components have gotten cheaper. Way, WAY cheaper. A great quad core processor costs around $150, and a GPU that bests both the Xbox One and PS4 costs between $100-$150. High-end components are not necessary to compete with consoles anymore, and the 360 will probably be the last console that ever "bests" PCs at launch.
Can we stop talking about this now? Let's get back to how the PC has the biggest, and best library of games.
Did you guys know that Steam has had 58 new game releases in the last week? That's pretty cool. Let's talk about that.
Or about how Mount and Blade Warband was f2p last weekend, and was so much fun that everyone with a PC bought it, and is now playing it......... I assume my fellow PC gamers play PC games?
No, you brought up the price of todays top of the line gpu's and said they were more expensive than 2005 top of the line gpu's. Then I quoted the 7800gtx price and you realized that gpu's weren't much cheaper back then either so you backpedalled to the 7800 gt to save some face.
Remember that the 360 gpu has unified shaders which the 7800 gtx was incapable of. Both have their strength and weaknesses and end up being equal.
You mean the build with a $150 cpu that's far below the 360's cpu? The build with 512mb ram? LOL!
Have fun trying to run GTA 4 on that weak 2005 cpu. GTA 4 min req is athlon x2 64 2.4ghz which was an $800 cpu in 2005 and the mb for that in 2005 wasn't exactly cheap either.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1676
That's an elaborate interpretation with no basis in reality, but I should expect nothing less. I have reread it 3 times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say.
Remember all those 360 games in 1080p?
Yeah, me neither.
Stop trying to claim that a graphics CHIP was capable of outperforming full-sized discrete GPUs of the time.
The laws of thermodynamics will call you on your lie, and you're not fooling anyone as evidenced by all of the multi-plat games which were playable in 1080p on PCs, but not on consoles throughout the previous generation.
A few additional shaders and effects do not = better resolution or more powerful rendering capabilities.
Yeah, the build that I said to go ahead and include 2GB of RAM for $200 and you still don't approach $2000.
Also , wasn't that the build where you tried to include a 250GB HDD when the 360's with 250GB drives weren't released till 2010?
Yeah, kinda like comparing the 360's GPU to the specs and price of a 7800GTX instead of a 7800GT...
CPU $500 | GPU (7800GT) $400 | RAM $200MB | $100 Power Supply| MB $75 (consoles don't overclock) | 20GB 5400 RPM HDD $50 | DVD/CD Burner $25 | KB/M $100= $1450.
I see that you've now upped your CPU estimate by $300, meanwhile, I generously overestimate the cost of the CPU, HDD, and KB/M in this build and it still doesn't even come close to your original, exaggerated, $2000 claim.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment