Console / PC Gaming

[tommyxx516]

I've read countless console vs. pc threads all over the web and I'm wondering if anyone has bothered to look at the big picture.

Performance wise, no one can say their PC is capable of doing what the next generation consoles (xbox3 and ps3) can do - not even if they were to build a totally new computer from scratch at the end of 2005.

You'll need a multicore CPU ($500), top of the line video card, either ATI's R520 or Nvidia's G7 ($500), add in the physic card ($300) and lots of RAM (I settle for 2 Gigs - $200). Total comes in at $1500. If you want a nice 19 inch LCD to go with that, add in another $300-400. It adds up.

The Unreal Engine 3 will be available on the Xbox360, PS3, and the PC games. According to Epic (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/05...m_sweeney_ue3/), you'll be able to run the Unreal Engine 3 at 1024x768 with all the eye candy on using either a GeForce 6800 Ultra or Radeon 850XT. Most of you don't have either video cards. By the end of the year, these 2 video cards will hopefully drop in price to maybe $300 - the same price as if you were to buy the new console. The next generation systems can run these games at 720p (1280x768), 1080i (1920x1080), and PS3 1080p (1920x1080p).

Yes I can already hear people saying "well i dont have money to buy an HDTV." You know what? If you got money to build yourself a new gaming rig, new multicore CPU and a high end video card, you just bought yourself a $1000 big widescreen HDTV to enjoy (and yes, once you go HDTV, you won't go back).

If you put the dollar amount aside, and just look at the technology at hand, the xbox360 and PS3 is still superior to the pc in many perspectives. The 3-d graphics are at a level where its almost cgi/cinematic quality, the new focus is on physics. Even with the new Physics PPU and multicoreCPU coming out for the PC at the end of this year, its still far behind the consoles. A high end Pentium4@ 3.2 GHz can process 8 GFLOPS. The Xbox CPU can process 115 with a system total of 1 TFLOPS; PS3's Cell CPU at 218 GFLOPS with a system total of 2 TFLOPS. Add in the fact that the bandwidth for these consoles are far faster than the PC. Neither the CPU nor the GPU are left "standing still" waiting for more data. This type of bandwidth performance is the bottleneck for the PC and neither AMD or Intel have plans in introducing such a major facelift for the PC architecture - even with their multicore CPUs.

Lets face it, its about the games, and noone has more variety in games than consoles. FPS are great for the PC, but that argument would change now that you could use a keyboard/mouse and play online on these new consoles. Its hard to justify spending $1500+ on a new gaming rig when I could get the full experience (the way its meant to be seen) from a $300 console.

For all those who are asking how I know these consoles will cost $300. When the PS1 and PS2 came out in Japan, it was priced $400 but the price was dropped to $300 in the U.S. And for all those question how they can have such a powerful combination of technology and sell it at such a "low price," its because they always sell each unit at a lost. Sony and Microsoft were losing $150/unit the first year the PS2/Xbox was released, which adds to millions per week and they slowly gain the money back through licensing the games.

Did I miss anything?

[Nemeliza]

You cant compare the XBOX or PS3 arcitecture to that of a PC as they are built for totally different reasons. Games consoles are just that - this allows their designers to create a completely new arcitecture/system that is SPECIFICALLY designed from the ground up for ONE sole core purpose....TO PLAY GAMES.

PC's are built to cater for a MUCH wider range of uses therefore have to be able to handle a large array of applications CONCURRENTLY, Multitasking, memory management etc is completely different on a PC than it is on a games console. There are much larger overheads involved in PC arcitecture than there would be in the sole bespoke design of a games console.

And as for cost, PC's cater for a vast audience, Games consoles live on game players alone, therefore the PC component manufacturers do not need to subsidise the cost of components like the games consoles designers.

your comparing 2 things that are of a different class.

You can compare the concept of gaming, the games the graphics the controls the playability etc but you cant compare the console hardware to the PC hardware as they are never meant to directly compete.

[jonneymendoza]

and i already made a thread for this type of topic so why make another?

[oralpain]

Consoles simply don't have the games I like to play. If I could only use one, I would take a 5 year old PC over any current or soon to be console.

I use more than games, and the games I do use, I do more than just play them. I record videos of them with FRAPs, I mod/make new content for them, ect. I can't do much of this on any console.

[TheBuZZard]

and i already made a thread for this type of topic so why make another?

Eveyrbody hates you and you smell a bit funny.

But I did make most of the same points as tommyxx516 in your thread but with less dollars.

[autopilot]

Performance wise, no one can say their PC is capable of doing what the next generation consoles (xbox3 and ps3) can do - not even if they were to build a totally new computer from scratch at the end of 2005.

So you have actually played on some of these new consoles, and not just seen the carfully sellected promotional screenshots like the rest of us? Wow, you lucky boy

By the way, what the life expectancy of a console? 1, 2... 5 years?

Yes I can already hear people saying "well i dont have money to buy an HDTV." You know what? If you got money to build yourself a new gaming rig, new multicore CPU and a high end video card, you just bought yourself a $1000 big widescreen HDTV to enjoy (and yes, once you go HDTV, you won't go back).

What a excellent point! I never thought of that! I will spend £1000 on a system that ONLY playes games and DVD's. Stupid me.. I was going to spend £1000 on a Machine that can play games, play DVD's. browse the net PROPERLY, edit video, make MP3's, burn CD's and DVD's, email PROPERLY, make music, build websites, edit photo's, store photo's, desktop publishing, CAD, program applications (like new console games etc), organising myself, type documents, run a database, comunicate with people using voIP... thank good I did not waste any money on all that!

Did I miss anything?

The whole point. Consoles may be better for a while, but who cares? Millions of us love perfomance hardware and building and modding custom systems. Thats why Hexus is here. We are very differnet beasts to you C&VG reading console zealots. I don't think you understand us.

The trouble is, I have heard all this before. Just before the PS2 came out, and yes it was a bit better than PC's at the time. But it did not take long before the PC was back on top. I won't believe the hype until they have come out and the dust has settled.

I am sick of arm chair experts who quote hyped up facts and figures about something they know nothing about and don't proper understand.

Hey, maybe the PC's days are numbered. I don't know 100% what the future holds, neither do you

[tommyxx516]

Consoles are specialized gaming machines. These systems will get the job done at $300-400 bucks. Building a new gaming rig, (or even just upgrading to a new video card) will cost at least twice as much but you're not going to get the performance you want until you upgrade other components as well.

According to Epic, one would require a PC running at 2 GHz CPU, 1 Gig RAM, and a 6800 Ultra or Radeon850XT could get you running at 1024x768 with 4x antialiasing...

The Xbox360 and PS3 however, is capable of running the Unreal Engine 3 at 720p (1280x720), or 1080i (1920x1080) with all the eye candy on with no performance penalty. The point is its for gaming, and it serves its purpose.

Well quite honestly, I don't think you're willing to justify building a new pc gaming rig and try justifying the cost by throwing in the fact that you can browse the web, do spreadsheets, and check e-mails.

[autopilot]

I find it amazing that some people still think the most important aspect of a game is it's graphics.

[Swafe]

I've read countless console vs. pc threads all over the web and I'm wondering if anyone has bothered to look at the big picture.

Performance wise, no one can say their PC is capable of doing what the next generation consoles (xbox3 and ps3) can do - not even if they were to build a totally new computer from scratch at the end of 2005.

You'll need a multicore CPU ($500), top of the line video card, either ATI's R520 or Nvidia's G7 ($500), add in the physic card ($300) and lots of RAM (I settle for 2 Gigs - $200). Total comes in at $1500. If you want a nice 19 inch LCD to go with that, add in another $300-400. It adds up.

Dont be ridiculous, a multicore CPU ? Give it a couple of years until PC games can utilise it properly (Thatll probably be about the time when XBox 360 and PS3 will be able to utilise it too) and it wont be that much

Physics card? Do consoles even have these, I thought it was just a graphics core? See consoles are going to have 512ram, this is system AND graphics memory, are you suggesting a 512mb graphics card AND 2gb of ram? Thats 5 times the memory, no wonder its more

A nice 19 inch tft ? Of course, cos the PS3 is going to come with one of them as well for 300 quid...

