The PC is the superior gaming platform - Definitive Edition

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#651 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

Stop trying to quote me, moron.

It's hysterically refreshing to watch you struggle and be buried.

Hey millenial, why is it NO ONE ever agrees with any of your trolltastic, moronic statements?

#652 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

Stop trying to quote me, moron.

It's hysterically refreshing to watch you struggle and be buried.

Says the guy who claims I dodge questions and quotes a post with most of my remarks deleted as proof.

Games as early as 2006-2007 had min req of 1gb yet you thought a 512mb pc would be a good match for the 360.

#653 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -
@Cranler said:Says the guy who claims I dodge questions and quotes a post with most of my remarks deleted as proof.

Games as early as 2006-2007 had min req of 1gb yet you thought a 512mb pc would be a good match for the 360.

Your dodging of questions has already been proven, tard.

Hey millenial, why is it NO ONE ever agrees with any of your moronic, trolltastic,statements?

Tell me more about the original Doom.

#654 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:
@Cranler said:Says the guy who claims I dodge questions and quotes a post with most of my remarks deleted as proof.

Games as early as 2006-2007 had min req of 1gb yet you thought a 512mb pc would be a good match for the 360.

Your dodging of questions has already been proven, tard.

Hey millenial, why is it NO ONE ever agrees with any of your moronic, trolltastic,statements?

Tell me more about the original Doom.

You proved nothing.

Other manticores and consolites agree.

Doom?

#655 Edited by remiks00 (2463 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@CrownKingArthur: @lostrib: @Legend002:

@Legend002 Sent an email last night to hopefully get this cleared up once and for all, did not expect a response. I was pleasantly surprised this morning, though. Of course, you will probably try to spin this and say it's a "secret agreement" or that "Microsoft won't allow them to disclose that they are the true owners of Ryse" or some other such nonsense, but I expect that of you at this point.

TL;DR - rekt.

Wow. Well damn, I don't how anyone can argue against this proof. I'm shocked they actually responded.

Kudos @mikhail

#656 Posted by RyviusARC (4808 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:
@Cranler said:

Show me at least 2 examples of not addressing counterpoints since I may have missed a point someone made here and there. What did i distort? When did I lie? Where did I derail? What irrelevant comparisons?

Why, so you can ignore them again? I'm referring to every irrelevant / distorted comparison ("250GB HDD," trollolol), lie that you made to try and prove your point.

Myself and others have already pointed out your derailing and ignoring of others' counterpoints.

Like this:

@Cranler said:
@kittennose said:

...

You compared a company's extreme effort to optimize code for obsolete hardware on one set up with it's complete lack on another while pretending the result said something about the efficiency of the two set ups. That would be merely myopic, but with the addition of the asinine gloating it is nothing more then trolling so poor as to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. Given how far you have doubled down on the concept, it is just tiring. The three sixty didn't accomplish this via merit, it managed it via an adoption rate that was only high because of just how hard Sony dropped the ball.

If you want people to stop "making you out to be the bad guy" then stop sticking your nose into every PC thread, spewing doofisms, then publicly basking in your own cleverness. Heck, if you actually wanted to present a realistic picture of a twenty gig launch 360 trying to run Rage, it would have been three flashing red lights encircling a power button.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you needed a top of the line pc from 2005 and then some to keep up with the 360?

Your question was answered by kittennose in the opening sentence of the first paragraph, but it's more fun to not address any of the points made, and instead stick your fingers in your ears, as you repeat the latest revision of your troll claim.

Even though it's a point that I've already made, and one which you also conveniently ignored, I'd also like to repeat that you have a peculiar habit of deliberately choosing benchmarks that use GPUs that barely exceed the devs' minimum requirements, running at higher resolutions with more effects; instead of a legitimate comparison using the devs' recommended GPU(s) at the same 720p resolution with same amount of reduced effects.

You just love to pretend that PCs are technologically bound by the limitations of console lifespans when you pick your "evidence."

I'm not playing this moronic game with you.

Your ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, and tenacious trolling are not my problem.

Go flush yourself.

I feel his points are irrelevant but of course you conveniently left out the rest of my reply where I directly addressed his post.

I said "Your point only matters if Skyrim is behind the curve on pc optimization, so prove it."

Then again even if he could prove that a top of the line pc from 2005 can run Skyrim or any other multiplat as well as the 360 with better optimization then it simply means the 360 can run games as well as a $2,000 pc from 2005.

Most multiplats need an 8800 gt with a core 2 duo to beat the 360 performance and whether it's due to lack of optimization or lack of unified shaders on the pre 8 series is really irrelevant.

Ummm no....

An 8800gt performs much much better than the 360.

Heck in Crysis 2 it performs around 3x better.

I know someone who has a much weaker 8600gts that can still outperform the 360.

And unified shaders tech is always relevant. It is the main reason the 360 performs much better in shader intensive games compared to PC GPUs from 2005 and before.

If you were abled to incorporate unified shader tech into the specs of a high end 2005 GPU then it would perform better than the Xbox 360 in shader intensive games.

In non shader intensive games a high end 2005 GPU will easily outperform the 360 as seen with earlier games of last gen.

Ummmm......I said the 8800 gt beats the 360's gpu.

I know someone that has the 8600 gts that can just about match the 360.

These benches don't show the 8600 gts being any better than the 360 http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

And if they had put unified shaders into 2005 gpu's then they would have cost $1,000. So instead of needing a $2000 pc to match the 360 you would need a $3,000 pc.

You acted like you needed at the very least an 8800gt to beat the 360 when in fact there are many gpus below the 8800gt that have no problem performing better than the 360.

The 8600gts is not much more powerful than a 360 so the difference is not as large but you will see less of a difference in benchmarks that were performed early in it's lifespan because of the infancy of the drivers. An 8600gts on average will perform a little better than the 360.

The 360 performance wise is between an 8600gt and 8600gts.

And since you can overclock your video card you can get an addition performance boost.

I have a GTX 570 that performs better than a stock GTX 580 because I oced the GTX 570 from a core clock of 742mhz to 950mhz.

And stop pulling price figures out of your ass. You have no clue of the expense for adding unified shader tech to 2005 GPUs.

I do not deny that the 360 was a great performing console for it's time but that is due to it having certain features early than others.

Too bad this gen consoles are so under-powered that it's laughable.

That would be like if the 360 came out with a GPU comparable to a 2001 GPU and a CPU comparable to a 1999 CPU.

Prove your performance claims.

If people were willing to pay $500 for a 7800 gtx then how much would they pay for a much better gpu? Look at the pricing of those high end AMD cpu's from 2005.

Your timeline is off. The 6870 was the top amd card 4 years before the 360 launch.

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

Which performance claims just so I know what you exactly want.

The 6870 was a mid range card. The 6970 was AMD's top single gpu for the 6000 series and it did not come out 4 years before the Xbox 360......I am guessing you were talking about the Xbox One there.

Also the GTX 480 came out before AMD 6000 series and it around the same performance as the PS4 while being almost 4 years older. If you overclock the GTX 480 you can even get a 20-30% boost in performance with a non reference cooler.

And the PS4 doesn't really have graphical dominance. All the best looking games coming both to PC and Consoles has PC running them at higher settings.

The Witcher 3 will be the best looking game once it releases and consoles will barely handle it at a mix of low to medium settings.

The biggest problem is how weak the CPU is in both consoles.

The downsides have already been witnessed in old last gen games like Diablo 3 where the PS4's frame rate is all over the place when there is a lot on the screen.

#657 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:
@Cranler said:

Show me at least 2 examples of not addressing counterpoints since I may have missed a point someone made here and there. What did i distort? When did I lie? Where did I derail? What irrelevant comparisons?

