The whole "PCs aren't that expensive compared to consoles" argument

[shemoanscazrex3]

Howcome no1 factors in the price of a TV for a console? You cant use you're console without a TV.
A 40" 1080p tv is about $800. For that price I could get myself 3 24" monitors and run them in eyefinity http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/04/13/ati-radeon-hd-5870-eyefinity-6-review/10

That makes an xbox360 about $1100 and the games cost $20 more, you have to pay for multiplayer. and the graphics are worse, even on console ports.

Probably because having a TV is standard in most households. or I could buy me an HDMI capable monitor and maybe some speakers and be done with it. Everyone doesn't need that big of a TV or there room isn't big enough. Now you could add that 40" to your PC and tell me about the price then. Just saying

 

[John Amutenya]

If you use a console on your old CRT TV its gonna look horrendous. might as well use a PS2.
That why I think you factor in the price of a TV. a good tv is arguably more important to the enjoyment of a console than a good monitor with a PC, as monitors are already high rez, even CRTs

 

[Auric]

Think of it this way. Assume every household has/needs a decent PC, not every household has/needs a decent console.

So assuming every household has a decent PC, it only costs what, ~$100-200 dollars to upgrade it into something that can play most, if not all games at respectable settings. Its fairly cheap when you think about it.

Using the idea that you are already going to own a PC of some sort is fine.
But if we are talking about just getting a home PC, you can put that together for about $200. So subtracting $200 of money you would hav spent anyway from the $800 for a decent game PC we have a differential of $600 Still more expensive then a console.

I donno, most non gamer friends of mine have PC's that could quite easily play most games if decent graphics card was attached to it. Sure if you got a cheapo PC that cant even browse the web at speed its not going to be cheap to upgrade, but your average one can readily be upgraded to gaming standards without breaking the bank. All you really need is a decent graphics card, seeing as most PC's nowadays come with CPU's more than capable of running most games.

My PC is around 4 years old, it was pretty good when we got it, but not THAT good, ive only needed to upgrade it once with a ~120 dollar (AUD), graphics card in order for it to play most games on full, its really not that bad.

I'll admit its probably more expensive than consoles for the average user, but not THAT much more expensive.

 

[John Amutenya]

Probably because having a TV is standard in most households. or I could buy me an HDMI capable monitor and maybe some speakers and be done with it. Everyone doesn't need that big of a TV or there room isn't big enough. Now you could add that 40" to your PC and tell me about the price then. Just saying

With that logic i could say most houses have a pc aswell. all you might need is a new video card and some ram. . . about $200-300. same price as a console.

My friends dad had a pc for work he gave to my friend. it was dirt cheap. It had a E5200, 2gb ddr2, a g43 mobo. I got him a HD4770, about $100 in the US, and he was playing crysis on high at 1280x720 (That is a low res I know, but consoles are no better)

 

[Antari]

snip

Nvidia is more expensive but better? are you on crack? Nvidia are the ones that released drivers that kill video cards. Fastest card is an ati card, the 5970. So check your facts before you make accusations.

As a point of how many cards Nvidia puts out of action with its patches vs ATI, Nvidia is a hell of alot better, even if they have made a few mistakes on a specific chipset, or beta drivers. I replace top of the line ATI's like candy at work, all burnt out due to either wild overclocking or not enough cooling from the fan getting a bit of dust in it. Ati's cards may be faster by benchmark, but they run at higher temperatures as a result they burn out alot sooner, Overall poorer quality, but thats where the difference is in price. That being said not all Nvidia or ATI card manufacturer's are created equal, some are better than others. Its a general rule of thumb, and I've been doing this for a FEW years now so yes the crack is good. This is by no means a comparison of the last couple of years worth of cards, I'm talking about the last decade worth.

 

[shemoanscazrex3]

Probably because having a TV is standard in most households. or I could buy me an HDMI capable monitor and maybe some speakers and be done with it. Everyone doesn't need that big of a TV or there room isn't big enough. Now you could add that 40" to your PC and tell me about the price then. Just saying

With that logic i could say most houses have a pc aswell. all you might need is a new video card and some ram. . . about $200-300. same price as a console.

My friends dad had a pc for work he gave to my friend. it was dirt cheap. It had a E5200, 2gb ddr2, a g43 mobo. I got him a HD4770, about $100 in the US, and he was playing crysis on high at 1280x720 (That is a low res I know, but consoles are no better)

I do agree with that but take my household for instance. The desktop Has a 2GHz Celeron 1gb(2x512mb with 128mb allocated to intergrated SiS gfx) of DDR ram PCI slot and soem AGP slots. In order for me to really upgrade I would need to basically upgrade the whole thing to play something other than the original Hitman lol. Even my laptop, which hopefully I'll be upgrading with this new job soon. I can't even play KoTOR really well. In the Cantina and when you go to the slums I forgot the name of the area it stutters because there is too many people and its raining, respectively(thankfully the latter can be turned off through settings).

 

[WJeff]

The thing is, consoles have a lot of little fees tagged on everywhere that really add up. Incredibly high game prices, they have to pay for DLC, subscription fees in the case of XBox

I actually did some calculations of my own, and PC is cheaper than XBox 360 in the long run. Yeah, and you don't need to upgrade your PC all the time. Mine has been happily running even new games for 2 years now (or, since I built it).

Thing is, on PC, you may have a hefty down payment, but from then on, it's a very inexpensive platform. And that down payment may not even be that huge. Some people may just decide to pick up a 9800gt (more than enough to run most modern games) for their existing PC. Some may have needed a new PC anyway, and decided to put out the extra 200 for a video card (that was my situation). If you look at it from the standpoint that you're just paying for a new PC plus a bit extra for a video card and maybe a nice mouse.

From my standpoint, I only spent $150 on gaming. I needed a new PC anyway for regular PC things.

After that, you have free multiplayer, inexpensive games (especially if you take advantage of steam and other digital distribution deals), and tons of mods. I've spent less than $150 on games, and I have about 20 of them, not including the 5 or so Half Life 2 and Unreal Engine mods I've played. Console games, on the other hand, rarely dip below $60 apiece, and their replay value is totally controlled by the developer. Recently we had IW release 3 new maps for $15, which MW2 fans happily paid for because they're both idiots and have no other way of prolonging the life of the game. That would be unacceptable on the PC, seeing as there are tons of mappers and modders around, all creating new game modes and maps. If a game picks up enough modders, it won't need an expensive sequel like consoles would for a very long time. Starcraft, a game made 12 years ago, is only JUST getting a sequel now. And it's STILL being played today, and will be likely still be played for a very long time. Why? Because of the fantastic things the modders have done with it.

So, entry price can be very low depending on situation, games are cheaper, have longer lifespans prolonging the time between sequels, DLC is free, and multiplayer is always free (except in the MMO scene). It starts to look really easy on the wallet. And it is. I spend so little on gaming these days.

 

[Horticulture]

As a point of how many cards Nvidia puts out of action with its patches vs ATI, Nvidia is a hell of alot better, even if they have made a few mistakes on a specific chipset, or beta drivers. I replace top of the line ATI's like candy at work, all burnt out due to either wild overclocking or not enough cooling from the fan getting a bit of dust in it. Ati's cards may be faster by benchmark, but they run at higher temperatures as a result they burn out alot sooner, Overall poorer quality, but thats where the difference is in price. That being said not all Nvidia or ATI card manufacturer's are created equal, some are better than others. Its a general rule of thumb, and I've been doing this for a FEW years now so yes the crack is good. This is by no means a comparison of the last couple of years worth of cards, I'm talking about the last decade worth.

When I think of nVidia, reliability and driver support [http://www.anandtech.com/show/2977/nvidia-s-geforce-gtx-480-and-gtx-470-6-months-late-was-it-worth-the-wait-/19] aren't exactly the first things that come to mind.

 

[Antari]

snip

Well I'm no fanboy one way or the other. However I read a lot of comparisons and in fact Intel was the leader. They compare AMD Phenom II X3 735 with an i3 530, using the 5850 GPU and the Intel chip was marginally faster in every game except Dirt 2. Both were Overclocked. I realise then I could downgrade my CPU, but the i3 is only $50 less, and so I figure for that fifty bucks I'll have a little extra capability to crossfire a second 5850 in, say, 2 years when an upgrade might be handy.

EDIT: the link to the study: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-gaming,2588.html

Actually they didn't, but they mention that they wished AMD had made one so they could.

