PC gaming is crushing consoles

I don't thats why I asked it as a question, also people I know have said plenty of times people hacked their online on l4d etc.

So just explain to me what the relevance of todays top of the line gpu prices were? Why bring that up? It's a simple question.

What last gen games could the 7800 run at 1080p?

GTA 4 for example would be a slideshow on that build. Cpu would be too weak.

You overestimate the cpu costs? i linked the athlon x2 prices from 2005. The min req cpu for gta 4 is $800 in that anandtech link. With that and a 7800 gtx it's right about $2000.

Also remember that consoles are prebuilt so the perfect apples to apples comparison would be a prebuilt pc with these specs at which point you're looking at $2500.

I already did, a couple of posts back and you just developed your own moronic interpretation as to the reason why.

A 7800GTX was up to the task of 1080p on any game which supported greater than peasant resolutions; so pretty much any game that I can remember because I don't recall ever being forced to play below my LCD of the time's native 1920x1080 resolution.

It's interesting that the CPU price you linked yesterday was $500.

Most any AMD X2 $500 CPU from that era would easily match the CPU in the 360 because of the 360's RAM bottleneck preventing its CPU from ever being able to fully stretch it legs and realize its full power potential.

Why are you still quoting the price of a 7800GTX when the correct comparable model was the 7800GT?

Get it through your incredibly dense head: the 360 had nowhere near the graphical power of a 7800GTX.

If you doubt this fact, then I ask you again, where are all the 1080p 360 games?

You are a hopeless peasant and an inept troll.

True, but the hardware is still more expensive. Gaming PC's are really expensive

Please remind me oh great one.

Whats the point of that link? I was expecting some benchmarks to back up your claim. I don't remember 1080p becoming feasible with anything less than an 8800.

Check out the awful framerate and graphics in Bad Company 2 with the 4600+ cpu which was $800 in 2005. And then compare it to the 360 version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzU4sB7PJXA

I'm a peasant?

PC gaming was cool back in the day of Rollercoaster Tycoon. Thankfully my laptop can just about handle such games.

@Cranler said:

Please remind me oh great one.

Whats the point of that link? I was expecting some benchmarks to back up your claim. I don't remember 1080p becoming feasible with anything less than an 8800.

Check out the awful framerate and graphics in Bad Company 2 with the 4600+ cpu which was $800 in 2005. And then compare it to the 360 version.

Loading Video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzU4sB7PJXA

Loading Video...

I'm a peasant?

Try searching it for those key "1080p" words and maybe you'll find out. You remember wrong, but that does not come as a surprise given your claims up to this point.

1080p was available prior to the 8xxxx series, but it required a 7800GTX.

A home theater PC outfitted with a GeForce 7800 GTX GPU featuring NVIDIA PureVideo hardware and software technology offers superb picture clarity and precise, vivid colors across all high-definition (HD) ATSC video formats.

The highest quality 1080p HD-output is made possible through three separate PureVideo engines, support for both 3:2 and 2:2 pull down (inverse telecine), and a host of other features. The advanced scaling and de-interlacing capabilities offered by NVIDIA PureVideo technology allow DVD and other non-HD interlaced content to display incredibly clear, smooth, and artifact-free video on progressive displays, ranging from PC screens to large-screen HDTVs.

Wow, a poorly optimized port that performs badly. I guess that you just proved that it actually did require a $2000 PC to match a 360 at release...

As I already said, you're hopeless and it's clear that you're never going to stfu no matter how many times and how many people prove you wrong.

The 360 was already outdated the moment it came to market because the 7800GTX had already been on sale since June and the 360 didn't even release until November of that year.

Yes, you are a peasant for trying to provide false evidence (i.e 250GB HDD, 7800GTX comparison/price (even worse, you continued to try and push this comparison even after I corrected you on it several times,) the ever increasing in cost $800 CPU, attempting to derail the discussion, etc.), to try and prove a claim that you know is a lie.

I don't know about "really" expensive.

Gaming PCs can be had for just a couple hundred more than an Xbox One or PS4, but come with far more features, and functionality.

It's not so bad when you figure games are cheaper to buy, and you don't have the added cost of $50 a year to play online. That's always nice. I've found gaming on a PC to be much more affordable than console gaming in recent years.

But I just like having a PC around anyways. I like having a desktop even for web browsing, work, etc. I like my nice big screen, my mechanical keyboard and gaming mouse, etc. Because of that I'm much more inclined to spend $600-$700 on a gaming PC rather than $400 on a console, and a few hundred more on a tablet/cheap laptop.

