Can people stop repeating "you need a $399 graphics card to compete with X360 graphics"? You're making yourselves look like complete idiots by forgetting that consoles game in low resolutions, a 6600GT can do Quake IV just as well as an X360 can. Dumbasses.
CKent
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 9,020
- 0
- 0
No, you do it. I'm not the one making claims I'm not willing to back up.
let's see . . . what's in your rig now?
for $400 upgrading my PC there is no way i could equal the xbox360's gfx . . . currently: AGP system - 9800xt/1GB PC3500/NW P4@3.21Ghz and Abit IC7 . . .
how?
the best agp videocard is a x850xtPE . . . no more AGP . . . it would cost BIG bucks to make a serious attempt at equaling the NextGen consoles [a 7800GTX or x1800xt . . . and that is PCIe only]
so tell me what i could do for $400 on my PC
if you can
:Q
You're picking the cusp of console power to make your argument. Unlike constantly evolving PC hardware, consoles leap forward every five years. If you're going to make this argument, you need to argue it with the consoles' average power in relation to PCs over their 5 year lifespan - you can't just ignore the 3-4 years of that 5 year cycle in which they suck. I know for a lot of the console crowd 1-2 years must seem "4-ev3r" away and it doesn't even enter their minds that time will pass and we'll be at that point pretty soon, but the fact is that 1-2 years will come to pass, and at that point and after, equivalent PC hardware will cost less. As I said, my 3.5 y/o PC is faster than the consoles which were released ~5 years back and didn't run me anywhere near the exorbitant prices you're quoting. Lastly, the xbox and games for it will run you $400 or more + ($60*x) that you don't have to spend to game, since the PC you own is more than capable of gaming. Now if you were making this claim without already having a PC, you might have a point - but then you wouldn't be able to tell AT about it
All this doesn't even take into account the choices PCs afford you. Better graphics if and when you want. Better online support. A plethora of mods available for most games.
Even hi-def is only 720 vertical or something isn't it? A PC can still do much better, and a PC also has TV-out (hi-def or otherwise.)
If people want to compare the X360 to the most expensive graphics cards the PC has to offer, show me an X360 that can do 2048x1536 (AND BEYOND) and I will admit that the X360 is much better.
The fact these fanboys can't face is that X360 (and PS3) hardware is far too complicated for the job at hand. Please explain why 1280x720 resolution (515x* res for the majority of X360 users without hi-def TVs) needs such graphics power? Please explain to me why console games require triple-core processors? Simple answer is that Microsoft and Sony are simply having a wang-measuring contest (causing them to sell their consoles at a loss, and causing developers to drive up the prices of console games) and only the ignorant among us are impressed.
apoppin
Lifer
again . . . HDTVs aren't that expensive . . . and you WATCH TV & DVDs on it - anyway i plan to use my 19" CRT with a VGA cable adapter . . . i game at 11x8 @ 85hz anyway.
Q4 is a CR@P port[period] . . . the worst of the new - rushed - games. Expect the xbox360 to have its best games in 2 years - when they will still blow away a mid-range rig.
absolute nonsense that the nextGen consoles suck in 1-2 years . . . your PC sucks in 1-2 years if you don't upgrade.
Yeah where?
:roll:
:thumbsdown:
Wow, 1152x864 resolution (or similar) at 85hz!!! Funnily enough even a lowly 6600GT, which is now year-old tech, can handle most new games at that resolution. And the 6600GT isn't even the best bang-for-buck budget/mid-range card anymore.
Quake IV is currently one of the best games out in terms of graphics, and in terms of not having a rediculously swollen engine. Even budget PCs can handle Quake IV at the same resolutions people will be playing it on the X360 (515x* without hi-def, 1280x720 with hi-def.)
Depends on how you look at it, people only upgrade if they don't like gaming in low-res, IE. ON CONSOLES.
As I stated, even the most lowly budget cards of today can handle new games at CRT TV resolutions, with or without hi-def, so quit kidding yourself and making yourself look like a bufoon.
