Reply
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 10/21/2011
Offline
1171 posts
 

Re: Sony Needs to Compete with PC

[ Edited ]
Aug 18, 2014

Sorry for double-post. My browser behaved in a funny way. Smiley Wink 

Message 71 of 81 (152 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 10/21/2011
Offline
1171 posts
 

Re: Sony Needs to Compete with PC

Aug 18, 2014

UGo_6FT_Below wrote:

@stealth I like AMD, there are alot of Intel fans but Amd to me is more consumer friendly for cost vs. performance and newer games are utilizing more cores so multi-core processing with an 8 core amd will be better in some games then a 4-6 core intel processor.  That being said, head to newegg.com and look at their intel/amd gaming rigs and make a decision...or if your tech savvy you could always build your own rig and save even more.  Video card wise i would go with something with nvidia, they're the leader in graphics for a reason.  If you can afford atleast a $200 graphics card you'll be alot happier then having to constantly dumb down all your graphics settings for each game so that it doesnt perform all  "choppy".


I like AMD too for the processors, for the "bang for your buck" value. I'm still on my old Phenom II X6 1090t bought roughly 4 years ago and this thing is still working like a champ in both games and my usual video and image editing work. Many will indeed recommend Intel, and it's not a bad choice by far, as their processors are usually more powerful, but even Maximum PC magazine used an AMD processor in their "basic" build of the month exactly for that reason. Best bang for the buck for a low cost "decent" PC. All their other builds of the month uses Intel CPUs, but they cost more.

 

@ stealth, Depending on what type of gaming you're interested in, a 6-core AMD CPU could be perfect, but I would recommend an 8-core, as their cores don't work exactly like the ones in Intel CPUS. 8-core AMD are really 4 cores with two computing modules each. So they can work as 8 cores in some situations, but in others, it will get you the same performance as a "true" 4 cores. Same thing for 6 cores, being more like 3 cores. It's been like that since the FX line of processors. Phenom II processors previously had "true cores". Hence, people say those are still nowaday faster than their FX equivalent.

 

BUT, if I had the choice to invest more money in either the CPU or the GPU, for gaming usage, I would say invest a bit more in the GPU than the CPU. Unless you plan on upgrading your GPU in a year or two. So you could buy one of the fastest AMD FX-6000 series CPU (instead of the 8000 series) and then invest in a slightly better graphic card.

 

Some will recommend AMD GPUs or NVidia GPUs, but seriously, even gaming mags like PC Gamer or other mags such as Maximum PC say that it's not THAT relevenant anymore, unless PhysX is very important for you. Look at benchmarks onlines and go with the model that has the best bang for your buck. BUT given how Nvidia have been using sh!tty business practices as of late to gain some sort of upper hand in the industry (by paying some game developpers to put code in games that will artificially cripple AMD cards' performance) you MAY want to play safe and get an Nvidia card anyway, however sh!tty their practices are. Some say that AMD drivers are hell, but I never had any problems with them.

 

A good reference for graphic cards is Tom's Hardware website. They have this feature updated every month that lists the best graphic cards in different price ranges so it's worth checking out to pick a card according to your budget.

 

But I would recommend in trying to build your PC yourself. You can buy a pre-configured PC, but it's much more satisfying when you build it yourself. And since you know how eveything works, it's also easy to repair or updete afterwards since you know it inside out.

Message 72 of 81 (152 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 03/01/2008
Online
11980 posts
 

Re: Console vs PC

Aug 18, 2014

UGo_6FT_Below wrote:

and once again CT you're completly ignoring the high costs that consoles get you with the accessories and costs of their games over the years...so get stuck on the initial hardware costs like you are...just what they had in mind when they first started with consoles and what i'd expect from someone that cant think outside the box. Also you're taking MY pc gaming numbers and comparing them to YOUR console gaming numbers..durrr thats not going to work...i've had two xbox's in 8 years...so im going to say i'll have 2 ps4's in 8 years more then likely.  lol spin my numbers around some more to fit your biased comparison. 


not ignoring anything. i thought we both said that there were to many variables to consider there. i guess i did, anyway. you just keep going back to that. i'll say it again though, people have different needs/wants...

