Still don't get why PC gamers want to compare to consoles. I can only assume it's for the same reason people bash consoles they don't own. Insecurity.
Pick the machine that has the games you want and have fun. Personally PC gaming has always been uninteresting to me. But I don't tell you you're wrong for doing it.
no matter how hard you try, pc is part of system wars so might as well stop posting the same in every thread, no one cares :(
Actually 6GB puts PS4's 8GB to shame since devs only have access to 5-5.5GB of it
12GB is overkill
Crysis 3 on PC barely reach 3 GB,so not only it will be way long for that card to get use,but also games on PC are never done with the highest end GPU in mind because legacy will kill other lesser GPU..
Crysis reaches 3GB of GPU's RAM not the total memory. CRysis 3 easily uses upwards of 6GB System RAM + GPU RAM, while PS4 has only 5 GB in total for both System + Graphics.
Is as if people who have pc gaming as a hobby and enough money to spare have to justify their self's to you. I might not have the money to buy an 800-1000 gpu but i wont go bashing people that bought it because they love their hobby. Idiot
It's anti consumer to make a superior product to PC? That's priceless.
Consoles are an objectively inferior product. It's anticonsumer to make me buy them through underhanded business tactics. l2read
no one is forcing you do nothing, your stupidity does, learn what anti consumer is and the difference with capitalism.
If I want to play Halo, I am forced to buy an Xbox. If I want to play Halo online, I am forced to pay for Xbox LIVE. There are no other options. Capitalism thrives on competition. These practices are anti-competitive.
again you do not have to do anything, do not use the word "forced" because as far as i know gaming is not an essential need. Gaming is a luxury, a hobby and the companies that provide it are forced to make their products more attractive than their competition so people buy them over the others, this is how gaming companies compete. So again, do not use the word anti consumer, when its not.
A 6gb one of these + water block shall be mine. Fvck AMD and their 290X :)
Fvck NVIDIA and their 48 ROPS. :)
Without AMD, NVIDIA would be still charging high priced GPUs. Note that some non-reference 7970s has 6 GB VRAM and would be the same for non-reference R9-290X.
A 6gb one of these + water block shall be mine. Fvck AMD and their 290X :)
Fvck NVIDIA and their 48 ROPS. :)
Without AMD, NVIDIA would be still charging high priced GPUs. Note that some non-reference 7970s has 6 GB VRAM and would be the same for non-reference R9-290X.
I agree AMD are great for competition. They make some good cards and I am often tempted to buy them but I always bottle it at the last minute and stick with Nvidia :)
What's funny is that consolites still don't have what is Next Gen to them (current gen to pc gamers) and there is talk of these cards that will further blow consoles out of the water. In a couple years it's going to be crushingly embarrassing to even think of comparing them.
What's funny is that consolites still don't have what is Next Gen to them (current gen to pc gamers) and there is talk of these cards that will further blow consoles out of the water. In a couple years it's going to be crushingly embarrassing to even think of comparing them.
You think PS4 games arent going to look alot better 2 years from now? No upgrade required.
@seanmcloughlin: Why would anyone compare a PC to a game console? LOL!! Dumb!! PC's can be modified and consoles can't. Never understand why hermits waste their time with this crap.
Hermit should stop spreading lie that pc is more affording. Even over lifetime.
Consoles are bought in addition to, not instead of, PCs. You don't save money by spending an extra $400-$500 on a console plus online fees vs. spending that money on a better PC. The only difference is the PC purchase is typically all up front and therefore appears to be more expensive, whereas the console spreads the money out over several years. That's the illusion.
Example over 5 years:
$400 PS4 + $50/year for 5 years =$650
We'll say a gaming PC costs about $1000, though you can go cheaper or more expensive depending on your budget.
That means if you purchase a cheap $350 PC to go with your PS4, you save exactly $0 by being a PS4 gamer. Even if you buy a tablet or something, your savings are negligible, and even then you only save if you rent all of your games or something to offset the higher game prices.
---
But this is beside the point I was making in this thread. Purchasing multiple gaming platforms is inherently more expensive than purchasing one gaming platform. I can count on one hand the number of franchises that need to be released on PC to make the X1 and PS4 completely obsolete to me as a PC gamer.
Hardware lasts longer when you don't have to upgrade anything.
ie
You build a $650 PC today, it's may not be able to run certain games 4-5 years from now, whereas a console will.
Likewise if you buy say a laptop or tablet to do your computing, you don't have to upgrade it for a long, long time if all you're doing is checking your email and whatnot.
