Console and PC Price to Performance Examination

[heimdali]

You wanted to compare with what you get more for your money, a console or a computer.  You are trying to ignore that computers are much more versatile than a console, so your comparison fails.

 

You can not do a benchmark with your particular workload before you have a system at hand like the one you might upgrade to.

 

I upgrade every now and then when it becomes necessary or worthwhile.  That has been about every 3 to 5 years.

 

If you can not understand that you usually can not upgrade even after only 3 years without buying a new CPU, a new board and new RAM because any new CPU you would buy does not fit into the board you have because it requires a different socket and that the RAM you have either doesn´t fit the new board you need, is too slow or otherwise incompatible, you probably have never done an upgrade.

 

The most recent console does 4k.  1080 is a totally unusable and idiotic resolution because you have a width you can´t really use because it´s not wide enough, and you lack a great deal of height.  You also can´t reasonably turn the display 90 degrees to have a useful height because when you do that, it´s not wide enough and more like the 1024x768 that wasn´t enough even 25 years ago.  If you can not understand that, you probably have never used a computer for anything but playing games or watching videos/movies.

 

I´m not much of a gamer at all.  When I play games, one of the things I want is good graphics.

 

I have used my graphics cards until they failed and didn´t replace them before that, so I´m probably not a "1080ti baller", whatever that is.

 

"Budget gamer" is obviously a relative expression.  Putting out $400 for a console or $620 for a computer, plus the games, is still quite a bit of money.  If you´re a budget gamer, you buy a computer for $50 or less and see what games you can play on it.  If you look around for a while, you can probably get one for free, and you will be able to play games on it.

 

How would "budget gamers" have a laptop to take a disk out of?  Laptops are the more expensive type of computers to buy and to repair, difficult to impossible to upgrade and the ones that tend to give you the least performance for your money.  They´d have to be really stupid to buy one, or they aren´t "budget gamers", or they really couldn´t get around buying one for some reason.

 

The disks I mentioned have cost me about EUR 10 each, and I have used some of them for more than a year.  I retired them because of power consumption and will use them whenever they can be useful.  I´m sure they´ll last a long time.  The P800 was an EUR 100 upgrade which improved performance far more than replacing the graphics card could ever have.  Since 72GB for a windoze 10 installation plus games is probably not enough, it makes perfect sense to use all of the disks in a raid5 and to use the P800 to drive them.  The alternative is putting out $100+ to buy two used disks.  Apparently you didn´t understand that it is a low budget solution with parts I have lying around, currently unused, i. e. it costs nothing.  A P800 was actually a very low budget solution about 3 years ago, as low as you could get --- show me a better one if you don´t believe it.

 

I think a computer as you suggested is crappy because the budget for it is contrained by the prices of consoles, and because you can get a pretty decent workstation for that kind of money --- used, not with the graphics card you might desire, but high quality that is likely to last much longer, very reliable and perhaps has equal or even better performance.  I don´t know how much a 1050 costs, it might be more efficient to get a used card instead, or you could wait and save for one.  You can still play games on it.

 

Considering all that, you are nowhere near "low budget" with buying new consoles and computers.  Your comparison is not clearly defined as is necessary, and it is flawed.

 

[Ithanul]

3 hours ago, heimdali said:

You wanted to compare with what you get more for your money, a console or a computer.  You are trying to ignore that computers are much more versatile than a console, so your comparison fails.

 

You can not do a benchmark with your particular workload before you have a system at hand like the one you might upgrade to.

 

I upgrade every now and then when it becomes necessary or worthwhile.  That has been about every 3 to 5 years.

 

If you can not understand that you usually can not upgrade even after only 3 years without buying a new CPU, a new board and new RAM because any new CPU you would buy does not fit into the board you have because it requires a different socket and that the RAM you have either doesn´t fit the new board you need, is too slow or otherwise incompatible, you probably have never done an upgrade.

 

The most recent console does 4k.  1080 is a totally unusable and idiotic resolution because you have a width you can´t really use because it´s not wide enough, and you lack a great deal of height.  You also can´t reasonably turn the display 90 degrees to have a useful height because when you do that, it´s not wide enough and more like the 1024x768 that wasn´t enough even 25 years ago.  If you can not understand that, you probably have never used a computer for anything but playing games or watching videos/movies.

 

I´m not much of a gamer at all.  When I play games, one of the things I want is good graphics.

 

I have used my graphics cards until they failed and didn´t replace them before that, so I´m probably not a "1080ti baller", whatever that is.

 

"Budget gamer" is obviously a relative expression.  Putting out $400 for a console or $620 for a computer, plus the games, is still quite a bit of money.  If you´re a budget gamer, you buy a computer for $50 or less and see what games you can play on it.  If you look around for a while, you can probably get one for free, and you will be able to play games on it.

 

How would "budget gamers" have a laptop to take a disk out of?  Laptops are the more expensive type of computers to buy and to repair, difficult to impossible to upgrade and the ones that tend to give you the least performance for your money.  They´d have to be really stupid to buy one, or they aren´t "budget gamers", or they really couldn´t get around buying one for some reason.

 

The disks I mentioned have cost me about EUR 10 each, and I have used some of them for more than a year.  I retired them because of power consumption and will use them whenever they can be useful.  I´m sure they´ll last a long time.  The P800 was an EUR 100 upgrade which improved performance far more than replacing the graphics card could ever have.  Since 72GB for a windoze 10 installation plus games is probably not enough, it makes perfect sense to use all of the disks in a raid5 and to use the P800 to drive them.  The alternative is putting out $100+ to buy two used disks.  Apparently you didn´t understand that it is a low budget solution with parts I have lying around, currently unused, i. e. it costs nothing.  A P800 was actually a very low budget solution about 3 years ago, as low as you could get --- show me a better one if you don´t believe it.

