Console gaming vs high end computer - Page 5 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Which one is the best in video card ?
ATI 1 10.00%
Geforce 9 90.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-29-2005, 01:03 AM   #41 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TSHF
You do realize that today's graphics cards are really bottlenecked by the cpus. The fastest sinlge core, the FX-57, bottlenecks the 7800GTX and will bottleneck the X1800XT. Once we get multi-threaded games, one of which I believe is already on the market, and actually use the power of dual core, there will be a huge increase in PC gaming performance. So, really give the PC 1 year and it will catch up. The reason I don't want any consoles is because I like the games that are on PC. However, that will not stop me from getting a PS3 and PSP even though I will still play on my PC most of the time.
WOW. You DID NOT just say that a FX-57 bottlenecks a 7800GTX...I just lost what little respect I had for you...and that was a totally unrelated topic.
__________________

Flanker is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 04:05 AM   #42 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 68
Send a message via AIM to CrimsonGX
Default

Quote:
I don't know why people say that Halo is so great. I've never played it but I have played shooters on my PS2 and they are nothing compared to shooters on a PC. The control is utter sh*t. I mean they're fun and all but still nothing compared to PC. I've never played Halo, but judging by other console shooters I would say even Quake 1 is better than it.
Nope, Halo 1 & 2 are great console shooters, they're the first FPS that I played for more than 10 minutes before i got pissed at the controls, however, nothing beat Halo like Halo on PC with a good old Mouse and keyboard. And, if you haven't played it, you shouldn't knock it, bub.


Quote:
If these new consoles are sopossed to be so much better, how do they afford to sell the equiptment < $500, when the computer that you say it 'puts to shame' costs three times as much....

Also, have fun updating a **** console, you can slop in a new video card just about whenever you want in todays systems. Look at the different getting a 7800GTX does to your old Radeon 9000... you'll be stuck with the same hardware in the 360 for years.
Bill Gates can arrange to chat and drink coffee with Dave Orton, can you? PC hardware manufacturers make money off hardware, Console manufacturers make money off of their games. Usually they lose money more than a few 10s everytime they sell their console.

Actually, the not-beingable-to-upgrade is a bit appealing, when you buy an Xbox360/PS3/Rev, you know it's going to be just perfect for around 5 years - and it's only a fraction of the cost of a good Top-of-the-line PC upgrade.


PCs will get on par with consoles, eventually. Besides, who seriously only bought a PC so they can play games? I sort of like using the interweb, using a large line of software, typing up my homework and printing it along with the various other things PCs can do.

Quote:
The fastest single core, the FX-57, bottlenecks the 7800GTX and will bottleneck the X1800XT.
Go do your homework.
__________________

CrimsonGX is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 04:35 AM   #43 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 718
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by CrimsonGX
Nope, Halo 1 & 2 are great console shooters, they're the first FPS that I played for more than 10 minutes before i got pissed at the controls, however, nothing beat Halo like Halo on PC with a good old Mouse and keyboard. And, if you haven't played it, you shouldn't knock it, bub.

Halo on PC may be a great game but Halo on Xbox sucks because of the fact that you have to use a controller. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD FPS ON A CONSOLE.
j4ckaL is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 05:02 AM   #44 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Default

I think the best comment made on this whole topic was the one regarding the TYPES of games you prefer. If you wanted to play Tekkan on the PC it would suck terribly. On the other hand, playing first person shooters on a console sucks equally as badly. I used to be much more interested in console gaming until I got over the Tekkan style fighting games and became interested in FPS. I've only played Halo on the XBOX and as fun as the game was, the multiplayer was pathetic compared to a PC FPS simply because of the controls. You can do things MUCH faster and more accurately with a mouse.

As for technology catching up, in 1 year you MIGHT be able to get something that would match a PS3 or XBOX360 if you spent an absolute fortune. Seriously, look at the top notch tech available now. If you put together something top of the line you'd pay many thousands. Anyway, I personally dont think the technology would catch up that fast. Things havent been progressing as fast as they were a few years ago. Remember how long it took for processors to go from the 800mhz to 2.4ghz mark? It really wasnt that long. But given the rate of improvement over the last couple of years, can you seriously see an affordable 9-10ghz processor getting around in 1 years time? I cant. Not by a long shot (by the way, i dont know the speed of the PS3/XB360. Im just using the 9-10ghz to represent a 3x increase in speed on current tech).