With game rentals and freebies, you don't have to wait for the $60 game to go on Steam sale.
You just have a constant stream of AAA games coming to your house, and a machine tailor made to play them.
And it's nice to have an elegant laptop on your desk, without gaming shit all over the interface.
Not saying one form of gaming is worse than another.
All I'm saying is they each have their good points and bad points.
What's funny is that consolites still don't have what is Next Gen to them (current gen to pc gamers) and there is talk of these cards that will further blow consoles out of the water. In a couple years it's going to be crushingly embarrassing to even think of comparing them.
You think PS4 games arent going to look alot better 2 years from now? No upgrade required.
Sonys first party is going to blow people away.
Apples and Oranges. There is no doubt that Sony's 1st Party will make some really nice games. But the hardware in comparison to PC will be severely outdated and outmatched. Considering that the architectures are now exact, consoles will get low end multiplats and PC will get the ultra quality. First party (exclusives) are another matter though and no doubt there will be some nice ones. I will probably eventually even get a PS4. The point though is that you cannot compare them side by side without some qualifications.
Actually 6GB puts PS4's 8GB to shame since devs only have access to 5-5.5GB of it
12GB is overkill
Crysis 3 on PC barely reach 3 GB,so not only it will be way long for that card to get use,but also games on PC are never done with the highest end GPU in mind because legacy will kill other lesser GPU..
Crysis reaches 3GB of GPU's RAM not the total memory. CRysis 3 easily uses upwards of 6GB System RAM + GPU RAM, while PS4 has only 5 GB in total for both System + Graphics.
No the PS4 doesn't use 5 GB for system and graphics where in hell did you pull that,part of the 3GB for OS are part of the system memory just like in windows,you have 4 GB of DDR3 + what the GPU has,the PS4 has 3GB for OS and 5 for games for now,and since Crysis 3 isn't done on PS4 you don't know,but my whole comment was based on GPU ram so system ram doesn't have anything to do with my point video memory crysis 3 barely reach 3 GB that is a fact.
Hardware lasts longer when you don't have to upgrade anything.
ie
You build a $650 PC today, it's may not be able to run certain games 4-5 years from now, whereas a console will.
Likewise if you buy say a laptop or tablet to do your computing, you don't have to upgrade it for a long, long time if all you're doing is checking your email and whatnot.
With game rentals and freebies, you don't have to wait for the $60 game to go on Steam sale.
You just have a constant stream of AAA games coming to your house, and a machine tailor made to play them.
And it's nice to have an elegant laptop on your desk, without gaming shit all over the interface.
Not saying one form of gaming is worse than another.
All I'm saying is they each have their good points and bad points.
And I would have no problem with having the option to purchase a console based on its own merits, such as ease of set up and use and not having to worry about upgrades, rather than having to buy it because it's the only thing that can play Halo.
Also, the problem isn't with the PC not being able to run games in 4-5 years. It will be able to run them. You'll just have to play on lower settings, which is exactly what consoles do. You just don't notice it because consoles don't show the combo box set to "Lowest" in the game settings. The GTX 260 from 2008 that I just recently replaced, for example, could still play modern games at 1920x1080 with settings well above consoles. I replaced it with a GTX 670 because I wanted to play on higher settings, not because I needed to.
That's like saying "I have to go to McDonalds if I want a Big Mac."
You can get a burger anywhere.
That particular brand of burger is only sold at that store.
At the end of the day, yes, the goal of business is not to be "fair" but to extract the most money with the least effort, you think the same crap doesn't exist within the various PC parts manufacturers, with AMD and Nvidia optimizing games for "their" hardware, but making your hardware run like shit or crash more than usual.
Try running Secret World on an AMD card, better yet try running Train Simulator 2014 on an AMD CPU, enjoy your 14 fps.
At the end of the day what people are buying is their own entertainment, if you have a $399 machine that can keep you laughing and smiling for 10+ years that's a good friggin deal.
Graphics have diminishing returns, the higher you go, the less more matters.
But hardware investments become habits and habits become justifications, people trying to justify their $1000 monitors, $1000 vid cards, while the wise man shuts up and enjoys his Halo.
Ive alway wanted to make the jump to PC gaming for the multiplats and have PlayStation consoles for the exclusives, this stuff Nvidia is coming out with its flat out amazing.
That's basically what I did. Now I have the best of both
Plus you will be astonished by the price of PC games if you switched.