Why, so you can ignore them again? I'm referring to every irrelevant / distorted comparison ("250GB HDD," trollolol), lie that you made to try and prove your point.

Myself and others have already pointed out your derailing and ignoring of others' counterpoints.

Like this:

@Cranler said:
@kittennose said:

...

You compared a company's extreme effort to optimize code for obsolete hardware on one set up with it's complete lack on another while pretending the result said something about the efficiency of the two set ups. That would be merely myopic, but with the addition of the asinine gloating it is nothing more then trolling so poor as to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. Given how far you have doubled down on the concept, it is just tiring. The three sixty didn't accomplish this via merit, it managed it via an adoption rate that was only high because of just how hard Sony dropped the ball.

If you want people to stop "making you out to be the bad guy" then stop sticking your nose into every PC thread, spewing doofisms, then publicly basking in your own cleverness. Heck, if you actually wanted to present a realistic picture of a twenty gig launch 360 trying to run Rage, it would have been three flashing red lights encircling a power button.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you needed a top of the line pc from 2005 and then some to keep up with the 360?

Your question was answered by kittennose in the opening sentence of the first paragraph, but it's more fun to not address any of the points made, and instead stick your fingers in your ears, as you repeat the latest revision of your troll claim.

Even though it's a point that I've already made, and one which you also conveniently ignored, I'd also like to repeat that you have a peculiar habit of deliberately choosing benchmarks that use GPUs that barely exceed the devs' minimum requirements, running at higher resolutions with more effects; instead of a legitimate comparison using the devs' recommended GPU(s) at the same 720p resolution with same amount of reduced effects.

You just love to pretend that PCs are technologically bound by the limitations of console lifespans when you pick your "evidence."

I'm not playing this moronic game with you.

Your ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, and tenacious trolling are not my problem.

Go flush yourself.

I feel his points are irrelevant but of course you conveniently left out the rest of my reply where I directly addressed his post.

I said "Your point only matters if Skyrim is behind the curve on pc optimization, so prove it."

Then again even if he could prove that a top of the line pc from 2005 can run Skyrim or any other multiplat as well as the 360 with better optimization then it simply means the 360 can run games as well as a $2,000 pc from 2005.

Most multiplats need an 8800 gt with a core 2 duo to beat the 360 performance and whether it's due to lack of optimization or lack of unified shaders on the pre 8 series is really irrelevant.

Ummm no....

An 8800gt performs much much better than the 360.

Heck in Crysis 2 it performs around 3x better.

I know someone who has a much weaker 8600gts that can still outperform the 360.

And unified shaders tech is always relevant. It is the main reason the 360 performs much better in shader intensive games compared to PC GPUs from 2005 and before.

If you were abled to incorporate unified shader tech into the specs of a high end 2005 GPU then it would perform better than the Xbox 360 in shader intensive games.

In non shader intensive games a high end 2005 GPU will easily outperform the 360 as seen with earlier games of last gen.

Ummmm......I said the 8800 gt beats the 360's gpu.

I know someone that has the 8600 gts that can just about match the 360.

These benches don't show the 8600 gts being any better than the 360 http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

And if they had put unified shaders into 2005 gpu's then they would have cost $1,000. So instead of needing a $2000 pc to match the 360 you would need a $3,000 pc.

You acted like you needed at the very least an 8800gt to beat the 360 when in fact there are many gpus below the 8800gt that have no problem performing better than the 360.

The 8600gts is not much more powerful than a 360 so the difference is not as large but you will see less of a difference in benchmarks that were performed early in it's lifespan because of the infancy of the drivers. An 8600gts on average will perform a little better than the 360.

The 360 performance wise is between an 8600gt and 8600gts.

And since you can overclock your video card you can get an addition performance boost.

I have a GTX 570 that performs better than a stock GTX 580 because I oced the GTX 570 from a core clock of 742mhz to 950mhz.

And stop pulling price figures out of your ass. You have no clue of the expense for adding unified shader tech to 2005 GPUs.

I do not deny that the 360 was a great performing console for it's time but that is due to it having certain features early than others.

Too bad this gen consoles are so under-powered that it's laughable.

That would be like if the 360 came out with a GPU comparable to a 2001 GPU and a CPU comparable to a 1999 CPU.

Prove your performance claims.

If people were willing to pay $500 for a 7800 gtx then how much would they pay for a much better gpu? Look at the pricing of those high end AMD cpu's from 2005.

Your timeline is off. The 6870 was the top amd card 4 years before the 360 launch.

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

Which performance claims just so I know what you exactly want.

The 6870 was a mid range card. The 6970 was AMD's top single gpu for the 6000 series and it did not come out 4 years before the Xbox 360......I am guessing you were talking about the Xbox One there.

Also the GTX 480 came out before AMD 6000 series and it around the same performance as the PS4 while being almost 4 years older. If you overclock the GTX 480 you can even get a 20-30% boost in performance with a non reference cooler.

And the PS4 doesn't really have graphical dominance. All the best looking games coming both to PC and Consoles has PC running them at higher settings.

The Witcher 3 will be the best looking game once it releases and consoles will barely handle it at a mix of low to medium settings.

The biggest problem is how weak the CPU is in both consoles.

The downsides have already been witnessed in old last gen games like Diablo 3 where the PS4's frame rate is all over the place when there is a lot on the screen.

The 8600 gts claims.

The new consoles are weak yet I just played the PT demo and it's on another level. Witcher 3 looks great but PT and The Order are more impressive to me. Of course those 2 would look even better on pc.

#658 Edited by RyviusARC (4808 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:
@Cranler said:

Show me at least 2 examples of not addressing counterpoints since I may have missed a point someone made here and there. What did i distort? When did I lie? Where did I derail? What irrelevant comparisons?

Why, so you can ignore them again? I'm referring to every irrelevant / distorted comparison ("250GB HDD," trollolol), lie that you made to try and prove your point.

Myself and others have already pointed out your derailing and ignoring of others' counterpoints.

Like this:

@Cranler said:
@kittennose said:

...

You compared a company's extreme effort to optimize code for obsolete hardware on one set up with it's complete lack on another while pretending the result said something about the efficiency of the two set ups. That would be merely myopic, but with the addition of the asinine gloating it is nothing more then trolling so poor as to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. Given how far you have doubled down on the concept, it is just tiring. The three sixty didn't accomplish this via merit, it managed it via an adoption rate that was only high because of just how hard Sony dropped the ball.

If you want people to stop "making you out to be the bad guy" then stop sticking your nose into every PC thread, spewing doofisms, then publicly basking in your own cleverness. Heck, if you actually wanted to present a realistic picture of a twenty gig launch 360 trying to run Rage, it would have been three flashing red lights encircling a power button.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you needed a top of the line pc from 2005 and then some to keep up with the 360?

Your question was answered by kittennose in the opening sentence of the first paragraph, but it's more fun to not address any of the points made, and instead stick your fingers in your ears, as you repeat the latest revision of your troll claim.

Even though it's a point that I've already made, and one which you also conveniently ignored, I'd also like to repeat that you have a peculiar habit of deliberately choosing benchmarks that use GPUs that barely exceed the devs' minimum requirements, running at higher resolutions with more effects; instead of a legitimate comparison using the devs' recommended GPU(s) at the same 720p resolution with same amount of reduced effects.

You just love to pretend that PCs are technologically bound by the limitations of console lifespans when you pick your "evidence."

I'm not playing this moronic game with you.

Your ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, and tenacious trolling are not my problem.

Go flush yourself.

I feel his points are irrelevant but of course you conveniently left out the rest of my reply where I directly addressed his post.

I said "Your point only matters if Skyrim is behind the curve on pc optimization, so prove it."

Then again even if he could prove that a top of the line pc from 2005 can run Skyrim or any other multiplat as well as the 360 with better optimization then it simply means the 360 can run games as well as a $2,000 pc from 2005.

