non-biased pc vs console

[GoodBytes]

16 minutes ago, NinjaJc01 said:

Firstly, I work in GBP, and no, consoles are not normally better optimized. Games run at lower "settings" on console, and tend to be locked to 30FPS, which looks awful to anyone who is used to 60FPS.

Incorrect. They are better optimized. The game developers knows exactly the hardware, its limitations, and can design a game around all that. In addition, you have the best visuals for performance balance, while on PC, you need to spend hours adjusting these settings, as different games needs different settings, and different part of the game can be more taxing, and those might be later on, so you are consistently adjusting your settings. Or you spend a fortune on a PC and get something super powerful, where you still can't just max out all (at 100%) game settings, and call it a day, but you don't need to fine tune things. Like put everything to max, but reduce AA a bit, and maybe something else, and you are done.

[zehao39]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

A game console is like a DVD/Blu-ray player. Sure your PC can play moves. But do you want all your family or friends comes in your room where your PC is, and use that little screen? Or you want to use your big screen, all sit comfortably on the sofa?

YES, you could build a PC and plug it to your TV just to play movies as well. It is up to you.. but a dedicated box will allow you to have a simple experience, insert your movie, and it plays. No mouse or keyboard needed, No special software for a media center like experience, hoping it can do a good job (which you know it doesn't do one really), and well, you need to buy the parts and build it, and you end up with this big box.

 

Same for game consoles.

 

In addition, you have many exclusive title on console as well. Sure you have some on PC, and on other console. That is up to you to know which one your care and not, and make your purchase decision on that. AND YOU CAN BUY 2 or MORE console, and you CAN buy a PC and a console. The whole "PC master race", "<insert console name> for life" is retarded.

 

The whole 30 vs 60 fps is silly. Sure, more is better. But frame rate stability is more important. Movies are 24fps, everyone is fine with it, because it goes contentiously at 24fps, you don't get blinded, or have a headache, or what not. It's fine. Same for games. Nothing changes. Sure it is easy to point to some console game that is having trouble with 30fps, but you can with PC as well, and it is harder to adjust game setting to be 60fps solid. I mean you could go with the easy path and get super powerful hardware and call it day, or you can spend several hours adjusting settings to maximize visuals (with the fact that you are adjusting your game settings as you play, if the game doesn't have a benchmark or something to test the different scenes), or you predict things, by giving more headroom, but now you can reduce too much the visuals.

 

Console and PC both have their ups and downs.

 

Personally, I have both, I enjoy both a lot.

the reason movie are at 24fps is okay because each frame of the movie are connected. The game are not. I think 60fps and 30fps are have the huge difference

[NinjaJc01]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

Incorrect. They are better optimized. The game developers knows exactly the hardware, its limitations, and can design a game around all that. In addition, you have the best visuals for performance balance, while on PC, you need to spend hours adjusting these settings, as different games needs different settings, and different part of the game can be more taxing, and those might be later on, so you are consistently adjusting your settings. Or you spend a fortune on a PC and get something super powerful, where you still can't just max out all (at 100%) game settings, and call it a day, but you don't need to fine tune things. Like put everything to max, but reduce AA a bit, and maybe something else, and you are done.

Personal preference. And console still mostly run at 30FPS. Devs tend to have access to a large amount of people with a vareity of hardware for PC games, that's part of open/closed betas.

[thatcoolcat1]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

A game console is like a DVD/Blu-ray player. Sure your PC can play moves. But do you want all your family or friends comes in your room where your PC is, and use that little screen? Or you want to use your big screen, all sit comfortably on the sofa?

YES, you could build a PC and plug it to your TV just to play movies as well. It is up to you.. but a dedicated box will allow you to have a simple experience, insert your movie, and it plays. No mouse or keyboard needed, No special software for a media center like experience, hoping it can do a good job (which you know it doesn't do one really), and well, you need to buy the parts and build it, and you end up with this big box.

 

Same for game consoles.

 

In addition, you have many exclusive title on console as well. Sure you have some on PC, and on other console. That is up to you to know which one your care and not, and make your purchase decision on that. AND YOU CAN BUY 2 or MORE console, and you CAN buy a PC and a console. The whole "PC master race", "<insert console name> for life" is retarded.

 

The whole 30 vs 60 fps is silly. Sure, more is better. But frame rate stability is more important. Movies are 24fps, everyone is fine with it, because it goes contentiously at 24fps, you don't get blinded, or have a headache, or what not. It's fine. Same for games. Nothing changes. Sure it is easy to point to some console game that is having trouble with 30fps, but you can with PC as well, and it is harder to adjust game setting to be 60fps solid. I mean you could go with the easy path and get super powerful hardware and call it day, or you can spend several hours adjusting settings to maximize visuals (with the fact that you are adjusting your game settings as you play, if the game doesn't have a benchmark or something to test the different scenes), or you predict things, by giving more headroom, but now you can reduce too much the visuals.