"We would have hoped that AMD would be selling a 2.9 GHz Phenom II X3 735 to replace this older part. However, we know that the triple-core Phenom IIs are expensive, which is why the company is instead focusing on dividing its products among lower-cost Athlon II and higher-cost Phenom II X4 lines."

"With a mind towards Don?s earlier triple- versus dual-core findings, we sought an AMD triple-core processor with the same $120 price as Intel?s Core i3-530. The only model that matched was its 2.8 GHz Phenom II X3 720."

Keep in mind hes using very specialized benchmarking tools, and he uses tweaks to get every last drop of performance out of what hes testing. In a standard joe setup, the performance of those two would be nearly indentical. If you compare intels and amd's within the exact same classes they won't always match up. But there are cases where you can use AMD's a generation behind and still get the same power as an Intel. Seeing as its going to be primarily a gaming machine, he doesn't need to dump money into a monster CPU. A good capable video card is what is needed. The other points of slow down can be eliminated by a faster hard drive or going SSD. There's always a way to work around the advertising.

 

[Antari]

As a point of how many cards Nvidia puts out of action with its patches vs ATI, Nvidia is a hell of alot better, even if they have made a few mistakes on a specific chipset, or beta drivers. I replace top of the line ATI's like candy at work, all burnt out due to either wild overclocking or not enough cooling from the fan getting a bit of dust in it. Ati's cards may be faster by benchmark, but they run at higher temperatures as a result they burn out alot sooner, Overall poorer quality, but thats where the difference is in price. That being said not all Nvidia or ATI card manufacturer's are created equal, some are better than others. Its a general rule of thumb, and I've been doing this for a FEW years now so yes the crack is good. This is by no means a comparison of the last couple of years worth of cards, I'm talking about the last decade worth.

When I think of nVidia, reliability and driver support [http://www.anandtech.com/show/2977/nvidia-s-geforce-gtx-480-and-gtx-470-6-months-late-was-it-worth-the-wait-/19] aren't exactly the first things that come to mind.

I build computers for a living, I rarely replace Nvidia cards due to failure outside of DOA parts. Most of the time they are replaced when they are getting out of date. I've seen a very large majority of ATI's come back due to complete failure for very minor reasons, like a fan that isn't quite up to full efficiency with dust. I only recommend people that buy them these days get aftermarket cooling on them unless they want to be back within the next few months.

And Nvidia having a problem frying a single type of chipset doesn't stain their entire track record.

 

[Horticulture]

I build computers for a living, I rarely replace Nvidia cards due to failure outside of DOA parts. Most of the time they are replaced when they are getting out of date. I've seen a very large majority of ATI's come back due to complete failure for very minor reasons, like a fan that isn't quite up to full efficiency with dust. I only recommend people that buy them these days get aftermarket cooling on them unless they want to be back within the next few months.

And Nvidia having a problem frying a single type of chipset doesn't stain their entire track record.

Tell that to my GTX 260

Seriously, though, what sorts of failure rates have you seen on the last couple generations of Radeons (4000-5000)? I'm sure I build less than you do, but all of the 4 (2x 4870, 4890, 5850) that I've installed are still going strong.

 

[Antari]

I build computers for a living, I rarely replace Nvidia cards due to failure outside of DOA parts. Most of the time they are replaced when they are getting out of date. I've seen a very large majority of ATI's come back due to complete failure for very minor reasons, like a fan that isn't quite up to full efficiency with dust. I only recommend people that buy them these days get aftermarket cooling on them unless they want to be back within the next few months.

And Nvidia having a problem frying a single type of chipset doesn't stain their entire track record.

Tell that to my GTX 260

Seriously, though, what sorts of failure rates have you seen on the last couple generations of Radeons (4000-5000)? I'm sure I build less than you do, but all of the 4 (2x 4870, 4890, 5850) that I've installed are still going strong.

4000's I didn't see abnormal rates of replacement outside of improper care, the 5000's were horrific though, I am still not sure if it was the design of the heatsink/casing or the fans they used but they had a tendancy to drop like flies 6 months in, if yours is still going you can feel lucky. A good case for better cooling can help avoid this as well. I do deal with alot of business machines in more restrictive half height desktop cases. Not nessisarily the kind of case a gamer would use.