Hardware lasts longer when you don't have to upgrade anything.
ie
You build a $650 PC today, it's may not be able to run certain games 4-5 years from now, whereas a console will.
Likewise if you buy say a laptop or tablet to do your computing, you don't have to upgrade it for a long, long time if all you're doing is checking your email and whatnot.
With game rentals and freebies, you don't have to wait for the $60 game to go on Steam sale.
You just have a constant stream of AAA games coming to your house, and a machine tailor made to play them.
And it's nice to have an elegant laptop on your desk, without gaming shit all over the interface.
Not saying one form of gaming is worse than another.
All I'm saying is they each have their good points and bad points.
And I would have no problem with having the option to purchase a console based on its own merits, such as ease of set up and use and not having to worry about upgrades, rather than having to buy it because it's the only thing that can play Halo.
Also, the problem isn't with the PC not being able to run games in 4-5 years. It will be able to run them. You'll just have to play on lower settings, which is exactly what consoles do. You just don't notice it because consoles don't show the combo box set to "Lowest" in the game settings. The GTX 260 from 2008 that I just recently replaced, for example, could still play modern games at 1920x1080 with settings well above consoles. I replaced it with a GTX 670 because I wanted to play on higher settings, not because I needed to.
That's like saying "I have to go to McDonalds if I want a Big Mac."
You can get a burger anywhere.
That particular brand of burger is only sold at that store.
But you missed the point. If I want a Big Mac (Halo 3) and not just any burger (FPS game) I have to go to McDonalds (MS). There is no way around it. You cannot get a big Mac anywhere but McDonalds. You cannot play Halo 3 on anything but an Xbox 360. In other words I don't want to have to buy a console just because the games are made exclusive to them. But in reality that's what you have to do or just do without. If you want Wendy's fries and Frosty you can't do that and get a Big Mac there (lucky with fast food you could, but with consoles you are kind of stuck with getting the whole deal).
Hermit should stop spreading lie that pc is more affording. Even over lifetime.
Consoles are bought in addition to, not instead of, PCs. You don't save money by spending an extra $400-$500 on a console plus online fees vs. spending that money on a better PC. The only difference is the PC purchase is typically all up front and therefore appears to be more expensive, whereas the console spreads the money out over several years. That's the illusion.
Example over 5 years:
$400 PS4 + $50/year for 5 years =$650
We'll say a gaming PC costs about $1000, though you can go cheaper or more expensive depending on your budget.
That means if you purchase a cheap $350 PC to go with your PS4, you save exactly $0 by being a PS4 gamer. Even if you buy a tablet or something, your savings are negligible, and even then you only save if you rent all of your games or something to offset the higher game prices.
---
But this is beside the point I was making in this thread. Purchasing multiple gaming platforms is inherently more expensive than purchasing one gaming platform. I can count on one hand the number of franchises that need to be released on PC to make the X1 and PS4 completely obsolete to me as a PC gamer.
Gaming is not a cheap hobby. If you don't like it, I suggest you take up stamp collecting.
Hermit should stop spreading lie that pc is more affording. Even over lifetime.
Consoles are bought in addition to, not instead of, PCs. You don't save money by spending an extra $400-$500 on a console plus online fees vs. spending that money on a better PC. The only difference is the PC purchase is typically all up front and therefore appears to be more expensive, whereas the console spreads the money out over several years. That's the illusion.
Example over 5 years:
$400 PS4 + $50/year for 5 years =$650
We'll say a gaming PC costs about $1000, though you can go cheaper or more expensive depending on your budget.
That means if you purchase a cheap $350 PC to go with your PS4, you save exactly $0 by being a PS4 gamer. Even if you buy a tablet or something, your savings are negligible, and even then you only save if you rent all of your games or something to offset the higher game prices.
---
But this is beside the point I was making in this thread. Purchasing multiple gaming platforms is inherently more expensive than purchasing one gaming platform. I can count on one hand the number of franchises that need to be released on PC to make the X1 and PS4 completely obsolete to me as a PC gamer.
Gaming is not a cheap hobby. If you don't like it, I suggest you take up stamp collecting.
Actually stamp collecting can be pretty expensive too.
Oh yes, because the average console gamer (mostly teens, poor people and casuals) is going to automatically have a good gaming PC to play PC exclusives. Not likely.
Most of the time what I see is that console gamers only have one or two consoles, while most PC gamers own a PC and a console. PC gamers tend to be more hardcore gamers than those on consoles who tend to be more casual.
And why in the hell would you do most of your gaming on a console if you already owned a good gaming PC?
