Medal of Honor: Warfighter - Graphics Comparison
Are you torn between what systems to play Medal of Honor: Warfigher on? Don't be.
Why do I choose PC. Because it has uses other then gaming. Like downloading Movies and TV shows. Printing. And software like word, photoshop. Animation programs. Easier internet access and navigation. The list can go on.
GTX 285? Really? For benchmarking? Wow..you should've used the latest generation of Nvidia cards. The GTX 285 FYI is three generations apart from the latest Nvidia GPUs. So I believe it wouldn't be accurate if you used it for benchmarking specially in comparison with x-box 360.
im a xbox gamer, i saw this comparison and thought PC won but not by much, but then i saw this at my friends house on his full HD computer in which he doesnt even put much money into and it completely blew me away. PC you win again and again.
I'm a PC gamer and still will be. I always go online playing BF3 and MW3. But some games are exclusive to consoles, that is why I also love my XBOX 360. I enjoy versus and RPG games on my XBOX but I prefer to go for PC on shooters. It is just your choice and it is up to you on how you want to enjoy the game.
a gtx 285 is an old ass card. I think it performs somewhere around the same as a 480. Which isn't too spectacular. If you were to buy a gtx 285 now, it'd probably be $100, if that.
@ChaosUndivided hey i also have a pc but there is mess like installing the game and finding the fucking cracks
Thats the problem with these comparisons, you have to see them both in to see how much of a difference there really is.
@Tremblay343 Actually its a couple of frames slower than the GTX460 but the 460 has lower temps, power consumption and noise levels.
@Imperiacommando I built a $500 rig at the end of 2006. It still plays everything that doesn't need DX11 at the same settings that consoles use (720p, low-medium settings, 30fps average) and it will play many things much better (e.g. any Unreal engine based game at 1080p with 40fps average maxed out).
Consoles game at horridly low resolution with medium settings at best and only 30fps. It doesn't take much money to build a PC that will do that, and if matching console settings is your only concern, you don't really have to upgrade except once every 3-5 years... it winds up not being much more money.
An $800 PC right now gives vastly superior visuals to any console... you can game at high/maxed 1080p with 40fps+ in basically everything on an $800 PC.
Get a clue console noob.
@Imperiacommando Or you can build a $300 dollar or so APU-based machine and still be able to play mostly all games on medium to high settings, and when the time comes that you want to add a 100 or 200 dollar graphics card, you'll still be performing better than consoles and for technically cheaper if you go that route.
Pc gaming is only expensive if you let it be; it's only a hassle if you let it be. It gives you a choice.
It's not the 90's anymore all games released today on steam, origin or Uplay do not require CD's to play. Once installed it is on there permenately then you just go offline and play if you don't want constant updates. If you buy the CD version from your shop you install it and never use it again. Plus if you own the Disk you can give it to your friends. They purchase it from said online service and then use your disk to install it saving them download. I haven't used CD cracks since the 90's and very early 00's. Also even Xbox and PS3 require installations of games if you are playing online and the system requires regular updates to install so get your facts right.
@Imperiacommando This is SO true.
Also, nobody disagrees that PC's are better for gaming than consoles, i have both a fully equipped xbox360 slim with every accessory available even the wireless microphone for karaoke nights, and a powerfull PC, YES the PC has better quality BY FAR these days, BUT, the xbox is 7 years old, and costs 200$ :P, you can't compare a PS3 or an Xbox with a 2012-13 PC, unless you are an idiot or under 15. Compare a 2006 xbox360 Fat with a 2006 PC.... The most fun i can have is when i throw karaoke nights or kinect games with my friends at my home. It's all about the needs each person has.
@Imperiacommando @GSGuy321 @uchihasilver I'm not trying to be rude, but seriously. Do you even analyze the stuff you write? First, it's established that you don't need a $800 PC. Second, you say hold out for "next-gen" consoles? The only one coming out is the WiiU and that is not what I call next gen, the hardware is just slightly better than the PS3 or Xbox360, you wrote of not wasting unnecessary money, guess what you'll be doing by shelling out $300 ish bucks for almost the same hardware and a... touchscreen controller! Third, you keep saying the PC is a temporary better product!... I won't even bother on explaining the many uses you can get out of a PC vs a console. Here's a hint though... a freaking job!