 

I think a computer as you suggested is crappy because the budget for it is contrained by the prices of consoles, and because you can get a pretty decent workstation for that kind of money --- used, not with the graphics card you might desire, but high quality that is likely to last much longer, very reliable and perhaps has equal or even better performance.  I don´t know how much a 1050 costs, it might be more efficient to get a used card instead, or you could wait and save for one.  You can still play games on it.

 

Considering all that, you are nowhere near "low budget" with buying new consoles and computers.  Your comparison is not clearly defined as is necessary, and it is flawed.

 

Consoles don't do full 4K for games.  They do checkerboard from 1440P or 1080P depending how the devs do it.  To your opinion 1080P is bad, to others, they find that resolution fine to play at.

 

Also, not everyone chases max graphics.  Some just want the game to work and to their viewpoint and opinions is good enough to play (this varies by person).

 

On the price deal, price of used hardware fluctuates from region to region to country to country.  Sales vary as well.  As stated, the OP is not going to waste time on trying to do a full detail break down comparison.

 

If you want to throw used hardware around, then you better be wiling to throw refurbished and used consoles too.  Just to be really annoying, show me a PC that can beat the price point of a refurbished Xbox One S (I nabbed one for 225 bucks).  Might be hard considering you need a 4K HDR play back ability to match that console if you want to watch UHD Blu-rays.  Another kicker, Xbox Game Pass, 10 bucks a month and access to 100 games (it is not streaming either, you download the games to play and can play 30 days in offline mode).

 

[heimdali]

15 hours ago, Ithanul said:

Consoles don't do full 4K for games.  They do checkerboard from 1440P or 1080P depending how the devs do it.  To your opinion 1080P is bad, to others, they find that resolution fine to play at.

 

Also, not everyone chases max graphics.  Some just want the game to work and to their viewpoint and opinions is good enough to play (this varies by person).

 

On the price deal, price of used hardware fluctuates from region to region to country to country.  Sales vary as well.  As stated, the OP is not going to waste time on trying to do a full detail break down comparison.

 

If you want to throw used hardware around, then you better be wiling to throw refurbished and used consoles too.  Just to be really annoying, show me a PC that can beat the price point of a refurbished Xbox One S (I nabbed one for 225 bucks).  Might be hard considering you need a 4K HDR play back ability to match that console if you want to watch UHD Blu-rays.  Another kicker, Xbox Game Pass, 10 bucks a month and access to 100 games (it is not streaming either, you download the games to play and can play 30 days in offline mode).

 

Apparently the xbox one x does 4k, provided that you´re playing a game that delivers 4k.  Is that a false information or a misunderstanding?  1080 might be ok to play games; otherwise it sucks, so I´d have to buy another monitor just to play games if I want to have the advantage of using the native resolution of the display.

 

If you want just a game you can play to work, you can have that with the $50 computer and be low budget.  If you want to play a particular game, you´ll have to get whatever hardware is required to play it.

 

Prices always change and are different in different countries.  And?

 

Yes, you could also get a used console.  How´s that a problem?  The OP somehow came up with the idea to argue that he´s talking about low budget stuff while he wasn´t anywhere near that to begin with, and when you don´t have much money, you might consider, or might have to buy used.

 

Why do you need a 4k HDR playback ability when you don´t have a 4k display?  If you want to play bluerays, can´t you do that with a drive in your computer that can read them?  I really don´t know because I never tried.

 

I can show you a $50 computer you can play games on.  I haven´t said it´s a better value for your money than a console, only that it´s low budget.

 

Don´t get me wrong, I don´t know what the better deal is, a computer or a console.  Everyone needs to decide that for themselves, based on what is important to them.  I´m only trying to make up my mind about whether I want to buy an xbox one x new or a previous model used or go to lengths to use my computer instead or do something else.  I think if you want nothing but play games and maybe watch bluerays, a console is probably a much better deal than a computer since there has been so much improvement with graphics for consoles --- and that is without considering the prices.  If you want to consider prices: Consoles are fairly cheap compared to computers and other things --- all is relative --- and if you want to be low budget, then buy used.

 

[Ithanul]

1 hour ago, heimdali said:

Apparently the xbox one x does 4k, provided that you´re playing a game that delivers 4k.  Is that a false information or a misunderstanding?  1080 might be ok to play games; otherwise it sucks, so I´d have to buy another monitor just to play games if I want to have the advantage of using the native resolution of the display.

 

If you want just a game you can play to work, you can have that with the $50 computer and be low budget.  If you want to play a particular game, you´ll have to get whatever hardware is required to play it.

 

Prices always change and are different in different countries.  And?

 

Yes, you could also get a used console.  How´s that a problem?  The OP somehow came up with the idea to argue that he´s talking about low budget stuff while he wasn´t anywhere near that to begin with, and when you don´t have much money, you might consider, or might have to buy used.

 

Why do you need a 4k HDR playback ability when you don´t have a 4k display?  If you want to play bluerays, can´t you do that with a drive in your computer that can read them?  I really don´t know because I never tried.

 

I can show you a $50 computer you can play games on.  I haven´t said it´s a better value for your money than a console, only that it´s low budget.

 

Don´t get me wrong, I don´t know what the better deal is, a computer or a console.  Everyone needs to decide that for themselves, based on what is important to them.  I´m only trying to make up my mind about whether I want to buy an xbox one x new or a previous model used or go to lengths to use my computer instead or do something else.  I think if you want nothing but play games and maybe watch bluerays, a console is probably a much better deal than a computer since there has been so much improvement with graphics for consoles --- and that is without considering the prices.  If you want to consider prices: Consoles are fairly cheap compared to computers and other things --- all is relative --- and if you want to be low budget, then buy used.

 

Until games made to leverage the Xbox One X hardware come out, no one is for sure if its true 4K.  Considering the console is just a slight refresh on hardware and the Xbox One and PS4 mostly render at 900p and upscale to 1080P with games, it will be interesting if the X can pull actual 4K off with games.