What's funny is that consolites still don't have what is Next Gen to them (current gen to pc gamers) and there is talk of these cards that will further blow consoles out of the water. In a couple years it's going to be crushingly embarrassing to even think of comparing them.
You think PS4 games arent going to look alot better 2 years from now? No upgrade required.
Sonys first party is going to blow people away.
Oh there will be some nice looking games on the consoles, but there will always be better looking games on the PC. It's been that way every generation and it will be the same this generation.
Hell, I'm using a PC I built several years ago (last console gen) and I'm playing Battlefield 4 at better quality levels than the PS4 version.
PC is way ahead right off the bat. As time goes on its only going to pull further and further ahead.
Still don't get why PC gamers want to compare to consoles. I can only assume it's for the same reason people bash consoles they don't own. Insecurity.
Pick the machine that has the games you want and have fun. Personally PC gaming has always been uninteresting to me. But I don't tell you you're wrong for doing it.
no matter how hard you try, pc is part of system wars so might as well stop posting the same in every thread, no one cares :(
Still don't get why PC gamers want to compare to consoles. I can only assume it's for the same reason people bash consoles they don't own. Insecurity.
Pick the machine that has the games you want and have fun. Personally PC gaming has always been uninteresting to me. But I don't tell you you're wrong for doing it.
no matter how hard you try, pc is part of system wars so might as well stop posting the same in every thread, no one cares :(
Way to miss the point.
What point? You were trying to say how SW is pointless and that PC shouldn't "compare to console".
Don't post here if you don't think we can't even compare gaming systems when that is the whole point.
Still don't get why PC gamers want to compare to consoles. I can only assume it's for the same reason people bash consoles they don't own. Insecurity.
Pick the machine that has the games you want and have fun. Personally PC gaming has always been uninteresting to me. But I don't tell you you're wrong for doing it.
no matter how hard you try, pc is part of system wars so might as well stop posting the same in every thread, no one cares :(
Way to miss the point.
What point? You were trying to say how SW is pointless and that PC shouldn't "compare to console".
Don't post here if you don't think we can't even compare gaming systems when that is the whole point.
No that wasn't the point. And don't tell me what to do.
Hermit should stop spreading lie that pc is more affording. Even over lifetime.
Consoles are bought in addition to, not instead of, PCs. You don't save money by spending an extra $400-$500 on a console plus online fees vs. spending that money on a better PC. The only difference is the PC purchase is typically all up front and therefore appears to be more expensive, whereas the console spreads the money out over several years. That's the illusion.
Example over 5 years:
$400 PS4 + $50/year for 5 years =$650
We'll say a gaming PC costs about $1000, though you can go cheaper or more expensive depending on your budget.
That means if you purchase a cheap $350 PC to go with your PS4, you save exactly $0 by being a PS4 gamer. Even if you buy a tablet or something, your savings are negligible, and even then you only save if you rent all of your games or something to offset the higher game prices.
---
But this is beside the point I was making in this thread. Purchasing multiple gaming platforms is inherently more expensive than purchasing one gaming platform. I can count on one hand the number of franchises that need to be released on PC to make the X1 and PS4 completely obsolete to me as a PC gamer.
Hardware lasts longer when you don't have to upgrade anything.
ie
You build a $650 PC today, it's may not be able to run certain games 4-5 years from now, whereas a console will.
Likewise if you buy say a laptop or tablet to do your computing, you don't have to upgrade it for a long, long time if all you're doing is checking your email and whatnot.
With game rentals and freebies, you don't have to wait for the $60 game to go on Steam sale.
You just have a constant stream of AAA games coming to your house, and a machine tailor made to play them.
And it's nice to have an elegant laptop on your desk, without gaming shit all over the interface.
Not saying one form of gaming is worse than another.
All I'm saying is they each have their good points and bad points.
With AMD GCN on PCs, AMD Mantle exceeds PC's DirectX 11.2 and will be on par with GCN optimised low level APIs from X1 and PS4.
The FLOPS gap ratio between 7950 BE (3.315 TFLOPS) and PS4 (1.84 TFLOPS) is already at 8800 GTX (512 GFLOPS) vs Xbox 360 level(240 GFLOPS).
From http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=71,70,148&sort=a5
The price for 7970 ($259.99 for 925 Mhz) and 7950 ($239.99 for 880mhz overclock edition) are almost the same.
