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.

Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

Consoles won't do max settings either. Or rather, they'll do max settings for the console (since there's only 1), but not max settings for what a PC can handle.

Requia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

Consoles won't do max settings either. Or rather, they'll do max settings for the console (since there's only 1), but not max settings for what a PC can handle.

But the graphics do get better. Case in point the first gen game Orphan < God of War 2. When the console first comes out the games always look better than the previous system's best looking game. Over the course of s few years the graphics always improve.

Cybronx wrote:*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

You can also get a console for a gift.

The other difference I say is that developers make games for consoles, put PC owners make PC's for games.

Cybronx wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2? Portal two with raytrace lighting enabled? Or does "new games" mean league of legends, dawn of war retribution, and minecraft?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2?

+1. Because if this is the truth, I would switch to PC games. I know its not though. Anything you are running now in your PC will not run max settings in 5 years. PC can be way better looking and I will concede to that point, but there is no way you are going to convince me I can have one of those better looking PCs under a grand and it still look 100% in five years. I got a inspiron 530 less than two years ago, and Star Craft 2 looked like crap. I know the game can look better than anything on the PS3 or 360, but that is going to cost a lot more money.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Well if there is some magic trick that you can build a PC for $700.00 and it can play any of the newest PC games 5 years from now, on max settings, and with no upgraded hardware, then you need to sell that idea and make you a fortune.

I can buy a console and know that I can play the latest games years from now without investing any money in the console. For most of the PCs out there (except for those magic ones that can run max settings 5 years from now on the newest games), this is simple not the case.

I have seen bits and pieces of this argument throughout the thread. I just do not believe I can invest under a grand a have a top of the line PC for the next 5 years. I don't even believe it with 3 grand. PC tech is outdated in less than a year. Sure if you got the cash to keep up with the latest hardware then you will have a PC that can outdo a console on any day.

I have a mustang that suits my needs just fine. I can leave most people at the stop light and embarrass those guys who think their modified cavaliers can go faster than my mustang. However, that guy in the Lamborghini can leave me at any time. He got what he paid for, but what I paid for does me just fine.

*shrug* I guess it's just about how much you're willing to spend then. I built my PC 3 years ago for approx. $800, upgraded the video card once (which, btw, I didn't have to pay for; it was a gift. One thing you can't recieve for a console is a gift-givable upgrade), and can still play all games max settings with no graphical lag issues. Now I await for Shuma to call bs, even though my statements are true and completely reasonable.

Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2? Portal two with raytrace lighting enabled? Or does "new games" mean league of legends, dawn of war retribution, and minecraft?

I don't believe you get it Shuma.

Want to know how to get a cheap PC? Build your own with custom ordered parts.

It's not a secret, it's something any dedicated PC user will tell you. Computers bought off the shelf are ludicrously priced, and have always been, while parts are far cheaper.

halonachos wrote:You can also get a console for a gift.

Dunno about you, but I'm far more likely to get a 100-150 buck new graphics card as a gift than I am a 250-300 dollar (and that's for a USED one) console.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A five minute search reveals thus:

100-150 for a good graphics card, 70-100 for a terabyte hard drive, 25-60 for a good power supply, 150-300 for a good quad-core processor, 50-100 for a computer case, 50-100 for a disk drive. 5-50 for a computer fan (you may want multiple). Depending on which operating system you want, add that cost as well (I prefer to go with XP, but if you want top of the line graphics you'll go with W7).

A few other minor parts depending on what you're looking into and a good antivirus (as well as well as generally maintaining it and being careful where you go on the internet, of course) and you'll easily have a good gaming computer that can last for years while having better performance than consoles for about 700-800. Oh, and it can be used for more than games.

Where are you finding consoles used for $300? If a store charged that for a used console I would be hard pressed to shop there again seeing as though a new console can run from $250 to $300. I can also find graphics cards for well over the price of a console, but the overall thing is the fact that you do have to upgrade the PC.

http://shopping.yahoo.com/search?p=graphics%20card

You spend maybe $300 on a PC and then have to spend $150 for a graphics card and however so much you pay for games.