Not being an uberelite gamer, not caring much for most FPSers, not having much time to devote to video games, not being able to get into many games with people I've never met on the other side of the world as opposed to a smaller group of friends locally: Why should I invest in only PC gaming hardware? How do you get a small group of people together in one place to play games without a time consuming and complicated setup? How do you refill the shot glasses when there are a bunch of PC towers and monitors in the way?
HamburgerBoy
Lifer
- Apr 12, 2004
- 27,111
- 318
- 126
No. My $80 9200, my $100 Thunderbird, my $40 40GB hard drive, and my $100 Windows 2000 are still plenty to play most new games. And who cares about consoles having better graphics if gameplay is pretty much always the same? It's the PC that releases innovative games, not the console. Oh, and $50 a game? eBay will get you new games for $20, at worst.
CKent
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 9,020
- 0
- 0
Rubbish, I was able to enjoy the big games of 2004 (HL2, Far Cry, Doom 3) on it, and in 1024x768 - 1280x1024 at that - far better than consoles' 640x480.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Not being an uberelite gamer, not caring much for most FPSers, not having much time to devote to video games, not being able to get into many games with people I've never met on the other side of the world as opposed to a smaller group of friends locally: Why should I invest in only PC gaming hardware? How do you get a small group of people together in one place to play games without a time consuming and complicated setup? How do you refill the shot glasses when there are a bunch of PC towers and monitors in the way?
You stop buying consoles, which would encourage locally multiplayer titles to be developed and released for the PC.
Win2k isn't worth it, XP is better IMO. Where can I get a retail XP for $100? Hell, where do you get a retail 2k for $100?
That machine would be pretty useless for everything else though. 40GB hard drive? Waaay too small. ATI video? Ick.
What innovation has been out there in PC games lately? I haven't seen a whole lot.
I don't ebay. It's bad juju.
Originally posted by: RBachman
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Not being an uberelite gamer, not caring much for most FPSers, not having much time to devote to video games, not being able to get into many games with people I've never met on the other side of the world as opposed to a smaller group of friends locally: Why should I invest in only PC gaming hardware? How do you get a small group of people together in one place to play games without a time consuming and complicated setup? How do you refill the shot glasses when there are a bunch of PC towers and monitors in the way?
You stop buying consoles, which would encourage locally multiplayer titles to be developed and released for the PC.
Then we'd have to be crowded around a tiny little monitor. Ick.
How would having a dedicated gaming PC be any different than having a console? How do you get your gaming machine to require zero maintenance?
Yet another dumbass console fanboy who doesn't understand that all graphics cards these days are capable of S-Video and HDTV out.
LMAO, you make it sound like consoles are fool-proof! I own an Xbox, Microsoft sent me a letter one time telling me that they are recalling the power chords because they're a fire hazard. My Xbox also crashed numerous times, I've not even played on it in a long time.
And, what's this I see on every tech site around? X360s crashing all the time? Videos of said crashed plastered all over the internet?
At least if my PC was crashing I wouldn't have to RMA the fvcking thing just to get it working properly.
HamburgerBoy
Lifer
- Apr 12, 2004
- 27,111
- 318
- 126
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Win2k isn't worth it, XP is better IMO. Where can I get a retail XP for $100? Hell, where do you get a retail 2k for $100?
That machine would be pretty useless for everything else though. 40GB hard drive? Waaay too small. ATI video? Ick.
What innovation has been out there in PC games lately? I haven't seen a whole lot.
I don't ebay. It's bad juju.
What's so bad about Windows 2000? I've used it and XP and the only differences that I've noticed is that XP looks a lot nicer, and will run more Windows 95 games. IIRC correctly, my W2K copy was $100. Even if it wasn't, here's a link for Windows XP, only $103.
My 40GB hard drive can fit plenty of games. Sure, you want Far Cry or UT2004 installed you're going to have to uninstall a few others, but the time it takes really isn't that much. You can eat lunch or something while waiting. My 9200 has been pretty nice, playing pretty much every game at 800x600 and medium settings at thirty frames per second. Doom 3, Quake 4, and Battlefield 2 are exceptions, but those games suck anyways.
