Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2010-01-19 07:10:44
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|6865|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Sisco10 wrote:

Sydney wrote:

gameaddict wrote:


There won't be a PC beta, so far i know the beta is PS3 exclusive.
PC beta has been announced, will start late january, but if you preorder from some "participating retailers" you get in the beta 1 week earlier than the rest.
play.com participates

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/391/bc2.jpg
2010-01-19 10:32:23
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6603|SE London

DrunkFace wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Finray wrote:


Show me a console that can perform as good as a pc of the same price.

We spend more on computers, but its justified because they perform better.
Uh - any of them.

Consoles perform more efficiently for the price you pay. Can you show me a 250 PC that can play GTA4 in 1080p (bearing in mind that about £70 of that will be OS cost, the consoles come with an OS that allows you to play the games already)?
Sorry went a little over budget...


Edit: Or did I, just noticed you said £... £250 = US$408
Fuck, still got $125 spare to buy a stupid operating system and GTA4.

But then so would an Xbox with a HD.

And I got a free game, a DVD burner and a much bigger HD.

http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/10538/computer.JPG
No - £250. Not $408 - that's different entirely.

You're also missing a PSU.

And if you think that system will play GTA4 in 1080p as well as an xbox or PS3, well, then you're an idiot.
2010-01-19 10:37:50
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black

Bertster7 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Uh - any of them.

Consoles perform more efficiently for the price you pay. Can you show me a 250 PC that can play GTA4 in 1080p (bearing in mind that about £70 of that will be OS cost, the consoles come with an OS that allows you to play the games already)?
Sorry went a little over budget...


Edit: Or did I, just noticed you said £... £250 = US$408
Fuck, still got $125 spare to buy a stupid operating system and GTA4.

But then so would an Xbox with a HD.

And I got a free game, a DVD burner and a much bigger HD.

http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/10538/computer.JPG
No - £250. Not $408 - that's different entirely.

You're also missing a PSU.

And if you think that system will play GTA4 in 1080p as well as an xbox or PS3, well, then you're an idiot.
Playing GTA IV at a decent frame rate has nothing to do with consoles being better than PCs, it has everything to do with the game being a completely unoptimised copypaste POS for PC. Any game that is actually optimised for both platforms, a PC will be able to blow the XBox out the water.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 10:40:31
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6603|SE London

Finray wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Sorry went a little over budget...


Edit: Or did I, just noticed you said £... £250 = US$408
Fuck, still got $125 spare to buy a stupid operating system and GTA4.

But then so would an Xbox with a HD.

And I got a free game, a DVD burner and a much bigger HD.

http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/10538/computer.JPG
No - £250. Not $408 - that's different entirely.

You're also missing a PSU.

And if you think that system will play GTA4 in 1080p as well as an xbox or PS3, well, then you're an idiot.
Playing GTA IV at a decent frame rate has nothing to do with consoles being better than PCs, it has everything to do with the game being a completely unoptimised copypaste POS for PC. Any game that is actually optimised for both platforms, a PC will be able to blow the XBox out the water.
That's simply not true.

Completely baseless nonsense. Consoles can be optimised much better for games because the architecture is all geared towards that. They are more efficient at what they do, but far more limited in what they can do.

Which games run better on PC than on consoles then? Not play better, run better - we're talking about the processing capabilites of the hardware here.

You get far more bang for your buck with a console.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-19 10:42:55)

2010-01-19 10:43:17
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|6865|Reykjavík, Iceland.
As much as I hate consoles, Bertster is right finny.
2010-01-19 10:43:58
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black

Bertster7 wrote:

That's simply not true.

Completely baseless nonsense. Consoles can be optimised much better for games because the architecture is all geared towards that. They are more efficient at what they do, but far more limited in what they can do.
Optimisation is irrelevant, the original point was, all things being equal, including cost, a PC would be better than a console.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 10:45:31
Kimmmmmmmmmmmm
©
+1,811|6018
well we are not buying cd's or dvd's anymore.. the 60$ price tag cant be that bad
2010-01-19 10:51:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6603|SE London

Finray wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's simply not true.

Completely baseless nonsense. Consoles can be optimised much better for games because the architecture is all geared towards that. They are more efficient at what they do, but far more limited in what they can do.
Optimisation is irrelevant, the original point was, all things being equal, including cost, a PC would be better than a console.
You said:

Finray wrote:

Show me a console that can perform as good as a pc of the same price.
Both the consoles that are designed for moderately high performance, the Xbox and the PS3 perform better than PCs of the same price.

Being able to just about buy a computer that will play these games at 15fps at comparative resolutions is not the same as having a system that will play the game properly.


