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.

**Melissia**

Manchu wrote:
Second, the distinction can't be pointless considering it drives a huge amount of sales.

That doesn't indicate that the distinction isn't pointless.

Marketing thrives off of pointless distinctions to use in their attempts to lie to you to convince you that you want or even NEED their product.

**Manchu**

Again, in this case, I'm not talking about how the product is advertised by people doing marketing so much as how it is used by the consumers who make up the market.

**Alpharius**

So, PC Gaming = Not Dead!

Good thing too, otherwise that would have been some incredibly bad timing on my part!

**nomotog**

So is melissia saying there is no difference between console and PC? Ya that's completely wrong. Their is a huge difference between the two.

**Melissia**

nomotog wrote:
So is melissia saying there is no difference between console and PC?

No.

I'm saying the only real difference between a windows gaming PC and an xbox gaming PC is the operating system.

"Gaming consoles" are nothing more than personal computers dedicated almost exclusively to gaming. There's really nothing outside of Microsoft's EULA that's stopping you from modifying an xbox PC the same way you can modify a windows PC. Or running xbox-based software on a windows PC using an emulator.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
Again, in this case, I'm not talking about how the product is advertised by people doing marketing so much as how it is used by the consumers who make up the market.

That doesn't change my answer.

**nomotog**

Melissia wrote:
nomotog wrote:
So is melissia saying there is no difference between console and PC?
No.

I'm saying the only real difference between a windows gaming PC and an xbox gaming PC is the operating system.

"Gaming consoles" are nothing more than personal computers dedicated almost exclusively to gaming. There's really nothing outside of Microsoft's EULA that's stopping you from modifying an xbox PC the same way you can modify a windows PC. Or running xbox-based software on a windows PC using an emulator.

That is well I guess not too wrong. It's a oversimplification.

**Manchu**

Alpharius wrote:
So, PC Gaming = Not Dead!

As far as I can tell, it's the province of MMOs and such RTS games as still get produced. So, yes, it's very much alive if you like that sort of thing. My mainstay gaming comes from RPGs and Action Adventure -- both of which I think play better with big TV screens and controllers. So for me at least, PC gaming has been pretty dead for a long while.

**Palindrome**

Manchu wrote:
As far as I can tell, it's the province of MMOs and such RTS games as still get produced. So, yes, it's very much alive if you like that sort of thing. My mainstay gaming comes from RPGs and Action Adventure -- both of which I think play better with big TV screens and controllers. So for me at least, PC gaming has been pretty dead for a long while.

I used my 360 twice in about 2 years before selling it on for £30, console gaming is dead to me

**Manchu**

Yep, it just comes down to what/how you like to play.

**Melissia**

Manchu wrote:
Alpharius wrote:
So, PC Gaming = Not Dead!
As far as I can tell, it's the province of MMOs and such RTS games as still get produced. So, yes, it's very much alive if you like that sort of thing. My mainstay gaming comes from RPGs and Action Adventure -- both of which I think play better with big TV screens and controllers. So for me at least, PC gaming has been pretty dead for a long while.

It's also the domain of indie games and any game that has a heavy modding scene, and the best RPGs (which benefit the most from modding anyway).

**Ouze**

Swan-of-War wrote:Bully for you Ouze - I enjoy the convenience of reading just one spec - Wii U, XBox 360, PS3, etc. Plus, I don't have to call other people up when I give them with a birthday / holiday gift to see if their computer can run it.

Manchu wrote:Agree with Swan-of-War. Understanding minimum requirements used to be easy when it was a matter of Pentium II or Pentium III. IME, it currently implies a greater understanding of the underlying tech, which many people simply don't have. And looking down on people who don't have that understanding is quite simply an elitist attitude.

If I came across as elitist - and re-reading my comment, perhaps I did - I didn't intend to, so I apologize for that, Swan. As one of the technically initiated, sometimes it's difficult for me to come at this sort of stuff from an uninitiated perspective. I simply have a hard time understanding why others would find that daunting, so I should try harder to.

I will certainly grant that GPU naming conventions have become a total nightmare, CPU I find to be less so - but it also doesn't hurt that the CPU is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's "normal" gaming environments. I tend to upgrade my computer when I finally come across a game that I want to play; but which will not grant me an adequate framerate, presuming maxed settings and 1920x1200. As such I'm still using the same CPU and motherboard that I bought in 2007 - a Core 2 Quad Q6600. The video card I updated about a year and a half ago. The only limitation that practically affects me is that my motherboard doesn't support AHCI, so moving from a velociraptor to a SSD didn't give very much performance gain - but now I've digressed.

My point is, when you buy a processor, try to buy big - $300, maybe $350 - and you should be good for quite a few years. The GPU I find will usually last around 3 years or so with my above requirements. I don't even consider the possibility a game will not work on my system.

**MarsNZ**

People who don't get system requirements I have a question for you.

Do you have to ask the pump attendant which octane your car takes every time? Or do you learn what trivial numbers are relevent to your situation and just remember them?

**Melissia**

Don't be so smug and obnoxious.

Video cards are NOT obvious.

**MarsNZ**

Not everyone is a biochemical engineer either, but they manage.

If I come across as smug and obnoxious because I take a shred of responsibility to know about what I buy, then that must make those that are scared off by a few simple numbers ignorant and lazy. Seriously a 10 second google search yields hundreds of hits of sites that rank video cards, how hard it it to read the box that yours came in and find where it places. Also protip: Consoles contain video cards.

**nomotog**

MarsNZ wrote:
Not everyone is a biochemical engineer either, but they manage.

If I come across as smug and obnoxious because I take a shred of responsibility to know about what I buy, then that must make those that are scared off by a few simple numbers ignorant and lazy. Seriously a 10 second google search yields hundreds of hits of sites that rank video cards, how hard it it to read the box that yours came in and find where it places. Also protip: Consoles contain video cards.

I have had an easier time with bio chemistry then with video cards.

**Palindrome**

I don't even know what card is in my laptop, its very easy to find out of course, and I have yet to find a game that I can't play. The 4/5 year ol,d mid range card on my desktop could still manage AAA games (usually on mid/low settings) before I upgraded my system. Basically if you don't buy the cheapest option and its not ancient (relatively speaking) it should run just about anything if you don't mind turning the options down.

**Swan-of-War**

Hey man, if building computers is your thing, knock yourself out. I hope you enjoy it and that's cool. But I just choose to occupy my mind with other things.

How many players can you get on your computer?

**Alpharius**

Everyone - please take it down a notch.

RULE #1 reigns supreme, everywhere!

And using terms like "protip" - inadvisable.

Thanks!

**LordofHats**

About an hour of reading will teach you everything you need to know about system requirements. A google search to learn how to find what hardware is installed on your computer, a brief tutorial on the jargon (most of which is frankly irrelevant babble for typical gaming needs) a few explanations on how a few youtube videos on how to switch out hardware. It takes little to no effort or skill to learn what the numbers in that "System Requirements" box mean or how you can upgrade a rig to meet them.

If suggesting such a thing is elitist, then our standards for the common man must have dropped pretty low.

**Melissia**

LordofHats wrote:
About an hour of reading will teach you everything you need to know about system requirements

No, it won't.

It'll take far longer than a mere half-hour to explain the labyrinthine and inane naming and rating schemes for video cards.

**LordofHats**

The naming schemes are not hard. Not intuitive but not hard:

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.

5 Minutes. I went to google and typed in "understanding geforce cards" and that article is the first thing that pops up and more than adequately shows how the GeForce range of cards is named.

The hardest part about computer hardware is going to be motherboards and power supplies. Graphic cards honestly are easy sauce. It takes a few minutes of one's time to learn the naming conventions used by Nvidia and ATI:

> #60 Mutli-media GPU not intended for gaming (Usually repackaged cards from the previous series however and the 40 and 50 numbered cards are usually the 90 rated cards from the previous series)
#60 Low end gaming GPU
#70-#80 Midrange gaming GPU
#90 High end gaming GPU

It's honestly that simple and Nvidia hasn't changed their naming conventions in nearly a decade.

**Melissia**

That does not tell me if my NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti is capable of running on any specific game whenever the game lists an entirely different card as its minimum or recommended requirement. At best, it offers vague and general nonsense without giving any specifics or explaining anything on WHY these things have the names that they have and how I can tell that my card will work for a game.

Let's take Planetside 2 as an example.

How the hell am I supposed to tell whether or not my card (see above) can match PS2's minimums-- which are...
"GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 / AMD Radeon HD 3870 or greater"

The damned article didn't even MENTION any GeForce with four digits in it. What the feth is an 8600 and how does it compare to a GTX 550 Ti, and how the feth does any of this make any sense?

**LordofHats**

In all honest 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". Graphic cards are a simple higher number = higher performance deal. Nvidia muddled that back in 2009 when they launched the 100 series (cause I guess they didn't want to make an GeForce 10000) but it's not that hard to figure out. Just go to wikipedia and type in GeForce. They have a list of every series in order of release and a break down of Nvidia's naming system. If someone can read that and not figure out how it can be applied, I don't think Nvidia's naming scheme is the problem.

I get that people don't want entertainment to be work. That's fine. If you just want to enjoy yourself and not fret over system requirements at all consoles work great for that. But that doesn't make the naming difficult to understand or navigate. It's simply a matter of getting over the initial hurdle of understanding what all the numbers and letters thrown in mean. Once that hurdle is mounted it is an extremely simple task to know if a card will run something.

**Melissia**

LordofHats wrote:
Graphic cards are a simple higher number = higher performance deal.

Except, apparently, when they don't.

LordofHats wrote:
Just go to wikipedia and type in GeForce. They have a list of every series in order of release and a break down of Nvidia's naming system.

Two bizarre tables which do not actually give very much information and which I cannot actually figure out where the feth to put my own card on. The "Ti" suffix isn't listed anywhere on the chart. The GTX prefix, apparently, doesn't even actually apply accurately to the card that I am using based off of Wikipedia's own page on the 500 series-- to quote, "Although the GTX 550 Ti is a GF116 mainstream chip, Nvidia has chosen to name its new card the GTX 550 Ti, and not the GTS 550." So by the admission of the very fething source you quoted, NVidia defies their own naming schemes for marketing purposes.

And then you wonder why I find it so goddamned frustrating. And I still haven't gotten a straight answer on the issue.

**LordofHats**

I've given you the straight answer. The straight answer is that all you need are the numbers on the card. The last two which identify what the card is intended to do, and whatever number is in front of that number which identifies the series. GTX, GTS, GTO, Ti are just markers thrown in that identify various aspects of specific cards. Car manufacturers do the same thing. For the typical consumer those identifiers are irrelevant (i.e. it doesn't matter to you at all that the GTX 550 Ti uses a GF116 chip. All that matters to you is the 550).

Once you recognize that each cards name basically boils down to <series #><quality #> all you need to know is the order the series was released in which is mostly sequential. If someone wants to know how cards of different series perform relative to each other it's as simple as a 90 from a previous series being generally comparable to the 60 of the next series.

Note: i'm mostly going with Nvidia cause that's what I use but Radeon uses even simpler naming with <series #><market #><quality #>. The biggest complaint that I think can be legitimately leveled against their naming conventions is that they advertise their cards for gaming purposes even when the card isn't designed for gaming i.e. a GeForce 620 or a Radeon 7350 and they don't always make this clear in their marketing.

**nomotog**

It can get more complex. If you really want to know, then you have to look at memory, processing power, power use, number of slots, reliability, cooling issues, and now they even have doodads like 3d or physics. It's not simple stuff. I think the hardest part is that you don't even know what you needs will be because you buying for games that haven't even been made.

**LordofHats**

If you're the average person who is just trying to maintain their hardware and build a PC that will last, you can get the job done in an afternoon, and it only takes that long because motherboards are a complete pain and budgeting a power supply is takes some time... Unless money is no object but I doubt that works for most people XD

But the graphic card is usually simple as get a card with a big enough number on in its name. It's more complicated this year because the new consoles are gonna launch soon and the minimum PC requirements will probably make a big jump. The bright side there though is that a 790 when it comes out will probably last 6+ years.

**Manchu**

"PC gaming isn't elitist and anyone who disagrees is dense, lazy, irresponsible, and should stick to consoles."

LOL great argument.

**LordofHats**

I see the strawman has come to play.

**Kanluwen**

Manchu wrote:
Yep, it just comes down to what/how you like to play.

Not just that, but it comes down to who you play with as well.

I know that if I didn't have a good core of people to play with on the 360--I would likely not get any use out of it and would probably be playing MMOs or PC games far more often.