 

[Lunar Shadow]

Personally, it cost me 600 bucks for a laptop that doesn't even play high end graphics, so it makes me shudder to think of the money I'd need to buy a high end PC.

But you knoww, I'd rather play on a console. I'd rather enjoy subpar games than listen to jackass PC elitists, which litter the online communities.

Yes, you have the highest end technology anyone could ever hope for. Now please burn in hell for being such douchebags to anyone who disagreed with you. Because you're automatically worse than any console fanboy. no argument about it.

That's cause it's a laptop and thus prebiult. Prebuilts are overpriced. I spent 600$ on my desktop and I can run practically everything.

 

[id_doomer]

My newest computer, £400. A PS3, call it £250.

Now lets compare games, todays example will be Splinter Cell: Conviction.
PC: £34.99
Console: £49.99

Yes. A PC costs more, console games cost more, so over an extended period, you'll break even or save money, depending on how many games you buy; especially if I'm talking XBox instead of PS3 here, then you have to factor in the added cost of an XBox live subscription. And consoles in general pay for DLC that can come to the PC for free. Don't forget that that huge TV can cost more than a whole computer, and those extra controllers, guitars, chargers, etc...

Throw in the added functionality and uses of a desktop computer (you REALLY shouldn't be gaming on a laptop). The value for money really does swing back in favor of the computer. I might be biased, I do love gaming on the console as well, but the computer's still where it's at; value for money, modding, extra features, upgrades, the fact that your hardware is not beholden to firmware updates bricking it.

 

[Wolfram23]

I build computers for a living, I rarely replace Nvidia cards due to failure outside of DOA parts. Most of the time they are replaced when they are getting out of date. I've seen a very large majority of ATI's come back due to complete failure for very minor reasons, like a fan that isn't quite up to full efficiency with dust. I only recommend people that buy them these days get aftermarket cooling on them unless they want to be back within the next few months.

And Nvidia having a problem frying a single type of chipset doesn't stain their entire track record.

Tell that to my GTX 260

Seriously, though, what sorts of failure rates have you seen on the last couple generations of Radeons (4000-5000)? I'm sure I build less than you do, but all of the 4 (2x 4870, 4890, 5850) that I've installed are still going strong.

4000's I didn't see abnormal rates of replacement outside of improper care, the 5000's were horrific though, I am still not sure if it was the design of the heatsink/casing or the fans they used but they had a tendancy to drop like flies 6 months in, if yours is still going you can feel lucky. A good case for better cooling can help avoid this as well. I do deal with alot of business machines in more restrictive half height desktop cases. Not nessisarily the kind of case a gamer would use.

Just curious then, is the fans being used the standard full case with that somewhat odd centrifugal fan? I've seen the 5850 cards with all sorts of different fan layouts from different companies. Also I think you're right that the reason is probably a little more related to the overall case and ambient temps than purely the card's fault. However, I passed up a really well cooled 5850 for the stock because it was an extra $70.

 

[Tharwen]

You should be careful about getting 64-bit. There are a lot of (mostly old) applications that won't run (well) on it. Example: I can't play Rome - Total War any more because it crashes at the end of each turn on this PC. Apparently it's compatible with 32-bit.

It's also harder to find 64-bit drivers.

 

[Horticulture]

4000's I didn't see abnormal rates of replacement outside of improper care, the 5000's were horrific though, I am still not sure if it was the design of the heatsink/casing or the fans they used but they had a tendancy to drop like flies 6 months in, if yours is still going you can feel lucky. A good case for better cooling can help avoid this as well. I do deal with alot of business machines in more restrictive half height desktop cases. Not nessisarily the kind of case a gamer would use.

Huh, surprising. Granted, I have a pretty well-ventilated case, but my (reference cooled) 5850 rarely gets above 70 under load, and that's on default fan speed.

 

[Antari]

I build computers for a living, I rarely replace Nvidia cards due to failure outside of DOA parts. Most of the time they are replaced when they are getting out of date. I've seen a very large majority of ATI's come back due to complete failure for very minor reasons, like a fan that isn't quite up to full efficiency with dust. I only recommend people that buy them these days get aftermarket cooling on them unless they want to be back within the next few months.

And Nvidia having a problem frying a single type of chipset doesn't stain their entire track record.