And you're the one who brought the whole optimisation thing into it anyway.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-19 10:52:14)

2010-01-19 10:53:58
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black
Okay, for future reference, I shall always add obvious points I thought people would assume anyway in my statements.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 10:58:33
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black
Fyi, Bert, that PC drunkface posted is more than enough to play MW2 maxed out at over 60FPS, and an XBox only does MW2 at 60 FPS, and that's without AA.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 10:59:55
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6603|SE London

Finray wrote:

Fyi, Bert, that PC drunkface posted is more than enough to play MW2 maxed out at over 60FPS, and an XBox only does MW2 at 60 FPS, and that's without AA.
Bollocks it is.
2010-01-19 11:02:40
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black
Fraid so.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 11:05:36
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6603|SE London

Finray wrote:

Fraid so.
No, it really isn't.

It might hit a max of 60fps, but no way will it get 60fps average.
2010-01-19 11:08:28
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black

Bertster7 wrote:

Finray wrote:

Fraid so.
No, it really isn't.

It might hit a max of 60fps, but no way will it get 60fps average.
Backatcha with the XBox/PS3.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 11:11:39
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6603|SE London

Finray wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Finray wrote:

Fraid so.
No, it really isn't.

It might hit a max of 60fps, but no way will it get 60fps average.
Backatcha with the XBox/PS3.
Not at all. They have very consistent framerates.

Average framerate for the 4650 for COD4@1080p is around 30fps (29 - accounting for AA makes that more like high 30s) - that's a long way from 60 (I couldn't find any appropriate benchmarks for MW2).

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-19 11:14:41)

2010-01-19 11:14:31
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black
Any benchmarks of FPS on a console? I can assure you they're constantly below 60 FPS. Also keep in mind complete lack of anti aliasing on consoles, were the benchmarks done with AA?
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 11:17:25
gameaddict
Member
+35|6702|let op drempels
I like both, buuuut tbh current consoles can really only be enjoyed with a nice big HD tv adding to the costs also.
2010-01-19 11:28:41
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6603|SE London

Finray wrote:

Any benchmarks of FPS on a console? I can assure you they're constantly below 60 FPS. Also keep in mind complete lack of anti aliasing on consoles, were the benchmarks done with AA?
Depends on the game. COD4 runs at 60fps. Dips below that a bit on Xbox, not on PS3 - though some games do (GT5 gets a min frame rate of 52fps - source Digital Foundry). On PS3 it also has MSAA on.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-19 11:31:43)

2010-01-19 11:47:47
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6244|teh FIN-land

gameaddict wrote:

I like both, buuuut tbh current consoles can really only be enjoyed with a nice big HD tv adding to the costs also.
true...I bought an HD TV specifically for my consoles
2010-01-19 17:06:32
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6793|PNW

Miggle wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Build me a console which can play crysis...
That still doesn't take away from the fact that it took/takes an expensive PC to play Crysis and that consoles have a far longer lifespan for new titles than PC's. It's simply a more cost-effective gaming solution, even if not my preferred one.
I built my computer 2 years ago for just under $1000 and it still easily maxes out pretty much anything but GTA4 at 1920x1080. I don't expect to have to upgrade it until long after the next generation of consoles comes out, although I probably will upgrade before then because I enjoy it.

It's not difficult to make a computer that will outlast consoles, it seems that the main complaint is that PCs can be upgraded, and as such everyone seems to think they have to.
I could buy a Wii, a PS3 and an XBOX 360 for under your $1000 and play all their games on max.

I've been working on these things since the 80's, and I used to think that a PC's primary advantage was being able to upgrade it. Nowadays, technology advances so fast that legacy hardware becomes difficult to find and can be overpriced (remember how expensive AGP cards were compared to their PCIe equivalents?), not to mention that if your upgrade is too good, other aspects of your computer will bog it down. After awhile, you'll have upgraded the thing to a value equal to that of a NEW PC, without the performance of a new PC. No, the best way to go is to just to build from scratch every 3-5 years or so.

Again, PC's are the most expensive option for gaming. Mods can make it rewarding, but I doubt they'll hold a monopoly on that forever.

Wallpaper wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

That still doesn't take away from the fact that it took/takes an expensive PC to play Crysis and that consoles have a far longer lifespan for new titles than PC's. It's simply a more cost-effective gaming solution, even if not my preferred one.
As I said one page back, you only need an expensive PC to play Crysis maxed out. To play it on settings equivalent to what consoles will be playing it at when crysis 2 comes out, you dont need a particularly beefy computer.

Computers have the same longevity, but only if youre willing to have the same mediocre graphics as consoles get as they age. To play the latest and greatest at the maximum settings of course youll have to upgrade
The same aging law applies to PC economics. Honestly, a great deal of people are playing with mediocre graphics on their PC because they simply don't have the performance to raise their games to a level that looks like something from a 360 or PS3. Sure, you can upgrade a PC, but that's a merry, expensive jog down a dead-end of bottlenecks.