Most multiplats need an 8800 gt with a core 2 duo to beat the 360 performance and whether it's due to lack of optimization or lack of unified shaders on the pre 8 series is really irrelevant.

Ummm no....

An 8800gt performs much much better than the 360.

Heck in Crysis 2 it performs around 3x better.

I know someone who has a much weaker 8600gts that can still outperform the 360.

And unified shaders tech is always relevant. It is the main reason the 360 performs much better in shader intensive games compared to PC GPUs from 2005 and before.

If you were abled to incorporate unified shader tech into the specs of a high end 2005 GPU then it would perform better than the Xbox 360 in shader intensive games.

In non shader intensive games a high end 2005 GPU will easily outperform the 360 as seen with earlier games of last gen.

Ummmm......I said the 8800 gt beats the 360's gpu.

I know someone that has the 8600 gts that can just about match the 360.

These benches don't show the 8600 gts being any better than the 360 http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

And if they had put unified shaders into 2005 gpu's then they would have cost $1,000. So instead of needing a $2000 pc to match the 360 you would need a $3,000 pc.

You acted like you needed at the very least an 8800gt to beat the 360 when in fact there are many gpus below the 8800gt that have no problem performing better than the 360.

The 8600gts is not much more powerful than a 360 so the difference is not as large but you will see less of a difference in benchmarks that were performed early in it's lifespan because of the infancy of the drivers. An 8600gts on average will perform a little better than the 360.

The 360 performance wise is between an 8600gt and 8600gts.

And since you can overclock your video card you can get an addition performance boost.

I have a GTX 570 that performs better than a stock GTX 580 because I oced the GTX 570 from a core clock of 742mhz to 950mhz.

And stop pulling price figures out of your ass. You have no clue of the expense for adding unified shader tech to 2005 GPUs.

I do not deny that the 360 was a great performing console for it's time but that is due to it having certain features early than others.

Too bad this gen consoles are so under-powered that it's laughable.

That would be like if the 360 came out with a GPU comparable to a 2001 GPU and a CPU comparable to a 1999 CPU.

Prove your performance claims.

If people were willing to pay $500 for a 7800 gtx then how much would they pay for a much better gpu? Look at the pricing of those high end AMD cpu's from 2005.

Your timeline is off. The 6870 was the top amd card 4 years before the 360 launch.

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

Which performance claims just so I know what you exactly want.

The 6870 was a mid range card. The 6970 was AMD's top single gpu for the 6000 series and it did not come out 4 years before the Xbox 360......I am guessing you were talking about the Xbox One there.

Also the GTX 480 came out before AMD 6000 series and it around the same performance as the PS4 while being almost 4 years older. If you overclock the GTX 480 you can even get a 20-30% boost in performance with a non reference cooler.

And the PS4 doesn't really have graphical dominance. All the best looking games coming both to PC and Consoles has PC running them at higher settings.

The Witcher 3 will be the best looking game once it releases and consoles will barely handle it at a mix of low to medium settings.

The biggest problem is how weak the CPU is in both consoles.

The downsides have already been witnessed in old last gen games like Diablo 3 where the PS4's frame rate is all over the place when there is a lot on the screen.

The 8600 gts claims.

The new consoles are weak yet I just played the PT demo and it's on another level. Witcher 3 looks great but PT and The Order are more impressive to me. Of course those 2 would look even better on pc.

It's hard to find current 8600gts benchmarks since the card is so old but I have a friend who had one and saw that is performed rather close to consoles while sometimes being able to handle higher resolutions especially if he oced it.

The Order doesn't render much and the PT is even more of a corridor so it doesn't take a lot to make them look good.

The Witcher 3 is open world. Also PT will most likely come to PC just like MGS 5 will.

#659 Edited by RoboCopISJesus (1618 posts) -

@Cranler said:

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

PS4 (and Xbox One) are actually doing worse than other gens. Usually at the start of a gen (first 1-2 years) console has a very obvious gfx lead compared to PC.

However, this gen, it's very debatable. I don't care about exclusive or multiplat goal posts, fact is, PC will have comparable and better games on Ultra settings by the time Order comes out. Thats with more scope and FAR better performance. And all graphics leads END there, it only gets WORSE for you guys. This happens EVERY GEN. Same people bragging for 1-2 years, and then crying about "Gameplay>Gfx" in every thread for 5-7 years.

TLDR: It's not going to be a nice gen for Console GFX Whores. (Although it never really is.)

PC is the superior gaming platform, OP was correct.

#660 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:
@Cranler said:

Show me at least 2 examples of not addressing counterpoints since I may have missed a point someone made here and there. What did i distort? When did I lie? Where did I derail? What irrelevant comparisons?

Why, so you can ignore them again? I'm referring to every irrelevant / distorted comparison ("250GB HDD," trollolol), lie that you made to try and prove your point.

Myself and others have already pointed out your derailing and ignoring of others' counterpoints.

Like this:

@Cranler said:
@kittennose said:

...

You compared a company's extreme effort to optimize code for obsolete hardware on one set up with it's complete lack on another while pretending the result said something about the efficiency of the two set ups. That would be merely myopic, but with the addition of the asinine gloating it is nothing more then trolling so poor as to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. Given how far you have doubled down on the concept, it is just tiring. The three sixty didn't accomplish this via merit, it managed it via an adoption rate that was only high because of just how hard Sony dropped the ball.

If you want people to stop "making you out to be the bad guy" then stop sticking your nose into every PC thread, spewing doofisms, then publicly basking in your own cleverness. Heck, if you actually wanted to present a realistic picture of a twenty gig launch 360 trying to run Rage, it would have been three flashing red lights encircling a power button.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you needed a top of the line pc from 2005 and then some to keep up with the 360?

Your question was answered by kittennose in the opening sentence of the first paragraph, but it's more fun to not address any of the points made, and instead stick your fingers in your ears, as you repeat the latest revision of your troll claim.

Even though it's a point that I've already made, and one which you also conveniently ignored, I'd also like to repeat that you have a peculiar habit of deliberately choosing benchmarks that use GPUs that barely exceed the devs' minimum requirements, running at higher resolutions with more effects; instead of a legitimate comparison using the devs' recommended GPU(s) at the same 720p resolution with same amount of reduced effects.

You just love to pretend that PCs are technologically bound by the limitations of console lifespans when you pick your "evidence."

I'm not playing this moronic game with you.

Your ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, and tenacious trolling are not my problem.

Go flush yourself.

I feel his points are irrelevant but of course you conveniently left out the rest of my reply where I directly addressed his post.

I said "Your point only matters if Skyrim is behind the curve on pc optimization, so prove it."

Then again even if he could prove that a top of the line pc from 2005 can run Skyrim or any other multiplat as well as the 360 with better optimization then it simply means the 360 can run games as well as a $2,000 pc from 2005.

Most multiplats need an 8800 gt with a core 2 duo to beat the 360 performance and whether it's due to lack of optimization or lack of unified shaders on the pre 8 series is really irrelevant.

Ummm no....

An 8800gt performs much much better than the 360.

Heck in Crysis 2 it performs around 3x better.

I know someone who has a much weaker 8600gts that can still outperform the 360.

And unified shaders tech is always relevant. It is the main reason the 360 performs much better in shader intensive games compared to PC GPUs from 2005 and before.

If you were abled to incorporate unified shader tech into the specs of a high end 2005 GPU then it would perform better than the Xbox 360 in shader intensive games.

In non shader intensive games a high end 2005 GPU will easily outperform the 360 as seen with earlier games of last gen.

Ummmm......I said the 8800 gt beats the 360's gpu.

I know someone that has the 8600 gts that can just about match the 360.