 

the ONLY thing we can compare are known costs, hardware. what people decide to do with those purchases and what they add to them as time goes by is irrelevant. in no way am i "thinking inside the box", i know full well the costs associated with both platforms, but the added costs have nothing to do with it. as someone else said, if i want to wait for console games to go bargain bin price, there's plenty of places to choose from.

 

i could spend $2k on a new rig today, but if i only buy/play 1 game a year, then it'll be cheaper than a ps4 in 5? years. or i can buy a $400 ps4 for 1 game and it'll never catch up to the cost of a cheap dell box. see how that doesn't work? 

 

the simple thing is, is that it costs more to get into PC gaming than it does console gaming. the rest is up to peoples' preferences on how much they want to expand that experience, but the initial cost is double(+) on the pc side. that's an undebateable fact. it's also very well known that you CAN build a gaming pc for $600, but don't expect "ultra" on every game, and to never expect "hiccup-free" gaming, moreso on a pc than any other platform, simply because of the nature of the dynamic architecture of the pc. 

 

i, personally, am not into motion or mobile gaming, so my accesories consist of an extra controller with my console so i have 2. so, no, looks like that doesn't work within your point either. divulging this info because i read every word of your posts and completely, took into consideration that you were speaking for yourself. the problem is, is that you are using your experience to project onto others, that what you've spent is what everyone else will spend. simply not the case.

 

example: "i've had two xbox's in 8 years...so im going to say i'll have 2 ps4's in 8 years more then likely." -  i broke a shoelace today, so i will go ahead and assume i'll break 2 more tomorrow. including the new one. again, silly, right? 

 

c'mon man, did you not see the boxes failure rate last gen? i don't want to get into that cause i know the ps3 had failures too, but the 360s failures were absolutely abysmal, with MS having to change the warranty policy to avoid the massive, incoming, CAL...

 

anyway, last thing i'll say. i can not spin *your* numbers. 

 

 

Message 73 of 81 (148 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 04/28/2014
Offline
555 posts
 

Re: Sony Needs to Compete with PC

[ Edited ]
Aug 18, 2014

@John

 

a) steam keeps track of achievements across all games, i guess its been awhile for you

 

b) exclusives dont what? Games are the reason people buy expensive hardware...you think Xbox one would of sold even 5 million consoles had it not launched with the exclusives it did? I know I wouldnt of bought one..heck lol I didnt even buy a ps4 till April because of the lack of quality exclusives.  People dont buy consoles to look at, so no their not going to sell themselves.

Message 74 of 81 (147 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 03/30/2013
Offline
2921 posts
 

Re: Sony Needs to Compete with PC

Aug 18, 2014

way more games get released on PC. consider that. and many at a reasonable price. even Sony's online games are available on PC.


Message 75 of 81 (132 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 06/12/2014
Offline
1163 posts
 

Re: Sony Needs to Compete with PC

[ Edited ]
Aug 18, 2014

I went with the PS4 this cycle instead of the X1 because, with the exception of Halo, most Xbox games could feasibly come over to PC some day as a port (or will still be released on 360 as a weakened version).  The same cant' be said of Playstations library, which, up to know, I've never had acess to.  I doubt we'll see Uncharted, God of War, TLOU, Killzone on PC.  Though this want the entire basis for my decision, it came into play.  It IS about the games.

Message 76 of 81 (130 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 06/13/2014
Offline
442 posts
 

Re: Console vs PC

Aug 18, 2014

RE4LNOiZE_42 wrote:

And PlanetSide 2 plays just fine to me. Max details, and getting (from my visual estimate) near 60fps if not 60. 

 


I know that isn't true, 60 at the warpgate and traveling around maybe, but have you gotten into actual fights?  Not even Intel-Extreme (LGA2011) users can sustain 60fps in a big fight, AMD's typically dip down into the mid teens in framerates no matter how good the PC is, my i7 is lucky to maintain 30+ fps in heavy fights, my 1090T dips to 11-12fps.  Tomb Raider is expected to run well on AMD cards because of TreesFX.

