technology The Glorious PC master race thread

[Azure Envy 1,092]

I would totally agree with it if it accounted for more things, such as sales, upgrades and any necessary peripherals. Of course, it's pretty much impossible to gauge those over a set period of time, or if the user would even purchase those 40 games (and what prices they are), so I can see why they were left out, but it is what it is. A chart.

 

Heh, so in other words... it doesn't really say much of anything at all.

[long gone 8,929]

Heh, so in other words... it doesn't really say much of anything at all.

Just a basic cost comparison.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Not sure if you're being entirely serious here, but I'll chime in on this:

 

I never buy games full price at $60 unless I really, really must have it it day one (basically not ever). Most of my games are from GameFly or other places for less than $20. Not as cheap as a $5 game on Steam, but I don't usually spend only $5 on a PC game.

 

I never pay full retail for XBL or PSN. Not hard to find sales on codes for these.

 

And that $650 PC isn't upgraded once for that time period? Well, to each their own I suppose but isn't part of the PC experience better graphics? Gonna need some hardware for that, especially if you're running into unoptimized ports.

 

Just my 2c, I follow the games, not the systems.

 

Basically this.

 

PC gaming *is* more expensive than console gaming. The real catch is that if you game on consoles, you still need a PC for office work. A $1000 PC isn't that extraordinary when you're comparing it to a cheap $400 PC, a $400 console, and then more expensive games and subscription fees.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Regulus

[Azure Envy 1,092]

Just a basic cost comparison.

 

A cost comparison that makes the cheapest assumptions about PC and the most expensive possible for the console. Not much of a comparison, but like you said, just another chart..

[long gone 8,929]

A cost comparison that makes the cheapest assumptions about PC and the most expensive possible for the console. Not much of a comparison, but like you said, just another chart..

I believe it was made by a PC gamer, so it might be a bit biased in that regard, yeah.

[Mouse 302]

On the subject of PC vs console cost, I found this article, while somewhat outdated, to be interesting.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171158-can-you-build-a-gaming-pc-better-than-the-ps4-for-400

 

 

Also, here's some awesome shots of Crysis 3 at (almost) 8k resolution

 

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/k_putt/sets/72157644191959442/

[long gone 8,929]

"There are no 8-core Jaguar parts on the market"

Probably because it doesn't support more than 4 cores without some very hacky workarounds. Which the PS4 and Xbone use.

 

"The other big problem is the 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, which has an utterly insane peak bandwidth of 176 gigabytes per second. There is no way to build a PC with such a configuration."

 

And that is because GDDR5 is terrible for system usage. For a GPU, it's amazing - but it has much higher latency than DDR3 does, upwards of CAS 15 - 17 which a GPU is designed to work around, but a CPU isn't. This is why most PCs have two separate pools of RAM, one large pool of DDR3 for the system and one smaller pool of GDDR5 for the GPU, because GDDR5 is gonna bottleneck the CPU greatly. Although, at the end of the day, GDDR5 is a high-bandwidth, high-latency modified version of DDR3 for GPUs, so it's still DDR3. Just with higher bandwidth and latency. Wouldn't surprise me if GDDR6 is on the horizon now that DDR4 is available.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

On the subject of PC vs console cost, I found this article, while somewhat outdated, to be interesting.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171158-can-you-build-a-gaming-pc-better-than-the-ps4-for-400

 

 

Also, here's some awesome shots of Crysis 3 at (almost) 8k resolution

 

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/k_putt/sets/72157644191959442/

 

This bad boy is cheap, includes a PSU, and can stand on its side — like the PS4!

 

A 275W noname PSU and a 7850? I realize it isn't the most power-hungry GPU on the planet but that PC won't last long.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

This bad boy is cheap, includes a PSU, and can stand on its side — like the PS4!

 

A 275W noname PSU and a 7850? I realize it isn't the most power-hungry GPU on the planet but that PC won't last long.

 

I went "ow ow, ouchie, ow, holy shit" reading those specs because that mess is only going to playing last-gen stuff and lower-end current gen stuff(like indie games) at decent settings and resolutions. 

 

It's a trainwreck of bad ideas and only people that are moving up from a non-gaming PC are going to enjoy it(and get frustrated real quick when buy a new game and find out how crappy it looks on it)

[Mouse 302]

Yeah. I suspected there were some corners cut, and also, a PC with the similar power of a console wouldn't be able to run games as well as the console, if I am correct. Still, it's an interesting idea.

[long gone 8,929]

I'd take a case with no PSU but paired with a PSU from a trusted brand like Seasonic, XFX, Corsair, Fractal Design or even Rosewill over a case with an included no-name PSU.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

Yeah. I suspected there were some corners cut, and also, a PC with the similar power of a console wouldn't be able to run games as well as the console, if I am correct. Still, it's an interesting idea.

 

PC gaming on the cheap is definitely possible, but that particular build is just strange. I've never seen the case in person but reading through some of the comments, a 7850 wouldn't even physically fit (!)

 

I'm loathe to recommend someone build for much less than $500 -- at that point the level of performance is cutting it close and any additional cost cutting usually comes in the form of things like a decent power supply, something that people tend to overlook, like whoever wrote that article.

[long gone 8,929]

I once fit 8GB RAM, a Pentium G3258 and a GTX 750 Ti into a build at around $380, but of course it's probably more now.

[Mouse 302]

On another subject, what do you all think about getting a 4k screen when building or buying a higher-end desktop or even laptop? Sure, you'd have to turn the resolution settings down on the most demanding games even with the most powerful setup possible, but the 4k resolution could really add a lot to older games and general internet and YouTube use. You guys think the extra ~200 bucks is worth it?

[long gone 8,929]

Eh... I think the next step for me is 1440p. 4K can wait.

[Mouse 302]

If only there were laptops with 1440p screens. All of them are either 1080p or 4k, it seems.

[long gone 8,929]

If only there were laptops with 1440p screens. All of them are either 1080p or 4k, it seems.

There are, but only on ultrabooks so far.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

If only there were laptops with 1440p screens. All of them are either 1080p or 4k, it seems.

Just my opinion, I don't think a 4K laptop for gaming at this point is the best idea. 4K panels are gonna be dirt cheap in short order though, if that $350 60Hz Acer on BF was any indication.

[long gone 8,929]

On the subject of laptops with high-res screens, my laptop has an 1800p screen. Yes.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

I'm happy with my 1080p for now, I honestly see 4K as just a "bragging rights' thing because of how expensive a build you need to run anything new(or even last gen) at decent settings at those resolutions is.  

[long gone 8,929]

I'm fine with 1080p on my desktop too. Don't really see much of a point to 4K right now, not until the hardware catches up for more things than mainstream games like TF2 or LoL.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

On the subject of laptops with high-res screens, my laptop has an 1800p screen. Yes.

 

I've owned ONE 1080p laptop and it was a POS that cut corners everywhere else(it didn't even have a Pentium in it, some low end Intel that was called a P90 or something) to get that screen into it for the price they wanted. 

[Plageius 263]

I've owned ONE 1080p laptop and it was a POS that cut corners everywhere else(it didn't even have a Pentium in it, some low end Intel that was called a P90 or something) to get that screen into it for the price they wanted. 

lol it had a p90 in it, maybe thats why it was so slow

[long gone 8,929]

This one has an Intel Core i7-4510U, which is basically a faster version of the i5-4210U with some more cache.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

lol it had a p90 in it, maybe thats why it was so slow

 

Or maybe it was like BG60, it was some string of random characters and made by Intel.