• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PC vs Console: The differences between 2006 and 2013 explained

I was also thinking about the causes of this trend, and I think the advancing of production technologies might be one.

It seems logical, PC hardware is now largely commoditized.

I wonder if Microsoft and Sony made the right call by not going for high-end hardware. On one hand it's good because it means that they won't bet the farm on a console and risk suffering huge losses. On the other hand it may allow competing technologies to catch up quicker and really put the value of a games console into question.
 

kartu

Banned
I doubt it, the 760 is close enough to a 670 and a 670 is pretty much 2 times the ps4s gpu in gflops.

Well, two times is way too optimistic:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/857?vs=830

7850 vs 670 is about 20%, 7870 vs 670 is about 10% difference, PS4 GPU is somewhere between, with good "for this hardware" optimization could be quite close.

I
I wonder if Microsoft and Sony made the right call by not going for high-end hardware

But wouldn't it run into heat dissipation problem?
 

KOHIPEET

Member
It seems logical, PC hardware is now largely commoditized.

I wonder if Microsoft and Sony made the right call by not going for high-end hardware. On one hand it's good because it means that they won't bet the farm on a console and risk suffering huge losses. On the other hand it may allow competing technologies to catch up quicker and really put the value of a games console into question.

Yeah I wonder what would happen if a company like Samsung decided to hop into the console business, willing to take losses in order to gain share more aggressively. We'd definitely see more beefy hardware there. (not that I'm not pleases with PS4 right now)
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
I have no idea what I'm doing

Really... just go in to the current pc thread and watch people make a better pc with less parts and better parts for less money.

Some of that shit is just a waste or you paying too much for things you literally will not be able to maximize or that have no need when freeware will do.
 
Phosphor - I think the OP was just using main component comparisons to illustrate that the consoles, for the first time, are well behind the curve. Not "I can build a PC for 400 bucks". And it's true. This is the first time that the tech-focused consoles are releasing hardware well behind the curve. There are a bunch of reasons for it (not the least of which are cost and TDP) but that's what the thread is discussing.
That's not the point of this thread, I explain it in the original post. Take a couple of minutes and read it carefully guys. I will attempt such a build but later, after the consoles have launched and we have real-world performance numbers from released games.

As for the PS4's GDDR5 memory pool, what could I possibly compare it too? Does anyone have a clue on the type of impact it will have? All these questions will be answered in a few months.

Soo....

Please don't post stuff like "but this is $400 just for CPU and GPU, what about the rest" etc. We'll have a thread like that when the time is right. Again, the point of this thread is not a direct comparison. Also, this comparison is about theoretical performance based on hardware specs. We'll only know real-world performance when consoles launch. If you disagree with this, just don't read the thread and wait for actual performance numbers a few months from now.

But... this is what he says.

In terms of theoretical gaming performance, in 2013: $400 worth of PC gaming hardware > PS4

Here in 2013, you could in fact exceed the PS4's theoretical gaming performance by spending $400 on a gaming-grade CPU and GPU.

What the fuck are you comparing?

Are you saying that the theoretical max that a PC can be now is more powerful comparatively than what was released in 2006? Of course, because thermal and power requirements have shot through the fucking roof.

But... why do you go ahead and compare "$400 worth of PC gaming hardware > PS4".

If you compared 4-600 dollars worth of GPU and CPU to PS360 in 2006, you'd have that same conclusion.

I don't know what you're trying to say. If you're saying what I think you're saying. When hasn't this been the case? You look at PC's vs N64 playing Doom... you look at Half Life 1 and 2 on PS2/Xbox vs PC.
 

oVerde

Banned
Inb4:

Why does it feel like PC-GAF is desperate to convert us in every thread ever? Do you guys travel in groups handing out pamphlets?

I have the impression every SonyGaf want to convert other consoleGaf in every thread.. intriguing.
 
Really... just go in to the current pc thread and watch people make a better pc with less parts and better parts for less money.

Some of that shit is just a waste or you paying too much for things you literally will not be able to maximize or that have no need when freeware will do.

Yeah, I tried to spec it like a console, using this:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=514688

Not as an actual pc

EDIT: Yep these are way better. It's just that they don't include all the ancillary console accessories that people complain about
 

lmpaler

Member
OP completely overlooks RAM. Terrible. Just terrible. The consoles are all encompassing for the price. Match a computer to the same price tag and you won't get the items you listed thus making the PC weaker.
 

LAUGHTREY

Modesty becomes a woman
Once again, the point of this thread is not to directly compare consoles and PCs. I specifically mentioned only the CPU and GPU so as to be able to make my point but not let anyone think that I was trying to compare full systems, although it would seem that my effort was in vain. Eh, what can you do.

It should be evident by now that the economic gap between consoles and PCs is closing fast. This doesn't mean that you can build a $400 computer with the same performance as a PS4. You can't. I hope that is clear enough.

It does mean that with each passing generation you need less and less money in order to build a gaming PC with at least similar performance to a console around launch. Back in the PS2 days you might have needed $2000 in hardware to match a PS2 at launch. Last gen you might have needed $1000 to at least match a 360. This gen you might need $600 or even less to match the XBO or the PS4.

This is an interesting trend which is accelerated by the refusal of Microsoft and Sony to take heavy losses on hardware and their desire to increase revenue streams through alternative means such as subscriptions to online services.


How is it not comparing the two?


This doesn't mean that you can build a $400 computer with the same performance as a PS4. You can't. I hope that is clear enough.
It just makes the most sense to compare complete costs of both of them, and then what you get from them. If you're going to spend a lot of money, it just makes sense to go PC. Few people buy a PC just to play games on it, you're going to get a PC no matter what, adding 200 or even 300 dollars to it is going to let you play anything you throw at it and save you money.
 

omonimo

Banned
Ok now I'm starting to hope this kind of topic will become bannable. This pc console war is really annoying in my opinion.
 

Nethaniah

Member
Ok now I'm starting to hope this kind of topic will become bannable. This pc console war are really annoying in my opinion.

Split them up, console section and pc section, seperate accounts and everything pc gamers can't post in console section and vice versa, only way man.
 
Are you saying that the theoretical max that a PC can be now is more powerful comparatively than what was released in 2006?

I'm saying that a mid-range PC of 2013 gives you much more bang for your buck using a $400 console as a frame of reference, a unit of measurement if you will. Look at it like this: You have a PC and you want to buy a new CPU and GPU for it. If you spent $400 back in 2006, you got half a console's worth of gaming horsepower. If you spend $400 now, you get (roughly) a console's worth of gaming horsepower. Did that help?
 
What the creator of this OP would like to say is very clear and simple.

PS4 and XBOXONE are built with another philosophy in comparison to the past.

Modest hardware for a right price instead of a great piece of hardware for a low price, just like 2006.

This is a fact, you can see from the comp between GPUCPU from 2006 with the present.

I am sorry for the great console army that misreading what the OP wanted to say.

I'm saying that a mid-range PC of 2013 gives you much more bang for your buck using a $400 console as a frame of reference, a unit of measurement if you will. Look at it like this: You have a PC and you want to buy a new CPU and GPU for it. If you spent $400 back in 2006, you got half a console's worth of gaming horsepower. If you spend $400 now, you get (roughly) a console's worth of gaming horsepower. Did that help?

tenacious man, but people read the title and wear the uniform for battle. They simply are defending their future purchase. PS4 is the most powerful console and outperform PC's.

Read with me man, you can convince yourself, PS4 is the most powerful console and outperform PC's.
 
I have a PS4 pre ordered, but I'm not really a fan of PS exclusives and I have zero interest in XB1. So I'm going to wait and see what TGS and Gamescon offers plus see how the HD 9xxx works out. Then I might get a GTX 770 or HD 9870/9950.
 

Gotchaye

Member
What the fuck are you comparing?

Are you saying that the theoretical max that a PC can be now is more powerful comparatively than what was released in 2006? Of course, because thermal and power requirements have shot through the fucking roof.

But... why do you go ahead and compare "$400 worth of PC gaming hardware > PS4".

If you compared 4-600 dollars worth of GPU and CPU to PS360 in 2006, you'd have that same conclusion.

I don't know what you're trying to say. If you're saying what I think you're saying. When hasn't this been the case? You look at PC's vs N64 playing Doom... you look at Half Life 1 and 2 on PS2/Xbox vs PC.

Actually if you read the section just above that one, the OP does compare $400 of 2006 PC hardware to a 360 in pretty much exactly the same way he did the 2013 comparison and comes to a different conclusion. He's illustrating how the gap between a mid-range PC at a relatively fixed price and the new console has at the very least shrunk dramatically. It's a little arbitrary to call this a major qualitative change, but it's at least a significant quantitative difference from earlier generations.
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
Which CPU will allow console's to run Total War games, ARMA III, Europa Universalis, Dota 2, X Rebirth, CIV 5, Modded games, Amnesia: Machine for Pigs, Wasteland 2, not to mention the use of Oculus Rift.

And there lies the entire fallacy of this thread. Both are completely different beasts and complement eachother, and should not be arbitrarily compared in a "more power=bettar" kind of way. It's ridiculous.

I do not give one iota of a fuck that my PC gaming rig at the moment is already outclassing the next-gen consoles. I'm still looking forward to playing brand new console exclusives simply because the games fit my preference better.

Is that a problem? No it isn't, and it shouldn't be looked at as if it is a problem.
 

@____@

Banned
And there lies the entire fallacy of this thread. Both are completely different beasts and complement eachother, and should not be arbitrarily compared in a "more power=bettar" kind of way. It's ridiculous.

I do not give one iota of a fuck that my PC gaming rig at the moment is already outclassing the next-gen consoles. I'm still looking forward to playing brand new console exclusives simply because the games fit my preference better.

Is that a problem? No it isn't, and it shouldn't be looked at as if it is a problem.

The post was in response to someone who was listing console exclusive games and making a point that those titles will never arrive on the PC. The same argument can be made with the PC exclusives. So calm down turbo.

And it isn't a problem for many PC gamers since they will be buying consoles too.
 
Actually if you read the section just above that one, the OP does compare $400 of 2006 PC hardware to a 360 in pretty much exactly the same way he did the 2013 comparison and comes to a different conclusion. He's illustrating how the gap between a mid-range PC at a relatively fixed price which is competitive with a new console and the new console has at the very least shrunk dramatically. It's a little arbitrary to call this a major qualitative change, but it's at least a significant quantitative difference from earlier generations.

What is he comparing!? That's the question! How does he create his comparison. It doesn't make sense. You can't build a 400 dollar PC in 2006 and create a more powerful box. You can't create a 400 dollar PC in 2013 and create a more powerful box.

Why does he just use a GPU and CPU as an example when you must encompass everything it takes to build it. It's damn confusing as to what he's even trying to tell us.

You say he's illustrating the gap between a fixed price pc vs the console. But as I (and others) have previously said, the thermal and power requirements for that power has significantly increased.
 

omonimo

Banned
Hopefully when I grow to become a full member I'll know how I feel :(

Uhm frustrating. Because this topic are quite useless; I don't think if the purpose of this thread was purely informative (it really was?) but in what manner exactly? I don't think pc & console are exactly comparable, I don't think even specs are at all, but we feel the necessity to force a comparison for what reason exactly? I missed it. I doubt ps4 or xbone will suck in the graphic, if it was the real point of the discussion. PC will be ever ahead to the console, even in the next generation of console because has not limits of size or overheat.
 

@____@

Banned
Uhm frustrating. Because this topic are quite useless; I don't think if it's purpose was purely informative (it was?) but in what manner exactly. I'm trying to explain from my point of view: I don't think pc & console are exactly comparable, I don't think even specs are at all, but we feel the necessity to force a comparison for what reason exactly? I missed it.