 

You don't need another extra monitor or TV to do 1080P content.  Higher resolution screens can handle 1080P content fine.  Also, you keep stating 1080P sucks.  That is your opinion, not a fact. 

 

Reason why I bring up 4K HDR playback is the Xbox One S and X have that ability already.  If someone wants to compare hardware to hardware, then one needs to do a build that can equal the ability of  what one is trying to compare against.  Not saying the individual is going to use the 4K, but the hardware has that feature.  Interesting bit, the consoles when run on 1080P screens(depending how the dev codes the games to use the stronger consoles) will supersample or use the extra power to smooth out frame times.

 

Plus, a good chunk of computers don't come with Blu-ray drives.  Most computers only have DVD/CD drives and by the looks are moving away from drives in general.

 

The comparison that was done is a simple one: new launch price console to new launch price hardware (I agree, not low budget by others' viewpoints).  If you want an in depth, probably best to go look up an article done by a group that has the money and time to do such.  Not some lone person on a forum board who did this on their off time.

 

Anyway, this thread was just a simple comparison of new launch price hardware.  If you want to keep on going on about it, go ahead.  I'm done with the thread.

 

 

 

 

[TurbulentWinds]

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

You wanted to compare with what you get more for your money, a console or a computer. 

I did want to compare what you get more for your money in terms of hardware and platform cost.

Quote

You are trying to ignore that computers are much more versatile than a console, so your comparison fails.

I am not trying to ignore anything. If you had bothered to read the original post, you would know that this is accounted for. For any issue that I didn't cover please provide an example with a reason why it is relevant.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

You can not do a benchmark with your particular workload before you have a system at hand like the one you might upgrade to.

There is something called the Internet. You can look it up. I do it all the time for friends and am always within a few percentage points.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

I upgrade every now and then when it becomes necessary or worthwhile.  That has been about every 3 to 5 years.

Good.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

If you can not understand that you usually can not upgrade even after only 3 years without buying a new CPU, a new board and new RAM because any new CPU you would buy does not fit into the board you have because it requires a different socket and that the RAM you have either doesn´t fit the new board you need, is too slow or otherwise incompatible, you probably have never done an upgrade.

This may be true for you. It is not for most people I know and is not true for me. Here's a time line. Bought a cheap refurbished Dell and stuck in a GPU. 5 years later, I stuck in a new GPU. 10 years later and I rebuilt.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

The most recent console does 4k.  1080 is a totally unusable and idiotic resolution because you have a width you can´t really use because it´s not wide enough, and you lack a great deal of height.  You also can´t reasonably turn the display 90 degrees to have a useful height because when you do that, it´s not wide enough and more like the 1024x768 that wasn´t enough even 25 years ago.  If you can not understand that, you probably have never used a computer for anything but playing games or watching videos/movies.

We are not talking about the most recent console. We are talking about the baseline models. 1080p is unusable. I can't even comprehend the stupidity of this statement. I am a programmer. My father is a programmer. My friends are programmers, graphic artists, 3d modelers and CAD users. All of them use 1080p. Because it's fine and doesn't required much horsepower and is less expensive. And: 

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

I have used my graphics cards until they failed and didn´t replace them before that, so I´m probably not a "1080ti baller", whatever that is.

I read you wrong 

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

"Budget gamer" is obviously a relative expression.  Putting out $400 for a console or $620 for a computer, plus the games, is still quite a bit of money.  If you´re a budget gamer, you buy a computer for $50 or less and see what games you can play on it.  If you look around for a while, you can probably get one for free, and you will be able to play games on it.

In terms of a playable experience in most AAA, AA, and indie titles.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

How would "budget gamers" have a laptop to take a disk out of?  Laptops are the more expensive type of computers to buy and to repair, difficult to impossible to upgrade and the ones that tend to give you the least performance for your money.  They´d have to be really stupid to buy one, or they aren´t "budget gamers", or they really couldn´t get around buying one for some reason.

Why? Often, someone in your family has a laptop that has been run to the ground. You ask for the hard drive when they get a new one. Not always a thing, but I was just making a point that you understood and preceded to argue against.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

The disks I mentioned have cost me about EUR 10 each, and I have used some of them for more than a year.  I retired them because of power consumption and will use them whenever they can be useful.  I´m sure they´ll last a long time.  The P800 was an EUR 100 upgrade which improved performance far more than replacing the graphics card could ever have.  Since 72GB for a windoze 10 installation plus games is probably not enough, it makes perfect sense to use all of the disks in a raid5 and to use the P800 to drive them.  The alternative is putting out $100+ to buy two used disks.  Apparently you didn´t understand that it is a low budget solution with parts I have lying around, currently unused, i. e. it costs nothing.  A P800 was actually a very low budget solution about 3 years ago, as low as you could get --- show me a better one if you don´t believe it.

That's super cool! Did you make like a thread for it, cause I wanted to check it out?

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

I think a computer as you suggested is crappy because the budget for it is contrained by the prices of consoles

Exactly. It wasn't meant to be the best PTP computer ever. Just something on par with the consoles for the lowest price within a set of conditions. 

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

used, not with the graphics card you might desire, but high quality that is likely to last much longer, very reliable and perhaps has equal or even better performance.  I don´t know how much a 1050 costs, it might be more efficient to get a used card instead, or you could wait and save for one.  You can still play games on it.

Yep, I started out with new hardware. If you are going old hardware, then you can look where I went over that.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

Considering all that, you are nowhere near "low budget" with buying new consoles and computers. 

Low budget in terms of delivering the same performance as the baseline consoles with in a set of params.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

Your comparison is not clearly defined as is necessary

Yep. I didn't feel like wasting half my life on this . . . then the triggered people showed up.

21 hours ago, heimdali said:

it is flawed.

I agree. Find the places where I made the mistakes in the original post and tell me what I need to fix and add to it. I will do it gladly.

