Reply With Quote
holy the banderas gif is perfect
http://www.edge-online.com/news/powe...e-performance/
PlayStation 4 is currently around 50 per cent faster than its rival Xbox One. Multiple high-level game development sources have described the difference in performance between the consoles as “significant” and “obvious.”
Our contacts have told us that memory reads on PS4 are 40-50 per cent quicker than Xbox One, and its ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit) is around 50 per cent faster. One basic example we were given suggested that without optimisation for either console, a platform-agnostic development build can run at around 30FPS in 1920×1080 on PS4, but it’ll run at “20-something” FPS in 1600×900 on Xbox One. “Xbox One is weaker and it’s a pain to use its ESRAM,” concluded one developer.
Microsoft is aware of the problem and, having recently upped the clock speed of Xbox One, is working hard to close the gap on PS4, though one developer we spoke to downplayed the move. “The clock speed update is not significant, it does not change things that much,” he said. “Of course, something is better than nothing.”
holy the banderas gif is perfect
They're both crap in comparison to even average PC's these days. This gen there is simply no way to create a powerhouse system that is also cost effective as with the Xbox 360. When it comes to consoles the last thing on the consumers mind should be graphics, because if you are primarily focused on them, PC is simply the only option.
the gif
Hey guys try to convince everyone how awesome PCs are for gaming some more This is a new and novel posting style that I've never seen before.
How much does that GTX an cost? 1k?
This is dumb. Just because its not important enough to deal with all the extra costs of a PC doesn't mean people shouldn't care. If someone wants what a console has to offer over a PC that doesn't mean they don't care about graphics.
It will probably be sub-$400 by the time GTA V comes out for it, tbh...
You are talking about someone who wants what "consoles have to offer over PC's" - that certainly isn't graphics. I referenced in my OP gamers who care primarily about graphics. If you are a graphics or tech nut, you cannot settle for crappy APU based consoles. These days the main thing that captures my attention span in games is the graphics, without the immersion I just lose interest too quickly.
Regarding the "extra" cost of the PC? Let's see how much you spend in one year on subscription fees, nickel and dime DLC opposed to a real mod community, and full cost, no sale games. I must have saved hundreds this year alone picking up top games on Steam sales. How long do you need to wait for greatest hits sales from Sony or MS? 2 years or 20 million sales? Forget that , I got Max Payne 3 for 13.99 a couple of months after release on the Steam Xmas sale. That adds up quick.
Nice try. The an is on the extreme end of the Spectrum, and is really only necessary when gaming at super high resolutions with ultra settings. You can absolutely on both consoles with a 249.00 GTX 760. At 600.00 you have the new Hawaii architecture AMD R9-290 set to outperform the an. None of the options are cheap in comparison to an all in one set at 399.00 or 499.00 for a console, but , 500.00 for a crappy ass console that is already getting hammered by dev's as a pain in the ass to program for is a rip off. Might as well invest on a PC IMO.
Last edited by DJR210; 09-25-2013 at 05:50 AM.
If I can get a an for less than 400 by March I'm getting three.
not really. gameplay experience is far and above more important than graphics. i have a console only for multiplayer to keep up with friends of mine.
being able to have a huge flatscreen TV in your living room with a console, quality headphones and several people online at once trumps the PC experience for me. there are wayyy too many hackers and raging gots in the PC online community tbh.
That's subjective to the user. It needs to be both for me. As far as your living room comment, you do understand that you can have a PC hooked up in the living room with wireless controllers and headphones connected to the same way you would with a console right? If your friends are console only there's no way around that one, but em', I've made plenty of friends with people on Steam and Origin. Also, don't try and hate on the PC community, you have just as many if not more gots in the console community. People find hacks and exploits no matter the platform, you know that.
i don't think the cost benefit of blowing well over a couple of grand on a PC setup just to have hooked up in your living room is worth it.
i'm saying the reason why consoles are so popular is because of accessibility and community - not really so much performance.
though when comparing consoles, performance is a factor. that's why 360 users are switching over this generation.
Dude, you clearly don't know much about PC gaming, but are trying to put up an argument about why it sucks in comparison to a console.
You can build a quality rig for 6-8 hundred. That is not much more than an Xbox One, an extra controller and a game. The console is more accessable to a casual, but anyone with some common sense and the ability to read an instruction guide or watch a Youtube video can put together a PC in a few hours. Not only is it fun to build one, the experience could also earn you some extra cash in fixing other peoples PC's.
Regarding the community..the only advantage is having more people online, but do you really need all 5 million users to enjoy some online gaming? Is the abundance of screaming, singing, annoying kids that much of a selling point for you?
gaming isn't a hobby for me. it's a leisure activity. i think that's the selling point.
as for screaming little kids. nothing's more fun than pwning gamers online. for me the PC community is too sketchy and compe ive. i'm talking people who invest 100s of days into a single game.
granted i still play RTS and turn based games on my laptop that i can't play on consoles, but i have built in graphics so i can't run anything past 2008 lol.
mindless games like shooters, GTA, ncaa, etc are much more satisfying for me on the console. there are pros for both that work for me, but as far as graphics go, it's great for initial impressions, but my eye gets trained pretty fast to the graphics and i don't notice after awhile.
Again, that's not a fair statement to make. You're telling me if I log in to BF3, MW3, Black Ops 1 or 2 on Xbox or PS3 and I check the leaderboards I will not see players with ridiculous amounts of time invested online?
The compe ive level on PC is much higher, I agree, but I see that in first person shooters and RTS games. I used to be good on BF3 on Xbox, but dont stand a chance on PC. The mouse is much more accurate, but takes a ing long ass time to get good enough to compete online.
Last edited by DJR210; 09-25-2013 at 05:45 AM.
i agree. the difference between PC and console is that gaming on the PC is a sport. you have to invest time, effort, read up on strategy, even watch streams to get to the high level of play that is evident on the leader boards - even the single match ones.
console you just light up a bowl, play a few games to get the idea, and you're already in the top three. there's so much more instant gratification and alot more room to around and just have an all around good time. there's a reason why "professional gamers" are exclusive to the PC.
ehh some people are like that with computer fps' too. they're really both timesinks and wastes of money tbh
Just to add to my PC elitist views, I would l like to go on record with my marijuana elitist views as having moved on from the peasantry that is known as "bowls", as I now vaporize 80% pure THC wax in my dab pen before gaming.
PC gaming has lots of advantages over console gaming. That doesn't mean its better for everyone.
Is it even announced for PC? I thought this might go the RDR route.
nothin beats widescreen 3monitor setup gaming on a pc...
Off topic. PC gaming is a timesink like a previous poster stated. It's natural as you get older your sink gets smaller with a job and family to support which is way people view PC gamers as losers after a certain age. I would saaaaay if you have long PC gaming sessions and you're 27-45, 85% chance you are on the "lower ambition" side of the scale. I hate to use the term "loser".
The 15% includes - Accomplished richers and bachelors, the disabled, a marriage with a spouse that revolves around video games.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
