PlayStation 5, Xbox Two may arrive sooner than you think

Im sorry but both your "factual posts" compare hardware and anyone who has any idea what they're talking about knows that spec to spec a console performs an order of magnitude better of gaming with equivalent specs than a PC due to static hardware. No benches were Performed, nor do the posts consider things like draw distances in big games and fx.
Until you can actually provide something with sustanence your argument is completely laughable.
Tldr: get off your master race high horse and learn actual information instead of trying to argue with hypotheticals like the links you provided. There is also no argument that a 500-600 PC can outperform a console but you're getting into double the price at that point so just stop.
 
OK.... you argue that my facts are useless, then fail to provide any of your own.... please, enlighten me....

Anyways... let's compare actual benchmarks then.... We need to find a game released for PS4/Xbox1/PC... how about Fallout 4?

We have to use 1080p - since that's all the consoles can do... Let's use techspot's own benchmarks to see what we get...

https://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page2.html

Well, the consoles we KNOW perform at 30FPS max - and we also have various reports that framerates dip a fair amount - but since can't really verify that, we'll assume that it runs "fine" at 30fps...

Let's look at the graphs now... budget card 950 - which can be put on a sub-$500 PC fairly easily - still gives an AVERAGE of 43FPS - better than the console...
As even the slowest Intel processors easily out-perform the AMD processors inside the PS4, I think it's safe to assume that we can build an equivalent gaming machine for the same (or less) cost of a PS4.

Again, I'm not arguing that a console doesn't have a place in your home - I just want to see people argue with FACTS.. Fine, you don't agree with my facts? PROVIDE YOUR OWN THEN!!!
 
Fact is that the PS3 provided better graphics than a pc with a GTX550ti. That is why I do not care about what hardware is inside at all because the hardware is a means to deliver performance.

I do not see the point in a discussion about building a pc with superior hardware than a PS3 that then runs inferior than a PS3. That you completely forgot about the software is the next problem of your logic.

My experience is a fact. I know very well what my 550ti was capable of and very well what my PS3 was capable of. Your numbers they do not count.

I do not need to back up my claim that a 500$ PC can not run Witcher 3 on High settings with 144fps in some obscure resolution far beyond 1080p. This is a comment section I have no obligation. If you think a 500$ pc can run Witcher 3 like that and that the PS3 is equal to a Desktop with a GTX 7800 then go ahead and believe it.
 
It IS an opinion section.... but if you think your opinion carries more weight than someone else's opinion.... I suggest you BACK IT UP!!
 
I back it up with my experience. What is so hard to understand about that? Your arbitrary comparison of a PS3 with a GTX7800 makes me laugh mate. Since you completely forgot to factor in the software you're the one not backing up your opinion.

Is difficult to find much about the 7800 but it sure makes me laugh what I find.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+550+Ti&id=16
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+Go+7800+GTX

The 550ti has a 10 times higher G3D Mark. So the PS3 is such a wonderful system it makes the 7800 run 10 times better than a desktop? LOL

What a joke. I'm done here.
cya
 
My "arbitrary" comparison wasn't arbitrary... it was FACT... the GPU in the PS3 IS an nvidia 7800... your link just says that the 550 is 10 times better... DUH.... but that's NOT what the PS3 has inside...

Look at my previous post to see actual "real world" comparisons between console and PC... games run just as well on a PC that costs about the same...

Glad you're done, since your argument has no basis in reality... factoring in the software is irrelevant - we're talking about hardware equivalency... but again, your only "proof" is your experience.... that's NOT proof!
 
ikesmasher said:
Im sorry but both your "factual posts" compare hardware and anyone who has any idea what they're talking about knows that spec to spec a console performs an order of magnitude better of gaming with equivalent specs than a PC due to static hardware. No benches were Performed, nor do the posts consider things like draw distances in big games and fx.
Until you can actually provide something with sustanence your argument is completely laughable.
Tldr: get off your master race high horse and learn actual information instead of trying to argue with hypotheticals like the links you provided.
Click to expand...
Squid Surprise said:
OK.... you argue that my facts are useless, then fail to provide any of your own.... please, enlighten me....

Anyways... let's compare actual benchmarks then.... We need to find a game released for PS4/Xbox1/PC... how about Fallout 4?

We have to use 1080p - since that's all the consoles can do... Let's use techspot's own benchmarks to see what we get...

https://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page2.html

Well, the consoles we KNOW perform at 30FPS max - and we also have various reports that framerates dip a fair amount - but since can't really verify that, we'll assume that it runs "fine" at 30fps...

Let's look at the graphs now... budget card 950 - which can be put on a sub-$500 PC fairly easily - still gives an AVERAGE of 43FPS - better than the console...
As even the slowest Intel processors easily out-perform the AMD processors inside the PS4, I think it's safe to assume that we can build an equivalent gaming machine for the same (or less) cost of a PS4.

Again, I'm not arguing that a console doesn't have a place in your home - I just want to see people argue with FACTS.. Fine, you don't agree with my facts? PROVIDE YOUR OWN THEN!!!
Click to expand...
you completely ignored the cpu dependence of fallout thus that argument is invalid.
 
ikesmasher said:
And read my post again, comparing console to PC hardware means literally nothing
Click to expand...

Yes.... But the PS is still hardware... The budget PC, regardless of processor (as long as it's an Intel) will still run Fallout at over 30fps at 1080p... Which is the same as the PS4 does...
 
ikesmasher said:
Paired with a 980 ti. You can have one or the other not both.
Click to expand...
Yes... Then U adjust for a 950 and u are still above 30FPS

To adjust... the 950 delivers approx half the framerates as the 980ti according to the benchmarks... So we find the lowest intel (i3 4360) and see that it delivers an average of 80 FPS - and a min of 65 FPS.... with the 980ti.... we divide by 2 (to account for a 950)... giving us an average of 40 and min of a bit over 30.... well above the performance of a PS4 - which is capped at max 30FPS, and minimums of probably 18-20 (hard to reliably measure, but we can be assured it's under 30).

Any more retorts?
 
Last edited:
Squid Surprise said:
???

What's your point? The REASON I "blathered" out my words was because I disagreed that console generations lasted 7 years - YOU didn't state this... the article's author did!!... So I posted release dates of the major consoles.... Anyone who can do simple arithmetic should have been able to see that the release dates were NOT 7 years apart...

You replied with a fairly non-sensical, "what about Xbox".... which had an EIGHT year release difference....

Not sure where you were heading with that.... but I don't think you've made any point other than that you don't really know math...
Click to expand...
The point was, that 8 years is a really long time, as I clearly stated. Your reading comprehension failed you. Not me. I thought you could at least understand your own style of comparisons instead of a solid number. My bad.
 
Ahhhh... My apologies... Didn't realize your point was so profound... Yes, 8's a big number... Good thing you added that to this thread :)
 
Squid Surprise said:
Yes... Then U adjust for a 950 and u are still above 30FPS

To adjust... the 950 delivers approx half the framerates as the 980ti according to the benchmarks... So we find the lowest intel (i3 4360) and see that it delivers an average of 80 FPS - and a min of 65 FPS.... with the 980ti.... we divide by 2 (to account for a 950)... giving us an average of 40 and min of a bit over 30.... well above the performance of a PS4 - which is capped at max 30FPS, and minimums of probably 18-20 (hard to reliably measure, but we can be assured it's under 30).

Any more retorts?
Click to expand...
Yes that's how you benchmark performance! Divide by average framerates! Totally how PC hardware works! /s
 
Oh and btw, your i3, 950, and ram alone cost more than a PS4 or xbone. So adding a motherboard, hard drive, case, an ACTUAL GOOD psu to ensure it doesn't kill your parts, keyboard and mouse, you're gonna start approaching 500 dollars. Which is more then 1.5 times the price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley
I see... math is tough for you... OK, let me give you another couple of links that will make it easier for you :)
http://www.geek.com/games/a-budget-gaming-pc-plays-fallout-4-better-than-consoles-1638999/
"The spec includes a Core i3 4130 CPU, GTX 750 Ti graphics card, 8GB DDR3 RAM, and no overclocking. Using the High preset the game easily hits 40fps while being the equivalent graphically to the consoles running at 1080p."

And another:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyl...-the-ultimate-600-pc-for-fallout-4-and-gta-v/

A bit pricier ($550), but check out page 10...

"At stock speed, I saw an average frame rate of 54fps with everything set to maximum in the graphics settings."

NOW do you believe me? I've yet to see any proof from you other than "your experience"...
 
ikesmasher said:
I stopped responding to your other posts because im busy and I dont have time for it, but stop posting links to anything over $350, because thats completely irrelevant to the argument.
Click to expand...

lol... no... the argument was whether you could build a PC for $500 that equated the PS4... but fine... take out the WD 2 TB HD (-$92), as it already has an SSD, take out the R9 380 and replace it with the 360 (-$80) and you're more or less at $350... and still blowing the PS4 away...

Obviously you're a busy man (yet you replied anyways), but try BACKING UP YOUR ARGUMENT next time...
 
Last edited:
Squid Surprise said:
lol... no... the argument was whether you could build a PC for $500 that equated the PS4..
Click to expand...
No, it wasent. and no, it doesnt blow it away, and you still have to spend ~40 on decent periphials. Once you look at games other than fallout, you see that it wont.
 
What other games? And my original comment, which you took such offence to (yet without any evidence of your own to disprove) was that I failed to see how a $500 pc couldn't equate to a PS3....

And what peripheries? You mean keyboard/mouse, which can probably be acquired for free with any PC purchase? Speakers/monitor need to be purchased separately for both PC and console... Remember, your PS4 has some pretty expensive peripheries of its own - and I can reuse peripheries from an old PC, whereas your PS3 peripheries need to be repurchased for the ps4....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
PlayStation 5 Pro will be bigger, faster, and better using the same CPU
2
Replies
45
Views
439
anastrophe
anastrophe
A
Microsoft is thinking about Xbox game preservation, leaked emails show
Replies
1
Views
83
The Talking Tech
T
midian182
PlayStation 5 sales decimated Xbox last year; Hogwarts Legacy took Call of Duty's best-selling-game...
Replies
20
Views
414
lonetac
L

Latest posts

Back