PC Gaming: Should there be a freeze on technology and hardware development?

[Uncompetative]

Yeah, PC gamers, why bother spending $8000 on a below average performing PC which you will have to spend $25,000 in a month to upgrade when you can save your money and buy a substandard Mac Mini and a substandard console!

Don't worry, even though Halo 4 will be rendered at 320p, it will still look really good to your untrained eyes when it's scaled up to 1080p

Why would they buy a Mac Mini? They've already got a PC.

Agreed. The 360 is substandard (RROD), I'm on my third. At least Microsoft extended the warranty to cover the design fault.

When PCs fail you are often given very poor support. Given that they are more expensive, this disgusts me.

There won't be a Halo 4, although I wouldn't rule out a Halo: Zero.

You mistook my suggestion for PC gamers to save up the money they would ordinarily spend on upgrading their systems for the next 18 months so that they could assess the Xbox 1080 that would be announced amidst hoopla and some previews of its launch games (with a launch date set somewhere around the end of November 2010). I thought it would make no difference for them to "wait and see" what was just beyond the horizon (as I felt the next Xbox would arrive a lot sooner than everyone expected) and they could then make a comparative judgement between the following "Xmas Present" choices:

- Replace the body of their 360 with an Xbox Arcade as it had finally RROD'd out of the extended warranty period.

- Buy a PS3.

- Buy a backwards-compatible 1080.

- Buy much the same components they planned on getting for their gaming PC, which by now were a lot cheaper (or slightly better ones).

Of course, if they use their PC for work and play, then they can probably afford/justify all manner of architectural improvements as soon as they are needed, but I don't have 'professionals' in mind when I talk about PC gamers.

By the way, I feel the real problem with PC gaming isn't hardware development, but software developers like these:


Basically, what you have got here is a developer who knows it will take them X years to program the next awesome PC game. So they work with versions of the game with all the fancy effects turned down (or off) on today's cutting-edge machines for the first couple of years and then release screenshots to magazines (as it can't render the effects in realtime on even the best hardware), then they polish it up some more and six months later you get the trailer (pre-rendered again of course, certainly not playable) and everyone gets terribly excited that the game is 'just around the corner'. Fat chance. The developer has misjudged the slope of the curve that determines what systems are in the market that are capable of running the game at even 'minimum settings' - 'recommended settings' (that is 60fps with medium-to-high quality visual effects) are totally out of the question as those machines haven't yet been invented.

So, they wait. The market waits. When is Alan Wake coming out? Will it be another Duke Nukem: Forever?

In the meantime many have upgraded already, in advance of the game's release and before they really now its truly fierce requirements. Then, we get to where we are now, with a presentation relayed via YouTube. What were the specifications? 3.73Ghz Quad Core? Yikes!

When do they expect such systems to enter the mainstream?

Personally, I think this development strategy is cynical. What do you think is the Remedy?

 

[Specter_]

Actually, you'd want to use a PC considering how much more powerful they are compared to Macs. Especially with the Quadro CX and other Quadro cards.

I guess you refer to my post:
No, you wouldn't, mainly because the implementation of the various programms are optimized for Mac since Mac OS could handle 4GB RAM years before Windows

 

[Avida]

or the cost of a top-of-the-line Falcon gaming PC, about $8000,

This made me shoot Sunny Delight (now with more orange!) out of my nose.
A good top-end-of-the-line nowadays costs around 1250$~~.

Don't believe me? Check this out: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/falcon-northwest-mach-v/4505-3118_7-33370265.html

I'm not saying that because its for my personal gain, I'm saying this because this is one of the main reasons why PC developers have alienated gamers. These days, PC ports are almost afterthoughts compared to their console counterparts. Console games have suddenly grown in favor in the eyes of developers because PC games are too difficult to develop for due to the overwhelming amount of hardware they have to program for in order to support them.

Because you need to play UT3 at 369 frames a second ¬_¬. Those PCs are for the enthusiasts only and you dont need anything near that price to deal with everything the market can throw at you right now.

And no, no technology should not slow down its growth to make it easier on greedy consumers or overzealous developers.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

A good top of the line, even when built with your own two hands and a careful eye for sales is FAR more expensive than 1250 bucks. Yes, you CAN build a gaming system for that quantity of cash but it's nowhere near top of the line. A current, top end comsumer processor can command prices above $1400, top of the line video cards generally go for between $450 and $650, depending upon the vendor. In order to build a gaming system for $1250 you have to have made many compromises on performance. I'm not saying it takes eight grand to do the job - for four grand one can build a system with no compromises.

Please. Stop. Making. Stuff. Up.

By the way, only idiots purchase $1000 processors.

If you want no compromise performance, your most efficient configuration actually does end up at around $1250.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pWf0R65ULXAnAeeKgKpmlUA&gid=36

Sure, you could get spend $750 more and get even more performance with the $2000 tier, but that's only recommended if you're running games on a $1500 30" monitor at 2560x1600. And that's still half of what you're citing making stuff up about.

By the way, if you want to talk about profoundly retarded no compromise performance, consoles cost a lot more than $250 to $500 or whatever. A 65" TV will set you back quite a bit:

http://www.abt.com/product/37820.html

Making stuff up? $1000 processors are for idiots? Bold assertions: one is incorrect and the other is a matter of opinion that has no basis here. Can you guess which is which?