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

Please remind me oh great one.

Whats the point of that link? I was expecting some benchmarks to back up your claim. I don't remember 1080p becoming feasible with anything less than an 8800.

Check out the awful framerate and graphics in Bad Company 2 with the 4600+ cpu which was $800 in 2005. And then compare it to the 360 version.

Loading Video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzU4sB7PJXA

Loading Video...

I'm a peasant?

Try searching it for those key "1080p" words and maybe you'll find out. You remember wrong, but that does not come as a surprise given your claims up to this point.

1080p was available prior to the 8xxxx series, but it required a 7800GTX.

A home theater PC outfitted with a GeForce 7800 GTX GPU featuring NVIDIA PureVideo hardware and software technology offers superb picture clarity and precise, vivid colors across all high-definition (HD) ATSC video formats.

The highest quality 1080p HD-output is made possible through three separate PureVideo engines, support for both 3:2 and 2:2 pull down (inverse telecine), and a host of other features. The advanced scaling and de-interlacing capabilities offered by NVIDIA PureVideo technology allow DVD and other non-HD interlaced content to display incredibly clear, smooth, and artifact-free video on progressive displays, ranging from PC screens to large-screen HDTVs.

Wow, a poorly optimized port that performs badly. I guess that you just proved that it actually did require a $2000 PC to match a 360 at release...

As I already said, you're hopeless and it's clear that you're never going to stfu no matter how many times and how many people prove you wrong.

The 360 was already outdated the moment it came to market because the 7800GTX had already been on sale since June and the 360 didn't even release until November of that year.

Yes, you are a peasant for trying to provide false evidence (i.e 250GB HDD, 7800GTX comparison/price (even worse, you continued to try and push this comparison even after I corrected you on it several times,) the ever increasing in cost $800 CPU, attempting to derail the discussion, etc.), to try and prove a claim that you know is a lie.

My GTX 680 supports 4k but does that mean I can game at that res with todays games?

7900 gtx gets 13 fps in Oblivion at 1080p http://www.anandtech.com/show/2116/24

The cheap cpu you want to use in the build can't match the 360 on many games including Bad Company 2.

How does pushing so called false evidence make me a peasant? That makes no sense like most of your posts. Besides, I link benchmarks and videos while you link an Nvidia advertisment.

I went up to and $800 cpu after doing more research and seeing what cpu was needed for many multiplats throughout last gen.

Nice false analogy, but you know that you'd also need a display capable of 4k resolution.

You should probably familiarize yourself with some of the basics of debate so that you don't come across looking slow when you make false analogies and falsify evidence.

So you're telling me that, Oblivion, a graphically intensive game for the time, being played at a resolution that did not become commonplace until the release of 8xxx series struggled to maintain a decent framerate using first gen 1080p tech? This comes as a genuine surprise... /s

9 years later, and even the latest "next-gen" offerings gasp and wheeze when asked to do 1080p.

The Xbox's lack of RAM prevented it from ever being able to fully utilize it's processor's power, so you can stop trying to hype it as a supercomputer. It wasn't, but it was using some of the early multicore tech.

You're right, pushing false evidence doesn't make you a "peasant," it makes you an asshole; an asshole who can't accept that he's been proven wrong by multiple people on multiple occasions, so he now has to resort to trying to fabricate evidence to try and support his claim and then continues to try and use the same fabricated evidence after being corrected several times.

I linked an NVIDIA advertisement that demonstrates that you were wrong, and then I have to hold your hand to show you the appropriate passage that proves that you were wrong.

I know.

yeah they can, the price can keep rising up and up if your not careful. You always end up spending a little more than you orignally budget for

I'm no expert on this, but why does this matter? Of course PC outsells consoles because it's multipurpose.

Here are my pros and cons for no reason:

PC

Pros

• Plays most games from Xbox and PlayStation
• Has a variety of exclusives
• Frequent sales
• Steam ('Nuff said)
• Multipurpose
• Can be modified
• Most games support controllers
• Can emulate old PC and console games

Cons

• All Nintendo games are unavailable (Modern emulation is difficult AND illegal, BTW).
• Since modifications are custom, there is no clear, standard graphics settings
• Background programs and processing can slow it down
• Modifications are pricey (I know, it's cheap, but good parts are STILL $100+)
• Most PC ports are terrible (Going by others here)
• keyboard and mouse feels too complicated (If you're not used to it, or playing an MMO)
• Old emulation is complicated as well
• Uplay (Going by others)
• Messing up your PC is a HUGE PROBLEM

Consoles (Applies to Handhelds as well)

Pros

• Established hardware
• Can play exclusives
• Comfortable grip
• Easier to set up
• Easier to play with others with Local Play
• CONSOLES ONLY - Plays most PC games, but with a less complicated input device
• Cheaper than a PC's individual parts
• Allows you to play your old games, so keeping your old system isn't required (AKA: Backwards Compatibility)

Cons

• HANDHELDS ONLY - Usually TERRIBLE CASH-INS of usually console-only franchises
• Harder to get recording equipment
• No emulation of old games (Like PS2 Games or GameCube games) AT ALL (Not talking about backwards compatibility
• Backwards compatibility for only one generation ago (Excluding Nintendo)
• Extra controllers sold separately

All in all, they're the same, just playable in different ways. All I can say is: Pick your poison!

Now it's obvious you're just trolling. And most gamers didn't have 1080p monitors in 2005.

Resorting to excuses why the 7800 gtx can't handle last gen games at 1080p.

1080p doesn't mean shit unless we know how graphically advanced the game is overall.

The 360 had limited ram but that didn't keep it from outperforming $2000 pc's from 2005.

I prove you wrong left and right with links and you keep moving the goal posts. Show me once where I was proven wrong. I proved you wrong on the 7800gtx 1080p ability, the ram pricing, cpu pricing, ram amount needed for a 360 comparable pc etc.

I can link the page where it shows the gtx 680 supports 4k but that doesn't mean shit just like that Nvidia advertisement.

Changing my words around. I linked videos of games getting worse performance than 360 on cpu's that were $800 in 2005. All you do is backpedal and sidestep.

The only one trolling is you, with your clear inability to debate without resorting to logical fallacies and your tendency to deliberately falsify evidence in an effort to try and prove a point that has already been repeatedly disproven.

Most gamers may not have have had 1080p capable displays in 2005, but those that also use their PCs for work/home theater devices as well probably did.

Many also probably had more than 1, but keep digging and maybe you'll eventually come up with an actual point and not just tangential conjecture and speculation.

A post ago, you were arguing that 1080p gaming was not possible until the release of the 8xxxx series.

Yes, I will make excuses for any graphically intensive game being played on first gen bleeding edge hardware. That's the way that it has always been.

You'll be able to play MOST games comfortably at higher resolutions with solid framerates, but there's always going to be exceptions that will do all that they can to bring your machine to its knees with all the new detail (i.e. ES games, Crysis, Witcher, Star Citizen, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., etc.)

1080p means it's being played at true HD resolution. That's all it's ever intended to convey. There aren't different 1080 substandards that take into account the different effects being used.

You didn't prove me wrong about the 7800GTX's 1080p ability.

I proved you wrong with your statement that 1080p gaming was impossible until the 8xxxx series, and then you cherry picked a game that you knew would struggle with framerate, instead of looking at a more representative graphical baseline average of the games of that era (i.e. BF2, WoW, Civ IV, Spore, etc.).

You were proven wrong when you tried to throw in a 250GB HDD in your hypothetical build (instead of the 360's standard 20GB), even though 250GB drives weren't an option for Xboxes till 2010. Classy move there.

You were proven wrong when you claimed that 1080p was impossible until the 8xxxx series of cards.

You were proven wrong when you repeatedly tried to compare the 360's GPU to a 7800GTX and not a 7800GT. Pure class.

You were proven wrong when you claimed that it took a $2000 PC to match the 360 at release.

You were proven wrong when you tried to reframe your argument using the necessity for a "prebuilt" comparison.

You were proven wrong when you tried to tie the evolution of PC technology to console generations.

You were proven wrong when you tried to insinuate that PCs MUST be upgraded more often than every 5 years or so just to be able to play all of a console generation's multiplats.

Etc.

The 360's limited RAM had a HUGE effect on its performance capabilities, but keep telling yourself that a $2000 PC from 2005 could not run circles around a 360. I owned both a high end PC and a 360, and these are the claims of an ignorant and delusional peasant.

So I guess NVIDIA was lying in their promotional material and no one ever tried to sue them for it?

You linked footage of a known poorly optimized game and Oblivion, which was running at a resolution neither console was capable of.

