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.

Most of us gamers have probably had at least one gaming computer in our lives. The era of Half Life, Counterstike, Diablo2, Unreal Tournament, and WC3  was, to me, the high point in computer life. There were TONS of really good games, and all your friends played all the good ones. Console had a few things computers didn't, like sports, racing, and RPGs like FFX, but for many, a computer was the essential tool.

Now a days my poor outdated computer is nigh incapable of running the newer games on the horrizon like the latest edition from westwood. It wasn't even able to run Half Life 2 competitively. Time for a new one, one might say, but I'm not sold on it.

Console games have done much to catch up. They also have the user friendly advantage of not having to worry about compatibility, viruses, and updating pesky drivers.

Then there is cost. These new console systems certainly aren't cheap, and neither are the new computers, although prices have declined. I don't know about you, but I don't have a spare grand or two lying around to plug into my by yearly computer overhual. The bar has raised dramatically on what it takes to make a video game a hit. It takes so long now  for the major players to make a new cool computer game that I feel like I'm just waiting around for sequals and praying that by the time they hit the stores my computer won't be obsolete, which in my case, it is.

So my question, coming from a long time Cstrike addict.... Do you think the computer game will at long last be overcome by the console? How long can the exclusive Computer games hold out against main stream consoles with cheaper tags? Are the advantages in the RTS, MMORPG, and FPS style computer games enough to keep them afloat? I loathe the idea of trading in my trusty twich mouse for a joystick, but what do you think is realistic?

If you watch the market you'll see console games are way behind the gameplay ability of most decent pcs. And that as the market has evolved, game consoles are getting more and more like PCs.

Game consoles have operating systems, harddrives, ram, video chipsets, et cetera, with specs similar to or even behind modern PCs. And hooray they also crash and such (yay).

I'd say, buy a gaming computer first. If you have a thousand dollars to spend, you can make a very very nice rig (or finance it through Newegg). If you have 600 you can make an adequate rig that will run any modern games on medium settings.

Every major game except final fantasy and even some of those comes to PC. Tons of huge games are PC only or suck on the console (Elder Scrolls series for example).

Until they feature consoles with upgradeable hardware and operating systems, you will never see the console replacing the PC for gaming. PCs NOW are faster than the console systems. Imagine what it'll be like in 3 years when the Xbox 720 and the PS4 are coming out? They'll be using hardware from this year, and computers will be lightyears ahead.

Oh and the Nintendo WIV

I came down to the choice on getting a 360 or upgrading to a new gaming rig. My old Box is a 2500+ an d a 9800 Pro, not ancient but not FEAR material either.

In the end I went with the 360 as the only PC game I really want to play is Dawn of War, and my machine can still do that well enough.

But if you were to get a new machine and can build it yourself you can build a REALLY fast box for under a grand.

Athlon64 X2 3800 - $150
1Gb DDR2 800 - $100
Case - $100
Decent HD - $100
Decent Mobo - $100
Video Card - $300
DVD-R - $40

Add in shipping and you can nail this for a little over $900, and that's with a really nice video card. I could link you to specific reccomendations if you really wanted, though to be honest I have to say I like the console route better.  I'm adjusting to playing FPS's on a console now and I'm enjoying the 360 + HDTV combo.

If you know how to upgrade your own computer, then it can be godly but expensive.  Also depends on the stuff your trying to install.  In general comps are much better for gaming than a console, but only if you know how to make them that way.

agreed with longshot, I just modded my xbox and i still is no where near the performance capacity of my PC. Also if you have roms installed you can play most concole games on the PC.

I think the lines are starting to blur.  There will always be folks who prefer the PC, and others who like the console.

However, right now is the first time I think in gaming histroy that the new consoles are actually MORE powerful (from a technical standpoint) than PC's costing litterally thousands more.

Both the 360 and the PS3 have insane stats that you can't get near with anything less than a $3000-$5000 PC. 

Add to that the "HD TV" era of gaming.  If you are lucky enough to have a big TV, it is hard to touch the experience of gaming on a 25"-50" screen.

There are other areas hard to quantify as well, X-Box Live has exclusive content, such as 45 minute Battlestar Galatica previews, HD movie trailers, Game Demos, new games, etc.  Online gaming with all players having equal hardware and all players having voice communication capabilities is REALLY cool, and something the PC can't really touch...yet.

Also, the RTS barrier has recently been broken by EA with LoTR: BFMEII which plays VERY nicely on the 360.  I hope Relic eventually does the same with Dawn of War.

It's not as simple as raw speed or genre specific preferences any more.  You really have to look at the kind of games you like to play, and the way you like to experience your games.

I can tell you this: 

360: $400
X-box LIve for a year: $50
GameFly monthly subscription: $20

So for $450 down, and $20 a month you can get a hold of just about all the gaming you can handle on a VERY high end system with some awesome graphics.

I dont think I could live without a highpower PC, I have a 600 dollar desktop and 777 dollar laptop, and both of those are good enough to run any PC games I want to play (IE the latest and most power requiring ). Now of course if I just spent the money for a 360 it would be a lot more powerful than either of these computers but the 360 cannot do things like download mods, etc etc. The flexibility of a computer seems worth it for all the hardship. But if you just want to sit down and play some games buy a console.

BTW @ Russ: You say you would need a 3000-5000 dollar PC to match the xbox 360 or PS3... I don't see what you mean. We don't yet know the real power of the PS3 as everything shown has generally been proven fake, and 360 graphics can be easily matched. My friend bought a 1500ish dollar computer from Dell that could handle graphics at least as good as the 360 if not better.... and that was more than a year ago, that computer would be less than a grand now. Of course now he has a $3500 laptop that can run any damn game you want on the highest settings but that doesnt prove my point .

Posted By veon on 09/13/2006 4:42 PM


BTW @ Russ: You say you would need a 3000-5000 dollar PC to match the xbox 360 or PS3... I don't see what you mean. We don't yet know the real power of the PS3 as everything shown has generally been proven fake, and 360 graphics can be easily matched. My friend bought a 1500ish dollar computer from Dell that could handle graphics at least as good as the 360 if not better.... and that was more than a year ago, that computer would be less than a grand now. Of course now he has a $3500 laptop that can run any damn game you want on the highest settings but that doesnt prove my point .

I mean RAW processing power.  The following are the tech specs for the 360.  I doubt very much that your $600 PC or even your friends $3500 laptop can boast 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each, with 2 threads per core.  While today your PC may be able to match most of the current 360 games (although my bet would be Oblivion might give you a bit of trouble) few software publishers are truely taking advantage of what the next-gen stuff can do.   PC's DO exist to match this, but not at the price points you mention. 

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="465" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>Custom IBM PowerPC-Based CPU

• Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
• Two hardware threads per core; six hardware threads total
• VMX-128 vector unit per core; three total
• 128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
• 1 MB L2 cache

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>CPU Game Math Performance
9 billion dot product operations per second</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>Main Memory

• 512 MB of 700 MHz GDDR3 RAM
• Unified memory architecture

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>Memory Bandwidth

• 22.4 GB memory interface bus bandwidth
• 256 GB memory bandwidth to EDRAM
• 21.6 GB front-side bus

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>Custom ATI Graphics Processor

• 10 MB of embedded DRAM
• 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines
• Unified shader architecture

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>Polygon Performance
500 million triangles per second</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>Pixel Fill Rate
16 gigasamples per second fill rate using 4x MSAA</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>Shader Performance
48 billion shader operations per second</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">

---

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"></td> <td>Overall System Floating Point Performance
1 Teraflop</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Guess that puts things into perspective for the most part. I'd noticed the blurr between computers and consoles as well. I wonder how far it will go.

The price to spec breakdown on a new computer build juxtaposed with that of a 360 was a gold to me in getting to any kind of conclusion, although I've yet to come to one.

Thx for your voices,
-Cer

Just to give you an idea of what is coming.  One game that does really look like it is going to push what next gen can do is Mass Effect from Bioware.  (You know, the guys that gave us KotOR and Jade Empire).

Check out these screen shots.  These aren't cut scenes or concept art.  These are in game graphics.  The demo video is out on live and looks amazing.  Check the link above for loads of details on this baby.

(the images look MUCH better full size on the Mass Effect site)

Haha you proved me wrong Russ. 3 cores is damn nice. Although I still doubt it would be faster than Intels newest Core 2 Duo. Judging by screens from whats been done so far (even Mass Effect, the graphics on that don't fail to WOW me but I still don't think they are the best lol) they obviously arent able to use that processor power to its full effect, probably due to the small amount of memory and maybe video card limitations (although I'm not sure about that). The 360 will definately have some beautiful games running in the future though.

Posted By veon on 09/14/2006 9:14 PM
Haha you proved me wrong Russ. 3 cores is damn nice. Although I still doubt it would be faster than Intels newest Core 2 Duo. Judging by screens from whats been done so far (even Mass Effect, the graphics on that don't fail to WOW me but I still don't think they are the best lol) they obviously arent able to use that processor power to its full effect, probably due to the small amount of memory and maybe video card limitations (although I'm not sure about that). The 360 will definately have some beautiful games running in the future though.

I think if we did the research we'd find that the ATI chipset in the 360 is still hard to touch for any reasonable price in the PC world.  But that's not really the point.

If you (meaning the generic, gamer you) are a PC gamer enthusiest who loves tweaking his/her PC and is all about the Mods, then the PC is the gaming platform of choice.

But here's my thinking:  Gamer A has limited cash and wants to game, Gamer B has got $2000 - $3000 he's ready to drop on vid gaming.