I'll help - when you say NO COMPROMISE or TOP OF THE LINE you imply that cost effeciency is not a concern. You are stating you want the absolute BEST hardware money can buy. Ergo, if such a person is willing to literally shoot for top of the line, a $1000+ processor is certainly going to be on their list of things to buy. The reason? The $350 processor that would do the job they need just fine is NOT top of the line.

And, I was not defending the cost effectiveness of consoles therefore your red herring argument is irrelevent. One person stated a top of the line computer cost X dollars. Another person said it was a much lower price. I disagreed. Nowhere in this exchange was the price of a console brought up (yes, the OP was complaining but the bit I was quoting did not at any point refer to consoles).

Now, proof that my assertions are correct:

Intel Core2 Extreme QX9775

<a href=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115044>Newegg: $1549.99

Radeon Diamond 4870 X2 2GB 512-bit
<a href=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103068>Newegg: $579.99
<a href=http://www.mwave.com/mwave/SkuSearch_v2.asp?SCriteria=AA74032>Mwave: $539.99

There you are - two current products, recently released that qualify as, at the very least NEAR top of the line. Both cost within the price range I gave. Now, which part am I lying about again?

Edit: Fixed a few formatting errors.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Well, I'll answer you one question. $1,000 processors, short of workstation-class Xeons, are certainly for morons.

Yes, I will grant you that the price/performance ratio is incredibly low. However, as was previously asserted the question is not cost effectiveness, the question is about maximum performance without compromise.

Proof that your assertions are based on faulty knowledge:

Intel Core i7-920

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

That's more powerful than the QX9775. It also costs about one-fifth of the price.

I find it difficult to believe. Yes, the processer is reknowned for it's performance and ease of overclocking, however I have yet to find any evidence anywhere that it's maximum performance exceeds the maximum performance of the part I listed. Does this mean I would go with the 1550 dollar CPU? Certainly not - short of sudden and dramatic increase in pay my current standards do take cost effectveness into account.

That $350 processor can be made, through overclocking, to be just as powerful as the top of the line processor, especially with the Core i7 range. Again, unless you're using Xeon or Opteron processors, which are workstation-class components, it is not by any means worth spending $1,000 on a processor, particularly as it does very little for gaming.

Once again, while overclocking might indeed reach baseline performance of the high dollar part, said high dollar part can ALSO be overclocked.

Is the price worth it? Almost certainly not - the vast majority of the power produced will never be utalized by any game, and is therefore a waste of money. But anything short of absurdly overpriced bleeding edge hardware fails to be top of the line, based on the standard interpreation of the phrase (which, to my understanding, is hardware or software the represents the latest, most fully featured, most powerful example of a product line).

 

[Jandau]

Fallout three looks better on an Xbox than it does on my pc.

And it looks better on my PC than on an X-Box. What's your point?

P.S. Quoting pyramids are not your friend

 

[shadow skill]

or the cost of a top-of-the-line Falcon gaming PC, about $8000,

This made me shoot Sunny Delight (now with more orange!) out of my nose.
A good top-end-of-the-line nowadays costs around 1250$~~.

Don't believe me? Check this out: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/falcon-northwest-mach-v/4505-3118_7-33370265.html

Yes, that machine is expensive but the specs are completely completely overkill and you don't need it. You don't need 12gb of fucking ram.

Ever worked in professional graphic design or CGI? I admit you wouldn't use a PC for that but a Mac, but you still need tons of RAM

Even most designers don't need 12gb ram.

I agree with you Codgo, but admit it, you would love to have that much ram, I know I would.

 

[curlycrouton]

I agree with practically everything Richard Groovy Pants and Eggo have said so far.

Halting technology because of one person's ignorance/laziness/lack of money is quite simply foolish.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

It sure is an interesting idea, but that would also be stopping innovative technology. Imagine if the core 2 processors from Intel haven't even come out yet? It's like saying "Lets stop making good things like cures for diseases.". So honestly, no. But don't ever take companies that create gaming computers seriously, my computer was 1500$ more on Alienware don't even bother getting it from a company, make your own.

 

[Specter_]

Actually, you'd want to use a PC considering how much more powerful they are compared to Macs. Especially with the Quadro CX and other Quadro cards.

I guess you refer to my post:
No, you wouldn't, mainly because the implementation of the various programms are optimized for Mac since Mac OS could handle 4GB RAM years before Windows

That's a great point if we were still talking about years ago.

And since we're on the topic of 64-bit, how's that going for Adobe CS4 in Mac [http://www.betanews.com/article/Adobe_CS4_will_be_64bit_but_only_on_Windows/1207258861]? Still not caught up to Windows?

Hmmm then I guess tons of graphic designers in (german) marketing companies are wrong since they still use macs

Ever worked in professional graphic design or CGI? I admit you wouldn't use a PC for that but a Mac, but you still need tons of RAM

Even most designers don't need 12gb ram.

Yes and no. It always depends on what you do.

 

[out0v0rder]

I find the price of an $8000 rig kind of ridiculous. All of us would like to have one though, yes even the console only people.

I like to look at things this way.....

One of my many gaming rig's videocards was bought for $200 back in the year 2004, thats almost a whole five years ago.

The year is now 2009, almost five years later and this same exact rig can go online and run cod4.

I simply haven't been able to find a console that was manufactured 5 years ago that can run cod4. I have saved money by not buying a console.