Innovation in games recently? Sure, the gaming industry as a whole has been pretty stagnant in new ideas, but there's still some. Far Cry was pretty neat with it's giant jungle islands, intense gunfights, and over fifteen hours of gameplay. Mafia had an awesome storyline, the car handling was great for a FPS, and the missions were some of the most fun I've ever had. Shooting down an airplane, killing mob bosses, beating up punks on the street, and shootouts in a Church. What's the last innovative console game to be released?
CKent
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 9,020
- 0
- 0
Nothing stopping you from outputting to a huge TV.
Who says it has to be dedicated to gaming? The fact that PCs are maintainable & can have bugs squashed and be made better through new driver releases, game patches and overclocking, is an advantage - not a disadvantage.
Originally posted by: Exsomnis
Yet another dumbass console fanboy who doesn't understand that all graphics cards these days are capable of S-Video and HDTV out.
But that would require me to put the gaming machine near a tv. While that may be easy for something dedicated, it isn't easy for something I might want to do some work on.
I'm not a fanboy, I enjoy all types of games including consoles and PCs.
When I had an: Atari, nes, snes, n64, playstation, platstation 2 or my friend who also had various sega systems (as well as the ones mentioned, and more) I never had a problem with them crashing. They were pretty much n0cmonkey proof. Sorry about your bad luck.
I won't be buying the Xbox360 for a while (if ever), so they should have the first gen issues worked out by then.
Seriously, how would I make the gaming PC low maintenance enough to make it worth it?
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Win2k isn't worth it, XP is better IMO. Where can I get a retail XP for $100? Hell, where do you get a retail 2k for $100?
That machine would be pretty useless for everything else though. 40GB hard drive? Waaay too small. ATI video? Ick.
What innovation has been out there in PC games lately? I haven't seen a whole lot.
I don't ebay. It's bad juju.
What's so bad about Windows 2000? I've used it and XP and the only differences that I've noticed is that XP looks a lot nicer, and will run more Windows 95 games. IIRC correctly, my W2K copy was $100. Even if it wasn't, here's a link for Windows XP, only $103.
It's an XP Home upgrade. I'd have to have a previous product to upgrade, and Home is virtually useless. The filesharing sucks, restricting users is difficult at best, EFS is non-existant...
What's wrong with Win2k? It's ancient, barely supported, and lacking on newer hardware. Hardly worth it.
That sounds like the same old stuff, just in different settings.
I don't know. I'm not claiming there is any innovation anywhere. I'm saying I haven't seen any. Period. It's the same stuff over and over again, everywhere.
Sorry, didn't think you even wanted a machine that could multi-task, since you are batting for the console team after all.
As for the TV thing, simple solution: If you're willing to buy a HDTV for your X360, get an LCDTV or something like a Dell 2405FPW and use it as both gaming screen and monitor.That wasn't the point either, I never even mentioned older consoles. I used to love consoles before the Xbox, the Xbox ruined console gaming for me. The "new generation of console" (X360 and PS3) just knocks me completely sick.
And it's not just bad luck, by the way. Problems with Xboxes were common, so common that Microsoft repeatedly recalled components such as power cables, batches of controllers, and batches of consoles themselves.
Face it, they're trying to turn console gaming into portable PC gaming, and with that upscaling of power and complexity comes a whole new playing field of issues to deal with, most of which can actually be dealt with easier on a PC as a fault on a console immediately means an RMA to get it fixed.
Put it this way; If a PC fvcks up, you can fix it. If a console fvcks up, you send it back to the manufacturer.
Which is more high-maintainence?
Except hauling the tv or the computer around when I want to play a game that doesn't exist yet with a bunch of friends. Not to mention the issue of controllers (that there aren't really any standard ones).
Windows is almost useless for what I do. In fact, it often makes my job and computer related hobbies harder. Not to mention the investment in software would be horrid, and I would have to maintain it instead of just turning it on and off like I would with most consoles. Nothing like spending 8+ hours at work tracking down some stupid issue with a huge work server and having to come home to figure out why Windows doesn't like my network. Again.
See what I said about LCDTV and widescreen monitors. They are basically hi-def TVs and PC monitors in one unit.
To take a leaf out of your hypocritical little book I will put your network problems down to "bad luck" and say it's nothing to do with your PC.
In fact... Most PC problems are between the user and keyboard, everyone knows that.
Originally posted by: Exsomnis
Sorry, didn't think you even wanted a machine that could multi-task, since you are batting for the console team after all.
Then it's stuck to the PC instead of being in a communal room for everyone to enjoy.
If I'm spending $200-300USD (I'd wait before buying) on something, it can just play games. If I'm spending $800USD+ on something, I better get some use out of it.
I didn't buy an xbox. Most of the games didn't appeal to me.
They're trying to turn it into a media center, and it will add issues. If they don't get worked out, I probably won't buy one of the next gen consoles.
Put it this way; If a PC fvcks up, you can fix it. If a console fvcks up, you send it back to the manufacturer.
Which is more high-maintainence?
The PC. I don't want to spend time fixing something so I can play a game. It's a waste of my time, and would just lead to frustration. If I have to send something off, I have a beer and watch some porn. No big deal.
Originally posted by: Exsomnis
To take a leaf out of your hypocritical little book I will put your network problems down to "bad luck" and say it's nothing to do with your PC.
Nothing hypocritical about it, but: :laugh:
Sure. With a console, I can't get blamed for that.
apoppin
Lifer
You're the one that looks like a bigger buffoon with every statement you make . . . You just admitted: "I was able to enjoy the big games of 2004 (HL2, Far Cry, Doom 3) on it, and in 1024x768"
Wow! 10x7 . . . i'm impressed. . . . not
. . . Xbox360 does better than that
Console gamers - with their ancient 5-year-old-machines are ALSO able to enjoy the SAME games [one 'notch' down. . . on their original $300 purchase . .. muuch better than ANY top PC of 5 years ago.
Straw man fallacy, try debating my actual point if you want to debate me. I was simply pointing out how people keep comparing the X360 to $399 graphics cards, when a graphics card capable of whatever the X360 puts out actually costs a fraction of that.
Personally, I prefer 1600x1200 resolution, hence why I am now exclusively a PC gamer. I also consider the price to be more than worth it for the extra versatility and image quality on a PC.
Again, I was simply using the 1024x768 example to refute the people who think that, graphically, an X360 = a $399 graphics card. Just a bogus comparison, try comparing an X360 to a 9800 Pro or something instead and you're talking more sense.
HamburgerBoy
Lifer
- Apr 12, 2004
- 27,111
- 318
- 126
Ok, here's XP Professional then, for $150. A bit more then I thought, but it's not too expensive. W2K may be old, but there haven't been any games so far that have dropped support for it. It also doesn't support SLI, but the only people who use it are those who play with max settings and at a resolution equal to or higher than 1920x1440. Microsoft still releases the occasional security update as well.
I dunno about that. When it first came out the AI was excellent. The soldiers would fight you in all sorts of different ways and those little mutants were stealthy. Far Cry allowed some pretty massive levels, like the one where you escaped from the fortress in a Jeep and watched battles going on all over the place. You also had a large amount of freedom for a FPS, with multiple ways to do most missions. With different maps you had options to silently sneak around a base or blow the whole thing up. You could go on a steep hike, shooting soldiers that may come your way, or you could pull out a hanglider and watch out for helicopters. Most first person shooters would rather force you into a certain path and give you a "Game over!" pop-up if you didn't.
Eh, I suppose. My main complaint is that at least the PC has some great games that you can play over and over again, even if some of them are pretty old. But what innovative games does the X-Box have? You get Sports Clone 2kX, Generic Racer #42, and horrible ports like Mafia and DX2. Sure, every once in a while you get something relatively new, but it never takes the genre further. There's the game Halo which most fan boys worship, despite the fact that Marathon from 1994 was more advanced in every way other than graphics.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter