Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

PC Gaming vs Consoleing

Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xiyangliu)
    glad they did otherwise it would be so unfair for all the console players. Have to say shooting games on PC are much more easier to play :P


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Indeed, even with a bit of auto-aim you really can't beat the precision of the mouse.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by padanew)
    Indeed, even with a bit of auto-aim you really can't beat the precision of the mouse.
    And counter strike is all about precision and team play. COD lovers walk away ..... :P


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xiyangliu)
    And counter strike is all about precision and team play. COD lovers walk away ..... :P


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Yeah, I always get my ass kicked but it's ten times more fun
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by padanew)
    Yeah, I always get my ass kicked but it's ten times more fun
    Too many pro nowadays.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How on earth is it expensive? You can build a PC that's 4x as powerful as today's consoles for £300.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df...tal-foundry-pc
    • 1 follower
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spaz Man)
    How on earth is it expensive? You can build a PC that's 4x as powerful as today's consoles for £300.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df...tal-foundry-pc
    Maybe because they're still using hardware from 05-06? Comparing modern PCs to consoles that are over half a decade old is a bit of a moot point. Of course you can build a PC that's several degrees more powerful on the cheap. It's like comparing a modern Audi A5 to some random family estate from the 30s. Keep it somewhat fair and use the beginning of the current console generation as a starting point.

    If you got a decent, but not top of the range PC from 2005, say something like an AMD64 3200+, nVidia 7800GT, 1-2GB DDR RAM, 120GB HDD, a decent ASUS or Gigabyte mobo (for OC potential), decent PSU and Windows XP, which would probably be in the region of £500-600 at the time.

    The Xbox360 from 2005, disregarding failing hardware would still be the £400 or whatever it costed when it first came out.

    Now, fast forward to last year, assuming you wanted to play a modern game like BF3 at a playable frame rate and disregarding the way the game is designed for each respective platform, the Xbox from 2005 would suffice. But I'd effectively have to have built a completely new PC at some point to play BF3. Upgrading individual components doesn't seem to bad because you'd be spreading the cost over a period of years, rather than in a lump sum. But with each upgrade, there are new bottlenecks. Of course, if you're not the type to care about performance, bottlenecks don't matter as much.

    Anyway, that 7800GT needs upgrading for BF3, you upgrade a single component like the 7800GT to anything from an 8800GT (min spec) all the way to a 560ti for BF3 and you create bottlenecks in the RAM, CPU and mobo. Because there is zero point in getting a decent GPU if the rest of the comp can't push performance above 11fps, you have to at least get more RAM. That probably wouldn't suffice in providing more than a minor performance boost (relative to other components), so you get a new CPU, which probably uses a different socket, considering the age difference (because I know that AMD doesn't use S939 any more and Intel certainly don't use LGA775 or S478) which means a new mobo; this can also mean different, newer RAM as most modern mobos use either DDR2 or DDR3

    You'd also want a new PSU to power the newer graphics card and definitely not a ****ty one. Most newer games don't work on XP, so there's also the need to get a new OS too, or just an upgrade for the sake of security.

    In the case of the 7800GT build, to play BF3, I'd have built a completely new PC and depending when those components and what components were bought (e.g. buying an 8800GT now, compared to 4 years ago; or just buying a 560Ti last year), it could be anything from something like £200-300 extra to another £600-700 on the basis of a single competent upgrade and subsequent upgrades to match (not upgrading a single component to play at 5fps, because even my laptop, with an 8400m can push BF3 out at that; or being a moron and building a massively bottlenecked system). Add even the lower end of "upgrading", say £200-£300, the total cost of hardware alone would be £800 or so, by this point and the Xbox would still be £400.

    Of course, this is dependent on the games you play as well. If you play something like SC2, WoW, anything on the Source engine, or if you don't care about making the most out of a PC's superior power, you probably won't need to upgrade, ever. I should still be able to play SC2 on that 7800GT built and I know I can play Source games on something with a Geforce MX440 powering it. Or you could still be playing 1.6 and using an even older PC without upgrading.

    People who say that PC's are automatically cheaper because you can cherry pick the latest, cheap builds, is kinda weak, as it's easy to go the other way and make costs spiral, such as changing new components every year and then ricing a PC with blue LEDs, a million fans, etc. And cheap builds are cheap for a reason, they are not designed to last and upgrading is more likely to create bottlenecks sooner rather than later.

    When it comes to the next console development cycle, assuming it lasts as long as this generation. You'll buy a £3-400 console at the start of it and still have the same hardware by the end. When you buy a PC at the time, be it a budget £300 or a mid-top end £600-£800, by the end of the next console cycle in like 9 years from now (assuming you want to play the latest games), you'd probably have at least made one major upgrade & subsequent knock-on upgrades, which will bring the hardware costs above that of a console.

    Again, it depends entirely on your needs and preferences to PC gaming. Cost of PC hardware shouldn't be a selling point for PC gaming. The biggest things are the range of games available to you, the versatility and ability to modify games. Oh and that the cost of PC games tends to be cheaper, so if you buy a lot of games, or if you pirate everything, the cost of PC hardware can easily be offset.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frankster)
    I agree. I have both a PC and a PS3 and after playing on the PS3, I don't really feel enthused to play on my PC. My PC has quite high specs but the fact that I can't play with my mates as much, is a let down. Maybe in the future a collaboration of Microsoft with Windows and Xbox could solve this?
    xbox and windows are both microsoft products :facepalm2:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    it is worth noting though, that you get what you pay for - with games like BF3 (which I can play on my sub-£300 machine by the way ), I was amazed by just how much the graphical fidelity is scaled down when running it on a console. If I were to scale it down as much on my pc for example, I reckon I could run it on my old Sapphire HD 3850 card, which is four generations of graphics cards ago, and I believe it was released around the same time as the first iteration of the current generation of consoles.

    The costs of building a PC can spiral, but if you look at graphical fidelity as an example, the amount that I would have to spend on a PC to game at the detail of a console would be very small - and again you would have all the functionality of a PC as an added bonus. The only negative points that I can realistically see of using a PC is the lack of mobility (Buy a laptop), and the stigma that has been formed around PC gaming in general (which is BS anyway).

    You only really need to spend a ton of money if you want cutting edge, and, since console hardware is outdated the very moment it is released (or prior to that, actually), you are never getting the full potential out of a console, whereas the versatility of the PC will remain obvious throughout.

    The fact of the matter is that there are parts out there suited to every budget and requirement, and you will only really create bottlenecks if you aren't careful and plan ahead in your buying. With consoles, you are stuck with specific hardware, and you cannot upgrade parts for a small amount when you need to, and for that reason I stick to PC gaming - flexibility.

    Like I said though, I do see the appeal of consoles, I just don't think that it's worth splashing out for one when a PC (especially at this stage in the life-cycle of these consoles) is a smarter buy.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anetata)
    1. Portability - while desktop PCs may not be very portable at all, there are also great gaming laptops on the market - most obvious example being Alienware laptops.
    Yeah, if you're rich lol. I recently had a look at some Acer Aspire laptops (I need a new laptop). One was labelled as a gaming laptop, costs £650 and when I got opinions, many said it probably wouldn't be particularly good for gaming. I think I'll stick to my £200 Xbox 360 :/
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vedderfan94)
    Yeah, if you're rich lol. I recently had a look at some Acer Aspire laptops (I need a new laptop). One was labelled as a gaming laptop, costs £650 and when I got opinions, many said it probably wouldn't be particularly good for gaming. I think I'll stick to my £200 Xbox 360 :/
    "Gaming" Laptops are often just cheap marketing ploys - you need to look at the hardware that it uses - take alienware for example, they build stellar products, but since dell took over, they have become increasingly overpriced.
    • 1 follower
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by padanew)
    If I were to scale it down as much on my pc for example, I reckon I could run it on my old Sapphire HD 3850 card, which is four generations of graphics cards ago, and I believe it was released around the same time as the first iteration of the current generation of consoles.
    It was released in the same generation as the 8x00 series of nVidia cards, a good 2-3 years after the current gen of consoles and that meets the minimum spec of BF3.

    If you bought the equivalent PC to what you have now, during 2005. It would not be playing BF3. It's as simple as that.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm not saying that a 2005 PC would run it, but my £200 PC from this year does - and likely a £400ish PC from 2005 would, although obviously not at great detail or frame rate, but that's the price you pay I guess.

    Another factor that people tend to overlook is overclocking - I extended the lifespan of my old PC by around 2 years with no upgrades because I had reasonable air-flow in my case and cooling systems - although it does shorten the lifespan of the components, it significantly increased the value by a substantial amount, which is important when we are looking at the lifespan and life cycles of components & consoles.
    • 1 follower
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by padanew)
    The fact of the matter is that there are parts out there suited to every budget and requirement, and you will only really create bottlenecks if you aren't careful and plan ahead in your buying. With consoles, you are stuck with specific hardware, and you cannot upgrade parts for a small amount when you need to, and for that reason I stick to PC gaming - flexibility.

    Like I said though, I do see the appeal of consoles, I just don't think that it's worth splashing out for one when a PC (especially at this stage in the life-cycle of these consoles) is a smarter buy.
    The point of a console is that you don't need to upgrade it. The hardware is set in stone and games are designed for that hardware. It's not like with the PC where more recent games are primarily designed with current tech in mind (e.g. DX11 games with things like tessellation), meaning that you can actually get something out of a hardware upgrade.

    You can't really plan ahead with a PC as hardware developers like to keep their cards close to their chest. You don't quite know when the next big thing is about to come.

    (Original post by padanew)
    I'm not saying that a 2005 PC would run it, but my £200 PC from this year does - and likely a £400ish PC from 2005 would, although obviously not at great detail or frame rate, but that's the price you pay I guess.

    Another factor that people tend to overlook is overclocking - I extended the lifespan of my old PC by around 2 years with no upgrades because I had reasonable air-flow in my case and cooling systems - although it does shorten the lifespan of the components, it significantly increased the value by a substantial amount, which is important when we are looking at the lifespan and life cycles of components & consoles.
    It wouldn't.

    Comps then simply don't come close. They were still running DX9 back then. BF3 doesn't even support DX9. Overclocking isn't it some great lifespan extender either. Increasing raw processing speed doesn't significantly increase the value. Processing speed is not as big a deal as it was 8 years ago, the biggest focus in recent years has been towards increasing efficiency and architecture, which is why processor speeds aren't like 8GHz on average.

    Hell, you're only using air cooling, so it's not like you're pushing the limits of OCing either. Not only that, at £200, you OCing potential is severely limited by the RAM and mobo you're using. If you actually want a competent overclock, you should be spending that much on components alone. Then it'd be somewhat valuable.

    Even if a £400 comp from 2005 could run BF3, you'd be topping out at something like 8fps at min settings and 800*600 res, at best, which isn't playable by any measure. I can tell you that my previous desktop, which was mid-high range at the time, could not play BF3 either.

    Edit: Also nobody is doubting the capability of your modern computer. Point is, a PC bought from the same time as the current gen's start (2005) would need a full upgrade to play a game like BF3, which makes it more expensive from a hardware perspective, if you enjoy playing the latest games.
    • 1 follower
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    rather unfortunate that the entire motherboard had to be replaced but surely it shouldnt be a common component to be replacing?
    If you want a new processor, you will probably need a new mobo. New motherboards come out with each new processor slot type. For example, Intel have used something like 6 different processor slots since 2005 and AMD have made similar numbers. For each different processor slot type, there are a new generation of mobos. RAM has similarly moved on from DDR to DDR3. So DIMMs from 2005 are pretty much useless now.

    Nevermind with the current revisions that Intel use. Got a barebones H67 mobo because you were on a budget and now you want to overclock? Too bad, you have to buy a P67 mobo.

    Got an old PC from 2007 and decided to throw in the latest GTX680 in there? Enjoy the massive bottleneck created by your old CPU, mobo and RAM. Want to upgrade the CPU? (not a minor one) Enjoy your new mobo and RAM. Want to make sure that it doesn't burn out after a year? Buy a new PSU.

    Upgrading a PC isn't what most people think it is, straight component swapping and the only time you can ever prevent bottlenecking is by upgrading in a relatively close timespan (2-3 years), so that components do not massively outdate each other. But upgrades like that are generally the reserve of enthusiasts. i.e. upgrading from a 7800GT to a 9800GT (3 years) isn't so much of a big deal. Jumping from a 7800GT to a 560ti (7 years), would require a new PC unless you enjoy wasting a decent component.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    My current desktop (some low-end i5 processor and a HD 5850) plays on mid/high at about 40-50 fps, which i'm perfectly fine with - I got my setup because I know where to shop, and got some stuff very cheap off eBay and from friends who were able to pick up some overstocked stuff and sell it cheap.

    This 2005 and BF3 stuff doesn't matter, I gave a bad example - i'm saying that you can in fact play games for the same amount that you spend on a console, and still get more functionality and more for your money. You can overclock competently so long as you have reasonable knowledge of what components you are working with, and where your bottlenecks are, which in my case I did, hence why I was able to extend the lifespan of my old PC for such a long time. You don't HAVE to spend an arseload of money just to get good components. Second-hand stuff is everywhere, and every time you save £20 or so on a component... it adds up.

    Yes games are optimized for console, but the shortcomings of using a console as opposed to a reasonable PC are so blatant to me that I cannot justify owning another console at the moment.

    Although hardware developers do play their cards close, you can purchase things with a reasonable degree of foresight, such as purchasing an AM3+ motherboard as opposed to an AM3, so you can stick a new processor in when you see the next generation, and the same applies for the z77 chipsets and ivy bridge. Sure, you would take a hit to performance by using older hardware with newer, potentially bottle necking because of it, but for me it's still better value for money.

    Yes, it will cost a bit more in the long run if you don't use a certain degree of restraint when buying upgrades, but if you want to just play games, and generally at an equal or better quality than a console, a PC is the way to go.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spaz Man)
    How on earth is it expensive? You can build a PC that's 4x as powerful as today's consoles for £300.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df...tal-foundry-pc
    That article is a bit disingenuous as it deliberately avoids the costs of an operating system, mouse and keyboard and any other leads/tools you may need which are necessary for the thing to work (I know, I built my first gaming PC last year). Also I'd highly recommend a 360 controller too, as M+K doesn't work well for every game. This would easily add £100+ to the overall cost, and for that money you might as well wait for the next generation of consoles next year which will undoubtedly produce games that look better than that budget PC.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by padanew)
    My current desktop (some low-end i5 processor and a HD 5850) plays on mid/high at about 40-50 fps, which i'm perfectly fine with - I got my setup because I know where to shop, and got some stuff very cheap off eBay and from friends who were able to pick up some overstocked stuff and sell it cheap.

    This 2005 and BF3 stuff doesn't matter, I gave a bad example - i'm saying that you can in fact play games for the same amount that you spend on a console, and still get more functionality and more for your money. You can overclock competently so long as you have reasonable knowledge of what components you are working with, and where your bottlenecks are, which in my case I did, hence why I was able to extend the lifespan of my old PC for such a long time. You don't HAVE to spend an arseload of money just to get good components. Second-hand stuff is everywhere, and every time you save £20 or so on a component... it adds up.

    Yes games are optimized for console, but the shortcomings of using a console as opposed to a reasonable PC are so blatant to me that I cannot justify owning another console at the moment.

    Although hardware developers do play their cards close, you can purchase things with a reasonable degree of foresight, such as purchasing an AM3+ motherboard as opposed to an AM3, so you can stick a new processor in when you see the next generation, and the same applies for the z77 chipsets and ivy bridge. Sure, you would take a hit to performance by using older hardware with newer, potentially bottle necking because of it, but for me it's still better value for money.

    Yes, it will cost a bit more in the long run if you don't use a certain degree of restraint when buying upgrades, but if you want to just play games, and generally at an equal or better quality than a console, a PC is the way to go.
    You can buy a new Xbox for £130 and if you want to go down the second hand route you can pick one up for £50 or less, so that still doesn't stack up. Also if you want a meaningful CPU upgrade that will almost always mean a new motherboard - IB and SB both use the same board but it's pretty much agreed there's no real point in upgrading from IB to SB. The next gen of processors will be using a different socket.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Bit silly to try and compare costs so much imo.

    With a Pc you are getting everything a Pc gives you, with a console you aren't, thus the price will differ purely on that basis. A Pc isn't just, or mostly, used for gaming like consoles so it reaches a point where it is a bit silly to compare prices like they are used for the same thing.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tallen90)
    Alienware :facepalm:
    was just giving an example, hence me saying 'the most obvious example...' lol
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Advantages of PC:

    - Consoles cannot run Windows meaning console owners need to buy PCs anyway. Buying a gaming-capable PC is around same price as buying a console + a non-gaming PC.
    - PC games much cheaper than console games when bought new. New console games always around £10 more expensive than PC version of same game, sometimes the gap is greater. Example: few weeks ago I saw Borderlands 2 on pre-order for PC £22, on same website console versions £40. Also Steam sales.
    - Better backwards compatibility - you can still play games from pre-2000 which none of the current consoles can claim to do.
    - Better control scheme. Mouse & keyboard better than controller for some types of games. Can still use controller for games which play better with controllers. You can choose which control scheme you prefer.
    - Patches come faster as they do not need authorisation by console manufacturer.
    - Can play at much higher resolutions/graphic settings if you choose to. Budget PCs can still keep up with consoles in terms of graphic fidelity for similar price.
    - In terms of digital distribution, PC has far greater choice of stores to buy from (Steam/Origin/GOG etc.) than consoles on which digital download versions of games can only be bought from console manufacturer directly.
    - Only need to insert disk once, plenty of HDD storage for all installed games.
    - Easier to develop indie games for PC where no authorisation from console manufacturer is needed.
    - Laptops more mobile than consoles.
    - PC exclusives.

    Advantages of console:

    - Longer lifespan than average PC.
    - No compatibility issues which may cause issues on PC.
    - More often than not, console games get released before the PC versions, which commonly are delayed by several weeks.
    - Friends more likely to own console versions of games than PC versions.
    - More mobile than desktop PCs.
    - Console exclusives.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 3, 2012
New on TSR

Strictly iPlayer

Will you still watch if some BBC programmes go online only?

Article updates
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered gaming threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.