@Imperiacommando @The_Beanster It's a fair argument that some PC players go to far in stressing graphics. That is true. Gameplay is most important. Having said that, your argument about exclusivity is a non-issue. The days of exclusivity are over. Exclusive games are not that important and not worth the price of buying a console.
I've not been arguing that everyone should go spend their money to get the better graphics. I've been refuting a very specific thing: your baseless and nonsensical argument that graphical differences are minor and/or not noticeable and definitely not worth the cost when comparing a PC to a console.
You don't seem to recognize that... maybe lrn2read?
Let me give you an object lesson. It's not perfect, as identical screencaps don't exist and it can't show graphical differences which would only be obvious when in motion, but here's the type of thing you are looking at when you play BF3 on PS3:
Notice anything? Low resolution, jaggies, and blurry everything.
Now, here's what an $800 PC will look like:
Notice that? Double the resolution, almost no jaggies, much less blurry.
And on a very high end PC ($1500 or more):
Even more resolution for even fewer jaggies and even more detail in the image.
Rain droplets are only part of the story. The bigger story is the resolution and framerate increases. There are also more noticeable graphical settings than raindrop quality which can be enabled on PC like AA or DX11 features (Tesselation is the most marketed/easiest to spot).
You are right that you get the same game regardless of platform (though with BF3 in particular, the increase to 64-man multiplayer makes a big gameplay difference).
The fact is that when building a PC, you get roughly a proportional graphical increase compared to a console. For a little over 2x the money, you get a little over 2x the graphical experience.
Graphics obviously don't matter to you, but your attempt(s) to deny or minimize the difference between PC and console graphics are completely baseless. You started that argument here, and you can't handle the fact that you're wrong and getting embarrassed like the little troll you are.
@Imperiacommando I should also mention that you still have yet to offer ANY defense of your original argument.
Go troll somewhere else. You're just embarrassing yourself here.
"Cost effectivity" is a nonsensical phrase, by the way. Also, there's a difference between "your" and "you're".
By the way, you are now attempting to make the argument that a $3000+ TV makes a BIGGER difference in experience and benefit (compared to, let's say a $1000 TV), than an $800 PC vs a $250 console. That makes NO sense at all. None. Zip. Zilch.
Now all you're showing is that you don't have an internally consistent argument. Please go get another pizza and get out.
I don't think you get it... an $800 PC delivers graphics FAR superior to consoles - 2x or more resolution, higher settings, higher framerate. You started this entire thing off by making the point that a PC doesn't give you much of an improvement in terms of visuals, and that's just flat out wrong... you haven't even tried to defend your argument (repeatedly asserting a statement is NOT the same as defending it)
Also, it makes no sense that you find $800 for a PC to be a big money investment when you have no problem dropping $3k+ on an 80" TV... unless of course you're just a little kiddo playing on mommy and daddy's TV (which would also explain your inability to actually make and defend an argument).
Each console has some exclusives that don't show up on PC. OK, fine, but that doesn't mean much - each console has exclusives that other consoles don't get. The PC has exclusives as well (RTS games and MMOs). Which exclusives matter to you is just a matter of your gaming preference... the PC gets the definitive versions of all multiplatform games and you can get them much cheaper on PC if you just wait a couple months for a steam sale.
Every single thing you post shows that you're just a console noobie who doesn't know what he's talking about at all.
@Lpedraja2002 @uchihasilver @Imperiacommando that's a good point, I had to replace both my ps3 and Xbox due to malfunctions.. Gave up on consoles about 2 years ago. Just way to restrictive. And always at the mercy of the company's overlords.
@texuspete00 That was great. Thanks for the laugh!
Since I suppose significant is always up to opinion, here is what the community thinks.
Glad you guys took the time to call this dude out. He's been posting in this topic quite frequently with this crap. 1080p is already 2x what PS3/360 is doing. Along with better textures and the pop to actually AA stuff more than 2x and get rid of the jaggies. If you can call that insignificant, then it about sums up the main differences in the straight (bad) ports. Then you take a game like BF3 (an example he actually used HA!) where the PC version actually gets some love (ie pushed), and it blows the doors off the console game.
