PC vs Console gaming analysis

[Matt]

PROTIP: Nobody cares.

Evidently people do care, else the topic wouldn't be continuing...

Pc vs consoles - both have pros, both have cons. For those that care about the best graphics and framerate, PCs are the way to go. For those more interested in ease of use, consoles.

I do think we need to stop making statements like a gaming PC costs ?2k. I don't know if you could spend that much! Tri SLI 280s, the latest Intel Extreme, 16gig RAM - it would still likely cost less! As we've said repeatedly, ?500 and you've got a PC that'll play everything brilliantly. With my ?150 per year upgrade price comparison with 360 ownership, you'd get a new CPU one year, new GPU the next, and even that's overkill.

Just do what I've done - HTPC in to my TV next to the consoles. I run at slightly higher res than the consoles (768 native LCD res, compared to 720 the consoles pump out, but not really anything in it), direct in to my amp via optical. It handles all my media - you've not seen "upscaled" DVD until you've used FFDshow, it's up there with a dedicated DVD upscaler costing thousands. Region free BluRay drive (via software). I can use a 360 gamepad if I want as well

TA, on your graphics card, you'll have trouble. Your CPU sounds fine. Get a 8800GT 512 for ?50 or so, it'll obliterate the 360.

Ultimately of course, it's different strokes for different folks. Sometimes I'll get the console version of a game, sometimes the PC, even though I know the PC version will run better.

[Malc]

I do think we need to stop making statements like a gaming PC costs £2k. I don't know if you could spend that much!

http://www.alienware.co.uk/product_detail_pages/Alx/alx_overview.aspx?SysCode=PC-EU-A51-ALX-R8&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

£2699.

Would you say the spec's on the PC in that link are overkill? As if you want brand new releases to run perfectly and consistently smoothly for PC games, then you'll have to get one of those. Otherwise, if you get anything less powerfull of any of those components you'll be sacrificing something.

So I do believe if you want a proper PC gaming experience, you'll have to get one of those. To get a proper Console experience, it's considerably less for a perfect version of the game on its format running to the best of its ability. Wheras with a PC, you know it could always look better, especially if you only pay £500 for it.

[Team Andromeda]

TA, on your graphics card, you'll have trouble. Your CPU sounds fine. Get a 8800GT 512 for £50 or so, it'll obliterate the 360

But that' the point I making , £400+ quids worth of PC and I need a upgrade, so its bull to say my PC from ages ago plays the least games as well as the PS3 or 360 . These days you pick up a 360 for £100. Its just not fair to reasonable to compare the both , and I don't know why people getting so uptight about the subject .

I'm not knocking the PC or the users , but I don't like the PC set up environment or the fact that 2 years down the line I know I'll have to upgrade to play the games (even if a get a new GFX card And it might amazing people that bar the mouse , I not a fan of its control step up either (using keyboard to play fps ect) . The only time I was a big fan of PC gaming was when the Geoff Crammond was making his F1 games onthe format

[Ciaran]

http://www.alienware.co.uk/product_d...de=SKU-DEFAULT

£2699.

Would you say the spec's on the PC in that link are overkill? As if you want brand new releases to run perfectly and consistently smoothly for PC games, then you'll have to get one of those. Otherwise, if you get anything less powerfull of any of those components you'll be sacrificing something.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...00-gaming-pc/1 - £400 gaming PC

The PC you posted is ridiculously over powered in every way.

[Matt]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...00-gaming-pc/1 - ?400 gaming PC

The PC you posted is ridiculously over powered in every way.

Yeah. LOL, Malc, that's not a PC - that's a Geek Money Trap. For those who are more interested in benchmarks than gaming, and who will always be single!

You don't need anywhere near that PC! A simple Core2Duo, 2gigs RAM, ATi 4850. ?500, paypal me the money I'll build it for you

That ?2k + PC would be better of course, but as discussed in the Framerates thread, SLI isn't all it's cracked up to be. It certainly won't be 5 times better!

[Malc]

I bet that you couldn't run brand new games being released over the next 3 years on a £400 PC to a decent standard.

[Malc]

Yeah. LOL, Malc, that's not a PC - that's a Geek Money Trap. For those who are more interested in benchmarks than gaming, and who will always be single!

You asked for a ?2 grand PC. There it is.

[Matt]

You asked for a ?2 grand PC. There it is.

I'm sure I could build an equivalent spec for less. That's the geek-brand you're paying for with them.