Another good thing about consoles is that you know the latest games that they release will run perfectly on your console. Even if it means that the developers are eventually having to scale down the settings a little compared to the pc version, your not going to notice the difference. The console will never become outdated over its life.

At the end of the day, i prefer the keyboard and mouse to a hand held controller for the types of games i prefer, so I'll be sticking to my pc for now. However, im not going to try and pretend that a console cant beat the living **** out of my computer for years to come for a fraction of the cost. My enjoyment of games is based on their playabilty and entertainment, not the number of pixels which are crammed into something that i will not even notice 90% of the time. In 2 years a game will be produced on the computer which is capable of slightly better graphics than the xbox360 and only requires a $3000 computer to run it? BOOHOO to bad your stuck with a $300 console which runs the game perfectly, but without 100 billion pixels per piece of gravel huh. My xbox has been gathering dust for months, but only because i prefer the PC controls on the games i like.

Its all about playability
david_1475 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 10:32 AM   #45 (permalink)
003
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,312
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by j4ckaL

Halo on PC may be a great game but Halo on Xbox sucks because of the fact that you have to use a controller. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD FPS ON A CONSOLE. [/B]
Actually you're all wrong, all versions of halo on any platform suck equally bad.
__________________
so, umm, err yeah
003 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 02:17 PM   #46 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

FINALLY, I have some backup, thank god.

And I LOVE the comment that David made; That you're guaranteed that a new game will run on a console perfectly and at the graphics that it was designed to run on.

Thats not saying that I disagree with anything else that was said, its basically all true. Good Job guys.

And David, as to the performance of the consoles; A Athlon 64 3200+ Venice @ 2.5GHz does 5.1 Billion floating point operations per second (flops). On the other hand, a PS2 does 2 Trillion floating point operations per second, and the Xbox360 does 1 Trillion floating point operations per second.

:classic:
Flanker is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 03:09 PM   #47 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default

IMHO there won't be a game on the console that uses all that horse power for at least 18 months, just look at the PS2 games when it first came out compared to the games that come out now.

there is not going to be a game that would even go over 1 trillion flops for a very long time. Also console games are known to lock there fps at 30 or 45.

So far all that I've seen that the PS3 tops over the 360 is the flops which doesn't give the PS3 that much of an upperhand.
Waphlez is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 03:15 PM   #48 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Beefcake
IMHO there won't be a game on the console that uses all that horse power for at least 18 months, just look at the PS2 games when it first came out compared to the games that come out now.

there is not going to be a game that would even go over 1 trillion flops for a very long time. Also console games are known to lock there fps at 30 or 45.

So far all that I've seen that the PS3 tops over the 360 is the flops which doesn't give the PS3 that much of an upperhand.
Total noob response. You're still comparing older consoles. And a game doesn't "go over one trillion flops." Seems to me like all you know is what I've told you. Do you even know what a flop is?

The PS3 totally destroys the X360 in power, but the X360 sacrifices CPU power for features. Which is why I intend on buying both.
Flanker is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 03:56 PM   #49 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Spartan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by j4ckaL
I don't know why people say that Halo is so great. I've never played it but I have played shooters on my PS2 and they are nothing compared to shooters on a PC. The control is utter sh*t. I mean they're fun and all but still nothing compared to PC. I've never played Halo, but judging by other console shooters I would say even Quake 1 is better than it.
haha, LOL, thats cuz the PS2 has no good original shooters, yeah, halo on the pc is way better, but the game itself has a pretty good campaign and the multiplayer is probably the best i have ever played

i would take 8 player slayer in hand 'em high ANYTIME over almost anything else, including UT2K7, which looks like the focus is only on the graphics, the gameplay doesnt look all that great

about the poll...definitely the PC, u cant upgrade a console, pcs will catch up in a little over a year, but getting a console's worth it anyway for people on a budget 4 sure

and btw, who the hell said the PS3 was gonna be $350? :laughing: :laughing: ROFL, r u joking. the parts inside the **** thing cost around $600, i believe. lemme find the link... i would bet on atleast paying $500 for PS3 and $300 for the 360.
Spartan is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 08:36 PM   #50 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 718
Default

Ha, someone said that one of my posts was the best one in this thread and I totally agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by Spartan666
haha, LOL, thats cuz the PS2 has no good original shooters, yeah, halo on the pc is way better, but the game itself has a pretty good campaign and the multiplayer is probably the best i have ever played
My argument stands: Halo Xbox sucks big time and all you Halo fangirls can STFU!
__________________

j4ckaL is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.