The graphs make me sad. It's the equivalent of "No child left behind" but for video games.
Poor Wii U.
The PC is the most powerful
Well no fucking shit
A have a friend who's brother is your standard 13 year old squeaker on XBL.
Most of the time he's an all right guy, but it's a little pathetic to see him try to compare ARMA3 to BF4.
It's a shame that people tend to think of PCs as either a downgrade or a solid equal to consoles. Especially when it can be so hard to persuade them otherwise.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41024643]A have a friend who's brother is your standard 13 year old squeaker on XBL.
Most of the time he's an all right guy, but it's a little pathetic to see him try to compare ARMA3 to BF4.
It's a shame that people tend to think of PCs as either a downgrade or a solid equal to consoles. Especially when it can be so hard to persuade them otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Also people stuck in the mindset of 'getting a PC is pointless because in 1 year its gonna be outdated', no idea how many times I have had to tell people thats a load of rubbish, and that you could get a system way more powerful than next gen consoles for £500-700 now and it would last you a good 3-5 years without needing any kind of upgrade.
While it's true I bet this wouldn't be said if Nvidia had got their parts in either the PS4 or XBOne
I like the consoles and the whole lets play together on my HD screen with the good old controllers but the damn consoles are constantly putting us on hold on graphics advancement.
[QUOTE=PieClock;41024968]While it's true I bet this wouldn't be said if Nvidia had got their parts in either the PS4 or XBOne[/QUOTE]
Of course, it's all marketing and positioning since they're being left behind in this console generation.
These platform wars really need to stop. Just let everyone do what the fuck they like and let's get on with our lives.
[QUOTE=Cushie;41024841]Also people stuck in the mindset of 'getting a PC is pointless because in 1 year its gonna be outdated', no idea how many times I have had to tell people thats a load of rubbish, and that you could get a system way more powerful than next gen consoles for £500-700 now and it would last you a good 3-5 years without needing any kind of upgrade.[/QUOTE]
If you're willing to invest enough you could survive just about two console generations.
Well considering AMD's now in both the consoles it's sort of obvious they'd be on the PC team
no shit
[QUOTE=nehkz;41025267]These platform wars really need to stop. Just let everyone do what the fuck they like and let's get on with our lives.[/QUOTE]
Competition is great for the industry.
[QUOTE=DigitalySane;41025356]If you're willing to invest enough you could survive just about two console generations.[/QUOTE]
So, 14 years? How about no. Let's get realistic here, you are going to need some upgrades every 4 years or so if you want to play all the latest games. If not for other reasons it's simply because developers tend to drop support for older hardware because it would be kind of a hassle to make sure everything runs properly over 5+ generations of hardware, even though the old hardware is still powerful enough compared to consoles. Many games these days require DX10, some even DX11, just to run. So a machine with a core 2 duo and a radeon x1950 or geforce 7900 won't be any good today even if it was high end 7 years ago and is still on par with the consoles.
[QUOTE=pebkac;41032127]So, 14 years? How about no. Let's get realistic here, you are going to need some upgrades every 4 years or so if you want to play all the latest games. If not for other reasons it's simply because developers tend to drop support for older hardware because it would be kind of a hassle to make sure everything runs properly over 5+ generations of hardware, even though the old hardware is still powerful enough compared to consoles. Many games these days require DX10, some even DX11, just to run. So a machine with a core 2 duo and a radeon x1950 or geforce 7900 won't be any good today even if it was high end 7 years ago and is still on par with the consoles.[/QUOTE]
8800 and 3870 would That was at the start of last gen. Both will suffice for Low-spec 30 FPS gaming 1080p for another two years. After that. It's 720p allaway.
You're talking about all-high to all-max 1080p+ gaming here. My computer was bought this year and i'll have it last til at least middle of next gen easily. By then it'll be bordering on min-spec. my GPU is 2.3 TFlops where the PS4 is 1.84 Tflops. If nothing else. i'll do fine enough at low, even without all the optimization that the console gets.