 

Console and PC both have their ups and downs.

 

Personally, I have both, I enjoy both a lot.

1st paragraph, forgot to add that

last sentence, yes yes yes yes yes

that's me

i fluctuate between them and settle on one for a few months,

then I get a new game for the other

and repeat cycle

[WkdPaul]

5 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

This. So many people forget about the cost of games with the console vs PC arguments. The savings on PC is HUGE. 25-50% off on triple-A games usually within 1-2 months of release date. The last few big games I bought were 25% off on launch day. 

There's also the "second device" argument that I use with friends, basically people still use PCs, and instead of paying $400-500 for a console, buying a $300 GPU for their existing PC (as long as it's not a laptop) will be much better than buying a console!

 

@GoodBytes does have good points though, and in the end it's up to the person's choice.

[zehao39]

the one thing I do not like is when a guy play one PC people will think their are more hardcore I just do not get why

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, zehao39 said:

the reason movie are at 24fps is okay because each frame of the movie are connected. The game are not. I think 60fps and 30fps are have the huge difference

I am not sure I understand you, but they are perfectly connected on games. All I can think about, is that your use FRAPS to measure your fps in games. And Fraps actually sucks at doing this, because it doesn't give your fps on the spot, it calculates every so often and averages things. So FRAPS shows you "30fps", but really it is 20fps, 40fps, 20fps, 40fps, and so on...So basically you should drop the game visual settings, or the CPU is the bottleneck and other settings needs to reduce. Low in system or GPU memory can cause that as well.

 

[MEC-777]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

A game console is like a DVD/Blu-ray player. Sure your PC can play moves. But do you want all your family or friends comes in your room where your PC is, and use that little screen? Or you want to use your big screen, all sit comfortably on the sofa?

YES, you could build a PC and plug it to your TV just to play movies as well. It is up to you.. but a dedicated box will allow you to have a simple experience, insert your movie, and it plays. No mouse or keyboard needed, No special software for a media center like experience, hoping it can do a good job (which you know it doesn't do one really), and well, you need to buy the parts and build it, and you end up with this big box.

 

Same for game consoles.

 

In addition, you have many exclusive title on console as well. Sure you have some on PC, and on other console. That is up to you to know which one your care and not, and make your purchase decision on that. AND YOU CAN BUY 2 or MORE console, and you CAN buy a PC and a console. The whole "PC master race", "<insert console name> for life" is retarded.

 

The whole 30 vs 60 fps is silly. Sure, more is better. But frame rate stability is more important. Movies are 24fps, everyone is fine with it, because it goes contentiously at 24fps, you don't get blinded, or have a headache, or what not. It's fine. Same for games. Nothing changes. Sure it is easy to point to some console game that is having trouble with 30fps, but you can with PC as well, and it is harder to adjust game setting to be 60fps solid. I mean you could go with the easy path and get super powerful hardware and call it day, or you can spend several hours adjusting settings to maximize visuals (with the fact that you are adjusting your game settings as you play, if the game doesn't have a benchmark or something to test the different scenes), or you predict things, by giving more headroom, but now you can reduce too much the visuals.

 

Console and PC both have their ups and downs.

 

Personally, I have both, I enjoy both a lot.

Many issues with some of the arguments you used here. 

 

-You can build very powerful small form factor PC's the same size, or not much bigger than a console and not break the bank building it. So the size argument is irrelevant.

-You can also get remotes to use with the PC, eliminating the need for mouse and kb (though I still prefer using a kb with built in touch pad with my HTPC). It's a matter of preference, but this isn't a limitation here. 

-PLEEEEEASE people, STOP USING the "movies run at 24fps therefor gaming at 30fps is acceptable" argument. It is NOT the same. Total Biscuit and many others have done a number of videos and rants on why this argument is a horrible one. Gaming and watching movies are two very different things and this argument needs to die. Some people are ok with 30fps, I grant that. But please do not use the "cinematic" argument. It's BS.

-I agree frame rate consistency is more important than overall peak frame rates. 

-I agree there's nothing wrong with owning, one or the other or both. Use which ever you prefer.