A 6gb one of these + water block shall be mine. Fvck AMD and their 290X :)
Fvck NVIDIA and their 48 ROPS. :)
Without AMD, NVIDIA would be still charging high priced GPUs. Note that some non-reference 7970s has 6 GB VRAM and would be the same for non-reference R9-290X.
yep, $650 flagships.
AMD didn't try anything as bad as that when the 7970 released against the aging GTX 580.
PC has more video games than consoles each gen. exclusive and total.
And yes PC has not one single game that scored a 98 on MC. I take quality over quantity. Plus you can get real life graphics (Dark Sorcerer) on PS4 for only $400, no need to spend $2000-$3000 for only a graphics card, especially when you don't get to play most of the top rated games out there.
So what is this game with a MC of 98 or above on consoles?
PC has more video games than consoles each gen. exclusive and total.
And yes PC has not one single game that scored a 98 on MC. I take quality over quantity. Plus you can get real life graphics (Dark Sorcerer) on PS4 for only $400, no need to spend $2000-$3000 for only a graphics card, especially when you don't get to play most of the top rated games out there.
A 6gb one of these + water block shall be mine. Fvck AMD and their 290X :)
Fvck NVIDIA and their 48 ROPS. :)
Without AMD, NVIDIA would be still charging high priced GPUs. Note that some non-reference 7970s has 6 GB VRAM and would be the same for non-reference R9-290X.
yep, $650 flagships.
AMD didn't try anything as bad as that when the 7970 released against the aging GTX 580.
AMD's current flagship R9-290X's RRP is $549 USD.
From http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/
The original 7970's introduction RRP is $549 USD. AMD didn't move an inch from it's $549 RRP for it's single GPU flagship product.
There's no need to buy the flagship model when 2nd tier model (e.g. 7950) is cheaper and almost as good.
LOL, my "DirectX boxes" are actually PCs with either 7950 1 Ghz (Mini-ITX LAN-party PC ) and 7970 1Ghz (desktop PC).
My Mini-ITX gaming PC murders both PS4 and X1, and it's just as portable as the next-gen consoles.
I never supported parity e.g. my CU count scaling for Crysis 2 and now the BF4 shows the approximate differences between the two gimped boxes.
-----------------
For 7870 XT approximation, If I scale down 7970's 78 fps result to 24 CUs I get 58 fps.
Both 7870 XT and 7970 has the same base 925 Mhz clock speed. 7870 XT would be a little faster than 58 fps since it has 975Mhz boost.
Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...Ronvalencia abandon the xbox one after the whole 720p mess up...lol
That backpedaling of you is epic so now you want to pretend the xbox one is trash after so many argument defending the crappy box,now you want to pretend you are a hermit..hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
LOL, my "DirectX boxes" are actually PCs with either 7950 1 Ghz (Mini-ITX LAN-party PC ) and 7970 1Ghz (desktop PC).
My Mini-ITX gaming PC murders both PS4 and X1, and it's just as portable as the next-gen consoles.
I never supported parity e.g. my CU count scaling for Crysis 2 and now the BF4 shows the approximate differences between the two gimped boxes.
-----------------
For 7870 XT approximation, If I scale down 7970's 78 fps result to 24 CUs I get 58 fps.
Both 7870 XT and 7970 has the same base 925 Mhz clock speed. 7870 XT would be a little faster than 58 fps since it has 975Mhz boost.
Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...Ronvalencia abandon the xbox one after the whole 720p mess up...lol
That backpedaling of you is epic so now you want to pretend the xbox one is trash after so many argument defending the crappy box,now you want to pretend you are a hermit..hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You are so full so sh**...lol
I never purchased a garden-wall Xbox LOL. i.e. not past, not present, not future.
X1 can add memory bandwidth since it has two memory pools (think of L-shaped multi-memory controller setups) while PS4 has a single memory pool.
----------------
Your brain is only limited to Xbox 360/Xbox One/Lems vs PS3/PS4/Cows
You are so full so sh**...lol
WTF does memory poll have to do with you defending the xbox one at broken back,and now denying it,who are you trying to fool dude.?
You are a die hard lemming who pulled endless arguments in favor of the xbox one,and that now want to act like it never defended the xbox one in the first place,sorry dude your post are there the damage is done silly lemming.
720p galore...lol But but ESRAM but but jit compression,but but Cache,but but 133GB/s alpha blending,but but 7850 prototype...
Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1.18 TF less usable power than the 7770 and like i claimed the xbox one sucks and can't keep up with the PS4,ESRAM and cache with 256 bit bus changed in nothing the outcome..
Log in to comment