IT can be done with a bit of smart purchases. You do know that Geforce 7900 WILL play most DX10/11 games right. It just won't tessellate/anti-alias and whatever else that line of GPU was missing.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;41032308]8800 and 3870 would That was at the start of last gen. Both will suffice for Low-spec 30 FPS gaming 1080p for another two years. After that. It's 720p allaway.
You're talking about all-high to all-max 1080p+ gaming here. My computer was bought this year and i'll have it last til at least middle of next gen easily. By then it'll be bordering on min-spec. my GPU is 2.3 TFlops where the PS4 is 1.84 Tflops. If nothing else. i'll do fine enough at low, even without all the optimization that the console gets.
IT can be done with a bit of smart purchases. You do know that Geforce 7900 WILL play most DX10/11 games right. It just won't tessellate/anti-alias and whatever else that line of GPU was missing.[/QUOTE]
The 8800GTX by itself cost as much as a whole console when it was released, the 8800GT and 3870 while way more affordable, were released like a whole year after that. Anything below Radeon HD 2000 series and Geforce 8000 series simply doesn't support DX10 and won't run games that require it. Look at what happened a few years ago with Just Cause 2, many people bought it despite the clear warnings that it requires DX10 and weren't able to run it.
The biggest contribution of the new generation of consoles for PC gaming is that they'll drastically increase the minimum requirements for games, which is a good thing. 8GB of RAM being used optimally to create huge seamless worlds? Awesome.
Games are actually gonna utilise 64bit and multiple cores properly now. Gonna be fucking awesome.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;41032308]8800 and 3870 would That was at the start of last gen. Both will suffice for Low-spec 30 FPS gaming 1080p for another two years. After that. It's 720p allaway.
You're talking about all-high to all-max 1080p+ gaming here. My computer was bought this year and i'll have it last til at least middle of next gen easily. By then it'll be bordering on min-spec. my GPU is 2.3 TFlops where the PS4 is 1.84 Tflops. If nothing else. i'll do fine enough at low, even without all the optimization that the console gets.
IT can be done with a bit of smart purchases. You do know that Geforce 7900 WILL play most DX10/11 games right. It just won't tessellate/anti-alias and whatever else that line of GPU was missing.[/QUOTE]
Considering the 7900 series was Dx9? No.
That means no BF3, BF4, AC3, Bioshock Infinite, BLOPS 2, Crysis 3, GRID 2, Hitman:A, Sleeping Dogs, Sniper Elite V2, Arma 3, Mirror's Edge 2, Saints Row 4, the list goes on.
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41033828]Games are actually gonna utilise 64bit and multiple cores properly now. Gonna be fucking awesome.[/QUOTE]
all of the crysis games already did
it doesn't make that big of an impact in performance
[QUOTE=Odellus;41038286]all of the crysis games already did
it doesn't make that big of an impact in performance[/QUOTE]
Wait... I thought Crysis 1 was the only game that came with a 64-bit binary
Warhead, Wars, 2, and 3 only shipped with 32-bit binaries if I recall correctly. Except the leaked version of C2 but it was buggy as shit...
[QUOTE=Cushie;41024841]Also people stuck in the mindset of 'getting a PC is pointless because in 1 year its gonna be outdated', no idea how many times I have had to tell people thats a load of rubbish, and that you could get a system way more powerful than next gen consoles for £500-700 now and it would last you a good 3-5 years without needing any kind of upgrade.[/QUOTE]
I have a GTX 260 and a E6650 and I can run Arma III at medium settings at 40 FPS.
You don't need that great of a PC to run games unless you want to fully max everything out with texture mods and stuff.
On the brightside, even if we can't run a game at max settings, it will still look great right?