Tell that to my GTX 260

Seriously, though, what sorts of failure rates have you seen on the last couple generations of Radeons (4000-5000)? I'm sure I build less than you do, but all of the 4 (2x 4870, 4890, 5850) that I've installed are still going strong.

4000's I didn't see abnormal rates of replacement outside of improper care, the 5000's were horrific though, I am still not sure if it was the design of the heatsink/casing or the fans they used but they had a tendancy to drop like flies 6 months in, if yours is still going you can feel lucky. A good case for better cooling can help avoid this as well. I do deal with alot of business machines in more restrictive half height desktop cases. Not nessisarily the kind of case a gamer would use.

Just curious then, is the fans being used the standard full case with that somewhat odd centrifugal fan? I've seen the 5850 cards with all sorts of different fan layouts from different companies. Also I think you're right that the reason is probably a little more related to the overall case and ambient temps than purely the card's fault. However, I passed up a really well cooled 5850 for the stock because it was an extra $70.

Those fans by design are normally very good, or atleast are in most other situations I encounter them in. ATI's however didn't do well over time, I don't know who supplied them that batch of fans. I wouldn't suggest going completely nuts on cooling, just something to extend the reach of the heat sink into the open space of the case, you were right $70 is overkill. As I build for business machines alot I usually go for something that doesn't need to worry about moving as much air. ThermalRight makes fairly good fanless heatsinks for ati's. But they are fragile to handle. You can break them fairly easy during installation.

 

[Imat]

You're paying way too much for RAM...I got 4 GB for $20...Yours may be faster and all that jazz, but mine can easily run anything out there today, so...

Also, do you need a wireless keyboard and an 8-button mouse? I wouldn't even count that in the cost of the PC, considering you didn't count the cost of your first PS3 controller separately. They're added peripherals, not necessary for the function of the machine (Assuming you didn't destroy the previous mouse/keyboard).

I'm assuming you could probably recycle the power supply from your old compy, unless it doesn't support your new hardware (Unlikely if you bought it new last time).

You may have shopped around a lot, but I spent $500 on a PC last year that will last several more years playing top-end games without a problem. I searched for around a week until I found the perfect combination of hardware. I think you cut out too early, and that makes me sad because now others will see your costs and think it average. I've spent $500 on average, and the only reason I don't use my old compy now is because my family wanted a machine at home while I was at college. Also my old mobo didn't really have SATA space, and I got a TB...

I actually didn't find any RAM near that cheap. I picked RAM that was nowhere near the most expensive ($275 for 4GB! Yikes!) but what I bought is fast and low voltage so it's easily overclocked to compare with high end RAM if necessary. So you bought a $500 PC, yes it will play games ok. With mid to low settings, lowish resolution (certainly no 2100x1600), and hopefully a decent framerate. It will last a couple years like this but then at least you'll want a new GPU for a couple hundred but then you'll probably have the same problem as me, which is that you CPU isn't good enough to full utilize the GPU.

Actually my CPU and GPU are both very near the top of the chart, even now. They basically were the top when I bought them (Which was the majority of my purchase, btw). And my $500 PC can run the latest games at top settings with full framerate, thankyou very much! And I expect this PC to last me the next few years at top settings before hitting the mid settings plateau, at which point I'll be content with longer load times and not real-life graphics. Once the framerate starts to suffer, that's when I'll start looking around for a completely new build. Around $500, if I can find the perfect deals again.

And yes, $275 for 4GB RAM is either ludicrous, or ridiculously good RAM. Either way it ain't worth it now. And the downside of my RAM is really my MoBo's fault, can't really overclock it due to dumb voltage settings and whatnot, but as long as it works I'm ok with it. I'll admit I kind of settled with my MoBo. Wanted a PCIe 2.0 slot and those rarely come cheap. Finally found one for just under $100, has a better onboard graphics set than most of my friends's cards, but it has it's issues...

 

[Horticulture]

You should be careful about getting 64-bit. There are a lot of (mostly old) applications that won't run (well) on it. Example: I can't play Rome - Total War any more because it crashes at the end of each turn on this PC. Apparently it's compatible with 32-bit.

It's also harder to find 64-bit drivers.

Are you running 64-bit XP, by chance? 64-bit Vista and 7 have perfect (or near-perfect) driver support, and Rome: TW runs fine for me on Vista x64.