 

 

 

  

[zehao39]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

I am not sure I understand you, but they are perfectly connected on games. All I can think about, is that your use FRAPS to measure your fps in games. And Fraps actually sucks at doing this, because it doesn't give your fps on the spot, it calculates every so often and averages things. So FRAPS shows you "30fps", but really it is 20fps, 40fps, 20fps, 40fps, and so on...So basically you should drop the game visual settings, or the CPU is the bottleneck and other settings needs to reduce. Low in system or GPU memory can cause that as well.

 

when stop a movie you will see some part of the frame are fuzzy. It lie to the brain so we think the object are moving in lower frame rate

[MEC-777]

9 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

There's also the "second device" argument that I use with friends, basically people still use PCs, and instead of paying $400-500 for a console, buying a $300 GPU for their existing PC (as long as it's not a laptop) will be much better than buying a console!

 

@GoodBytes does have good points though, and in the end it's up to the person's choice.

It depends on each situation. If the whole family has to share the PC, that can be problematic.

 

No 2 situations are a like, which is why I always say there is no definitive "one is better than the other" answer to this never-ending war.

[SageOfSpice]

19 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

A game console is like a DVD/Blu-ray player. Sure your PC can play movies. But do you want all your family or friends comes in your room where your PC is, and look at that little screen? Or you want...

DVD? Blu-ray? As if I want to get up. Screw that. 

Just stream it from the server in the other room to my little $30 micro-PC.

 

Still trying to figure out how to get the fridge to bring me a beer, though.

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

Many issues with some of the arguments you used here. 

 

-You can build very powerful small form factor PC's the same size, or not much bigger than a console and not break the bank building it. So the size argument is irrelevant.

-You can also get remotes to use with the PC, eliminating the need for mouse and kb (though I still prefer using a kb with built in touch pad with my HTPC). It's a matter of preference, but this isn't a limitation here. 

-PLEEEEEASE people, STOP USING the "movies run at 24fps therefor gaming at 30fps is acceptable" argument. It is NOT the same. Total Biscuit and many others have done a number of videos and rants on why this argument is a horrible one. Gaming and watching movies are two very different things and this argument needs to die. Some people are ok with 30fps, I grant that. But please do not use the "cinematic" argument. It's BS.

-I agree frame rate consistency is more important than overall peak frame rates. 

-I agree there's nothing wrong with owning, one or the other or both. Use which ever you prefer. 

- Sure... Linus tiny case that he reviewed (which is still bigger than the PS4 and XBox One S) is $250 US. That's the price of the case, and it is just a case, you have the rest of the system to get

 

- Yea, you can could get a remote, But again, give me a media center software that plays Netflix, launches your games, play music out of Spotify, and other music subscription services, plays movies (DVD and Blue-ray) without switching software. You can't for various reasons, and so the experience is not the best. Sure one can manage, but that 100% personal. Some, like myself, won't enjoy such experience.

 

- No one said "cinematic" here. "cinematic" means: "Lower fps is actually better, gives you a better experience". That is B.S. My argument is CONSISTENCY of fps. 30fps, or better than 120fps then right after 60fps, then right after 90fps, then 120, 60, 100, 90, and so on... despite being over 60fps, your game will be unplayable. I can assure you that. That is what I was trying to explain. And I did say that more fps is indeed better.

[WkdPaul]

3 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

It depends on each situation. If the whole family has to share the PC, that can be problematic.

 

No 2 situations are a like, which is why I always say there is no definitive "one is better than the other" answer to this never-ending war.

True, though in my case I should've mentioned I use my argument on gamers that have a dedicated PC, it's true that a "family" PC wouldn't be suited for this type of use.

[BuckGup]

17 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

A game console is like a DVD/Blu-ray player. Sure your PC can play movies. But do you want all your family or friends comes in your room where your PC is, and look at that little screen? Or you want to use your big screen, all sit comfortably on the sofa?

YES, you could build a PC and plug it to your TV just to play movies as well. It is up to you.. but a dedicated box will allow you to have a simple experience, insert your movie, and it plays. No mouse or keyboard needed, No special software for a media center like experience, hoping it can do a good job (which you know it doesn't do one really), and well, you need to buy the parts and build it, and you end up with this big box, while a DVD player is tiny.

 

Same for game consoles.

 

In addition, you have many exclusive title on console as well. Sure you have some on PC, and on other consoles as well. That is up to you to know which one your care and not and make your purchase decision on that. AND you CAN BUY 2 or MORE consoles, and you CAN buy a PC and a console. The whole "PC master race", "<insert console name> for life" is retarded. There is no side to take.

