Misconceptions about PC gaming.

[Eldritch Warlord]

However you're right it doesn't apply to an individual unit but it does apply to a large sum of them. Even a low end PC nowadays outperforms the PS3 graphics.

Eh, low end? Low end gaming PC maybe. I know my computer purchased earlier this year isn't going to be besting a PS3 in any gaming capacity, I actually rather doubt it could beat a 360.

I will concede that most gaming PC's will best current-gen consoles. Onward to life!

 

[Railu]

People are saying avoid prebuilt computers, but actually mine came out cheaper than if I were to buy the parts. And I get a warranty on it, and I don't actually have to build it.

The problem with pre-built PCs is that you have no control over the quality of the components. Manufacturers will generally choose cheaper, lower quality parts to keep costs down. And if you have a problem, you often have no choice but to send it back to them for repairs lest you void your warranty. This isn't always the case, but some are very draconian about it.

If your first reaction to opening a PC is "Wow, look at all the wires", then yes, it's probably best just to stick with having a pre-built or have your friend or nephew build it.

 

[Credge]

Debatable and really doesn't matter.

Debatable? PC games don't cost $60. They cost $50. There is no debate. Even further, PC game prices drop faster on average.

 

[Gormers1]

not sure if I agree with you about shorter loading times but whatever.

You don't need to agree with me, all that I've stated there are facts. If you prefer to be illogical and disagree with facts then you're welcomed to it, just don't pull me in. (Well most of them are facts.)

Just because games on the pc should load faster "in theory", doesn't mean that they actually do. Streaming from the dvd was heavily used in the previous generation, and is used now and then too. Ever played super mario galaxy? The load time there is about as long as in super mario 64.

I have a PC with 2GBs of ram (if you want I can find out how fast they are), and I make sure that the memory usage before I play is under 500MBs. I also have an Intel 3Ghz Dual core possessor. Still, the loading times is longer than most games I have on the console. Example of games I have that load slow: HL: 2, Bioshock (demo), Crysis and farcry (demos), the sims 2, L4D. There are a lot of 360 games that take their time to load to, but not longer than their pc counterpart (tried the half life series, portal L4D on b.

I know it depends on the game, but I know that PC games do not load faster in general.

You cant just compare console hardware and pc hardware, because games on consoles is heavily optimized to run on the pc. It would never have been possible to run God of War on a pc with teh same specs as ps2. And do you think halo:Ce could run on a pc with the same specs as the console?
Consoles find other was to solve their loading problems, and many solve them well.

 

[jamesworkshop]

not sure if I agree with you about shorter loading times but whatever.

Just because games on the pc should load faster "in theory", doesn't mean that they actually do. Streaming from the dvd was heavily used in the previous generation, and is used now and then too. Ever played super mario galaxy? The load time there is about as long as in super mario 64.

I have a PC with 2GBs of ram (if you want I can find out how fast they are), and I make sure that the memory usage before I play is under 500MBs. I also have an Intel 3Ghz Dual core possessor. Still, the loading times is longer than most games I have on the console. Example of games I have that load slow: HL: 2, Bioshock (demo), Crysis and farcry (demos), the sims 2, L4D. There are a lot of 360 games that take their time to load to, but not longer than their pc counterpart (tried the half life series, portal L4D on b.

I know it depends on the game, but I know that PC games do not load faster in general.

You cant just compare console hardware and pc hardware, because games on consoles is heavily optimized to run on the pc. It would never have been possible to run God of War on a pc with teh same specs as ps2. And do you think halo:Ce could run on a pc with the same specs as the console?
Consoles find other was to solve their loading problems, and many solve them well.

Super Mario 64 had no loading screens its one of the benifits of game cartridges and PC games are installed fully on the harddrive now I never need the disc in the drive.

Loading times is really only comparable if the game is between systems no console has ever loaded Crysis which has some of the best in-game loading times (quick save/quick load) that I have ever seen.

then consider PC usually have better textures and so loads more even if the time is equal
Besides my Raid 0 has read and write transfers of 120MB a second thats an entire CD worth of data in about 4 seconds no console optical drive has that kind of speed.

Not sure what the last part has to do with loading times but sure you're correct the 360's 512Mb of ram is barely enought to run XP comfortably but who cares when a Gig of ram costs about £15-18

If you want I will fire up fraps and show you the loading time of Dead space on my PC since that has both a console/PC release.

 

[aussiesniper]

not sure if I agree with you about shorter loading times but whatever.

You don't need to agree with me, all that I've stated there are facts. If you prefer to be illogical and disagree with facts then you're welcomed to it, just don't pull me in. (Well most of them are facts.)

Just because games on the pc should load faster "in theory", doesn't mean that they actually do. Streaming from the dvd was heavily used in the previous generation, and is used now and then too. Ever played super mario galaxy? The load time there is about as long as in super mario 64.