That is a fine opinion to have but to ask that these types of threads be banned simply because it's not a topic you find to be enjoyable is preposterous. The OP had a point to make and he made it. People have responded with their points of view. It isn't your job or my job to request to have these types of threads to become banned. It's the job of EviLore and the mods to make that determination. The whole 'hopefully these threads become banned' is useless and doesn't offer anything to the actual topic at hand.
 
What is he comparing!? That's the question! How does he create his comparison. It doesn't make sense. You can't build a 400 dollar PC in 2006 and create a more powerful box. You can't create a 400 dollar PC in 2013 and create a more powerful box.

seriously you don't understand what the OP is trying to say?Or is it sarcasm?
 
What is he comparing!? That's the question!

Maybe this will help:

I'm saying that a mid-range PC of 2013 gives you much more bang for your buck using a $400 console as a frame of reference, a unit of measurement if you will. Look at it like this: You have a PC and you want to buy a new CPU and GPU for it. If you spent $400 back in 2006, you got half a console's worth of gaming horsepower. If you spend $400 now, you get (roughly) a console's worth of gaming horsepower. Did that help?
 

omonimo

Banned
That is a fine opinion to have but to ask that these types of threads be banned simply because it's not a topic you find to be enjoyable is preposterous. The OP had a point to make and he made it. People have responded with their points of view. It isn't your job or my job to request to have these types of threads to become banned. It's the job of EviLore and the mods to make that determination. The whole 'hopefully these threads become banned' is useless and doesn't offer anything to the actual topic at hand.

Indeed your post I suppose were full of precious contributions for the discussion right? I have just express an opinion, in any case.
 

@____@

Banned
Indeed your post I suppose were full of precious contributions for the discussion right? I have just express an opinion, in any case.

My posts have contributed more to the topic at hand than asking for said topic to become banable. Yes.
 
Well, two times is way too optimistic:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/857?vs=830

7850 vs 670 is about 20%, 7870 vs 670 is about 10% difference, PS4 GPU is somewhere between, with good "for this hardware" optimization could be quite close.



But wouldn't it run into heat dissipation problem?
What a joke, so did the pc's with the 7870 also have a Jaguar cpu? Ps4 1.8Tflops, gtx 670 2.4Tflops so it's kind of close to two times the ps4 in power.
 

bj00rn_

Banned
All this talk about specs, yet the only way ultra-powerful PC's (owned by a fraction of PC gamers) will get close to their full potential, is when next-gen game development gets into full flow.

As we stand today, these PC's are going to waste, playing games designed for 8 year old hardware. As we move into next-gen, devs are not being held back by hardware - but budgets, time and talent.

The new consoles will move the benchmark higher (10X more power or whatever), devs will work within this framework, we'll see more ambitious games and a 1080p target. If you have an all singing, all dancing PC, what extra benefits will you get - higher res, which isn't needed when played on a HDTV, and perhaps framerate.

With top-tier PC's, it's really a case of bragging rights, even the latest games will not take full advantage. Once you start moving down the range, it's arguable how such PC's compare with next-gen consoles, without the brute horespower you're likely to run into performance problems the refined closed box consoles can deal with.

It goes to waste? With all respect, that argument doesn't quite hold water for several reasons.

Yes, a closed system may tend to this aspect a little better in average. But if you think every console game is trimmed to the bone, think again.. It's basically the same for both PC games and console games.

But there are two additional aspects to remedy this on a PC:

Adjustable IQ and modding. That is one of the best ways to "take full advantage" of a PC.
 

Arulan

Member
I was browsing this thread when it was created earlier this morning, I come back to it now and nothing has changed... Everyone continues to miss the point of the OP completely.

The cost seems to be confusing for many, it's not really that important to the point.

When the PS2 first launched for example, the tech used inside of it was more progressed/advanced than that of PC consumer components at the time. You could theoretically brute force your way there and spend, lets say an arbitrary number of $2000, although this number isn't important.