Being both a PC and a console gamer, I can really understand the price appeal of a console over a gaming PC, though my income doesn't necessarily mean I have to worry about it myself.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-01-19 17:11:19)

2010-01-19 18:09:36
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5810|Catherine Black
So you'd rather have a graphical potential that is decided by Microsoft rather than what you put your money into yourself?

(And I ROFL at your "looks like something from a 360/PS3")
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
2010-01-19 19:44:27
Miggle
FUCK UBISOFT
+1,411|6763|FUCK UBISOFT

for the record, the 360 doesn't play GTA4 at 1080p, it plays it at 720p upscaled to 1080p.
https://i.imgur.com/86fodNE.png
2010-01-19 20:37:17
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6793|PNW

Guys, this is starting to veer way off-topic from $59 PC games subject. My original point was that on the customers' end, the $10 we save each PC game that is $49 vs a console's $59 we pay for every bit of the way with hardware price. I'm getting sucked into a PC vs console war (somewhat willingly, I admit), so I'm going to do my best to clear a few things up in a single post, then throw in the towel.

Finray wrote:

So you'd rather have a graphical potential that is decided by Microsoft rather than what you put your money into yourself?

(And I ROFL at your "looks like something from a 360/PS3")
No, I'd rather Microsoft decide how to wipe my ass.

...of course not! Putting words in my mouth isn't going to work. Did I not say that I play both PC and console? Here's what you can get when you play Company of Heroes on the PC: "xxxx's settings are too high and are lagging the game." Look, I'm going to say this one more time: I know the advantages and disadvantages of either side of the PC vs console piss-fight. I preeeeeferrrr the PC myself; I love mods, I love the keyboard and mouse, I love being able to tweak out the game settings, but I am also willing to admit that it isn't, and doesn't have to be, everyone's cup of tea. I've been in and out of the business and advising friends, relatives and colleagues for years through their apparent exhaustion and frustration with PC gaming issues.

See, the console does hold advantages over the PC in certain areas, and it's far cheaper to spend $300 on a new console every cycle than it is to keep up with mid-high PC builds every few years. If you're not technically savvy, you don't have to stress out about whether or not your 1:1 billionth unique and half-antiquated PC build will be able to run that new game coming out, because it was designed for your console. If you can't at least see that appeal along with the fact that they do have some solid games going for them, then you're blind.

To repeat myself, not everyone has the money to or wants to invest $1-2k into a new PC every few years. Properly handled by the developers, a game made for the PS3 or 360 can look incredible in comparison to, say, an average joe's 2003 PC running Oblivion on low at a bench-busting 13 FPS. If he doesn't have a particular PC exclusive he wants to play, then this is where consoles step in. And the more you scoff at people for not knowing how to overclock every last ounce of copper-melting performance out of their rigs (plus all the "whoops, you need a dual core CPU to run this game; oh, sorry, your motherboard doesn't have the right socket, you need to upgrade too; oh, no! your new motherboard also needs new RAM; oh god, you spent all that money when you could've just bought a new computer" etc.), the more you alienate yourself from the expanding community and come off looking like an elite douche.

Miggle wrote:

for the record, the 360 doesn't play GTA4 at 1080p, it plays it at 720p upscaled to 1080p.
Which is really difficult to notice unless you're nose is pressed against your screen.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-01-19 20:38:27)

2010-01-22 18:40:30
TimmmmaaaaH
Damn, I... had something for this
+725|6461|Brisbane, Australia

The thing is...at least on the PS3, framerates are never as high as a good PC. And the resolution, therefore overall fidelity, is lower at the same time.

There is no comparison between console graphical quality and performance and PC. At least this far into the lifetime of the consoles.

edit:

People making bad choices in regard to PC hardware is not a good reason against it.

Last edited by TimmmmaaaaH (2010-01-22 18:45:17)

https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png
2010-01-23 03:14:00
CammRobb
Banned
+1,510|6152|Carnoustie MASSIF

Bertster7 wrote:

Finray wrote:

Any benchmarks of FPS on a console? I can assure you they're constantly below 60 FPS. Also keep in mind complete lack of anti aliasing on consoles, were the benchmarks done with AA?
Depends on the game. COD4 runs at 60fps. Dips below that a bit on Xbox, not on PS3 - though some games do (GT5 gets a min frame rate of 52fps - source Digital Foundry). On PS3 it also has MSAA on.
yeah, but to achieve an average frame-rate of that on COD4 the graphics are pegged back a notch or two in the more gfx intensive maps. You don't need to do that with PC.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard