The PC Gaming and Hardware Technobabble Topic

[Regulus]

Xbox One = Trash. I see PS4 taking a dump on this quite literally. Like I get PC gaming is good, but quite honestly PC's with the ability to Game cost considerably more than a Console. PC = Awesome with a console controller, but with keyboard that is just gross.

• cheap quad-core CPU: $80
• cheap motherboard: $50
• 4GB DDR3 memory: $20 (price fluctuates a lot, though, actually)
• 350 watt or more power supply: $50
• graphics card comparable to PS3's GeForce 7800: $35
• hard drive: $50
• DVD drive: $20
• moderately sized case with a few fans: $40

Total: $345

This PC offers performance similar to the PS3, which is priced about $100 lower. But, consider this:

• PC games are cheaper than PS3 games.
  
• A gaming PC also serves as a PC, obviously. Which means you're getting a new PC and a gaming machine, for the cost of $100 more than just a gaming machine.
• A PC is upgradable. With a console, you buy the hardware once and you're stuck with it.
• If you actually go through the effort to build a gaming PC, you'll have a good idea of how it works and you'll be able to fix any problems yourself.
• Mods. 'Nuff said.
• With a PC, you can use any sort of controller/gamepad/whatever you want. I downloaded a driver that allow me to use my PS3 controller. The Xbox controller is natively supported in windows. There's also a plethora of other devices that can be used with many different types of games.
• You won't have to worry about overheating too much because you bought a somewhat decent case that can keep your stuff cool. It isn't a George Foreman grill.

There's just no competition, honestly. At launch, consoles are generally better than gaming PC's at their respective price point, because the companies sell high-end hardware at a loss. But, that loss is regained through the increased cost of games.

Consider it this way: they make consoles for a reason. That reason is because they are profitable in the long run. If the consoles are profitable, that means you're losing money as the consumer.

Right now, I have a gaming PC in the range of $1000 to $1200. I didn't spend all that money at once, though. I've been upgrading my PC every year or so, ever since I first built it in 2010. My most recent upgrade was a Radeon HD 7950 for $350. It's one of the best cards on the market right now, and is far more powerful than anything under the hood of the PS4 or Xbox One.

It seems expensive, but right now, it s**ts all over the current gen consoles. Not only that, but it will last for many years to come. I won't need to upgrade anything for at least another two years. When I do, that upgrade will probably cost about half that of a PS4 or Xbox One.

[DGFone]

Right now, I have a gaming PC in the range of $1000 to $1200. I didn't spend all that money at once, though. I've been upgrading my PC every year or so, ever since I first built it in 2010. My most recent upgrade was a Radeon HD 7950 for $350. It's one of the best cards on the market right now, and is far more powerful than anything under the hood of the PS4 or Xbox One.

And if you ever listened to me, because I know for a fact that I told you this, but in the long run, if you buy a "high end" graphics card, you are too wasting money.

If you are really concerned about cash, you can get a very kick*** gaming PC without having to spend more than $200 (hint: you better not) on any single component. At the end of the day, if you buy a powerful graphics card, it becomes outdated (hint: software, i.e. DirectX/OpenGL capabilities) long before it runs out of raw horsepower. If you are willing to spare a few frames per second, or perhaps some of the high end settings in the newest games, you can get a very good rig on the cheap.

Heck, most PC games on low settings look better than their console counterparts. And just to prove that I'm not simply talking, I am able to max-out Metro 2033 on my $175 GTX 650 TI: The card that has the best power-price ratio of the current generation, and the card that I frankly think everyone should get as their best card. Anything above this card I consider a waste, because as I said: you'll be replacing it anyways, but before it will become too weak. Might as well get a card that will be a full upgrade and not just a "I needed the new DirectX". I'm pretty sure the old GTX 9800 cards are powerful enough to max out Battlefield 3, and you can get them for cheap... but you won't want to, because they are DX9 cards, and won't even install BF3.

If you want to be future-smart, you want to "sync" the lifetime of your card both capability and raw power-wise, so that you won't end up having to replace one over the other.

If you truly insist on that you absolutely NEED the best card, then wait half a year, at which the price will almost half in price, but the card will still be very powerful. Still overpriced, but if you want to show off your rig that can max out Crysis 3, then I can't really stop you. Much like I advised a guy not to buy some fancy blue LEDs for his rig (which do nothing but waste power), but he got them anyways.

In fact, if you really want to compare consoles to PC? DON'T. You can get a much better gaming PC...

....

...

For the same price as a console.

[Regulus]

Speak for yourself.

[DGFone]

^ I take it you didn't actually read my post.

[Regulus]

And if you ever listened to me, because I know for a fact that I told you this, but in the long run, if you buy a "high end" graphics card, you are too wasting money.

Nope.

If you are really concerned about cash, you can get a very kick*** gaming PC without having to spend more than $200 (hint: you better not) on any single component.

Yes.

At the end of the day, if you buy a powerful graphics card, it becomes outdated (hint: software, i.e. DirectX/OpenGL capabilities) long before it runs out of raw horsepower.

Nope. Definitely not. New versions of DirectX appear only a few times a decade. The GeForce 8 Series were the first DX10 cards, and that was eight years ago. The DX11 cards have been around for almost four years, and there is no sign of DX12 anywhere to be found.

If you are willing to spare a few frames per second, or perhaps some of the high end settings in the newest games, you can get a very good rig on the cheap.

This is true.

Heck, most PC games on low settings look better than their console counterparts.

I disagree. At least with consoles, the resolution is so poor, you can't tell that what you see looks awful.

And just to prove that I'm not simply talking, I am able to max-out Metro 2033 on my $175 GTX 650 TI: The card that has the best power-price ratio of the current generation, and the card that I frankly think everyone should get as their best card.

That card you just bought is on par with the Radeon HD 5850. The latter is around four years old, with an initial price point of around $310. It's also DX11.

In four years, the value of the card depreciated by less than half. On average, the price of a card with the same level of performance only went down by $34 per year.

Honestly? That's not that much. That's like going to the movies twice. Heck, buying a new, high end PC ever is cheaper than going out every friday night, over the course of a year.

The only real benefit of waiting for another generation is lower power consumption. But, you'll also have to deal with buggy drivers with new cards.

Anything above this card I consider a waste, because as I said: you'll be replacing it anyways, but before it will become too weak.

My 7950, which is a bit beefier, dropped down below 20FPS a few times in Tomb Raider, with max settings at 1080p. My old 5770 could hardly run Far Cry 3 at medium.

Might as well get a card that will be a full upgrade and not just a "I needed the new DirectX".

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.

I'm pretty sure the old GTX 9800 cards are powerful enough to max out Battlefield 3, and you can get them for cheap... but you won't want to, because they are DX9 cards, and won't even install BF3.

Wrong. The 8 series and higher are DX10, which can run BF3. I don't know that any video card can install BF3, though. You need a hard drive for that.

If you want to be future-smart, you want to "sync" the lifetime of your card both capability and raw power-wise, so that you won't end up having to replace one over the other.

I don't even know what you mean here. Are you saying a new GPU is only worth it when you need a new version of DirectX? That makes no sense, because you just said the exact opposite.

If you truly insist on that you absolutely NEED the best card, then wait half a year, at which the price will almost half in price, but the card will still be very powerful.

Prices generally only drop when a new generation is released.

Still overpriced, but if you want to show off your rig that can max out Crysis 3, then I can't really stop you.

What can I say? It looks beautiful. The entire game is hardly more than a PC benchmark, but you can't argue that it doesn't look nice.

Much like I advised a guy not to buy some fancy blue LEDs for his rig (which do nothing but waste power), but he got them anyways.

I smell jealousy. LEDs are cheap and have almost negligible power consumption, not to mention they can be turned off. I wouldn't buy LEDs for my PC, but there's no reason to condemn others for putting a bit more emphasis on aesthetics.

In fact, if you really want to compare consoles to PC? DON'T. You can get a much better gaming PC...

....

...

For the same price as a console.

That doesn't mean a PC that cost more than a console is a waste of money. By that logic, we'd still be using VCRs and cassettes.

[DGFone]

You forgot to mention that Battlefield 3 is a DX11 game. I'm pretty sure that the GTX 285 or 295 can run it maxed out... except that they are DX 10 cards, and not 11, thus making them incapable of doing so.

Also, you forgot another important aspect that I always mention to you...

TDP.

Yes, my card is on par with a 5850, expect for one thing: it uses a whole 50 watts less of power. Might not mean anything to you yet, but seeing as you are soon going to go into college and will start paying your own utilities, that's when you start realizing that there is simply no way that you can justify in running a microwave under your desk.

And you never bothered to address the noise problem. I've heard of high-end card being described as anything from hair driers to vacuum cleaners. And that's not the cards, but the fans and cooling required to keep them running. Of course, you can always crank up the AC... oh wait, utilities...

People always look at the immediate price, and always fail to take upkeep into consideration.

My 7950, which is a bit beefier, dropped down below 20FPS a few times in Tomb Raider, with max settings at 1080p. My old 5770 could hardly run Far Cry 3 at medium.

I have no idea what your requirements for "running" are, but a 57770 can run Far Cry 3 maxed out at a little over 20 fps. That's the frame-rate of a movie, which really means that at the end of the day, if you think that its not enough... I can't help you.

Also, from what I read, ATI cards are horrible at low frame-rate due to, I think the proper terms was "refresh rate", or something like that. Basically, the jump from one frame to another with an ATI card is much more noticeable than with a comparable frame-rate with NVIDIA. Don't know if that's just a Linux driver thing, but in layman's terms, low frame-rate on an ATI card looks even lower than it actually is. So perhaps the reason why your 57770 couldn't run Far Cry 3 at medium... was because it's an ATI card.

Speaking of refresh rate... if your monitor can only support 60 FPS.... you'll be a real dummy to get a card that can do more than that for the most demanding game that you want to play. On a 60Hz monitor, the best the screen can draw is 60 fps. So if your card is hacking away at 70.... you'r burning electricity money.

Still overpriced, but if you want to show off your rig that can max out Crysis 3, then I can't really stop you.

What can I say? It looks beautiful. The entire game is hardly more than a PC benchmark, but you can't argue that it doesn't look nice.

Step 1. Go to Youtube
Step 2. Watch "Crysis 3 maxed Out". Observe graphics.
Step 3. Go outside. Observe graphics.

Now you see how bad Crysis 3 actually looks like, while at the same time experiencing all it has to offer... on nothing beefier than what you can find on a phone. Seriously, if you want to get a game just to oggle at it: don't. Let some other idiot record video of it and then you can watch it. I play games to have fun, and not to drool over the fact that they can only draw 10 feet before the fog starts rolling in...

[Regulus]

You forgot to mention that Battlefield 3 is a DX11 game. I'm pretty sure that the GTX 285 or 295 can run it maxed out... except that they are DX 10 cards, and not 11, thus making them incapable of doing so.

http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-system-requirements/

BF3 runs on DX10.

Also, you forgot another important aspect that I always mention to you...

TDP.

I didn't forget. In fact, I even said this:

The only real benefit of waiting for another generation is lower power consumption. But, you'll also have to deal with buggy drivers with new cards.

Yes, my card is on par with a 5850, expect for one thing: it uses a whole 50 watts less of power. Might not mean anything to you yet, but seeing as you are soon going to go into college and will start paying your own utilities, that's when you start realizing that there is simply no way that you can justify in running a microwave under your desk.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ ... epmt_5_6_a

Where I live, electricity costs 10 cents per kilowatt hour. At 50 extra watts per hour, and 4 hours of gaming a day for every day in an entire month, that costs 60 cents.

Looks like I'll have to pass on that pack of gum.

And you never bothered to address the noise problem. I've heard of high-end card being described as anything from hair driers to vacuum cleaners. And that's not the cards, but the fans and cooling required to keep them running. Of course, you can always crank up the AC... oh wait, utilities...

You know, my 7950 is actually cooler than my 5770. Why? The 5770 had one small fan, and it was three years old. It was covered in dust.

Guess what? It's also quieter. It has two big fans, which don't need to move as fast to move the same amount of air. My PC is the quietest PC in the house, actually. I can't even tell when it's on, half the time, because sometimes I unintentionally leave it on all night without even realizing it.

People always look at the immediate price, and always fail to take upkeep into consideration.

That's not always true.

[DGFone]

You forgot to mention that Battlefield 3 is a DX11 game. I'm pretty sure that the GTX 285 or 295 can run it maxed out... except that they are DX 10 cards, and not 11, thus making them incapable of doing so.

http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-system-requirements/

BF3 runs on DX10.

Maxed out? I believe quite a few settings are strickly DX 11. This is what I meant by "outdated": I have no doubt that the 295 is strong enough to handle BF3 maxed out, but because its's limited by DX 10, it can't.

Which, by the way: DirectX 11.1 Many cards from the past few years (hint: most) are only DX 11.0. This means that there are quite a lot of even recent cards that are still very capable brawn wise... but are once again outdated.

[Regulus]

I have no idea what your requirements for "running" are, but a 57770 can run Far Cry 3 maxed out at a little over 20 fps. That's the frame-rate of a movie, which really means that at the end of the day, if you think that its not enough... I can't help you.

I did not say FC3 ran at 20FPS. It ran at around 40 on medium, with my 5770. I said my 7950 dropped down to 20 FPS in Tomb Raider, but only briefly. 20FPS is a slideshow for a shooting game, IMO.

Also, from what I read, ATI cards are horrible at low frame-rate due to, I think the proper terms was "refresh rate", or something like that. Basically, the jump from one frame to another with an ATI card is much more noticeable than with a comparable frame-rate with NVIDIA. Don't know if that's just a Linux driver thing, but in layman's terms, low frame-rate on an ATI card looks even lower than it actually is. So perhaps the reason why your 57770 couldn't run Far Cry 3 at medium... was because it's an ATI card.

I don't know what you're talking about. A link would be nice.

Speaking of refresh rate... if your monitor can only support 60 FPS.... you'll be a real dummy to get a card that can do more than that for the most demanding game that you want to play. On a 60Hz monitor, the best the screen can draw is 60 fps. So if your card is hacking away at 70.... you'r burning electricity money.

Ever heard of vsync?

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html

Step 1. Go to Youtube
Step 2. Watch "Crysis 3 maxed Out". Observe graphics.
Step 3. Go outside. Observe graphics.

Now you see how bad Crysis 3 actually looks like, while at the same time experiencing all it has to offer... on nothing beefier than what you can find on a phone. Seriously, if you want to get a game just to oggle at it: don't. Let some other idiot record video of it and then you can watch it. I play games to have fun, and not to drool over the fact that they can only draw 10 feet before the fog starts rolling in...

Dude, you're trolling.

Personally, I think it's rather nice to see what's actually possible with the hardware of this generation. It's not about making it look real, it's really about the immersion of it all.

Maxed out? I believe quite a few settings are strickly DX 11. This is what I meant by "outdated": I have no doubt that the 295 is strong enough to handle BF3 maxed out, but because its's limited by DX 10, it can't.

But it can max the game out in DX10 rendering mode. The fact that the card performs that well after five years is quite remarkable, isn't it?

Which, by the way: DirectX 11.1 Many cards from the past few years (hint: most) are only DX 11.0. This means that there are quite a lot of even recent cards that are still very capable brawn wise... but are once again outdated.

No games currently use DX11.1:

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/s ... ?t=3073541

DX11.1 is only available on the worst operating system known to mankind:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/11/12/micro ... windows-8/

So that's effectively a moot point.

[DGFone]

VSync: Yes, and I use it. But considering how many games have is "off" as default, no to mention how many times I keep reading about people leaving it off for one reason or another, while I use it because... because why not? overall, VSync usage seems to be the minority. Remember: people like to run benchmarks and see a high number, not really caring if it's visible on their screen or not. Silly people.

Which, by the way: DirectX 11.1 Many cards from the past few years (hint: most) are only DX 11.0. This means that there are quite a lot of even recent cards that are still very capable brawn wise... but are once again outdated.

No games currently use DX11.1:

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/s ... ?t=3073541

DX11.1 is only available on the worst operating system known to mankind:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/11/12/micro ... windows-8/

So that's effectively a moot point.

Ever heard of OpenGL? Oh, right, your a Window$ jocky, so of course you haven't.

Just because the newest DirectX is only available for the Devil's OS, doesn't mean that new features on GPUs will stop being developed.

But to try and get back on topic: Seeing as Windows 8 is so bad, how many of you were expecting the new XBox event to be so underwhelming?

I was actively shocked at how much worse it was compared to what I thought it was going to be like.