[TurbulentWinds]

10 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

Reason why I bring up 4K HDR playback is the Xbox One S and X have that ability already.  If someone wants to compare hardware to hardware, then one needs to do a build that can equal the ability of  what one is trying to compare against.  Not saying the individual is going to use the 4K, but the hardware has that feature. 

That's a really good point I didn't think of. However, I'm not sure how to incorporate it in the comparison because of 4k HDR being so buggy and unnecessarily expensive on PC (at least based on what I heard).

 

[heimdali]

18 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

You don't need another extra monitor or TV to do 1080P content.  Higher resolution screens can handle 1080P content fine.  Also, you keep stating 1080P sucks.  That is your opinion, not a fact. 

 

Reason why I bring up 4K HDR playback is the Xbox One S and X have that ability already.  If someone wants to compare hardware to hardware, then one needs to do a build that can equal the ability of  what one is trying to compare against.  Not saying the individual is going to use the 4K, but the hardware has that feature.  Interesting bit, the consoles when run on 1080P screens(depending how the dev codes the games to use the stronger consoles) will supersample or use the extra power to smooth out frame times.

 

Plus, a good chunk of computers don't come with Blu-ray drives.  Most computers only have DVD/CD drives and by the looks are moving away from drives in general.

 

You don´t need an extra monitor, but using the native resolution of the display, things look nicer.

 

If you want to compare the hardware by all you can do with it, you can´t really compare consoles and computers.

 

There are still plenty of blueray drives, even burners, starting at EUR 60, if you want one.

 

[Nedkely]

On 11/5/2017 at 3:25 AM, noobs guid to marsterrace said:

Games won't perform wors and that's just because your GPU isn't good enough it's the same for consoles

Carry on talking that to yourself, instead of just addressing pure facts. 

gtx 960 perform worse than gtx 1050ti, and both have almost the same computing power, but drivers making a difference here, not the GPU itself. 

[heimdali]

18 minutes ago, TurbulentWinds said:

I did want to compare what you get more for your money in terms of hardware and platform cost.

[...]

I tried to reasonably quote this, but this editor won´t let me ...

 

You don´t seem to know what you´re trying to compare because it changes all the time.  One time it´s how much hardware you get, another time it´s performance, without saying what "performance" is supposed to mean, next time it´s about playing games, then suddenly about playing more or less demanding games; yet another time it´s about low budget and used hardware, and so on.  You´re also entirely wrong about some points, and you don´t want to see it.

 

Show me someone who has benchmarked the same workload on the same hardware I had and compared it to hardware that could have been used for upgrading.  It would be interesting to see how that would be benchmarked, even more interesting than the results.

 

I talked to someone today who manages to use a laptop to do some web browsing --- just that.  He said after three years, the laptop gets so lame that he keeps getting new ones all the time.  That is basically what everyone does, laptop or not.  Perhaps you can show everyone how replacing the graphics card fixes it all, you might get rich

 

How many 1080 monitors do you use when programming?  It´s not impossible, but it makes it much harder and much less productive, so it doesn´t take long before the 4k display starts paying out, and it does that every day.

 

[Nedkely]

On 11/5/2017 at 1:11 PM, TurbulentWinds said:

The point of having a laptop is productivity. I can't bang out 70 WPM on a smartphone or tablet for an essay or presentation. I can't use specialized software for my business, school or work. While you do not need a laptop, it is necessary for many people to have access to a Windows computer and not a Windows S tablet. Buying a computer used is an option. Do many people buy a used computer? No. Why? Perhaps, they are not comfortable with trusting an old machine. Whichever way you look at it, the fact remains that most people are going to buy new. Used is an option and I will include it. 

 

Fine. I think that most people already have a desk for writing and such like but it is not a significant cost.

 

I'm not counting either. Read the original post before replying.

Now I have console Black Friday pricing. So do I include this and not for PC?

 

The build includes the OS. Please read the original post.

Please read the original post. This is comparing the Xbox One S and the PS4 not the x and pro. 

Again, look at the original post before commenting. I agree with this statement.

Exactly. If you are not playing online, get a console.

I'm not going to argue games. Some people think Steam gets you more for your money others think consoles in terms of buying games. It's really just personal experience.

 

Good point. I'll add that soon.

As I previously stated, playing games does not mean ULTRA SETTINGS 60 FPS. It means you can get playable framerates at a decent graphical comprise. My 750 Ti can still pin new titles at 60 fps 1080p and getting a 1050 Ti was a significant upgrade for me. My K1000M can do 30 FPS on my 900p screen and that's from 2012 I think.

Ok . . . this is not really about that sort of stuff. We are talking about hardware not personal preference.

 

Kind of a decent point but I need a better explanation to include this. Perhaps, I should find the price of a prebuilt with the same specs as the PC?

Not really my experience so I'll chalk that up to personal preference.

 

Hardware. We are talking hardware.

 

Hardware. We are talking hardware.

1. Then go a PC if you work on it, i dont see the reason to buy a console? 

What about the average John Johnson who just bother to play some games and not worry about anything else? The consoles are the way to go for him, these are cheaper for him, thats all. He probably have the crappy laptop already he is using to browse internet, there is no reason for him to buy expensive gaming PC. 

 

2. Not everyone has a desk for pc, be fair with your costs if you include buying a laptop as a necessity for a console gaming nobody knows why, desk is substantial part of the PC. 

 

3. Part picker includes the promotions into the cost. 

 

4. You could do black friday on pc, so we could see what system is the cheapest today, but do it with the current gen systems and make it so the PC will be the performance of the console, playing 1440-1600p on 30 fps with high settings. 

 

5. He is explaining here about nvidia ruining the gpu performance, no they are not. My words were different either, i said nvidia is not optimizing their old cards for the newest games, just focusing on the newest gpu generations. The games that ran good will continue to run well, but the new games will run slower and slower with the newer nvidia gpu generations. This is a simple fact and you cant denny it, their new drivers mainly address optimization for the newest gen. And that makes you buy the new GPU, if your games run slower on your last gen gpu comparing to the new one. GTX 960 and gtx 1050ti are the best example here, adress the facts and statistics. 