You spend maybe $300 on a console and then buy games.

You can get a graphics card as a gift and its doesn't cost anything, but I got a PS3 for Christmas and I didn't pay a darn thing. So overall my console has been cheap as hell compared to anything else. That means consoles are cheaper than PC's.

I can play blu-rays on my PS3, stream netflix, watch baseball in 3D, watch other movies in 3D, browse the internet, and store music/movies/pictures on it as well. It has lasted me for three years and it only cost $300.

halonachos wrote:I don't believe you get it Shuma.

Apparently not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Want to know how to get a cheap PC? Build your own with custom ordered parts.

It's not a secret, it's something any dedicated PC user will tell you. Computers bought off the shelf are ludicrously priced, and have always been, while parts are far cheaper.

halonachos wrote:You can also get a console for a gift.

Dunno about you, but I'm far more likely to get a 100-150 buck new graphics card as a gift than I am a 250-300 dollar (and that's for a USED one) console.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A five minute search reveals thus:

100-150 for a good graphics card, 70-100 for a terabyte hard drive, 25-60 for a good power supply, 150-300 for a good quad-core processor, 50-100 for a computer case, 50-100 for a disk drive. 5-50 for a computer fan (you may want multiple). Depending on which operating system you want, add that cost as well (I prefer to go with XP, but if you want top of the line graphics you'll go with W7).

A few other minor parts depending on what you're looking into and a good antivirus (as well as well as generally maintaining it and being careful where you go on the internet, of course) and you'll easily have a good gaming computer that can last for years while having better performance than consoles for about 700-800. Oh, and it can be used for more than games.

150 for a graphics card that lasts five years? Advocating xp over 7 for peak performance on modern hardware? 70 for a terrabyte hard drive with meaningful read/write speeds? Advocating a processor twice the cost of the video card on a rig designed for gaming?

.
See, this is why I don't believe the stuff you say. It's bs.

I've had a laptop and a PS3 for the same amount of time, I haven't upgraded my laptop(seeing as though I can't) so guess which one plays games that have come out within the year.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2? Portal two with raytrace lighting enabled? Or does "new games" mean league of legends, dawn of war retribution, and minecraft?

I don't believe you get it Shuma.

halonachos is right. Besides, why argue with a troll? Think want you want.

Cybronx wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Three years with an upgrade to the most important part of the device for gaming purposes is a lot less bs then five without. That said, I still don't believe any of you until you actually provide benchmarks or the names of your equipment simply because what you describe doesn't really mesh with reality.

So actually, you know what? Sure. I'll call bs. What is your graphics card and processor and how much ram are you using? What are your frames in starcraft two with ssao on? Crysis 2? Portal two with raytrace lighting enabled? Or does "new games" mean league of legends, dawn of war retribution, and minecraft?

I don't believe you get it Shuma.

halonachos is right. Besides, why argue with a troll? Think want you want.

Yes, I'm the troll for asking you to give specifics instead of just saying "hurr durr it works for me lol". This is the internet, not your room and as you may know people exaggerate and make things up on the internet all the time. Also I'm pretty sure Halanochos was mocking you, though he is an indecipherable mystery.

halonachos wrote:I can play blu-rays on my PS3, stream netflix, watch baseball in 3D, watch other movies in 3D, browse the internet, and store music/movies/pictures on it as well. It has lasted me for three years and it only cost $300.

And my computer can do actual work along with games.

Sure, you have to upgrade a PC eventually. You also have to replace a console eventually. When done right, upgrading the PC is far, far cheaper. A couple hundred at MOST, compared to six or seven hundred for a brand new console. And how cheap computers are getting is improving every day, what with computer parts getting far cheaper while consoles are getting more expensive. If you want to wait until the new console becomes cheap, why not wait until the parts you need become cheaper?