So not only do you try to distort your claim, but you also persist with your stupid apples to oranges comparisons as though they're in any way legitimate.

If you want to compare Oblivion's performance using a 7800GTX, then at least have the integrity to compare its performance to that of the consoles at whatever resolution it had to be played at on consoles.

You're the only one trying to reframe your argument whenever you feel that your current path of argumentation has been blocked. I have only continued to respond to your original claim while you continue to try to derail the discussion away from your original claim.

Worst of all, you're not even remotely apologetic for trying to falsify evidence (on multiple occasions) to try and support yourself.

You speak about how the 7800 is better than the 360 gpu. I bring up unified shaders which the 7800 couldn't do then you bring up 1080p as if the 7800 can run games in that res yet neither the 360 nor the 7800 can. I call you out on that, then you link an Nvidia advertisement as if that means it can run new games of that era at 1080p. I respond that the gtx 680 supports 4k but that doesn't mean it can run games at that res. Then you say well you need a 4k monitor.... You just can't accept being proven wrong.

Again you said the 7800 was better than the 360 by saying it supports 1080p yet it can't run multiplats at that res so the point is meaningless.

When it comes to gaming, res mean little without taking into account the game and settings. The 7800 supported 1080p but couldnt play the games of that era in 1080p.

You say a $2000 pc from 2005 can run circles around the 360? Prove it.

Supporting 1080p and playing games at that res are two very different things.

Bad Company 2 was poorly optimized? Got proof? Running in circles again. You say 7800 can run games at 1080p so I link a bench showing it can't and you say that I'm distorting my claim. Lol!

No, I speak about how the 7800GT is the GPU comparable to the Xbox's GPU (even though the X1800 is a more accurate comparison) and how the 7800GTX was a much more powerful model, but you still continue trying to compare the Xbox's GPU to a 7800GTX when you know that its performance capabilities come no where close to a 7800GTX.

You bring up shaders, which do nothing to improve resolution or performance. They're additional effects.

The GTX was capable of playing games at 1080p, your cherry picked example even proves this, but with an unacceptable framerate.

We all know that some games are more graphically intensive than others, but you try to ignore this fact and pretend that you've proven something.

I linked you NVIDIA's official press release where they tout their latest cards' specs so that the press can advertise their selling points, one of which was the ability to display in 1080p.

I can't be proven wrong because NOTHING you've said has proven me wrong.

How does me responding to your inane and completely unrelated 4k comment with a truthful statement, evidence that I, "can't be proven wrong?"

Unless you're referring to the GT (which I know you're not), then stop saying 7800.

Include the model suffix if you're going to try and make a point.

I said a 7800GTX, and yes, it was more powerful and it could run most games of the time at 1080p. Nevermind that the 8xxxx series was only released a year later in 2006 and 1080p started to become more of the norm.

Fast forward to 2014 and the pieces of "next gen" trash still can't do 1080p without taxing the hell out of them.

I did prove it by living it, and you'll have to forgive me for not knowing how to "prove" it without the basic understanding of PC technology that you clearly lack. There's also the fact that you still haven't proven your initial ridiculous lie.

I realize that you lack reading comprehension, but did you not read what I said about the majority of games not being as graphically intensive as an ES game? Of course you did, but it's more convenient to try and gloss over and deny that most games of that time were not nearly as graphically intensive.

I'll give you a headstart: bad company 2 poorly optimized.

You're distorting your claim with your choice of game. Again, choose a game closer to the average graphical baseline of the time (i.e WoW) and you'll get dramatically different results.

I've lost all patience with you. You are entirely too dense and deliberately obtuse for me.

Most multiplats are better on PC, even poor ports perform and look better than console counterparts.

The 7800 gtx isn't much more powerful than the 7800 gt. The gtx is about 15% more powerful which is par for the course with nvidia's top of the line and one step down cards. Link a bench to prove otherwise.

Effects that many games of last gen had that the 7800 struggle with.

Since this is a pc vs 360 comparison you would need to list multiplats that the 7800 could run at 1080p.

Running the desktop and movies in 1080p doesn't mean shit in a debate about last gen multiplats.

You need to prove it here.

Oblivion was a launch window game and was surpassed quite quickly. Again link some benches showing the 7800 can run last gen multiplats at 1080p. If not then drop it. You're all talk and back nothing up.

Whats the PS 4 and xbone got to do with the discussion? Do you remember my initial post that started this debate? I said the new consoels are much weaker by todays standards than the 360 was for 2005.