These benches don't show the 8600 gts being any better than the 360 http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2007/08/30/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/9

And if they had put unified shaders into 2005 gpu's then they would have cost $1,000. So instead of needing a $2000 pc to match the 360 you would need a $3,000 pc.

You acted like you needed at the very least an 8800gt to beat the 360 when in fact there are many gpus below the 8800gt that have no problem performing better than the 360.

The 8600gts is not much more powerful than a 360 so the difference is not as large but you will see less of a difference in benchmarks that were performed early in it's lifespan because of the infancy of the drivers. An 8600gts on average will perform a little better than the 360.

The 360 performance wise is between an 8600gt and 8600gts.

And since you can overclock your video card you can get an addition performance boost.

I have a GTX 570 that performs better than a stock GTX 580 because I oced the GTX 570 from a core clock of 742mhz to 950mhz.

And stop pulling price figures out of your ass. You have no clue of the expense for adding unified shader tech to 2005 GPUs.

I do not deny that the 360 was a great performing console for it's time but that is due to it having certain features early than others.

Too bad this gen consoles are so under-powered that it's laughable.

That would be like if the 360 came out with a GPU comparable to a 2001 GPU and a CPU comparable to a 1999 CPU.

Prove your performance claims.

If people were willing to pay $500 for a 7800 gtx then how much would they pay for a much better gpu? Look at the pricing of those high end AMD cpu's from 2005.

Your timeline is off. The 6870 was the top amd card 4 years before the 360 launch.

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

Which performance claims just so I know what you exactly want.

The 6870 was a mid range card. The 6970 was AMD's top single gpu for the 6000 series and it did not come out 4 years before the Xbox 360......I am guessing you were talking about the Xbox One there.

Also the GTX 480 came out before AMD 6000 series and it around the same performance as the PS4 while being almost 4 years older. If you overclock the GTX 480 you can even get a 20-30% boost in performance with a non reference cooler.

And the PS4 doesn't really have graphical dominance. All the best looking games coming both to PC and Consoles has PC running them at higher settings.

The Witcher 3 will be the best looking game once it releases and consoles will barely handle it at a mix of low to medium settings.

The biggest problem is how weak the CPU is in both consoles.

The downsides have already been witnessed in old last gen games like Diablo 3 where the PS4's frame rate is all over the place when there is a lot on the screen.

The 8600 gts claims.

The new consoles are weak yet I just played the PT demo and it's on another level. Witcher 3 looks great but PT and The Order are more impressive to me. Of course those 2 would look even better on pc.

The Order doesn't render much and the PT is even more of a corridor so it doesn't take a lot to make them look good.

The Witcher 3 is open world. Also PT will most likely come to PC just like MGS 5 will.

Why don't all the linear pc centric games like Outlast and Amnesia have cgi like graphics?

When it comes to scope and scale I think AC Unity wins.

#661 Edited by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@RoboCopISJesus: Seriously, it's a good point. If this console generation is only 7 years long (I'm being generous here) then people who own the PS4 and Xbox One today are going to be playing games on the exact same hardware in 2020.

Let me just say that again so it sinks in for anyone reading this. In 2020 when PC hardware has advanced five fold or more from where it is today (which is already far superior to any console), the consoles will still be exactly the same that they are today. Yeah yeah optimization blah blah...no amount of optimization can make up for a shitty underpowered laptop grade APU.

#662 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

PS4 (and Xbox One) are actually doing worse than other gens. Usually at the start of a gen (first 1-2 years) console has a very obvious gfx lead compared to PC.

However, this gen, it's very debatable. I don't care about exclusive or multiplat goal posts, fact is, PC has comparable if not better games on Ultra settings. Soon it'll have much better, on top of having more scope and FAR better performance.

TLDR: It's not going to be a nice gen for Console GFX Whores. (Although it never really is.)

PC is the superior gaming platform, OP was correct.

You're claiming that Resistance and Gears looked better than pc versions of Prey and Fear?

#663 Edited by RoboCopISJesus (1618 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

PS4 (and Xbox One) are actually doing worse than other gens. Usually at the start of a gen (first 1-2 years) console has a very obvious gfx lead compared to PC.

However, this gen, it's very debatable. I don't care about exclusive or multiplat goal posts, fact is, PC has comparable if not better games on Ultra settings. Soon it'll have much better, on top of having more scope and FAR better performance.

TLDR: It's not going to be a nice gen for Console GFX Whores. (Although it never really is.)

PC is the superior gaming platform, OP was correct.

You're claiming that Resistance and Gears looked better than pc versions of Prey and Fear?

I did think Gears had a slight advantage over PC stuff.

I guess if Ryse-PC 4k and Witcher3 4k get delayed, and AC Unity-PC 4k and Metro Remastered 4k end up falling flat...... you might have a few months of gfx king, out of 7-9 years :P

My hats off to you if it happens. I concede for those few months.

#664 Edited by 04dcarraher (20435 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

Prove your performance claims.

If people were willing to pay $500 for a 7800 gtx then how much would they pay for a much better gpu? Look at the pricing of those high end AMD cpu's from 2005.

Your timeline is off. The 6870 was the top amd card 4 years before the 360 launch.

early days of when 8600GT/GTS would have been used

So we see in COD4 that the 8600GT gets 36fps maxed out in 1280x1024.Now 1280x1024 is MORE than double the resolution of 1024x600 so it's safe to assume that the 8600GT would get well above 60 fps maxed out in COD4 at 360's resolution.

Now let's see UT3.The 8600GT get's 39fps maxed out in 1600x1200.It is safe to say that the 8600GT would get 60+ fps in 720p.

Now lets see bioshock.We see here that the 8600GT runs bioshock maxed out in 720p at 40fps once again beating the 360.

You cannot go by your flawed idea "how much would they pay for a much better gpu" this happens with every new card generation, which did happen in 2006 with 8800GTX which was over 2x faster, for $600, then by 2007 a 8800GT which was 90%of the performance of the GTX was $250.

timeline huh? AMD was not in gpu market until 2006, and then AMD's first gpu architecture under their banner was the 4000 series.

#665 Edited by 04dcarraher (20435 posts) -

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

PS4 (and Xbox One) are actually doing worse than other gens. Usually at the start of a gen (first 1-2 years) console has a very obvious gfx lead compared to PC.

However, this gen, it's very debatable. I don't care about exclusive or multiplat goal posts, fact is, PC has comparable if not better games on Ultra settings. Soon it'll have much better, on top of having more scope and FAR better performance.

TLDR: It's not going to be a nice gen for Console GFX Whores. (Although it never really is.)

PC is the superior gaming platform, OP was correct.

You're claiming that Resistance and Gears looked better than pc versions of Prey and Fear?

I did think Gears had a slight advantage over PC stuff.

I guess if Ryse-PC 4k and Witcher3 4k get delayed, and AC Unity-PC 4k and Metro Remastered 4k end up falling flat...... you might have a few months of gfx king, out of 7-9 years :P

My hats off to you if it happens. I concede for those few months.

Gears didnt have an "edge" it was designed for a new era of hardware standards. Fear was released back in 2005 when unified shader gpu's were not around, and Prey was using a two year old graphics engine when it came out and even still the 360 ports didnt match the PC version's quality because of lack of memory, older graphics engines and coding not using the hardware correctly.

When UT3 release on pc with the same time as 360 a year after Gears, with same engine. UT3 on PC graphically creamed the 360. When Gears came out on Pc roughly the same time as UT3, Gears on PC looked much better.

#666 Edited by Legend002 (7635 posts) -

The problem with PC gaming is the exclusives. There really is none since any that does become popular comes to console. PC doesn't even get Destiny.

