Gaming PC vs Next Generation Consoles
- Thread starter HAVOC
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
HAVOC
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,217
- Location
- Milford, Connecticut
Very nice responce to this thread.
My main point was what someone said also. "Why spend $3500.00 on a high-end PC when you can spend a 1/10 of that and buy a NGC.
Sure NGC's aren't upgradeable and PC's are "to a point". But, when they come out with a NEW NGC 3-4 years down the road for another $300 - $400 dollars, it's still a lot cheaper then the $1,500 you spent upgrading your PC's (CPU, MOBO, GFX card and it's RAM)
My main point was what someone said also. "Why spend $3500.00 on a high-end PC when you can spend a 1/10 of that and buy a NGC.
Sure NGC's aren't upgradeable and PC's are "to a point". But, when they come out with a NEW NGC 3-4 years down the road for another $300 - $400 dollars, it's still a lot cheaper then the $1,500 you spent upgrading your PC's (CPU, MOBO, GFX card and it's RAM)
killians45
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,243
like I said, though the next gen xbox IS somewhat upgradable. Also, despite alot of the hype going around, it looks as if the PS3 is NOT more powerful than the XBox360, but the other way around. Its floating point is higher but thats just math calcs and NOT instructions... XBox360 is faster in instructions and has higher bandwidth. Much higher. The PS3, however, DOES have the ability to become much more powerful than the XBox360, and thats only if the cell technology takes off so it can have its shared architecture. Right out of the box though, I'd say by the spec details its 360.
OP
OP
HAVOC
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,217
- Location
- Milford, Connecticut
You know what though, a huge percentage of people whom will buy PS3 or XBOX360 don't give a crap about "Floating Point or Bandwidth or architecture or instructions."
They aren't like us with Gaming PC's.
All they care about is, "Great Graphics, Great New Games, Multimedia Capabilites and Cost!" I doubt that people are going to base their decision on which console to buy based on the over-all power of these two machines. Both will have cutting edge technology and that's all that matters. The selling point for these two machines will be the line-up of games at it's release. That's what will drive sales, 110%!!!
They aren't like us with Gaming PC's.
All they care about is, "Great Graphics, Great New Games, Multimedia Capabilites and Cost!" I doubt that people are going to base their decision on which console to buy based on the over-all power of these two machines. Both will have cutting edge technology and that's all that matters. The selling point for these two machines will be the line-up of games at it's release. That's what will drive sales, 110%!!!
GrimReaper23
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,912
- Location
- Fort Gordon
trueHAVOC2k5 said:
Simple the PC will win as they are updated more often the Xbox 360 will only have the power of a high end gaming PC in December 2006. So when July 2007 comes the PC is already greatly stronger than the console. I'm not sure on the Revolution's and PS3's power but they too will be surpassed in a matter of months.
The thing is that PCs become much better much faster than consoles simply because individual parts are being upgraded. You have one company making graphics cards, that you can buy and put in your PC. Another one is making processors that you can also buy if you wish to. However, with consoles, when they upgrade, they upgrade the whole thing. I think they'd have a hard time though making a console where you can upgrade pieces, just because they'll need to put out these pieces all of the time. I mean, it could work, but it won't compare to how PCs are updated.
I think that the argument about computer's needing more graphical power than consoles is getting a little weaker. The xbox 360 will now run every single one of it's games in HDTV modes. Many games will run in 720P and supposedly even 1080p mode! Those resolutions are progressive scan and on-par with mid-range monitor resolutions. So the xbox 360 needs just about as much graphical power to run these HDTV modes as the computer does to run it's monitor.
The fps on pc vs console thing is interesting. My favorite fps is aao because it is the most realistic and very tactical compared to "run-and-gun" games. My second favorite fps is probably Halo. I don't like the nades particulary because you can't cook them, but that isn't really a big deal. The reason I think Halo is so great is because the combat system is so unique and the vehicles are actually done right. A lot of fps games just toss in vehicles and they don't really work, but I think in Halo the vehicles integrated into the game seemlessly. I also thought the weapons, especially the pistol and sniper were some of the most well-done weapons I have ever seen. I personally think Halo 2 was absolute crap. A lot of games tend to do that, the original is great and they they always seems to mess it up making a sequel. They destroyed the pistol which I think was the best weapon and then added in dual wielding. I mean I played halo 2 on xbox live for a while and it's just a joke. There is almost no skill involved in the game. Whoever has the better weapons can just rush you and you can't even stop them. And there's almost no benefit to being a good shooter with most of the weapons like the SMG. As soon as you kill someone and reload you're dead in many of the maps. And with no health bar you can't even pick at an enemy any more. Now they can just hide and recharge and that makes it so you have to rush them before they can recharge which makes the gameplay even worse.
Oh yea and xbox 360 will cost $300 to start out. I think it's definitely worth it for the power it will deliver. The thing I like about console games is you just play the game and you don't have to worry about critical errors and that other nonsense like having to spend hours tweaking and tweaking and tweaking before it finally runs right. I'm had to dive into my .ini files one to many times.
The fps on pc vs console thing is interesting. My favorite fps is aao because it is the most realistic and very tactical compared to "run-and-gun" games. My second favorite fps is probably Halo. I don't like the nades particulary because you can't cook them, but that isn't really a big deal. The reason I think Halo is so great is because the combat system is so unique and the vehicles are actually done right. A lot of fps games just toss in vehicles and they don't really work, but I think in Halo the vehicles integrated into the game seemlessly. I also thought the weapons, especially the pistol and sniper were some of the most well-done weapons I have ever seen. I personally think Halo 2 was absolute crap. A lot of games tend to do that, the original is great and they they always seems to mess it up making a sequel. They destroyed the pistol which I think was the best weapon and then added in dual wielding. I mean I played halo 2 on xbox live for a while and it's just a joke. There is almost no skill involved in the game. Whoever has the better weapons can just rush you and you can't even stop them. And there's almost no benefit to being a good shooter with most of the weapons like the SMG. As soon as you kill someone and reload you're dead in many of the maps. And with no health bar you can't even pick at an enemy any more. Now they can just hide and recharge and that makes it so you have to rush them before they can recharge which makes the gameplay even worse.
Oh yea and xbox 360 will cost $300 to start out. I think it's definitely worth it for the power it will deliver. The thing I like about console games is you just play the game and you don't have to worry about critical errors and that other nonsense like having to spend hours tweaking and tweaking and tweaking before it finally runs right. I'm had to dive into my .ini files one to many times.
PC vs. CONSOLE DEBATES........ (sigh)
To me, it comes down to the avalability of games as appose to specs.
Like with a console, the specs will more or less be the same. Like look at the PS2 over the years. There as been very little change in the hardware. A few tweaks here and there. And that is a bout it.
Whether I buy as PS3 when they first come out, or when they at the platue of their product life cycle, all the games will play the same on them.
PC on the other hand, you can upgrade. More ram, Better video card, newer Optical Drive technology.
I have both a PC and PS2. I prolly use my PC more that PS2, but it really comes down to the avalability of game.
To me, it comes down to the avalability of games as appose to specs.
Like with a console, the specs will more or less be the same. Like look at the PS2 over the years. There as been very little change in the hardware. A few tweaks here and there. And that is a bout it.
Whether I buy as PS3 when they first come out, or when they at the platue of their product life cycle, all the games will play the same on them.
PC on the other hand, you can upgrade. More ram, Better video card, newer Optical Drive technology.
I have both a PC and PS2. I prolly use my PC more that PS2, but it really comes down to the avalability of game.
GrimReaper23
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,912
- Location
- Fort Gordon
trueHarper said:
- Status