Message 77 of 81 (119 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 06/10/2008
Offline
1474 posts
 

Re: Sony Needs to Compete with PC

Aug 19, 2014
I prefer consoles for the controller. Yes, you can use a controller on PC but online you'll get smoked.

As for cost, consider a gaming desktop vs a laptop or a large screen tablet. You'll find the costs and uses are somewhat similar.

The main thing I like about PC over consoles is the perpetual catalog is of games. No worries about backward compatibility. You will always own and be able to play your content (even if you upgrade to a new system).

The games are cheaper. Battlefield 3 and 4 (and CTE), Sims 3, Mass effect 3, a few Crisis games, couple Dead space games, Plants vs Zombies, and a few more games on Origin was probably around $50 total. On Steam I picked up Skyrim, Lego Marvel, Chivalry, Garry's Mod, and Surgeon Simulator each for $5.00 or less.

There are many benefits to PC and I hope they resonate with gamers. That competition is where we gamers benefit.

So yeah, PS4 is my preference right now, but I like a lot of what PC gaming does. Heck, I really like some of the things the Xbox One does.

Competition is good for the consumer.

Message 78 of 81 (101 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Big Daddy
Registered: 12/24/2007
Offline
16918 posts
 

Re: Sony Needs to Compete with PC

[ Edited ]
Aug 19, 2014

I have a PC that will run every game at maxed settings at 1440p with a minimum of 60fps and on average 70-80.

I only play games on PC... ONLY if the game is played best on PC. And those games are few and far between. 


I prefer playing console games because there is lower power consumption, less radiant heat that warms up my room, an eco-system that I simply prefer. I don't like Steam all that much and stopped buying into the who Steam Sales ZOMG!!! craze when the majority of games purchased on steam NEVER get played. So its effectively a waste of money and basically a scam. 
I don't buy things on sale just beacuse they're on sale. Thats stupid. 


The ad's always say "Save 90%!!!! if you buy now!!!"..... or you just save 100% and not buy anything at all if you're not actually wanting to buy anything.


I prefer console gaming, even after spending $3500 on a PC build that won't need to be upgraded for several years, or if I want to play games at 4k resolution.

 

 

PC gaming DEFINITELY has a lot of drawbacks than end up purely as annoying issues that consoles generally don't suffer from.

Furiously Chaosing
Message 79 of 81 (92 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 10/21/2011
Offline
1171 posts
 

Re: Console vs PC

Aug 19, 2014

TeknoBug75 wrote:

RE4LNOiZE_42 wrote:

And PlanetSide 2 plays just fine to me. Max details, and getting (from my visual estimate) near 60fps if not 60. 

 


I know that isn't true, 60 at the warpgate and traveling around maybe, but have you gotten into actual fights?  Not even Intel-Extreme (LGA2011) users can sustain 60fps in a big fight, AMD's typically dip down into the mid teens in framerates no matter how good the PC is, my i7 is lucky to maintain 30+ fps in heavy fights, my 1090T dips to 11-12fps.  Tomb Raider is expected to run well on AMD cards because of TreesFX.


Well, I'm not here just to contradict, but even if I didn't played that much with the game (only a couple of times with some friends of mine) it was always smooth as butter on my end, with maybe the occasional small dip in performance here and there but nothing detrimental to the gameplay. I know what I saw. And like I said, I didn't have any FPS counter to attest this, but from my gameplay impression, I never felt like it was unplayable dur to framerate. Although that may be due to the fact that the servers we were on were maybe a bit less populated? I don't know.

 

Anyway, my general point is that my current hardware runs anything I throw at it at a level that satisfies me plenty. I care about graphic quality and framerate like anyone out there, but not as much as some who feel they need to upgrade because the game runs at 52fps instead of 60.  When I'll have to reduce the resolution and lower the details to medium or less to be able to play at a decent framerate, then I'll start looking to upgrade.

Message 80 of 81 (65 Views)
Reply
0 Likes