WoW? Really? A game from 2004 that looked outdated from the beginning?

This is from the first link in you Bad Company 2 poorly optimized search

This system can handle games like Bad Company 2 and Just Cause 2 with all settings cranked to the max and I never dip below 60fps. First thing I noticed with AC2 is that turning on VSync completely destroys my performance.

Of course the 7800GTX is incrementally more powerful than its GT version.

PC gamers like to have choices and varying price ranges.

The most notable difference between the 7800GTX was that it was actually capable of first generation 1080p in addition to its extra memory.

Again, I don't need to prove anything to a troll that unapologetically tries to pass off falsified evidence to support their stupid claims.

Do your own research. You already proved that it was possible using an overly graphically intensive game, for the time, at 1080p with a GTX and poor framerates.

The fact that you don't, or refuse to, understand that the framerates would dramatically improve in less graphically intensive games shows how little you seem to understand about PC technology. I might not be able to remember exactly when I got my first 24" 1080p LCD, but I'm pretty sure it was between '04 - '06 because I know that I was still using my old 19" CRT through '03. In any case, looking back, it seems like 1080p became more of the norm for the average PC user in '06 with the 8xxxx series. The next gen's latest offerings are struggling to replicate something that started to become a standard for PC users 8 years ago.

I'm tired of having to spell out my points for you, if you can't follow it, then don't expect me to spoon feed it to you.

I never took issue with the rest of your OP. My only problem was your exaggerated $2000 lie.

WoW's cartoonish graphic aesthetic hardly made it look outdated especially considering all of its particle spell effects and the fact that it only came out a year before the 360. If anything, it was about the average for graphics of the era that weren't going for hyperrealism.

That's interesting master cherry pick, now how about the rest of the links that go on down the entirety of the page?

Falsified evidence? LOL!

Remember that the Oblivion benchmark was with the 7900 gtx so imagine how bad the 7800 would have ran Oblivion at 1080p.

We're comparing pc vs 360 and you wan't to use a 2004 pc only game as an example?

Master cherrypick? It was the first link. No way to prove those Bad Company 2 problems aren't user error. Find another multiplat from last gen where a 2005 pc runs circles around the 360 then.

Yeah, moron, your repeated attempts to compare the Xbox's GPU to a top of the line $600 GPU and not the $400 GT version in spite of my correcting you several times + your 250GB HDD bullshit + the ever increasing in price $800 CPU = falsified evidence and an attempt to inflate the cost of your hypothetical build, to try and support your $2000 foot in mouthery.

Really? I honestly didn't follow your link in much the same way that you don't read my replies. In any case, the 8xxxx series debuted a year after the 360's year of "supposed graphical superiority" and curb stomped the peasant platforms into oblivion with a wider distribution of 1080p (Oblivion ... See what I did there?).

Whether or not consoles could play WoW is irrelevant.

Both console platforms had plenty of titles with similar graphical quality, thus the referral to it as an "AVERAGE BASELINE" of the graphical fidelity of most games of that era,

In 2005 it did cost a bucket load for a pc to be comparable within a short timeframe but still be obsolete because the of the gpu architecture of the 360.

An Athlon X2 4400 was $500+ socket 939.

1gb DDR 400mhz was around $90-$100

A 7800GTX 512mb was $650 at launch

So just with the cpu and gpu your looking at $1k easily not including all other parts needed for the tower. So a 1.5-2k build to match the 360 should not be ignored when looking at the progression of the game engines maturing making use of the 360 hardware but namely the unified shader gpu.

The only saving grace for the 7800 GTX was its 512mb buffer and the fact that many games from 2005-2007 were not shader intensive. But the few games that were the 7800GTX choked. The 7800GTX at resolutions to and above 1600x1200 did hurt performance. Butcher Bay for example 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 seen a 20 fps drop from 66 to 45 fps. same with Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 71 to 52 fps. But less demanding games like HL 2 allowed the 7800GTX to run 2048x1536 with an average of 70 fps.

The point is that in 2005 to early 2006 pc hardware was nearing the end of multiple aging architectures and coding and would bring a new set of hardware and software standards that would change the industry. Microsoft seen the incoming shift and put out the money and resources to make their new console "the 360" ready for the future packing it with hardware that was in some ways ahead of its time. However by doing so and cutting corners the 360 suffered from reliability issues which added costs that prevented MS in making true profit until years later.