 

The whole 30 vs 60 fps is silly. Sure, more is better. But frame rate stability is more important. Movies are 24fps, everyone is fine with it because it goes contentiously at 24fps, you don't get blinded or have a headache or what not. It's fine. Same for games. Nothing changes. Sure it is easy to point to some console game that is having trouble with 30fps, but you can with PC as well, and it is harder to adjust game setting to be 60fps solid on a PC. I mean you could go with the easy path and get super powerful hardware and call it day (but that cost a lot more), or you can spend several hours adjusting settings to maximize visuals (with the fact that you are adjusting your game settings as you play, if the game doesn't have a benchmark or something to test the different scenes), or you predict things, by giving more headroom, but now you can reduce too much the visuals.

 

Console and PC both have their ups and downs.

 

Personally, I have both, I enjoy both a lot.

The whole movie 24 FPS vs game FPS is sorta different. Yeah they are both the amount of times information is displayed to the screen but a camera is different then a virtual camera in a game. It also helps create blur which is more pleasing to the eye when cinematically done. If I was to shoot 24FPS with my phone it looks horrible. Same with games 24FPS looks really choppy because it isn't blending unless you have motion blur on but that is too fake looking. I will say if a console costs less around $299 and will do 1080p 60FPS on every game WITHOUT paying for online each year. I would defiantly pick one up. Just take it where you want, throw it in a back and go. Sadly at $299 you are going to get 720p 30FPS. Which is not playable once you have tried 144hz 2560X1440p. 

[Nup]

Consoles have their place, but some people are too proud to admit it. 

 

That being said, they may bot be well implemented/made, but they make a lot of sense. IMO. 

[GoodBytes]

15 minutes ago, zehao39 said:

when stop a movie you will see some part of the frame are fuzzy. It lie to the brain so we think the object are moving in lower frame rate

That is your DVD/Blu-ray movie that either:

 - sucks

 - does some post processing stuff like TV going "900Hz!!!!" or whatever they say these days

 - or you are confusing with film technology like VHS, which the blurry has to do more that you are pausing at not an exact frame, and the whole things being low resolution (worst than DVD), and all analogue, plus dust on the tape and head, and quality of components, cables, and so on.

 

If I load an old DVD movie or TV show, and hit pause, you get perfect, sharp frames (well the most sharp of the camera of the time, and resolution)

[MEC-777]

6 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

- Sure... Linus tiny case that he reviewed (which is still bigger than the PS4 and XBox One S) is $250 US. That's the price of the case, and it is just a case, you have the rest of the system to get

 

- Yea, you can could get a remote, But again, give me a media center software that plays Netflix, launches your games, play music out of Spotify, and other music subscription services, plays movies (DVD and Blue-ray) without switching software. You can't for various reasons, and so the experience is not the best. Sure one can manage, but that 100% personal. Some, like myself, won't enjoy such experience.

 

- No one said "cinematic" here. "cinematic" means: "Lower fps is actually better, gives you a better experience". That is B.S. My argument is CONSISTENCY of fps. 30fps, or better than 120fps then right after 60fps, then right after 90fps, then 120, 60, 100, 90, and so on... despite being over 60fps, your game will be unplayable. I can assure you that. That is what I was trying to explain. And I did say that more fps is indeed better.

-That is 1 option for 1 case. There are plenty of cheap small cases out there. Coolermaster Elite 110 is one of them. Depending on your needs, there are many to suit. 

 

-It is 100% personal. You can probably do most, if not, all those things with Linux. I grant that not many people would want to go through that process but most of those things can be done in Windows. Again, I agree, this is 100% personal preference. 

 

-My bad for assuming you were using the cinematic argument. But again, frame rates and timings in movies vs gaming is VERY different. I agree frame TIMING is more important than overall/average frame rates. Totally. That's where vsync comes in handy, however. Most games have that option, so that argument as far as gaming is concerned is also irrelevant. You can achieve both higher and consistent frame rates on PC.   

 

 

[007agentHP]

50 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

Not exactly. PS4 uses GDDR5 memory and the GPU is a variant of the 7870 chip.

which is why i said Shared 8 GB of memory. never specified DDR3 or GDDR5

and yes, thats why its cut down

the 7870 has 1280 stream processors

the PS4 has 1152

[MEC-777]

5 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

 

If I load an old DVD movie or TV show, and hit pause, you get perfect, sharp frames (well the most sharp of the camera of the time, and resolution)

Try pausing during an action scene.

 

(RIP Firefly  Such a good show.)

[MEC-777]

2 minutes ago, 007agentHP said:

which is why i said Shared 8 GB of memory. never specified DDR3 or GDDR5

and yes, thats why its cut down

the 7870 has 1280 stream processors

the PS4 has 1152

Didn't notice you said cut down 7870. My bad. 

 

Shared memory, yes. But GDDR5 is quite a bit faster than DDR3.