I have a PC with 2GBs of ram (if you want I can find out how fast they are), and I make sure that the memory usage before I play is under 500MBs. I also have an Intel 3Ghz Dual core possessor. Still, the loading times is longer than most games I have on the console. Example of games I have that load slow: HL: 2, Bioshock (demo), Crysis and farcry (demos), the sims 2, L4D. There are a lot of 360 games that take their time to load to, but not longer than their pc counterpart (tried the half life series, portal L4D on b.

I know it depends on the game, but I know that PC games do not load faster in general.

You cant just compare console hardware and pc hardware, because games on consoles is heavily optimized to run on the pc. It would never have been possible to run God of War on a pc with teh same specs as ps2. And do you think halo:Ce could run on a pc with the same specs as the console?
Consoles find other was to solve their loading problems, and many solve them well.

I have a PC with 2 GB of RAM at 800MHz, an E8400 processor at 2.8GHz and an 9600GT with 512MB of memory. I know for certain that my PC will absolutely shred any console in terms of load times, resolution, antialiasing and framerate. I have no idea what you have installed on your PC, but you'd better get rid of it before your entire system dies.

Also, what on earth were you talking about when you said this?

games on consoles is heavily optimized to run on the pc.

Console games are optimised for consoles! what twisted logic did you follow to think that they're made for PC?

 

[Gormers1]

Ai, looks like Im outnumbered. Will be back with comments.

 

[Gormers1]

Also, what on earth were you talking about when you said this?

games on consoles is heavily optimized to run on the pc.

Console games are optimised for consoles! what twisted logic did you follow to think that they're made for PC?

I meant what you said there. Sorry my bad english (was or were) btw.

Super Mario 64 had no loading screens its one of the benifits of game cartridges and PC games are installed fully on the harddrive now I never need the disc in the drive.

I never compared the loading times of mario 64 to the pc. I compared Super mario galaxys loading times to the pc. And thats a DVD game, and it loads at the same speed as super mario 64, a cartridge game. Meaning it has nearly none of it.

Heh, of course you can play God of War with the same specs as the PS2. I'm not sure what is it is for the PS2 but in case of the Xbox 360 the PC equivalent is 1074x768 as resolution, 4 AA, 4AF, HDR on. That's it. The Xbox can't go over that, PC's can. Console games are optimized for consoles, pc games are optimized for PC.

No you cant. Because on the pc you have to have some space for the operating system, drivers for each hardware part, etc. In short, the ps2 have a 300MHz processor and 32(*2?) MBs of ram. The minimum system requirements for Resident evil 4 for the pc, a game that looks great and plays smoothly on the ps2, is 1 GHz for the processor and 256 mb ram. And remember that few games are really that playable unless you crank up to the recommended settings, which is 2Ghz and 512mbs of ram. And when I was talking about halo I meant on the Xbox, not the xbox 360.

What Im trying to say is that you cant just compare consoles to the pc that easily. Like I said, games find their ways around even though the console have very little side memory. Resident evil 4 for example is very short of load times and you can finish halo 2 without any loading screen except for a small loading screen before the first level. I guess streaming from the cd is the keyword.
I cant really prove anything by saying that pc games load slower because of that my pc do, but that is at least my experience. And as Im writing this 8% of my cpu is used and 600 of 4000mb of side memory are being used, so I dont think I have something eating up my computer.

BTW I wasn't talking about graphics, but when I look at my 32 inch lcd tv with halo 3 turned on (with short load times), it is hard to notice that the resolution is much lower than my pd lcd screen. I would say that the consoles doesn't need that high resolutions to show of graphics comparable to the pc, as low antializing is harder to notice here and such.

 

[clarinetJWD]

I never compared the loading times of mario 64 to the pc. I compared Super mario galaxys loading times to the pc. And thats a DVD game, and it loads at the same speed as super mario 64, a cartridge game. Meaning it has nearly none of it.

It did have loading times. They were short, and they were amazingly well disguised. Did you ever wonder why to enter a level you had to go into a room, click on the star, select a galaxy, select a mission, and then fly there? Let me tell you, it wasn't because menus are cool. At each level the Wii can load more and more shared info, so by the time you get to the galaxy, it's all loaded.

Mass Effect pulled the same trick, but not as well. Elevators. Lots of them. It never broke gameplay to load, but it sure as hell was loading. And those elevator rides were twice as fast on the PC, btw.

No you cant. Because on the pc you have to have some space for the operating system, drivers for each hardware part, etc. In short, the ps2 have a 300MHz processor and 32(*2?) MBs of ram. The minimum system requirements for Resident evil 4 for the pc, a game that looks great and plays smoothly on the ps2, is 1 GHz for the processor and 256 mb ram. And remember that few games are really that playable unless you crank up to the recommended settings, which is 2Ghz and 512mbs of ram. And when I was talking about halo I meant on the Xbox, not the xbox 360.

And the PS2 had a maximum resolution of 640x480 interlaced (480i). That means you multiply those numbers and then divide it by 2, because it's only drawing a complete picture every 2 frames. No anti-aliasing.

So that's very low resolution, no AA, and 15fps. I can assure you the PC specs weren't aiming for that, they were aiming for at least 1024x768, and 30fps.
153600 pixels, 30fps vs 786432. That's over 5x more graphical information to render each frame.

 

[TheGhostOfSin]

In short, the ps2 have a 300MHz processor and 32(*2?) MBs of ram.

Exactly! How much does a mid end gaming PC has nowadays? 2 gigs of ram and a 3.2 dual at least! This means that the PC is way better in techincal terms than a PS2 and as such it can play whatever games the PS2 can.

I think he meant that if your PC had the same specs as a PS2 it wouldn't play PS2 games.

 

[jamesworkshop]

jamesworkshop:

Super Mario 64 had no loading screens its one of the benifits of game cartridges and PC games are installed fully on the harddrive now I never need the disc in the drive.

I never compared the loading times of mario 64 to the pc. I compared Super mario galaxys loading times to the pc. And thats a DVD game, and it loads at the same speed as super mario 64, a cartridge game. Meaning it has nearly none of it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

so MG loads as fast as M64 (which does not load) and MG loads as fast as the PC but has no Pc release

 

[Gormers1]

jamesworkshop:

Super Mario 64 had no loading screens its one of the benifits of game cartridges and PC games are installed fully on the harddrive now I never need the disc in the drive.

I never compared the loading times of mario 64 to the pc. I compared Super mario galaxys loading times to the pc. And thats a DVD game, and it loads at the same speed as super mario 64, a cartridge game. Meaning it has nearly none of it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

so MG loads as fast as M64 (which does not load) and MG loads as fast as the PC but has no Pc release

Were do you get it from that I said that!? I brought up MG because people said that pc games loads faster than games on consoles Mario galaxy has close to no load times, just like Mario 64. Mario 64 did have some very minor load times after you selected a star when going into a level.

It did have loading times. They were short, and they were amazingly well disguised. Did you ever wonder why to enter a level you had to go into a room, click on the star, select a galaxy, select a mission, and then fly there? Let me tell you, it wasn't because menus are cool. At each level the Wii can load more and more shared info, so by the time you get to the galaxy, it's all loaded.

Yeah but the game would not know which level to load before you had picket the level and the star (many levels changes their layout completely after which star you choose). So the game must load most of the data in the few seconds between choosing a star and the screen going white.

And the PS2 had a maximum resolution of 640x480 interlaced (480i). That means you multiply those numbers and then divide it by 2, because it's only drawing a complete picture every 2 frames. No anti-aliasing.

So that's very low resolution, no AA, and 15fps. I can assure you the PC specs weren't aiming for that, they were aiming for at least 1024x768, and 30fps.
153600 pixels, 30fps vs 786432. That's over 5x more graphical information to render each frame.

I can asure you that I dont take your word for it. I borrowed Splinter cell 3 from a friend once and it passed all the recommended system requirements. I still had to tune it down to 800*600 or 640x480 on what level I was playing, to make it playable.
Proof: http://willhostforfood.com/files3/8285687/bugga.JPG (I know my gpu is the main drawback, but it still says I passed the recommended requirements).

I think he meant that if your PC had the same specs as a PS2 it wouldn't play PS2 games.

Yeah

 

[Zer_]

*snip*

Mario 64 had very little loading times because it wasn't reading off of an optical drive of any kind. Even Hard Drives need to be read. A game cartridge is solid state. A game cartridge is almost if not just as fast as integrated RAM.

 

[Gormers1]

*snip*

Mario 64 had very little loading times because it wasn't reading off of an optical drive of any kind. Even Hard Drives need to be read. A game cartridge is solid state. A game cartridge is almost if not just as fast as integrated RAM.

Yeah I know -_- Im saying that super mario galaxy has the same amount of load time.. Which loads of a CD.

 

[Zer_]

*snip*

Mario 64 had very little loading times because it wasn't reading off of an optical drive of any kind. Even Hard Drives need to be read. A game cartridge is solid state. A game cartridge is almost if not just as fast as integrated RAM.

Yeah I know -_- Im saying that super mario galaxy has the same amount of load time.. Which loads of a CD.

That's because they implemented a streaming loading system where any given area was constantly being loaded in the background. Not a really new innovation in the gaming scene, but a good innovation none the less.

 

[Gormers1]

That's because they implemented a streaming loading system where any given area was constantly being loaded in the background. Not a really new innovation in the gaming scene, but a good innovation none the less.

Yeah I know -_- (and have been saying). Just using that as an example for the pc boys who says that x amount of more ram, HD etc means that the game loads faster.