Gamer A:  Pick up a 360, get the VGA cables, plug it into your existing computer monitor, join a vid-game rental service (Blockbuster, GameFly, Gamerang, etc).  You'll have a hi-end PC gaming experience for less than $500.  Don't like Microsoft?  Fine, get a PS3 and for about $100 more you'll have the same access to great gaming. 

Gamer B: You COULD pick up a SWEET PC rig for that cash.  One could argue that a high end PC is good for a lot of things, and gaming would be great.   BUT I'd recomend dropping that cash on a next Gen console and a nice (30" HD TV.   Get HD TV, watch movies and TV on the big screen, and have a gaming experience that is amazing on your comfy chair with surround sound and a wireless remote. 

I just see it this way:  For the cost of a great graphics card, you can get an entire gaming system.  Why would you not do it?!?

Ahhh Russ. You are obviously not a PC gamer. We are a silly breed, apt to spending more money on little things like fans and cases than the average console gamer spends for their whole console.... or not. A cheap gaming PC can still play games, and no console (althoug the Wii may change that) can match the specialized controls offered by a PC. The sheer custimizability and smooth controls make it worth it. But it is silly, and I can definately see how perhaps spending the 1400 dollars I have spent on my PC and laptop might have been better off for a nice TV and console, yet the PC still wins in my eyes .

So basically PC gaming is rather silly but for those who need the power for work related things anyway (or not really work just like hobby) such as Photoshop, 3d graphics, etc; why not?

And BTW Russ, "get the VGA cables, plug it into your existing computer monitor." Does something like this seriously exist? I really want to buy a 19" widescreen monitor but I don't want to buy it and not be able to play the Wii on it. Where would you find cables like this that would hook a console up to a monitor? Are they cheap? Do they have them in generic form for any console or is it 360 only? Playing GC games on my beautiful laptop screen would be excellent, but everywhere i have checked (not really many places ) I have been told the only way to do that is buy a monitor/TV hybrid. Thanks for filling me in!

Posted By veon on 09/15/2006 10:55 PM
Ahhh Russ. You are obviously not a PC gamer.

 

Dude, I'd be willing to bet I was tweaking the mapping files for my Thrustmaster flight system back most posters here were in diapers.  Hell, I've been a PC gamer since the only time you found the letters PC after the letters IBM.  (Man...I am old) 

I still game on my PC, and I still have a decent system.  And I still tweak it.  But as you say.. when the price of a typical tweak is a whole 360...with the horsepower that would may a 10 year old Cray weep with envy... well, I have to get it.  Because why?  Because I AM a gamer.

AND because the 360 is almost an extension of my PC gaming.  It can communicate directly with my PC, I can do all kinds of fun geek stuff like transfer files, hot swap game saves, etc.  The X-box and the 360 have always been cool for techno geeks precisely because we can tweak 'em out.

But enough about that.

You asked about VGA cables?  Yes, the 360 does have native VGA cables you can get for it, they average between $15-$25 depending on the brand (MS, Monster, ETC.)  I've got mine plugged into my old Viewsonic 20" monitor at home right now.  Works GREAT!  Of course, if you do that you need a speaker system. But anybody who upgrades their PC with any kind of regularity probably has more than a few spare speaker sets lying about. 

I don't know if other systems will natively support VGA.  I'd be surprised if they didn't, as many newer HD TV's take VGA input directly, as it is an efficient way to transmit high res signals.

 

For all you techno geeks out there, here are the resolutions the 360 and the above cables support:

<style type="text/css"> <!-- .Estilo3 {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; } .Estilo4 {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; } --></style> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="400" align="center" border="1"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

Resolution
(pixel width
x
pixel height)

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

Megapixels
(MP)

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

Width
/
Height

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

Aspect Ratio

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

Standard

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

640x480

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

0.31

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

1.33

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

4:3

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

VGA

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

848x480

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

0.4

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

1.76

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

16:9

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

Widescreen 480

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

1024x768

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

0.79

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

1.33

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

4:3

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

XGA

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

1280x720

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

0.92

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

1.78

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

16:9

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

720p

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

1280x768

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

0.98

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

1.66

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

16:10

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

WXGA *

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

1280x1024

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

1.31

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

1.25

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

5:4

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

SXGA

</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="73">

1360x768

</td> <td valign="top" width="75">

1.04

</td> <td valign="top" width="65">

1.77

</td> <td valign="top" width="80">

16:9

</td> <td valign="top" width="95">

WXGA *

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <style type="text/css"> <!-- .Estilo1 { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 9px; color: #666666; } --></style>

* The 1280x768 and 1366x768 resolutions are sometimes referred to as WXGA.

 

I'm mainly a PC gamer, but I will own each of the next-gen systems, eventually (even the Wii, despite its unfortunate name), simply because the "gamer" part is more important than the descriptor. The PC does some things better (I've never liked FPS games with a console controller), while the consoles do others better (and that varies by system). Being too much of a fanboy limits your options too much.