Wow dude! Settle down there. You seems to be getting all bent out of shape. I'm always so civil while others call me names.

You corrected me? i've been pointing out flawsin your argument every step of the way. YHou never proved that the 7800gtx can run games better than the 360 gpu.

If you put a small hdd in the build it would need to be upgraded soon after. 10-15 gb games will fill a small hdd quickly.

So a gpu that came out a year after the 360 and cost more than an entire console is more powerful? You don't say, who would've thought!

Show me anything less than that $800 cpu that could run every multiplat as well as the 360.

WoW is totally irrelevant since it's an outdated game compared to the average last gen multiplat.

What does Wow have to do with PS 3 and 360 having games with similar graphical quality?

I have a low tolerance for feigned ignorance, liars, and morons, so I don't foresee myself "showing" you anything more than I already have.

You deserve to be insulted for you inability to support your claims without resorting to lies and I'd consider anyone that insults you for your posting style an ally regardless of where their gaming allegiance may lie.

You're from the "I'm so polite but trolly" Myron Gaines archetype. Your act is not novel or entertaining. It's old and tiresome.

Forget the rest of your nonpoints and forget explaining myself to an apparent moron who lacks reading comprehension.

I've got games to play.

Every point you tried to make got shot down so it led to frustration. Linking that Oblivion bench or history of ram prices to disprove your points was far more satisfying than name calling.

Haha its been a long time and nothings changed on these forums.

That's why it's called System Wars and not System Appreciation.

Pretty much.

You never stood a chance and you should have just walked away when you were called on the attempted GTX lie along with the 250GB HDD, but you're clearly not that bright and you wanted to make sure everyone here knows it.

Nice one.

According to Ubisoft...PC makes up 14% of their sales...while PS3 and Xbox are the same....the PS4 makes up 33% alone.

So....no.

@RoboCopISJesus: Yeah, but what's the point of it looking better if it's really buggy?

I don't encounter many bugs. Console games have them too. I'd rather have better gfx and far better performance than bugs that I probably won't ever come accross. Skyrim on ps3 or RRod type problems seem worse.

According to Blizzard , they make Billions every year on PC . SEGA makes more money on PC than consoles . That doesn't prove anything . Different devs have different preferred platforms and UBISOFT are mostly Console focused . Look at WOW , it made more than any game out there , GTA V doesn't even come close (and WOW is PC exclusive) .

When you keep getting pwned it's time put words into people's mouths.

What GTX lie? You want to put a 100gb hdd in the build? That would have been fun only being able to have a few games installed at once.

Fact is you needed an absolute top of the line pc to match the 360 and even then it would have still required a Windows 7 upgrade, ram, gpu and hdd upgrade to match the logevity of the 360. Absolute top of the line means a gtx not a gt.

also factor in that ubisoft.... have 2 of the biggest PS4 games... because the library is so small, Black Flag and Watch Dogs have done incredibly well on a platform starved of games... it also costs more to buy on that platform.

what is it 9 million PS4's with barely any games? I'm not suprised last year that it brought in the most....

Good point . That explains why The Forest outsold Watch Dogs on steam .

No, when you tire of the transparency of idiots, you toy with them.

Durr hurr. The GTX lie that I have called you on about 50 times already for trying to include a top of the line $600 GTX GPU in your hypothetical build.

Are you really that illiterate? Oh, that's right, you're just a stupid troll with no tact or reading comprehension.

Yeah 100GB HDD, sure thing. You proposed a $2000 system that MATCHED a 360.

PCs could get away with a 20GB HDD at the time.

I gave you the additional RAM for 2GB, but no, you don't get to add a 100GB HDD to a build that's supposed to match a 360 at release.

Congratulations on finally grasping NVIDIA's suffix naming system, now realize that the Xbox 360's GPU was comparable to the GT not the GTX, but we all know that you won't.

You'll just persist with your same indefensible claim, while ignoring everyone that proves your claim is ridiculous, and continuing to try and inflate part costs in your hopelessly desperate attempt to prove yourself.

PlayStation 4: UndetectedPlayStation 3: Undetected Xbox One: Undetected Xbox 360: Undetected PC: Undetected So you were saying? 

You must complete a short free survey (More info at bottom) yeah that is horseshit scam site , also that ps4 hack by Reckz0r who is a notorious lier was proven to be fake http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2013/12/03/ps4_hack_claim_found_to_be_fake

You were saying ? There is no method at this time to run unsigned code at ps4 or xbox one

If MS would get out of the console biz and bring all their IP's to PC, I'd go PC in a heartbeat and love it.