*Edit - Oh and that email is PR bullcrap. NDA won't allow them to say otherwise. Ask Crystal Dynamics or Square Enix. Oh it's full exclusive alright. lol

#667 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

The PS 4 is weak for its time which makes it's graphical dominance even more amusing. The only exclusive the hermits have as a counter is a game which the hermits have to fund themselves. Some people have actually bought a $1,000 pre order package for Star Citizen.

PS4 (and Xbox One) are actually doing worse than other gens. Usually at the start of a gen (first 1-2 years) console has a very obvious gfx lead compared to PC.

However, this gen, it's very debatable. I don't care about exclusive or multiplat goal posts, fact is, PC has comparable if not better games on Ultra settings. Soon it'll have much better, on top of having more scope and FAR better performance.

TLDR: It's not going to be a nice gen for Console GFX Whores. (Although it never really is.)

PC is the superior gaming platform, OP was correct.

You're claiming that Resistance and Gears looked better than pc versions of Prey and Fear?

I did think Gears had a slight advantage over PC stuff.

I guess if Ryse-PC 4k and Witcher3 4k get delayed, and AC Unity-PC 4k and Metro Remastered 4k end up falling flat...... you might have a few months of gfx king, out of 7-9 years :P

My hats off to you if it happens. I concede for those few months.

So the pc needs ludicrous resolutions to beat consoles?

What do you mean, "I" might have graphics king. I'm mostly a pc gamer, I just don't back it like some brainwashed cult follower.

@04dcarraher said:

@Cranler said:

@RyviusARC said:

Prove your performance claims.

If people were willing to pay $500 for a 7800 gtx then how much would they pay for a much better gpu? Look at the pricing of those high end AMD cpu's from 2005.

Your timeline is off. The 6870 was the top amd card 4 years before the 360 launch.

early days of when 8600GT/GTS would have been used

So we see in COD4 that the 8600GT gets 36fps maxed out in 1280x1024.Now 1280x1024 is MORE than double the resolution of 1024x600 so it's safe to assume that the 8600GT would get well above 60 fps maxed out in COD4 at 360's resolution.

Now let's see UT3.The 8600GT get's 39fps maxed out in 1600x1200.It is safe to say that the 8600GT would get 60+ fps in 720p.

Now lets see bioshock.We see here that the 8600GT runs bioshock maxed out in 720p at 40fps once again beating the 360.

You cannot go by your flawed idea "how much would they pay for a much better gpu" this happens with every new card generation, which did happen in 2006 with 8800GTX which was over 2x faster, for $600, then by 2007 a 8800GT which was 90%of the performance of the GTX was $250.

timeline huh? AMD was not in gpu market until 2006, and then AMD's first gpu architecture under their banner was the 4000 series.

Well, each link takes me to a bunch of text, I see no benchmark charts on any of those links.

Obviously I meant 4 years before xbox one/PS 4.

#668 Edited by RoboCopISJesus (1618 posts) -

@Cranler said:

So the pc needs ludicrous resolutions to beat consoles?

What do you mean, "I" might have graphics king. I'm mostly a pc gamer, I just don't back it like some brainwashed cult follower.

1. I don't care how it gets there, as long as the result is the same: Gfx King for the vast majority of the gen.

2. You don't follow it like a brainwashed cultist, you hate on it like a brain washed cultist.

#669 Posted by RoboCopISJesus (1618 posts) -

@Legend002 said:

The problem with PC gaming is the exclusives. There really is none since any that does become popular comes to console.

PC has more aaa-aa scoring exclusives than all 3 consoles combined this gen. Same goes for last gen. Both at GS and MC.

Any more lies?

#670 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@RoboCopISJesus said:

@Cranler said:

So the pc needs ludicrous resolutions to beat consoles?

What do you mean, "I" might have graphics king. I'm mostly a pc gamer, I just don't back it like some brainwashed cult follower.

1. I don't care how it gets there, as long as the result is the same: Gfx King for the vast majority of the gen.

2. You don't follow it like a brainwashed cultist, you hate on it like a brain washed cultist.

Running 4k now requires $1,000 worth of gpu and then when the more demanding multiplats come in the next year or two you'll need to upgrade to 880's. beter be graphics king spending all that money.

How do I hate on it? I'm simply being impartial. I've taken pc's side here plenty of times. In fact I may have taken the pc side more than console in my time here.

#671 Edited by KittenNose (656 posts) -

@Cranler said:

I feel his points are irrelevant but of course you conveniently left out the rest of my reply where I directly addressed his post.

I said "Your point only matters if Skyrim is behind the curve on pc optimization, so prove it."

Then again even if he could prove that a top of the line pc from 2005 can run Skyrim or any other multiplat as well as the 360 with better optimization then it simply means the 360 can run games as well as a $2,000 pc from 2005.

Most multiplats need an 8800 gt with a core 2 duo to beat the 360 performance and whether it's due to lack of optimization or lack of unified shaders on the pre 8 series is really irrelevant.

Holy Fishes, you are doubling down on this silliness again?

Look, Skyrim for the 360 isn't Skyrim for the PC. You know what epic proof is required to demonstrate that? The fact that the three sixty ran the game on a disk. No one ever tried to put Skyrim into that kind of box on the PC. Why in gosh's name would they need to? The PC requirements for any game far exceeds that of consoles late in the generation because no one gaming on the PC uses such out of date hardware and ideas. When hand-me-down cards trump things twice as powerful as a console GPC, and computers that cost less then five hundred dollars come with eight times the ram, why bother?

Once again, the 360 can run games like Skyrim not because of it's processor power, or ram, or it's design, or it's programing. Every single one of those was a drawback Bethesda had to work around in order to put the game in a box small enough the 360 could understand it. They also had zero reason to even try to cram in features that are required on the PC for any game in the franchise, like the GEEK. If the next single player open world RPG Bethesda ships on the PC comes without it, their fanbase would revolt.

When a developer optimizes a game for a console, that is a polite way of saying they are stuffing their code into a form the platform in question can accommodate. The entire point of PC ownership is not having to be stuck with static and incredibly obsolete hardware. Around the time Skyrim came out one could pick up an $89.00 GPU with far more ram then the entire xbox console, So yeah, a PC with the limitations of a 360 couldn't run the PC version of Skyrim. That is because anyone who was using a computer as weak as the 360 when Skyrim came out was groaning about having to use the crappy XP dinosaur at their local library, not squealing and diving into Steam sales.

Your continued efforts to play this as some kind of hardware advantage to a 360 is just disheartening. Static hardware that gets catered to long after obsolesce is a cost saving benefit of a console from the consumer perspective. It is not something to brag about when you start talking about capabilities. Aging consoles are far less cantabile then budget PCs. Those weaknesses are worked around only if there is a massive and entrenched install base to cater to, and have nothing to do with some sort of merit that makes a console more capable then a $2000 PC.

#672 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -
@Cranler said:

Other manticores and consolites agree.

No, no one agrees with you and you're no ,"manticore."

A common refrain with you has been complaints about the cost of high end GPUs. You're a a jealous consolite troll who may occasionally play on a midrange PC.

I'd call you a Lem, but that would be insulting to actual Lems.

@Cranler said:

Says the guy who claims I dodge questions and quotes a post with most of my remarks deleted as proof.

I decided that the rest of what you were saying, like most things you say, was "irrelevant."

See what I did there?

#673 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@kittennose said:

@Cranler said:

I feel his points are irrelevant but of course you conveniently left out the rest of my reply where I directly addressed his post.

I said "Your point only matters if Skyrim is behind the curve on pc optimization, so prove it."

Then again even if he could prove that a top of the line pc from 2005 can run Skyrim or any other multiplat as well as the 360 with better optimization then it simply means the 360 can run games as well as a $2,000 pc from 2005.

Most multiplats need an 8800 gt with a core 2 duo to beat the 360 performance and whether it's due to lack of optimization or lack of unified shaders on the pre 8 series is really irrelevant.