Would a ?400 PC play top of the range games maxed out in 3 years? No, but it'll play them at higher settings than a current console can hit.

[Malc]

Even when the game is compressed and it's a 3rd stage generation developers game, 3 years down the line? (i'm talking in comparison to a £400 PC)

[Matt]

A £400 PC, bought NOW, then yes. In terms of raw graphical power, a 4850 must be 4 times or more higher than a 360 GPU (I'm not hunting around for figures, but that will be the case I'd imagine). Given a console is a fixed platform, you can be generous and double it's performance compared to an equivalent PC. So you'd still be looking at at least 2 times the performance via a PC.

Malc, PCs have changed the last year. ATi with their 48xx series have opened the GPU market back up, and the entry cost is now really low. A 4850 is a stunning GPU. Add in the lack of high-end PC game development, games that really push the technical boundaries of the very latest tech, and it's a great time to get [back] in to PCs.

[Malc]

A £400 PC, bought NOW, then yes. In terms of raw graphical power, a 4850 must be 4 times or more higher than a 360 GPU (I'm not hunting around for figures, but that will be the case I'd imagine). Given a console is a fixed platform, you can be generous and double it's performance compared to an equivalent PC. So you'd still be looking at at least 2 times the performance via a PC.

Surely if you say a £400 PC bought now would give twice as much power as the 360, then you have to also take into account the price of the 360 as it is now as well. Which means a 360 arcade pack now only costs £120. So, (coming back to a previous point) It's cheaper to buy a 360 and play the latest games to said levels; than a PC.

[Number45]

Right, I think I have everything of use. If you want me to make any modifications to the OP, let me know.

[sj33]

I didn't suffer, each the time console went, MS replaced it , paid for the posting and returning and I never had to leave the house to send it off . So while I might have been peed off, I wasn't hurt or out of pocket .

Not meaning to single out you specifically, it's just that this bit emphasises one of the big problems with the RROD situation - the fact that we're in the mentality with modern-day electronics to accept that 'stuff breaks'. In my unfortunate case, the three times I sent my machine to Microsoft, they seemed to have replaced every damn bit of the console except the part that was faulty, despite the fact that I sellotaped to the machine exactly what damn bit needed replacing. Given the fact that most key titles are multiformat, Sony now gets my custom.

But I'm going on a tangent, my point is that we're no longer in an age when we can assume a games console will 'just work', while with a PC we run the risk of hardware faults, software incompatiblities, drivers problems... it's interesting that when my PC develops a problem, I can sort it out myself, whereas with a console I'm at their whim. I say that as a console gamer. And if we start accepting faulty hardware as 'ah fair enough, as long as they replace it', then it becomes acceptable practice... and it's just not.

[Team Andromeda]

But I'm going on a tangent, my point is that we're no longer in an age when we can assume a games console will 'just work', while with a PC we run the risk of hardware faults, software incompatiblities, drivers problems... it's interesting that when my PC develops a problem, I can sort it out myself, whereas with a console I'm at their whim. I say that as a console gamer. And if we start accepting faulty hardware as 'ah fair enough, as long as they replace it', then it becomes acceptable practice... and it's just not.

That's fine, but I'm not using things break as my argument against the PC Vs Console , and I think the fact that people did quite rightly kick up a fuss ment 360 owners get the best guarantee and 3 years pice of mind , Sure I rather a console that works , but one can't argue with 3 years pice of mind I would imagine that MS is finailly getting on top of the 3 rings of death , and you know SONY with the PS2/PS and the likes of SEGA with the Pal DC had issues thier self's .


I'm on about the cost and the simple fact , that not matter when you or I buy the PS3 or 360 in their lifetime , all the games will look and run and just as good and you don't need to upgrade, simple facts which no one can argue with, because that's the benefit of a closed system
I also like the easy of use of the console playing it on my sofa onthe big TV, Yes I know you can do that onthe PC, but nothing like as easy as the console .

Thats why I've been a console gamer over the years

[Malc]

Consoles are a unique design with specific parts. You need a specialist to repair any malfunctions.

With a PC, you're allowed to acess all its files, data etc. So you can sort out any viruses or data problems - something your not capable of on consoles unless you mod them. You can also replace a PC's parts if something goes wrong fairly easily. Consoles unfotunately aren't the same.

I do agree about your issue with console defects Jake, we shouldn't have this nonchalance acceptance of such frequent problems.