@RoboCopISJesus: Alright, good point.

@Dasein808: Well, aren't YOU a ray of sunshine.

The 360 outperforms even the gtx version.

A pc with a 20gb hdd? Lol! In case you didn't know pc gamesrequire installation while 360 game don't so you need a much bigger hdd for the pc.

Mass Effect from 2007 uses 12 gb and the original Bioshock uses 8gb so you couldn't even have both installed at the same time.

You seem to be slowly grasping the differences between consoles and pc's with your realization that the pc needs more ram. I hope I helped you get started on your journey to understanding why pc's need larger hard drives than last gen consoles.

Here we see 7800 gtx can't match 360's Skyrim perfomance

Oh god, the thought of playing Skyrim on consoles just made me piss blood.

Cranler..stahp...

@aroxx_ab: @Gue1: huh? pc has more exlusives than consoles and on gdc 50% of devs make games for pc, so how devs prefer to make games for consoles???????

???????

Also yes most money come out of f2p and moba and indie, why you think consoles are tapping into that market?Where you think console market is making its money from? Last of us? pff no, from gta, cod, bf and fifa.

@lglz1337: Didnt that happen in 2013?

http://i.imgur.com/tsCq4Qg.png

@l34052: 500$ videocard? Pff even a 200 videocard runs games better than the consoles.

@RedentSC:

NO pc gaming is cheap and doesnt requite constant updating or upgrading, then again you must think your console doesnt automaticly update every day either... Try harder next time, until then you come off as clueless

http://i.imgur.com/tsCq4Qg.png

You are wrong according to that. Pc has more and better games So no, not an opinion its a fact, also those 12 games you buy, you get them cheaper on pc with free mp. Just saying.

I don't even know where to start dismantling this argument. I have about 5 different thoughts running through my head per second. I hope somebody with more patience does it for me.

What a surprise, you choose a game released six years after the 360 and five years after the release of the 8xxxx series. You also choose a game that the PC is running at a higher resolution with the option to turn on or off additional effects while the console version plays on the xbox 360 @720p without the ability to customize the amount of effects.

You seem quite skilled in making apples to oranges comparisons that prove nothing.

Try a legitimate comparison with at the same resolution with the same amount of effects and then realize that you have no point.

Yes, a PC with a 20GB HDD to MATCH an Xbox 360.

Games were smaller in 2005. You could play with a 20GB HDD, but it would have sucked, like playing anything on a console of the time.

You don't get to add a 100GB HDD in your pathetic attempts to increase the price, and even if granted you an 80GB, you're still nowhere near your original claim.

Aww, you couldn't install more than two games? I guess that you should have built an actual PC instead of one designed to MATCH an Xbox 360 at launch.

You know, like in your original claim, before you started trying to redefine your terms after repeatedly having your ass handed to you by multiple people?

Lol higher res. I remember the crt days and playing with all the different resolutions like 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1280x720 and the performance differences were like 1-2 fps. You really think this guys framerate is going to skyrocket by dropping down to 1280x720? You speak as if he's running at 1080p.

He's running low-med setting which is below the 360 settings and he's getting half the framerate.

Why is it wrong to use a more recent game? A pc that matches up against the 360 isn't supposed to last as long?

You still would have had to upgrade the hdd later so it comes out to the same price.

Where did I get my ass handed to me? I make claims and back them up with benchmarks, price charts and videos. You just spew nonsense and back nothing up.

You say Skyrim is too new to be counted which is insane but remember the Bioshock bench where the 8600 gt at a lower res and settings than 360 couldn't perform as well as the 360? Or is a 2007 game to new as well. Let me relink

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

An argument you consider weak should be easy to dismantle. Here's a tip: start at the beginning.

I know, that much has been apparent since you started your stream of endless replies to everyone who has wrecked your pathetic claims in this thread and any others.

It's the absolute weakest trolling tactic out there, but you seem to have mastered it.

A give up post. Still putting words in my mouth instead of trying to have a respectful debate.

No attempt at proving me wrong which proves your post is in reality a description of what you're doing.

Oh yeah did you notice the Skyrim 7800gtx pc had a core 2 duo which is better than any of the amd cpu's we were using in the hypotheitcal build?

Still waiting for you to point out where I got owned.