Holy Fishes, you are doubling down on this silliness again?

Look, Skyrim for the 360 isn't Skyrim for the PC. You know what epic proof is required to demonstrate that? The fact that the three sixty ran the game on a disk. No one ever tried to put Skyrim into that kind of box on the PC. Why in gosh's name would they need to? The PC requirements for any game far exceeds that of consoles late in the generation because no one gaming on the PC uses such out of date hardware and ideas. When hand-me-down cards trump things twice as powerful as a console GPC, and computers that cost less then five hundred dollars come with eight times the ram, why bother?

Once again, the 360 can run games like Skyrim not because of it's processor power, or ram, or it's design, or it's programing. Every single one of those was a drawback Bethesda had to work around in order to put the game in a box small enough the 360 could understand it. They also had zero reason to even try to cram in features that are required on the PC for any game in the franchise, like the GEEK. If the next single player open world RPG Bethesda ships on the PC comes without it, their fanbase would revolt.

When a developer optimizes a game for a console, that is a polite way of saying they are stuffing their code into a form the platform in question can accommodate. The entire point of PC ownership is not having to be stuck with static and incredibly obsolete hardware. Around the time Skyrim came out one could pick up an $89.00 GPU with far more ram then the entire xbox console, So yeah, a PC with the limitations of a 360 couldn't run the PC version of Skyrim. That is because anyone who was using a computer as weak as the 360 when Skyrim came out was groaning about having to use the crappy XP dinosaur at their local library, not squealing and diving into Steam sales.

Your continued efforts to play this as some kind of hardware advantage to a 360 is just disheartening. Static hardware that gets catered to long after obsolesce is a cost saving benefit of a console from the consumer perspective. It is not something to brag about when you start talking about capabilities. Aging consoles are far less cantabile then budget PCs. Those weaknesses are worked around only if there is a massive and entrenched install base to cater to, and have nothing to do with some sort of merit that makes a console more capable then a $2000 PC.

You can go on and on as much as you like but the 360 ran early last gen titles such as Bioshock just as good or better than $2000 pc's from 2005. To match the performance of the 360 on most multiplats you need a core 2 duo and an 8600 gts.

All your talk about optimization and leaving out features is irrelavent. What is GEEK btw? How is it required? If it;s required for pc then how is the pc version being played without it?

I don't understand why you or dasein have so much trouble with the fact that the 360 was comparable to a top of the line pc when it launched.

Skyrim can be installed on the 360. The 360 has had an install option since around 2008.

I used Skyrim as an example because it was one of the few video's I could find of multiplats running on old pc's.

#674 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

Other manticores and consolites agree.

No, no one agrees with you and you're no ,"manticore."

A common refrain with you has been complaints about the cost of high end GPUs. You're a a jealous consolite troll.

I'd call you a Lem, but that would be insulting to actual Lems.

You think I get these framerates with low end gpus?

#675 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

@Cranler said:

You think I get these framerates with low end gpus?

No, I just doubt that those are your screenshots.

It's my understanding that you're going to have to share your Steam library and your playtimes for all of your games before you can be acknowledged as a PC gamer.

lel.

#676 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

You think I get these framerates with low end gpus?

No, I just doubt that those are your screenshots.

It's my understanding that you're going to have to share your Steam library and your playtimes for all of your games before you can be acknowledged as a PC gamer.

lel.

You can't fathom a pc gamer being impartial?

Playtime thing was just about proving how steam doesn't save you money but lures you into buying games you would have never bought.

#677 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

@Cranler said: You can't fathom a pc gamer being impartial?

You're not an actual PC gamer and you're anything but, "impartial."

Good job d/ling and re-hosting an actual PC gamer's screenshots, consolite. It looks like it took you a while given the lag in your reply.

You might want to look into a better ISP.

Btw, who has agreed with you? You seem to be suffering from delusions.

#678 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said: You can't fathom a pc gamer being impartial?

You're not an actual PC gamer and you're anything but, "impartial."

Good job d/ling and re-hosting an actual PC gamer's screenshots, consolite. It looks like it took you a while given the lag in your reply.

You might want to look into a better ISP.

Btw, who has agreed with you? You seem to be suffering from delusions.

Of course the delay wasn't caused by being busy with other things. I even bought empty gpu boxes and a replica 5870 to pass myself off as a pc gamer

#679 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

@Cranler said: Of course the delay wasn't caused by being busy with other things. I even bought empty gpu boxes and a replica 5870 to pass myself off as a pc gamer

Your GPU boxes explain your rage.

P.S. Who has agreed with you?

#680 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said: You can't fathom a pc gamer being impartial?

You're not an actual PC gamer and you're anything but, "impartial."

Good job d/ling and re-hosting an actual PC gamer's screenshots, consolite. It looks like it took you a while given the lag in your reply.

You might want to look into a better ISP.

Btw, who has agreed with you? You seem to be suffering from delusions.

Of course the delay wasn't caused by being busy with other things. I even bought empty gpu boxes and a replica 5870 to pass myself off as a pc gamer

Your GPU boxes more than explain your rage.

What rage? This has been fun. Debates like we had are the reason I'm on here. Sticking this in your face makes me lmfao even more than your 512mb 20 gb hdd build.

#681 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -
@Cranler said:

What rage? This has been fun. Debates like we had are the reason I'm on here. Sticking this in your face makes me lmfao even more than your 512mb 20 gb hdd build.

Yeah, the build to "match" the 360. The one that you tried to add a 250GB HDD to in a pathetic effort to inflate costs?

Words. Learn what they mean before you speak them.

Again, who was it that agreed with you?

Neither consolite nor herm have spoken up in support of your claims.

#682 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

What rage? This has been fun. Debates like we had are the reason I'm on here. Sticking this in your face makes me lmfao even more than your 512mb 20 gb hdd build.

Yeah, the build to "match" the 360. The one that you tried to add a 250GB HDD in to inflate costs?

Words. Learn what they mean before you speak them.

Who was it that agreed with you again?

Matching isn't about spec lists it's about running the games with similar iq and performance.

How does a pc that can't run Arkham Asylum match the 360?

A 250 gb hdd was only about $60 more than a mid range hdd of 2005. Stop acting like the hdd was a huge factor in the price.

How does a pc that can't even install Rage match the 360?

A few people but I don't recall the names. Anyways I kind of like the whole me against the world thing anyway.

#683 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

@Cranler said:

How does a pc that can't run Arkham Asylum match the 360?

A 250 gb hdd was only about $60 more than a mid range hdd of 2005. Stop acting like the hdd was a huge factor in the price.

How does a pc that can't even install Rage match the 360?

A few people but I don't recall the names. Anyways I kind of like the whole me against the world thing anyway.

The term, "match," has a specific meaning. And you're lying about the costs of a 250GB HDD in 2005.

I know because I purchased a 300GB Seagate in 2006. In 2005 80-120GB were the norm, and we've already been over this. Let's not forget that your original claim revolved around "matching" a 360.

A 20GB HDD.

Rage didn't debut in '05 and subsequently had a greater barrier to entry because it was expected that PC gamers would have accordingly upgraded hardware, but I know that you know this and are desperately looking for an out.

So yeah, no one supports your ridiculous trolling.

I'd recall their names if they did exist because I'd call them on their bullshit the same as I did you; particularly if they were supporting your moronic claims.

#684 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6218 posts) -

PC Gaming is great if you can afford it or have lots of luck with your build.

It can suck hard if you try to play Watchdogs with NVIDIA actively sabotaging games to not run properly on AMD cards.

It can also suck to miss out on blockbusters like RDR and GTA V.

Personally, I'm using a PC this gen and it's great, lots of games.