[zehao39]

6 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

That is your DVD/Blu-ray movie that either:

 - sucks

 - does some post processing stuff like TV going "900Hz!!!!" or whatever they say these days

 - or you are confusing with film technology like VHS, which the blurry has to do more that you are pausing at not an exact frame, and the whole things being low resolution (worst than DVD), and all analogue, plus dust on the tape and head, and quality of components, cables, and so on.

 

If I load an old DVD movie or TV show, and hit pause, you get perfect, sharp frames (well the most sharp of the camera of the time, and resolution)

here is what look like you pause a action.you can clear see the edge of the person are fuzzy

[GoodBytes]

23 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

The whole movie 24 FPS vs game FPS is sorta different. Yeah they are both the amount of times information is displayed to the screen but a camera is different then a virtual camera in a game. It also helps create blur which is more pleasing to the eye when cinematically done. If I was to shoot 24FPS with my phone it looks horrible. Same with games 24FPS looks really choppy because it isn't blending unless you have motion blur on but that is too fake looking. I will say if a console costs less around $299 and will do 1080p 60FPS on every game WITHOUT paying for online each year. I would defiantly pick one up. Just take it where you want, throw it in a back and go. Sadly at $299 you are going to get 720p 30FPS. Which is not playable once you have tried 144hz 2560X1440p. 

Ah, yes that is true. Mind you, little to no research was done on improving blur effect. But...

Did you know that N64, PS1, Dreamcast, and the GameCube, PS2, XBox (original), could barely get you 30fps solid at the time.. no one was complaining. You has some of the best games on it as well. They weren't all on PC, and some of them still hold up today with its glorious 25fps action. Heck the SNES Starfox game barely ran 15fps. Was fine. Because it was consistent, so it didn't get you out of the experience.

 

And console can do 1080p 60fps. on every game. It is the game developers who decides (or more the publishers), "People want graphiXsss!!!! RealXsm!!! eXtreame!!!", and pushes content too much for the console. WiiU being the weakest console, has wonderful 60fps 1080p games. Not all, but the console is super weak. A bit better than last gen stuff. That is all. So no excuse for the PS4 and XBox One, really. So right now, if a console was 2000$ and had GTX 1080 inside and a Core i7 I don't know what model inside with 32GB of RAMs, games will still run at 30fps, because "We have to make it 8K, more realistic, more stuff happening on the screen!, more more more... EPIC!", 'cause that is what sales, sadly. I mean look at The Witcher 3... when the game came out, even if you had the fanciest computer, could not run 60fps solid at max settings at 1080p

 

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, zehao39 said:

here is what look like you pause a action.you can clear see the edge of the person are fuzzy

Ah ok, you are saying what SamStrecker was saying... well my post is above.

[GoodBytes]

11 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

-That is 1 option for 1 case. There are plenty of cheap small cases out there. Coolermaster Elite 110 is one of them. Depending on your needs, there are many to suit. 

 

-It is 100% personal. You can probably do most, if not, all those things with Linux. I grant that not many people would want to go through that process but most of those things can be done in Windows. Again, I agree, this is 100% personal preference. 

 

-My bad for assuming you were using the cinematic argument. But again, frame rates and timings in movies vs gaming is VERY different. I agree frame TIMING is more important than overall/average frame rates. Totally. That's where vsync comes in handy, however. Most games have that option, so that argument as far as gaming is concerned is also irrelevant. You can achieve both higher and consistent frame rates on PC.   

- Well that is bigger than any of the console by considerable margins (not to mention not the nicest looking thing for a home theater setup, but ignoring that). But question... how are you insert a movie in that? I mean even Linus case didn't have an optical drive slot, but I was talking about thinnest.. I guess we can look at the NCase M1, or Streacom, but they call cost ~$200-250 US, depending on model and options. But beside that, might as well go with a med-tower. I mean already the XBox One original design was highly criticized for being too big. And no one wants "the beige box" PC.

 

- I have already looked into it. You can't. And under Linux, you loose game support and gaming performance. I always wanted to build an HTPC computer, since 2005. i could not find a proper solution. And by the time I have I have some solid developer skills to make something, you still can't, because Netflix doesn't allow it (and same for other streaming services), same for music streaming as well. So you have to do hacks, and now it isn't good experience anymore.

[minibois]

There is no 'vs', you either get a console, a PC or both. You really can't look objectively at it, because you still need to factor in opinion and your personal situation.

Personal situation as in, what platform do your friends play on? What are you going to on your machine? etc.

Opinion as in, what exclusives do you want? What peripheral options do you like best? etc.