 

6. I didnt include it, and it got almost similar price. You could get windows 10 for free, but you cant materialize wifi card and a blueray driver from the air. 

 

7. Today is today and we should consider and compare the prices and performance of the both systems TODAY, not comparing system from the 2014 to the 2017, thats hilarious. Its like, i would compare gtx 730 with the ps4 pro, guess who would won. 

You will argue thats because console should last years of playing the newest games (which they do), but pc doesnt have to play newest games for 5 years straight up in the same quality? Someone will call you insane for talking that 5 year old pc will continue to run 60 fps highest settings on the newest games. Get a ps4 pro or xbox one x and get a built that will run games the same, so we could make it fair, to the point, because each GPU generation, the pc will run newest games slower and worse. Its impossible to predict if a gtx 1050ti will last you for years of playing, probably not at all, but well. 

We all know, getting ps4 slim is the cheapest way to go for gaming, nothing will break it. 

209 pounds for a console, playing games in 24-30 fps, taking like 80 watts of energy each hours, you cant go a ny cheaper that that at all, and thats the new manufactured piece of hardware. 

 

8. Getting games playable on good settings is fine, but would you include a time which you spend to find out the best settings? Why bother with the PC for the "same" price as the console, if you just get a console and play the same? What is the point here? You cant realize how big of a deal is something that doesnt deliver you a problems to solve. 

 

9. But thats add up to the experience. People are paying more to get better tools, which are saving them time at work and nerves and these are more worth than the dirt cheap, thats a good point here, even if the pc will be the same price as the console, the console WILL be the better option for a gaming experience, simply because its not delivering any hassle and in fact will offer more, because period you could play multiplayer local without buying a second console. 

If you are buying a tool that makes something more than the other, it makes a real difference, sometimes a game breaking difference. Like online pc gaming is flooded by cheaters, that will make for ones a reason to get a console. And still, pc can do more than the console, but if i am not a programmer or so, why should i bother to get a pc? If i want just to play games on it, and consoles delivering me it just fine? And what about streaming your games? Ps4 pro could do streaming just fine in acceptable qualitty as well as xbox one s could, streaming on cheap PC would be catastrophic disaster. I actually know a youtuber, who changed his platform from PC to xbox to stream world of tanks, and i couldnt see a person more happy than he was back then. 

 

 

[TurbulentWinds]

38 minutes ago, heimdali said:

I tried to reasonably quote this, but this editor won´t let me ...

 

You don´t seem to know what you´re trying to compare because it changes all the time.  One time it´s how much hardware you get, another time it´s performance, without saying what "performance" is supposed to mean, next time it´s about playing games, then suddenly about playing more or less demanding games; yet another time it´s about low budget and used hardware, and so on.  You´re also entirely wrong about some points, and you don´t want to see it.

 

Show me someone who has benchmarked the same workload on the same hardware I had and compared it to hardware that could have been used for upgrading.  It would be interesting to see how that would be benchmarked, even more interesting than the results.

 

I talked to someone today who manages to use a laptop to do some web browsing --- just that.  He said after three years, the laptop gets so lame that he keeps getting new ones all the time.  That is basically what everyone does, laptop or not.  Perhaps you can show everyone how replacing the graphics card fixes it all, you might get rich

 

How many 1080 monitors do you use when programming?  It´s not impossible, but it makes it much harder and much less productive, so it doesn´t take long before the 4k display starts paying out, and it does that every day.

 

Let me explain this to you in detail. I'm sorry I'm am not being clear because I have other stuff to do besides argue with you. 

 

This is a simple comparison of hardware and platform costs of a PC that performs equivalent to baseline modern consoles.  Equal performance means playing most AAA, AA, and indie titles at 1080p 30 FPS or 1080p 60 FPS on any settings.This is not comprehensive. This is does not factor in every little detail. This is something I wrote up because I was bored in class. This is not something to fight about. Find a relevant flaw and I will update the OP with the new information. It must be a non fringe case and have some amount of hard proof.   

 

In regard to your comment on benchmarking, the workload will not be exactly the same. The systems will not be exactly the same. But with a reasonable amount of effort, one can find benchmarks for systems that will preform within a few percent of the upgrade plan. It is also possible to estimate based on hardware.

 

I will explain how the GPU replacement works once again. Let us take the 650 Ti and the i5 - 2300 both of which were released in 2012, 5 years ago. Today, the 650 Ti is showing its age. It is no longer able to run AAA games at 1080p 30 FPS. Going through game min spec for 1080p, most games require a 660 minimum. Therefore, it is time for an upgrade. The 1050 Ti is a good fit for this system. It will do what is asked and does not require a external power connector. 

 

 

Skip to 35:48 for the conclusion. 

 

If your friend is willing to buy a new laptop and has the money, all the power to him.

 

I use one 1080p monitor. I agree that it would be useful to have two (code/output) but it is not necessary. Don't get me wrong, 4k would be great but 1080p is perfectly usable and is really all you need. Even buying two 1080p monitors would be less expensive then one 4k as of now. The big issue I have with 4k is UI scaling. When 4k is standard, it will be fine but for now I'll stick with 1080p.

[TurbulentWinds]

25 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

1. Then go a PC if you work on it, i dont see the reason to buy a console? 

What about the average John Johnson who just bother to play some games and not worry about anything else? The consoles are the way to go for him, these are cheaper for him, thats all. He probably have the crappy laptop already he is using to browse internet, there is no reason for him to buy expensive gaming PC. 

 

Yep. I agreed with that assessment.

25 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

2. Not everyone has a desk for pc, be fair with your costs if you include buying a laptop as a necessity for a console gaming nobody knows why, desk is substantial part of the PC. 

Ok. I will add a price for the desk. How much do you think is fair?

26 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

3. Part picker includes the promotions into the cost. 

I hand selected the parts so there would be no promotions in the cost.

26 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

4. You could do black friday on pc, so we could see what system is the cheapest today, but do it with the current gen systems and make it so the PC will be the performance of the console, playing 1440-1600p on 30 fps with high settings. 

I don't want to get into Black Friday. There is no way to tell what side will come out on top and there will always be a counterexample.

27 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

5. He is explaining here about nvidia ruining the gpu performance, no they are not. My words were different either, i said nvidia is not optimizing their old cards for the newest games, just focusing on the newest gpu generations. The games that ran good will continue to run well, but the new games will run slower and slower with the newer nvidia gpu generations. This is a simple fact and you cant denny it, their new drivers mainly address optimization for the newest gen. And that makes you buy the new GPU, if your games run slower on your last gen gpu comparing to the new one. GTX 960 and gtx 1050ti are the best example here, adress the facts and statistics. 

Oh ok. Sorry, I misunderstood you. I agree games run worse on older hardware due to dev support.

28 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

6. I didnt include it, and it got almost similar price. You could get windows 10 for free, but you cant materialize wifi card and a blueray driver from the air. 

Wifi card are like $5 a pop. Not a big deal. Windows will be included because someone else complained first. I never really thought about Blueray. I basically never use it so I guess if you throw me a price I'll include it.

32 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

7. Today is today and we should consider and compare the prices and performance of the both systems TODAY, not comparing system from the 2014 to the 2017, thats hilarious. Its like, i would compare gtx 730 with the ps4 pro, guess who would won. 

You will argue thats because console should last years of playing the newest games (which they do), but pc doesnt have to play newest games for 5 years straight up in the same quality? Someone will call you insane for talking that 5 year old pc will continue to run 60 fps highest settings on the newest games. Get a ps4 pro or xbox one x and get a built that will run games the same, so we could make it fair, to the point, because each GPU generation, the pc will run newest games slower and worse. Its impossible to predict if a gtx 1050ti will last you for years of playing, probably not at all, but well. 

We all know, getting ps4 slim is the cheapest way to go for gaming, nothing will break it. 

209 pounds for a console, playing games in 24-30 fps, taking like 80 watts of energy each hours, you cant go a ny cheaper that that at all, and thats the new manufactured piece of hardware. 

I wrote this before the Xbox X and stuff. I didn't post it for a while so I'm a bit late. After the shit storm of people like you, I'm not doing this again. You can do it though. I would like to read about it.

33 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

8. Getting games playable on good settings is fine, but would you include a time which you spend to find out the best settings? Why bother with the PC for the "same" price as the console, if you just get a console and play the same? What is the point here? You cant realize how big of a deal is something that doesnt deliver you a problems to solve. 

Again, this is not about UX or UI. This is about hardware not time. I agree with all that. I am just not comparing this. Look through the posts above for my explanation of what I am comparing. 

36 minutes ago, Nedkely said:

9. But thats add up to the experience. People are paying more to get better tools, which are saving them time at work and nerves and these are more worth than the dirt cheap, thats a good point here, even if the pc will be the same price as the console, the console WILL be the better option for a gaming experience, simply because its not delivering any hassle and in fact will offer more, because period you could play multiplayer local without buying a second console. 

If you are buying a tool that makes something more than the other, it makes a real difference, sometimes a game breaking difference. Like online pc gaming is flooded by cheaters, that will make for ones a reason to get a console. And still, pc can do more than the console, but if i am not a programmer or so, why should i bother to get a pc? If i want just to play games on it, and consoles delivering me it just fine? And what about streaming your games? Ps4 pro could do streaming just fine in acceptable qualitty as well as xbox one s could, streaming on cheap PC would be catastrophic disaster. I actually know a youtuber, who changed his platform from PC to xbox to stream world of tanks, and i couldnt see a person more happy than he was back then. 

Not about UX . . .

[Nedkely]

Comparing hardware is also pointless, both PC and consoles are made with the different architecture supported by the custom API, you cant compare them hardwarewise, this is not how the things works really. 

AMD APU on consoles is way more efficient than that what you would have build on PC with "similar" specs, due to the chip architecture consoles will get better optimization and will do the task better than their hardware counterparts. 

And again, what is the point comparing the cost of the hardware if the both does the same job different? The console will play games better than their counterparts, example? PS4 pro comparing to the rx 470 paired with expensive hexacore 6 gen intel, 32 gb of ram, ssd 950 evo disk perform the same in 1600p in battlefield 1. 

The one is 4 times more expensive than the other... And the expensive one has 0.8 teraflops stronger GPU not to mention other parts...  Hardware wise ps4 pro is inferior but perform the same as the way stronger PC rig. 

[noobs guid to marsterrace]

3 hours ago, Nedkely said:

Comparing hardware is also pointless, both PC and consoles are made with the different architecture supported by the custom API, you cant compare them hardwarewise, this is not how the things works really. 

AMD APU on consoles is way more efficient than that what you would have build on PC with "similar" specs, due to the chip architecture consoles will get better optimization and will do the task better than their hardware counterparts. 

And again, what is the point comparing the cost of the hardware if the both does the same job different? The console will play games better than their counterparts, example? PS4 pro comparing to the rx 470 paired with expensive hexacore 6 gen intel, 32 gb of ram, ssd 950 evo disk perform the same in 1600p in battlefield 1. 

The one is 4 times more expensive than the other... And the expensive one has 0.8 teraflops stronger GPU not to mention other parts...  Hardware wise ps4 pro is inferior but perform the same as the way stronger PC rig. 

PC and the latest generation consoles have the same architecture and the hardware is the same. All the latest generation consoles run is down clocked AMD FX 8350 with some sort of GPU glued to it. The PC your compareing to the PS4 Pro is way over the top. A better example would be a Rx 480 with an r5 1400, 8gb of ram and a 1tb hdd. Where did you get the ' expensive 6 core 6 gen Intel CPU the PS4 Pro has a down clocked FX 8350 with is equivalent to a dual core Pentium.