Knock indy games all you like, but I really appreciate having games like Secret World that cater to "real world conspiracy" ARG gamers, or Civilization 5 for history buffs, or Flight Sim games for people who want something a little deeper out of gaming.

I think one of the sad facts about gaming is that the gamer community is being fragmanted and torn apart by "brands" and exclusivity, between Nvidia and AMD, between Microsoft and Sony, between Steam and Origin and Uplay etc.

In an ideal world, all games would be available and run properly on any modest device, but gamers have to pick a favorite platform because money.

#685 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

How does a pc that can't run Arkham Asylum match the 360?

A 250 gb hdd was only about $60 more than a mid range hdd of 2005. Stop acting like the hdd was a huge factor in the price.

How does a pc that can't even install Rage match the 360?

A few people but I don't recall the names. Anyways I kind of like the whole me against the world thing anyway.

The term, "match," has a specific meaning. And you're lying about the costs of a 250GB HDD in 2005.

I know because I purchased a 300GB Seagate in 2006. In 2005 80-120GB were the norm, and we've already been over this.

Rage didn't debut in '05 and subsequently had a greater barrier to entry because it was expected that PC gamers would have accordingly upgraded hardware, but I know that you know this and are desperately looking for an out.

So yeah, no one supports your ridiculous trolling.

I'd recall their names if they did exist because I'd call them on their bullshit the same as I did you; particularly if they were supporting your moronic claims.

Why don't you define match for me then? Please enlighten me.

320 gb hdd for $130 in 2005 http://www.jcmit.com/diskprice.htm

So a pc to match the 360 only needs to match for the 2 months of 2005 that the 360 was available?

Games as early as 2006 began having 1gb ram min req.

If pc gamers are expected to have such great hardware why do so many pc centric games like CS Go, Dota 2 and LoL have such low reqs?

#686 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -
@Cranler said: Why don't you define match for me then? Please enlighten me.

MATCH - a person or thing that is an EXACT counterpart of another.

No one cares about the rest of your tangential arguments and no one supports you, Tupac.

#687 Posted by Heirren (18799 posts) -

Xbox 360 was up there with top of the line PCs back in 2005. Everybody in the industry was wowed by Gears of War.

Statements rebutting this, especially in regards to Skyrim, are off base because they keep throwing out the key phrase "from 2005."

Its funny how this gen is turning out kind of similar. Early 360 games didn't look so hot. In fact some were being compared to original Xbox games. It is the same instant here with games like assassins creed and the like. What is bizarre is how everybody knows whats inside the ps4. All these pc fanboys seem confused or something as a piece of hardware should not beable to pull off visuals like The Order. This is where money factors in.

#688 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:
@Cranler said: Why don't you define match for me then? Please enlighten me.

MATCH - a person or thing that is an EXACT counterpart of another.

No one cares about the rest of your tangential arguments and no one supports you, Tupac.

Your match definition is you in a nutshell: no honor. You twist words or omit important info to save face.

You conveniently left out the first two definitions of match

1. a person or thing that equals or resembles another in some respect.

2. a person or thing able to cope with another as an equal:to meet one's match.

3. a person or thing that is an exact counterpart of another.

If the pc can't run a game that the 360 can then how is that pc an equal?

Funny how you refused to respond to my 1gb req on 2006 games claim.

You sure seem to care. I make a simple, factual statement about the 360 and you basically went ape shit for 10 pages.

#689 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

@Cranler said:

Your match definition is you in a nutshell: no honor. You twist words or omit important info to save face.

You conveniently left out the first two definitions of match

1. a person or thing that equals or resembles another in some respect.

2. a person or thing able to cope with another as an equal:to meet one's match.

3. a person or thing that is an exact counterpart of another.

If the pc can't run a game that the 360 can then how is that pc an equal?

You sure seem to care. I make a simple, factual statement about the 360 and you basically went ape shit for 10 pages.

Sure thing, troll.

That's definitely not what you've done from the start. /s

Definitions of words with multiple meanings are attained through context, thus "match" in, "It cost $2000 to match an Xbox at release," has a fairly specific definition and it's neither of the first two definitions, but we all know this.

Where are the supporters of your claim again?

That's right, you have none.

#690 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

Your match definition is you in a nutshell: no honor. You twist words or omit important info to save face.

You conveniently left out the first two definitions of match

1. a person or thing that equals or resembles another in some respect.

2. a person or thing able to cope with another as an equal:to meet one's match.

3. a person or thing that is an exact counterpart of another.

If the pc can't run a game that the 360 can then how is that pc an equal?

You sure seem to care. I make a simple, factual statement about the 360 and you basically went ape shit for 10 pages.

Sure thing, troll.

Where are your supporters again and where are mine?

That's right, you have none.

You have no counter so you resort to name calling as usual. You dodge and ignore my points but then accuse me of doing that.

That's all you have as an argument now? That more people take your side? lol

#691 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

@Cranler said:

You have no counter so you resort to name calling as usual. You dodge and ignore my points but then accuse me of doing that.

That's all you have as an argument now? That more people take your side? lol

No, I also have all the points I and others made that refute your original troll claim and distorted benchmarks.

You know, all those points you conveniently chose to ignore?

/flush

#692 Edited by PimpHand_Gamer (562 posts) -

You guys should instruct people on how to enjoy playing games in 3 easy steps. Because so far the instructions are a little convoluted.

#693 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

You have no counter so you resort to name calling as usual. You dodge and ignore my points but then accuse me of doing that.

That's all you have as an argument now? That more people take your side? lol

No, I also have all the points I and others made that refute your original troll claim and distorted benchmarks.

You know, all those points you conveniently chose to ignore?

/flush

We came to the conclusion that the 360 runs most games better than top of the line hardware from 2005.

What points did I ignore?

#694 Edited by Dasein808 (545 posts) -

@Cranler said:

We came to the conclusion that the 360 runs most games better than top of the line hardware from 2005.

What points did I ignore?

"We," lol.

No.

Work on your reading comprehension and that was also not your original claim.

Surprise.

"You're a jealous consolite troll who may occasionally play on a midrange PC."

Thanks for proving me right with your pictures.

#695 Posted by sSubZerOo (43943 posts) -

@ZombieKiller7 said:

PC Gaming is great if you can afford it or have lots of luck with your build.

It can suck hard if you try to play Watchdogs with NVIDIA actively sabotaging games to not run properly on AMD cards.

It can also suck to miss out on blockbusters like RDR and GTA V.

Personally, I'm using a PC this gen and it's great, lots of games.

Knock indy games all you like, but I really appreciate having games like Secret World that cater to "real world conspiracy" ARG gamers, or Civilization 5 for history buffs, or Flight Sim games for people who want something a little deeper out of gaming.

I think one of the sad facts about gaming is that the gamer community is being fragmanted and torn apart by "brands" and exclusivity, between Nvidia and AMD, between Microsoft and Sony, between Steam and Origin and Uplay etc.

In an ideal world, all games would be available and run properly on any modest device, but gamers have to pick a favorite platform because money.

Not sure why any dumbass would ever knock on indie titles when the recent up surge has brought back genres that were abandoned years ago.. Like the Space Sim.. Or actually put forward new ideas and developments in games instead of the same sh!t rehashes the AAA scene has done for at least 7 years..

#696 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

Why is Cranler still talking about the Xbox 360 vs the 2005 gaming PC? That was ten fucking years ago.

#697 Posted by 04dcarraher (20435 posts) -

@Heirren said:

Xbox 360 was up there with top of the line PCs back in 2005. Everybody in the industry was wowed by Gears of War.

Statements rebutting this, especially in regards to Skyrim, are off base because they keep throwing out the key phrase "from 2005."