If you want to wait until the new console becomes cheap, why not wait until the parts you need become cheaper?

Because if you wait they wouldn't be new any more..?

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:I can play blu-rays on my PS3, stream netflix, watch baseball in 3D, watch other movies in 3D, browse the internet, and store music/movies/pictures on it as well. It has lasted me for three years and it only cost $300.

And my computer can do actual work along with games.

Sure, you have to upgrade a PC eventually. You also have to replace a console eventually. When done right, upgrading the PC is far, far cheaper. A couple hundred at MOST, compared to six or seven hundred for a brand new console. And how cheap computers are getting is improving every day, what with computer parts getting far cheaper while consoles are getting more expensive. If you want to wait until the new console becomes cheap, why not wait until the parts you need become cheaper?

There's truth to this. The decrease in the price of memory is just the beginning of declining prices for computer parts. You may have bought your PS3 for $300, but a 20GB PS3 originally cost $500 (not to mention the 60GB $600), and only decreased over time. On the flip-side, the latest computer parts remain at roughly the same pricing, meaning you can buy new computer parts without fear of a price reduction later.

There's truth to this. The decrease in the price of memory is just the beginning of declining prices for computer parts.

An 8 gig stick if ram is pretty pricey. Keep in mind capacities and standards are going up as the prices of old ones go down.

ou may have bought your PS3 for $300, but a 20GB PS3 originally cost $500 (not to mention the 60GB $600), and only decreased over time. On the flip-side, the latest computer parts remain at roughly the same pricing, meaning you can buy new computer parts without fear of a price reduction later.

You only have to worry about decreasing relative effectiveness. The crux of this entire conversation.

My PS3 can get Linux on it, sure it may void my warranty, but I've had it for 3 years so my warranty has been gone for some time.

Overall, the PS3 is a computer just like anything else and I'm sure that there's a way to get Linux or something else on it besides Windows. I know that people used to put 360 emulators on the fat PS3's sometimes.

Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

They also work like gak, especially the PS3 ones.

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

Cybronx wrote:

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

And data is what, mythical numbers made up by the scientist overlords who who ignore survey responses and consumer information for... some... reason... MAGIC!

As an example: My reality says there is no RRoD, as my Gen 1 launch 360 has functioned flawlessly since I got it and I personally know no one who's 360 has randomly died. The data however from various sources says otherwise.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

They also work like gak, especially the PS3 ones.

Thanks to the difference in processors and coding.

Cybronx wrote:

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

So you like being (often) lied to without the intelectual investment of having to fact check or produce coherent or meaningful arguments. Noted for later.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cybronx wrote:

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
In essence, real world application > raw data.

No, never, not if the data is any good.

Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

So you like being (often) lied to without the intelectual investment of having to fact check or produce coherent or meaningful arguments. Noted for later.

I just found a new favorite person to talk to.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

They also work like gak, especially the PS3 ones.

Thanks to the difference in processors and coding.

Running tasks that have six parallel proceses running (the cells never really get maxed) entirely in software because you aren't running a hardware specific unix setup tends to work poorly.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh, there's even 360 and PS3 emulators on the PC. But I hardly call that legitimate... I mean, if you want to play console games buy the damned console...

They also work like gak, especially the PS3 ones.

Thanks to the difference in processors and coding.

Running tasks that have six parallel proceses running (the cells never really get maxed) entirely in software because you aren't running a hardware specific unix setup tends to work poorly.

Well in my personal experience...

Cybronx wrote:
Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

Data isn't theory. If you're claiming such and such system is effective given what software and hardware you're using it isn't because of some magical process that can only be observed by you, in your house. Its the result of the physical properties of your system, which is something anyone can observe, and is always explicitly described by data.

Your terabyte drive isn't going to behave like a 500 gig drive without some mitigating factor affecting its performance, even if you're unaware of what that mitigating factor is.