[QUOTE=nehkz;41025267]These platform wars really need to stop. Just let everyone do what the fuck they like and let's get on with our lives.[/QUOTE]
That might work for other things but unfortunately the success of consoles directly impacts PC gaming. Numerous companies make exclusives for consoles to benefit solely that company instead of having the game across all platforms. Not to mention brand loyalty and ignorance (not insulting anyone) also increases the lifespan of consoles because even if someones xbox 360 redrings 3 times, they're going to get a 4th because it's xbox (and why make a new console if your current one is still selling strong?), thus holding back developers who are forced to work on older technology which means when (or if) a PC port comes out for game X, it's not going to meet standards and more than likely it's going to be a mediocre port.
I know it's still a lot more complicated than that but the "why can't we all get along" kind of thing just doesn't work. Of course theres no excuse for the pcgaming master race or elite COD fanboyism that is a plague of all platforms.
it's pretty funny how they need a graph to show that the PC is the most powerful platform
[QUOTE=pebkac;41032127]So, 14 years? How about no. Let's get realistic here, [B]you are going to need some upgrades every 4 years or so if you want to play all the latest games.[/B] If not for other reasons it's simply because developers tend to drop support for older hardware because it would be kind of a hassle to make sure everything runs properly over 5+ generations of hardware, even though the old hardware is still powerful enough compared to consoles. Many games these days require DX10, some even DX11, just to run. So a machine with a core 2 duo and a radeon x1950 or geforce 7900 won't be any good today even if it was high end 7 years ago and is still on par with the consoles.[/QUOTE]
ugh no. 1080p max settings constant 60 fps? sure, but [I]playing[/I] no
[editline]15th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Odellus;41038286]all of the crysis games already did
it doesn't make that big of an impact in performance[/QUOTE]
it's not like Crysis 1 and Warhead were designed for 64 bit and only 64bit
Yeah, PCs beat consoles in terms of raw power. But to get that console destroying power, costs more money and becomes outdated in like four years.
Not hatin'. I plan on switching to PC gaming myself. But when it comes to PC gaming, it takes money to achieve high end performance.
[QUOTE=nehkz;41025267]These platform wars really need to stop. Just let everyone do what the fuck they like and let's get on with our lives.[/QUOTE]
The deathmatch is what keeps gaming machines innovative and away from stagnation.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;41043322]ugh no. 1080p max settings constant 60 fps? sure, but [I]playing[/I] no
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you'd need to build a top of the line multi GPU system if you want[B] everything[/B] to run at 60fps at max settings 4 years into the future, and even that is questionable.
But let me rephrase it: If you want to be able to play 99% of the games, 7 years old hardware will do (8800GTX, the first DX10 GPU, came out in 2006), but that would mean a very high end system at the time. If you want to play ALL games, more than 4 years old hardware won't suffice (Radeon 5870, the first DX11 GPU, came out in 2009).
If you have anything older than 7 years, you're going to be missing out on many games that require DX10.
If you are one of those people who actually builds a top of the line system, you probably don't do it to be future proof so you can still play games on it 6 years later, you do it because you want to always have the best possible system available. Otherwise it makes way more sense to build a system that's half the price and replace it every 3 or 4 years or continually upgrade it when it becomes necessary.
So please, let's stop pretending that building a future proof PC that's going to last a whole console generation is actually a sensible thing to do. The reality is that you simply will need to upgrade every now and then.
[QUOTE=pebkac;41043701]
So please, let's stop pretending that building a future proof PC that's going to last a whole console generation is actually a sensible thing to do. The reality is that you simply will need to upgrade every now and then.[/QUOTE]
This was never about sensible. Just about whether it was smarter than buying a goddamn new PC every 4 years. I know i sure as hell won't. I'll just be getting another 670 in a year and i'll lean back for.... ever. By then, my specs will be fine for half-way into next-gen. Especially because i got the 4GB version of the 670. There's literally nothing holding me back from keeping this computer longer than this console gen will last.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