Its funny how this gen is turning out kind of similar. Early 360 games didn't look so hot. In fact some were being compared to original Xbox games. It is the same instant here with games like assassins creed and the like. What is bizarre is how everybody knows whats inside the ps4. All these pc fanboys seem confused or something as a piece of hardware should not beable to pull off visuals like The Order. This is where money factors in.

Here is the problem most dont understand early games on the 360/PS3 were made from the single threaded and non unified shader era of programing. Where those games didnt make full use of the hardware ie using one core from the 360 cpu, or just the PPE from the Cell. Wasnt until developers designed engines to make use of the hardware where we seen the evolution in what they could do. Since back then its been increments until a plateau was virtually reached in abilities a few years later. This generation these new consoles walked into modern programing from the start, no new standards being introduced so the majority of the console's abilities are seen from the beginning.

#698 Edited by KittenNose (656 posts) -

@Cranler said:

You can go on and on as much as you like but the 360 ran early last gen titles such as Bioshock just as good or better than $2000 pc's from 2005. To match the performance of the 360 on most multiplats you need a core 2 duo and an 8600 gts.

All your talk about optimization and leaving out features is irrelavent. What is GEEK btw? How is it required? If it;s required for pc then how is the pc version being played without it?

I don't understand why you or dasein have so much trouble with the fact that the 360 was comparable to a top of the line pc when it launched.

Skyrim can be installed on the 360. The 360 has had an install option since around 2008.

I used Skyrim as an example because it was one of the few video's I could find of multiplats running on old pc's.

Once again: It isn't the same software because it can't run software as well as a $2000 PC. You are comparing highly optimized code with barely optimized code. Companies invest millions and tens of thousands of man hours translating their code into something the shortcomings of the obsolete hardware can understand. They don't do that on the PC because they have no reason to. Painting developers catering to the obsolete parts of an aging console as proof of a hardware advantage is asinine.

If you think a console has the power to run software as good as a $2000 PC, then get back to me when you install XP and the PC version of Skyrim onto one. Load up some mods while you are at it. Fun Fact: You actually could pull it off if you wanted to. It would cost millions and take tens of thousands of man hours, but it is possible.

#699 Posted by ShoTTyMcNaDeS (2711 posts) -

@mikhail said:

The last topic was unfortunately locked due to a bunch of off-topic circular arguments happening, so the mods invited me to recreate the topic if I wished...and I wished. This time I'll give some insight into what led me to choose the PC as my sole gaming platform besides the 3DS, skipping the Xbox One, PS4, and Wii U entirely. I couldn't be happier that I did.

I grew up traditionally being a console gamer, starting first with the NES and then SNES, having almost all the major consoles up until the PS3 & Xbox 360 generation. I did have a gaming PC during the last gen, but it was never my main platform - I was more of a PS3 gamer. Then, I got involved in game development and digital art/vfx. I was going to be spending a lot of time on a PC and figured that if I was going to build one for myself, that I might as well be using it to play awesome games as well. I built my own PC, and my consoles started getting less and less use until eventually I wasn't using them at all.

There are a ton of reasons why I think the PC is the best gaming platform in existence today, but I'll try to stick with the biggest ones.

  • I can use any controller or multiple controllers at once, including mouse & keyboard, Xbox One controllers, DualShock 4's, or all of them at once. There is a lot more choice with PC, I'm not locked in to the few overpriced peripherals that the platform holders choose for me.
  • Many games, even PC exclusives, are designed with native Xbox controller support. You can still play games from your couch displayed on your big TV in the living room if you want to - the PC is no longer relegated to the office like it was 10 years ago.
  • The PC is capable of displaying higher fidelity visuals and effects at much higher resolutions and framerates than any console. PC games always look better and run better than their console counterparts. PC games can be played at 1440p and up to 144hz while even current generation console games still struggle with 1080p and 30hz, sometimes 60hz (but not usually). Even "remastered" games like The Last of Us still struggle to maintain 1080p/60 on the PS4, sometimes dipping down in the mid-40 fps range.
  • Online multiplayer on PC is always free and not locked behind a paywall like it is with PSN and Xbox Live.
  • The PC has far more exclusive titles released than any other console, in any generation, in addition to many of the same multiplatform titles that are released for the consoles as well. Only when they are on PC, they look & run better.
  • The PC can be used for far more than just entertainment - it's a device that I can use for content production, school work, editing photos, curating my music collection, and more.
  • The PC is a constantly evolving platform that is always growing in power, whereas the consoles are locked in without innovation or advancement for sometimes up to 9 years in the case of the 360 & PS3. My current PC is already much more powerful and capable than even the PS4 or Xbox One, and over time that gap is only going to widen further and further.
  • PC games are less expensive. Not only are even multiplatform games almost always less expensive when released on PC, but PC games go on sale through outlets such as Steam, GOG, GreenManGaming and others far more often and for much steeper discounts than console games ever do. Developers love Steam sale events like the Summer & Winter sales, sometimes making more profits in a single week than they did during the entire year leading up to that.
  • PC's are designed to use and take advantage of multiple monitors, allowing experiences that are simply not available on console. If you haven't gamed on 3+ monitors at once, you're seriously missing out and I recommend giving it a try, you'll never go back.
  • The PC is the king of backwards compatibility. I can play any game I wish released at virtually any point in the PC's history with little to no problem, most of them installing directly from Steam in minutes. The current consoles offer no backwards compatibility whatsoever - Sony, MS, and Nintendo are more than happy to sell you the same games over and over again, though. This does not happen on PC.
  • The PC has by far the largest and most diverse game library out of any platform, current or past.
  • Developers build mod support into their games so the thriving PC mod community can get much more life out of games. This does not exist on consoles. See current games like Divinity: Original Sin and ArmA 3 for examples on how devs encourage modding and make it easy through the Steam Workshop.
  • PC is the most friendly platform for developers. Anyone can create and release a game on PC that millions of gamers have access to without paying licensing fees to the likes of Sony or Microsoft, and at little to no overhead cost. It is the most friendly platform for the thriving independent game developer scene.
  • You can actually make money playing games and creating assets & mods for games on PC, and companies like Valve encourage this through the Steam Workshop and Market. Nothing like this exists on consoles.
  • There are far more Free To Play games on PC that are actually good games with business models that aren't horrible. Games like DotA 2 and Marvel Heroes are truly free to play. You can spend money for cosmetics or quality of life improvements but you don't need to at all. Again, nothing like this exists on consoles.
  • The PC is overall less expensive to own than a console, and this becomes more drastic the more games one buys. A gaming PC that equals the PS4 or Xbox One in performance can be built for $400-$500 and then upgraded in a couple of years to easily surpass the capabilities of those locked and closed platforms, and the price disparity only grows as console gamers buy more and more expensive games over the lifespan of their console while PC gamers enjoy more & less expensive games.
    • The competitive / professional eSports scene lives on PC. Games like Dota 2 have tournaments like the International that had over $11 million dollars in prize money to be won this year - nothing like this exists on consoles.

There are more reasons but I'll leave it at that. Try to keep the discussion on topic - if you don't think the PC is the objectively superior gaming platform, then which one is and why? "LOL hermits" is not a valid argument. Please try to keep the discussion civil and on-topic, I don't want to have to create this again in a few weeks...but I totally will.

Thanks for reading and have fun!

A. Who cares!

B. I don't want some bulky ass PC tower uglifying my entertainment area

C. PC gaming is for basement dwelling 40 year old nerds that have never seen any part of the female anatomy up close and personal except on said PC!!

#700 Posted by 04dcarraher (20435 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

Thanks for reading and have fun!

A. Who cares!

B. I don't want some bulky ass PC tower uglifying my entertainment area

C. PC gaming is for basement dwelling 40 year old nerds that have never seen any part of the female anatomy up close and personal except on said PC!!

aww someone uneducated on SW? what a shock!