PC gaming? Dead? I doubt it

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SilverMK2**

I plugged in my PC for the first time in 5 years a few weeks ago after hearing about the new xbox and blew up (quite literally) the PSU.

When I get around to fixing it I will be going back to PC gaming for the first time (other than Kerbal and things like that) in about 8 years after sticking with my xbox/360 in the interim.

Some of the new DRM and content hosting on the next get consoles has really turned me off the idea of getting one. Plus with a PC I can install fan made mods and extras for games for nothing, rather than having to stick with the boring DLC and paying for it too...

**LordofHats**

Melissia wrote:

See here:
LordofHats wrote:
someone is either exceedingly dense, or just unwilling to put in any effort if they can't answer the question "will my graphics card run this game"
You are an elitist, and frankly, it's entirely uncalled for.

I built my own fething computer seven years ago-- went through metric fucktons of research to make sure it'd last a long, long time. And it did. But that's the thing-- even today, when I ask questions like "will this work", I usually get at leats three different answers.

You've given me four pseudo-answers in this thread yourself. No straight answer.

And yet you have the gall to call ME lazy.

I built my computer too (I've even rebuilt it when the power supply died and again when I got sick of my terrible motherboard). I linked an article that explained an entire card series and what each one does (and there are always articles) and broke down how I'd approach Nvidia cards. A Wiki page that explains the scheme used in the names, and stated that you don't have to worry about the GTX prefix or the Ti suffix because they don't matter, and you still say it's confusing to figure out a graphics card.

That's the most layman's way to explain this subject but it's still too hard apparently (other than cutting off their suffix and prefix's I don't think there's even an easier way for Nvidia to name their products). Forgive me for calling a reaction what it is. If that's elitist then I guess I'm elitist but that's a pretty bone headed way to define elitist.

**Melissia**

LordofHats wrote:
I linked an article that explained an entire card series

No, you didn't. You linked to an incoherent rant that never said anything definitive. and only spoke in vaguaries.

Never actually once answered my fething question.

**LordofHats**

Melissia wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I linked an article that explained an entire card series
No, you didn't. You linked to an incoherent rant that never said anything definitive. and only spoke in vaguaries.

Never actually once answered my fething question.

Really? So I can link this article:

Previously, I covered the latest cards from AMD, the AMD Radeon HD 6000 series. This time around, I'll be talking about the latest offering by NVIDIA, the GeForce 500 series. Similar to AMD’s HD 6000 series, the GeForce 500 series of graphics cards are 2nd generation DirectX 11 cards, but perform more efficiently and offer better levels of performance compared to the GeForce 400 series. These cards are able to support NVIDIA 3D Vision technology, and generally offer a better choice if you want to view 3D content on your computer. Take note that at the time of writing, the full range of the GeForce 500 series is not yet complete, with the GT 530 and GT 540 not being launched yet. With that in mind, let’s now look at the different performance levels of the cards that have been launched thus far.

One of the latest cards to be launched, and coming in at the bottom of the performance levels is the GeForce GT 520. Cards based on the GeForce GT 520 generally are unable to support modern games that are set at medium settings. But while this is so, getting this card to power your HTPC (Home Theater PC) is a good idea as it consumes little power and is capable of rendering good quality HD graphics. The yet-to-be-launched GT 530 and GT 540 are expected to be within this performance level as well.

For those looking for a generally affordable card that can support modern games at medium to high DX11 settings, then cards based on the GTX 550 Ti would be the best choice. Capable of delivering frame rates of over 30 frames per second, this card should be on your shopping list if you’re a gamer on a budget.

If you need performance, then cards based on the GTX 560 Ti, the GTX 570 and GTX 580 should be in your sights. Capable of supporting modern games at the highest settings, these cards offer some of the best performance one can get from a single GPU card. 3D games are also best played with cards in this range in order to get the best frame rate performance.

Last but not least is the heavyweight from NVIDIA that sports two GPUs, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590. Posing the highest threat to AMD’s Radeon HD 5990, these two monsters offer the best performance any graphics card can offer. Let’s just say that you’re set for at least five years down the road if you do get your hands on a card like the GeForce GTX 590.

As a general summary to my previous posts, you could say that:

1) NVIDIA offers better performance levels out of the box when compared to AMD Radeon cards. They’re also more expensive.

2) AMD cards offer good overclocking performance and are generally cheaper

3) If you’re planning to view 3D content, NVIDIA is an easier choice

And with that, my Understanding Graphics Cards series has come to an end. Hope my posts have given you a better idea on what to look out for when buying a new graphics card.

Which spends most of it's time explaining the 500 series cards and what kind of performance can be expected from each one, and it's a vague incoherent rant? You have a bizarre definition of elitist and an even more bizarre definition of incoherent rant.

**Deathklaat**

PC gaming hasn't been dead, nor will it be going away any time soon.

You have to realize that consoles are made for the masses.
Few people remember that Call of Duty was originally a mod for the PC game Half-Life

They use benchmark specs which makes it easier in a sence* for developers to create their game as they do not have to worry about a wide range of system specs. This also makes it easier for the consumer who doesn't want to keep up with the ever changing PC technology. It is pretty easy to console game, you buy your system and enjoy it untill the next one is available, nothing to upgrade other than a hard drive.

*the challenge of console development comes with multi-platform games as they have to be able to work with each system's specs to create a quality game.

There have been some really good games that have only been available for the PC and not for the console and the opposite as well. It really comes down to developer preference and how much of the market they can reach. Another facet of the whole development process is the market share breakdown of consoles, how many PS3 are there vs 360 etc. This is why there are single platform games, by having a set of exclusive games playform developers try to bank on the popularity of the games or franchise to create more sales of their platform and increase their % of the console market.

I have been seeing less and less indy games for consoles than i used to see back around the time of the PS1, i imagine part of the reason you see more indy games on the PC is that they would have less licensing fees than a console would.

and as for the question of "how many people can play on a PC at the same time?" its getting closer to being the same as consoles. I say that because in the growing trend from the Xbox to the 360 and the PS2 to PS3 that fewer and fewer games support co-op, split-screen or any offline multiplayer play. Need for Speed an Burnout completely dropped their split-screen play, how many new FPS are single player with only online multiplayer?

With a push for online play why should i even bother with a console? Xbox live charges me to use their online service, many PC games have free hosted servers. Console online multiplayer suports less players than PC games, in fact most consoles are just getting to player levels that PC games have been at for years. Now we have PC games like Planetside 2 that shatter the multiplayer boundary.

**Swan-of-War**

One reason I enjoy console gaming is that its a group activity me and my family can do.
Playing on a computer is generally a single-person experience (like reading these forums is now), as is when my wife's on her iphone and the kids on their ipads.
I hate that - I'd rather we be playing a board game or a console game - something that allows four players.
Computer monitors are too small for us to huddle around but if there's any good PC games I'm overlooking, I'm up for suggestions.

**Zinderneuf**

It'll never beat tabletop gaming. Get off my lawn you kids.