[Swafe]

Plus can your console run windows, burn dvds, and the rest your PC can do? no, take that into account

[smtkr]

By the way, what the life expectancy of a console? 1, 2... 5 years?

The refresh time is about 5. The life expectancy depends on the console. My SNES is still going strong. I think I got it in 1992, so I'd say that is a fair life.

I kind of wonder what the modding scene is going to do with all of this. This new hardware is just asking to have Linux installed for a blisteringly fast 'nix box. IMO, the XBOX was good enough to be a small server, but these new ones should be good enough for a workstation.

[autopilot]

When i said life expectancy, i ment time before a 'next generation'. i.e, it could be 4-6 years before the PS4, Xbox720 etc arrive. How will PC's develop in that time?

[Swafe]

Yeah your SNES may still be going strong, but in terms of a gaming console, its long time dead

Average life is about 5 years, before the next gen come out, think the PSX has the longest life so far, was about 6 or 7 years wasnt it then the dreamcast only had about 2 years of glory (shame ) but about 5 will do, so expect the next gen consoles 2010/11 :\

[directhex]

lord all-****ing-mighty there's a lot of misguided and ill-informed opinion floating about

so, in language even pc-only people can understand:

a games console costs the same as a graphics card, and will be playing new games at high quality in 5 years' time.

a games console, when it is released, is new & fast, and generally if not faster than a latter-day PC, has a lot of tech which is later recycled into PCs (e.g. rambus from the n64, radeon 9x00 gpus from the gamecube, etc)

so a £1500 pc can surf the net AND play games. whoop. a £130 dreamcast could do both, and even a new games console and simple dell pc can do them both, well and cheaply.

SEVERAL issues are being confused in here and similar threads.

1) IT'S ABOUT THE GAMES, DAMNIT
technical arguments mean the sum total of **** all, it's all about which games are fun to play - and not a general "pcs are best, they have counterstrike" argument, but on a case by case basis, the ONLY thing that matters is which games are fun. i play games on gamecube, pc, xbox, ps2, dreamcast, snes, whatever, because those are the fun games. the snes is FAR from dead as a gaming console - it doesn't get new games, granted, but there are many games on it which are FUN, even today.

graphics != fun

2) a pc will _NEVER_ compete with a console for ease of use and value for money, and therein lies the root of why the pc games market is worth less than the console market. so a pc can surf the net AND play games. a dreamcast could do that, for a lot less money. a pc requires significantly more effort to maintain, keep secure & patched, install, troubleshoot - and if all you want to do is come in after work and play a game, it's very hard to justify the pc as the "better platform". a pc which doesn't suck costs orders of magnitude more than a games console - a console and a cheap dell opc are far cheaper than a gaming pc

3) constant upgrades are conter-productive. a pc game needs to run on a 2-year-old budget pc world pc, or it won't sell more than ten copies. this means pc games need to be intentionally crippled, with the extra eye candy thrown on for a tiny minority of users. if there wasn't the worry about older systems, pc games could look incredible - but so much of a developer's efforts need to go onto working with a billion different hardware configurations. a developer can make a console game which works on every single machine equally well, allowing for actual optimisation. consoles have 5 year lifespans and don't have upgrades because it would be a BAD thing - and make everybody suffer.

honestly. pc gaming, as with console gaming, have no place in this world. they're responsible for crap like FIFA football, or World-War-2-First-Person-Shooter-15.2. what matters is pure unbiased gaming, by whatever means neccessary for the bext experiences

the machine does not MATTER. what matters are the games, and the games alone. if you don't think there are enough games you enjoy on a given platform to justify buying it, then fair enough - but writing off an entire platform because it's "for kids" or somesuch is childish and idiotic. especially the instant discussions of graphics appear.

[Swafe]

From that I take it your mainly a nintendo fan then direct hex?

[directhex]

i'm a fan of several games made by nintendo, if that's what you mean

when i was younger, and couldn't afford more than one system, i bought nintendo because of the greater conentration of games i liked

but that's not to say a number of my all-time favourite games aren't by sega. or assorted other companies

overall, i probably have more games for my 16 years of nintendo ownership than my 11 years of pc ownership, but a number of pc game floppies & cds have gone the way of the dodo