[Nedkely]

5 hours ago, noobs guid to marsterrace said:

PC and the latest generation consoles have the same architecture and the hardware is the same. All the latest generation consoles run is down clocked AMD FX 8350 with some sort of GPU glued to it. The PC your compareing to the PS4 Pro is way over the top. A better example would be a Rx 480 with an r5 1400, 8gb of ram and a 1tb hdd. Where did you get the ' expensive 6 core 6 gen Intel CPU the PS4 Pro has a down clocked FX 8350 with is equivalent to a dual core Pentium.

Lol, its not. 

Console GPU and CPU is the APU, that shares the tasks between both chip sectors, accelerated with other hardware components on the board like checkerboard rendering engine and use custom OpenCL software solution that improves the optimization even further comparing to the openGL or cuda technology. They both share the same gddr 5 memory with high bandwdth, and due to the HSA structure of the code management, the need for the memory is much lower since it doesnt need to schedule tasks and share memory images it between two separate devices. 

Maybe in a few years you will see Intel and AMD working together on the same APU chip, so it will bring a revolution into PC and you will no more need to buy GPU cards anymore. 

 

 

[TurbulentWinds]

17 hours ago, Nedkely said:

Comparing hardware is also pointless, both PC and consoles are made with the different architecture supported by the custom API, you cant compare them hardwarewise, this is not how the things works really. 

You can. You can take the performance in games of the console at a certain framerate and graphical preset and build a PC that will be able to hit those same targets. I never said there was a point because there isn't. 

17 hours ago, Nedkely said:

AMD APU on consoles is way more efficient than that what you would have build on PC with "similar" specs, due to the chip architecture consoles will get better optimization and will do the task better than their hardware counterparts. 

Dude, wtf. Have you even read any of this?

17 hours ago, Nedkely said:

And again, what is the point comparing the cost of the hardware if the both does the same job different? The console will play games better than their counterparts, example? PS4 pro comparing to the rx 470 paired with expensive hexacore 6 gen intel, 32 gb of ram, ssd 950 evo disk perform the same in 1600p in battlefield 1. 

The one is 4 times more expensive than the other...

Ok. That's your assessment. This is mine and I agree with you on this point, though that system will bottleneck hardcore. 

17 hours ago, Nedkely said:

And the expensive one has 0.8 teraflops stronger GPU not to mention other parts... 

You used teraflops to compare GPUs.

17 hours ago, Nedkely said:

Hardware wise ps4 pro is inferior but perform the same as the way stronger PC rig. 

Which I agree with.

[noobs guid to marsterrace]

8 hours ago, Nedkely said:

Lol, its not. 

Console GPU and CPU is the APU, that shares the tasks between both chip sectors, accelerated with other hardware components on the board like checkerboard rendering engine and use custom OpenCL software solution that improves the optimization even further comparing to the openGL or cuda technology. They both share the same gddr 5 memory with high bandwdth, and due to the HSA structure of the code management, the need for the memory is much lower since it doesnt need to schedule tasks and share memory images it between two separate devices. 

Maybe in a few years you will see Intel and AMD working together on the same APU chip, so it will bring a revolution into PC and you will no more need to buy GPU cards anymore. 

 

 

If you got the Rx 480 you wouldn't run in to any memory problems because not mean games use more than 4 GB of ram and the ones that do probably couldn't run on it anyway. Memory speed for the CPU dousent make a big difference. Plus the system I used had twice as much ram.

There are is an Apu with and graphics and an Intel CPU.

[heimdali]

22 hours ago, TurbulentWinds said:

Let me explain this to you in detail. I'm sorry I'm am not being clear because I have other stuff to do besides argue with you. 

 

This is a simple comparison of hardware and platform costs of a PC that performs equivalent to baseline modern consoles.  Equal performance means playing most AAA, AA, and indie titles at 1080p 30 FPS or 1080p 60 FPS on any settings.This is not comprehensive. This is does not factor in every little detail. This is something I wrote up because I was bored in class. This is not something to fight about. Find a relevant flaw and I will update the OP with the new information. It must be a non fringe case and have some amount of hard proof.   

 

In regard to your comment on benchmarking, the workload will not be exactly the same. The systems will not be exactly the same. But with a reasonable amount of effort, one can find benchmarks for systems that will preform within a few percent of the upgrade plan. It is also possible to estimate based on hardware.

 

I will explain how the GPU replacement works once again. Let us take the 650 Ti and the i5 - 2300 both of which were released in 2012, 5 years ago. Today, the 650 Ti is showing its age. It is no longer able to run AAA games at 1080p 30 FPS. Going through game min spec for 1080p, most games require a 660 minimum. Therefore, it is time for an upgrade. The 1050 Ti is a good fit for this system. It will do what is asked and does not require a external power connector. 

 

[...]

If your friend is willing to buy a new laptop and has the money, all the power to him.

 

I use one 1080p monitor. I agree that it would be useful to have two (code/output) but it is not necessary. Don't get me wrong, 4k would be great but 1080p is perfectly usable and is really all you need. Even buying two 1080p monitors would be less expensive then one 4k as of now. The big issue I have with 4k is UI scaling. When 4k is standard, it will be fine but for now I'll stick with 1080p.

At least you made it more clear now.

 

Your GPU replacement is likely to give you a bit faster graphics --- wich can make a big difference on the surface --- but it does not fix the underlying problem that the whole system is too slow, and that is why it doesn´t work.

 

You will definitely not be able to find benchmarks that give you any useful numbers for your purpose.  Sure you can find all kinds of benchmarks, and pretty much all of them try to get some numbers of one small, single aspect, and you can deduce from them that the new hardware you´re looking at will likely be faster than what you have now --- but you already knew that, and it does in no way tell you how that new hardware might perform with your specific workload.  Since you can´t tell how it will perform other than it´ll probably be better by a more or less tiny amount, you have no grounds to justify spending significant amounts of money on that new hardware.  What you can know from experience with hardware is that what you would spend would be totally out of any reasonable proportion, and you don´t need benchmarks to know this.  And can you show me benchmarks that provide data about reliability for the new hardware that came out yesterday (or however recently that was)?  Reliability is one aspect of performance, and it can be the most important one.