@Imperiacommando @_Roo_ Mate, if you have an 80" TV which usually retail for about $3,500 to $4,000 I don't know why the hell you're complaining about $800 for PC. Do yourself a favor and build yourself a high end gaming PC to really take advantage of that TV. You like playing BF3? Imagine playing it with 64 players , with the sound quality on war tapes (which is out of this world) on a 5.1 surround sound setup and maxed out graphics which look like way better than in consoles (check out any review and you'll see).
@uchihasilver @Imperiacommando @GSGuy321 Consider the early adopters (like my friends) of the PS3 and Xbox 360, let's put both prices at $300 to be fair. Every person I now that was an early adopter eventually needed to buy another console since the 360 suffered from the RLOD and the PS3 from the YLOD. So put another $300 on the price. Now add $60 for every freaking game out there or $40 ( at best when used). You can see how it's getting expensive with each game. Add $10 to $15 from digital downloads both on the PS3 and Xbox and add a membership fee for the xbox360 if you want to get online use out of it. I will take the TV out of the final price since most houses already have one.
Now for the PC, $500 to $600 at best, if you're smart building it. Games usually retail for $50 though lately most have been $60. But, consider Steam where you can get crazy stupid deals for the price of value menu food and.... well I don't need to continue, I think I made my point.
@Imperiacommando You're the one who started the argument about graphics yet know you take it back? You're just proving what a fool you are every time you comment, clearly you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to PC assembly or graphics.
Want something fun to consider? Add 2x the price of a console for early adopters of the PS3 and Xbox360. Every friend I've had that owned an Xbox360 or Ps3 when it came out eventually needed to buy another console since every PS3 eventually suffered from the YLOD and the Xbox360 from the RROD and that is a proven fact. My PC for instance has Lifetime warranty on almost all of its components and I've only needed to replace 1 or two parts and it only cost shipping, about $40 total and I've been using this rig since the end of 2007.
PC gaming is cheaper than consoles. You just have to know what hardware to choose from, when and where to buy it. Same thing for games, Steam has made great gaming possible even for cheap bastards like me.
So it's now arrogant and selfish to make corrections to nonsensical facts or arguments? Huh?
And it's "underestimating" someone when you see them making substance-less arguments that they can't defend and so you call them out as being a noob?
What the heck are you smoking?
It's more like you're the reason that console gamers get a bad name.
That's an issue of game choice and doesn't have anything more to do with PC vs console than it does with PS3 vs Xbox 360.
Your original point has been shown pretty clearly to be irrelevant, as shown by your inability (now several times) to defend it.
Like I said... you're a console noob. That doesn't mean that consoles are bad or inferior to PC, it just means that you're a little noobie who doesn't know enough to make any comments about PC gaming.
@Imperiacommando I use my PS3 to watch Blue Rays on the big screen in the living room.
It also takes me about 5 minutes to disconnect my PC HDMI cable from my 27" monitor and connect my PC to the big screen in the living room if I feel the desire to play games on the big screen (in true 1080P.) So what is your point again?
lolwut? You like playing BF3 at 720p on a huge, multi-thousand-dollar TV? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.
I prefer playing BF3 on my 27" monitor with 4x that resolution and 2x your framerate and far superior graphical settings... and my PC+ monitor probably cost less than your TV + console.
@Imperiacommando I usually don't like being a Troll but when I read
'Bf3 for ps3 and its look good compared wit PC version, not very far behind.'
I just had to reply: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
@Imperiacommando What else do you want me to do other than call you a console noob when YOU bring up a comparison between PC and console hardware, saying that an $800 PC gives you "slightly better" visuals?
Then, when I call you out on that nonsense, you have no answer other than to cry foul at a comparison between a 2012 PC and current consoles... a comparison YOU started.
And this doesn't even address your nonsense about hardware compatibility with games (lolwut?) or the idea of PC games being a big extra cost (ever heard of Steam sales??? PC games are the cheapest if you are willing to not buy them on day 1 release).
How does me pointing out that your claims are nonsense make me a "hatter"?
The fact is that many people like yourself have nonsensical misconceptions of PC gaming, and you need to get your facts straightened out.
I'm not saying anything about games being all graphics. I'm not even saying the PC has better games.
I'm saying that you are spouting off a bunch of nonsense about the supposed expense of PC gaming and the supposed lack of a graphical difference between PC and console.
Learn to read.
No, you say "you build a 800 usd PC for something slighly better visual at present moment"
And that's just wrong. Get out of here and go waggle your Wii with the other kiddies.