 

Two 1080 monitors can be cheaper than a 4k display, though I wouldn´t buy those because I wouldn´t go below 1200 in height.  That makes two monitors about as expensive as a 4k display.  Even when you have two monitors, you still don´t have the height, and you have two monitors side by side, which is much different and a makeshift solution.  However, you could turn them 90 degrees, which, tough rather awkward, is probably not too bad when you have 2.

 

 

BTW, you can add another aspect to your comparison:  I found out today that I can get a windoze 10 license for 4.99 and remembered that I have a spare 2TB disk I could install it on.  I have a computer anyway.  No console can compare with that, especially because there isn´t a good way to connect it to my monitor.

 

[TurbulentWinds]

2 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Your GPU replacement is likely to give you a bit faster graphics --- wich can make a big difference on the surface --- but it does not fix the underlying problem that the whole system is too slow, and that is why it doesn´t work.

I fucking can't deal with you. I provided you with an example that is perfectly applicable and you just say that I'm wrong without any proof. Give me some fucking proof.

3 minutes ago, heimdali said:

You will definitely not be able to find benchmarks that give you any useful numbers for your purpose.  Sure you can find all kinds of benchmarks, and pretty much all of them try to get some numbers of one small, single aspect, and you can deduce from them that the new hardware you´re looking at will likely be faster than what you have now --- but you already knew that, and it does in no way tell you how that new hardware might perform with your specific workload. 

WE ARE TALKING GODDAMN GAMING JUST FUCKING LOOK IT UP!

4 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Since you can´t tell how it will perform other than it´ll probably be better by a more or less tiny amount, you have no grounds to justify spending significant amounts of money on that new hardware. 

You can.

4 minutes ago, heimdali said:

And can you show me benchmarks that provide data about reliability for the new hardware that came out yesterday (or however recently that was)?  Reliability is one aspect of performance, and it can be the most important one.

We aren't talking reliability. It doesn't matter it this context.

7 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Two 1080 monitors can be cheaper than a 4k display, though I wouldn´t buy those because I wouldn´t go below 1200 in height.  That makes two monitors about as expensive as a 4k display.  Even when you have two monitors, you still don´t have the height, and you have two monitors side by side, which is much different and a makeshift solution.  However, you could turn them 90 degrees, which, tough rather awkward, is probably not too bad when you have 2.

Whatever the fuck you want to think dude. This is for gaming. 4K is not needed.

And again:

 

[heimdali]

Yeah, you know nothing but gaming, so you´ll never get it.

 

[TurbulentWinds]

Just now, heimdali said:

Yeah, you know nothing but gaming, so you´ll never get it.

 

Jesus. WE ARE TALKIING GAMING IN THIS THREAD! ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT RELEVANT!

[MrTiC]

On 3-11-2017 at 8:21 PM, Dan Castellaneta said:

Why does this seem very skewed towards PC?

Oh right, because it is.

 

Right off the bat, Windows is missing, and that's an extra $80-120, depending on if you go the cheap route of OEM or the easier route of retail.

Second, if we go off of titles that launch the day as, then all platforms will be $60USD. Generally titles eventually drop prices on all platforms.

Third, where the hell's the keyboard and mouse? Good keyboards and mice add another $100-160 total to the price tag.

Fourth, the average person will want a more attractive case and a PSU that'd help in upgrading in the long run.

 

That's four points that you blatantly ignored, and I'd bet there's more.

In a course of 4 years with a starting price tag of 1000$ and 10 Games / year PC is STILL CHEAPER

Console:

399 euro + 4 years of psn/live + 40 games (10/y at 60 euro) = 3.038 euro

Pc:

A do it all machine for 1000 euro + 40 games (10/y at 45 euro) = 2800 euro 

Ive never payed full price for games, always 35-45 euro on kinguin (i never pre order) and not even to mention the INSANE steam sales 

And there are tons of shit a console cant do ... 

In the LONG run pc is always cheaper

 

And no i dont hate consoles

[heimdali]

52 minutes ago, TurbulentWinds said:

Jesus. WE ARE TALKIING GAMING IN THIS THREAD! ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT RELEVANT!

Then don´t compare computers with consoles.  I think this is the most useless thread I´ve ever encountered.

 

[TurbulentWinds]

18 minutes ago, heimdali said:

Then don´t compare computers with consoles.  I think this is the most useless thread I´ve ever encountered.

 

Dude. Why spend so much time on this if you think its useless?

 

I found it useful and both console and computers can be used for gaming. Therefore, they should be compared.

[heimdali]

10 minutes ago, TurbulentWinds said:

Dude. Why spend so much time on this if you think its useless?

 

I found it useful and both console and computers can be used for gaming. Therefore, they should be compared.

Because I wanted to make up my mind about whether to buy a console or not.

 

Both space shuttles and horses can be used to get from point a to point b.  Therefore, they should be compared:  What brings you cheaper into orbit?

 

Ok, the analogy isn´t too great.  It doesn´t make sense to consider a single, rather irrelevant function of a device that was created for entirely different functions and with versatility in mind with another device that was created solely and specifically for this single purpose and with no versatility to create an artificial comparision between the cost of each device and how well they perform the irrelevant, or, depending on the device, crucial function while ignoring all other functions each of the devices can perform.

 

That is like comparing how well apples perform at yielding orange juice compared to oranges when you squeeze either.  You don´t even care how well that yield tastes.

 

Well, I guess nowadays ppl would be so crazy as to do exactly that, but with apples resulting from heavy gene manipulation of whatever plant they´re made to grow on.  Yeah, apples and oranges can both be used to make juice, therefore they should be compared.

 

The world has gone way more crazy than I thought.