When the Xbox 360 launched, the tech used inside was still more advanced/progressed that consumer PC components at the time, however, the difference was significantly lower than it was in the previous generation. Meaning the time it would take for PC to "catch up" was less, and the arbitrary number to "brute force" your way there was less, lets say $1000.

When the PS4 or Xbox One launches, the tech used will NOT be more advanced/progressed that of consumer PC components. This is a significant event, this means that PCs don't need to "catch up", they already have, and the arbitrary number to match them is again lowered, lets say $600.

How is this point not clear?
 

Jack_AG

Banned
Split them up, console section and pc section, seperate accounts and everything pc gamers can't post in console section and vice versa, only way man.
No. The logical approach is make threads like "OK here we are going to compare apples vs oranges based on taste but REMEMBER I'm comparing only the orange slices vs the entire apple and its not based on taste even though that is the metric we will use for comparison!"

How anyone is blind to such drivel is beyond me. Just because he keeps spouting "it's not about price!" Does not make it true when that is the metric chosen to base a comparison of complete vs incomplete parts.

Its absolutely mind boggling this shit is allowed.
 

omonimo

Banned
I was browsing this thread when it was created earlier this morning, I come back to it now and nothing has changed... Everyone continues to miss the point of the OP completely.

The cost seems to be confusing for many, it's not really that important to the point.

When the PS2 first launched for example, the tech used inside of it was more progressed/advanced than that of PC consumer components at the time. You could theoretically brute force your way there and spend, lets say an arbitrary number of $2000, although this number isn't important.

When the Xbox 360 launched, the tech used inside was still more advanced/progressed that consumer PC components at the time, however, the difference was significantly lower than it was in the previous generation. Meaning the time it would take for PC to "catch up" was less, and the arbitrary number to "brute force" your way there was less, lets say $1000.

When the PS4 or Xbox One launches, the tech used will not be more advanced/progressed that of consumer PC components. This is a significant event, this means that PCs don't need to "catch up", they already have, and the arbitrary number to match them is again lowered, lets say $600.

How is this point not clear?

Probably is not clear why repeat something of pretty know from awhile, or I'm wrong? In any case I think it's quite impossible to replicate the specs of an higher end pc or even more without overheating the console, isn't it the main reason of the portable cpu? Honestly I prefer to have a stable system than change sku every year.
 

Jack_AG

Banned
I was browsing this thread when it was created earlier this morning, I come back to it now and nothing has changed... Everyone continues to miss the point of the OP completely.

The cost seems to be confusing for many, it's not really that important to the point.

When the PS2 first launched for example, the tech used inside of it was more progressed/advanced than that of PC consumer components at the time. You could theoretically brute force your way there and spend, lets say an arbitrary number of $2000, although this number isn't important.

When the Xbox 360 launched, the tech used inside was still more advanced/progressed that consumer PC components at the time, however, the difference was significantly lower than it was in the previous generation. Meaning the time it would take for PC to "catch up" was less, and the arbitrary number to "brute force" your way there was less, lets say $1000.

When the PS4 or Xbox One launches, the tech used will NOT be more advanced/progressed that of consumer PC components. This is a significant event, this means that PCs don't need to "catch up", they already have, and the arbitrary number to match them is again lowered, lets say $600.

How is this point not clear?
It is clear that PCs are vastly ahead of consoles launching. It is "water is wet" territory. Nobody is blind to this.

The apples to oranges comparison, however, isn't commonplace and only serves to obfuscate, not educate.
 
No they don't, and it's not even close. Most of the exclusives you speak of are indies which are going to be migrating to many platforms this generation given ease of development; it's not just a one way street of PC's getting the benefits of console games that used to be exclusives; consoles will be receiving the same benefit due to indies and their ability to self publish.

I see your point, but there's a difference in the genres and flavors of exclusives the platforms have to offer. The best exclusive games Windows has to offer IMO are strategy games like Civ 5, Starcraft, DoTA and Total War. For someone who is really into strategy games, then the PC subjectively offers the best exclusive selection available.

The best exclusives consoles have to offer are far more varied in terms of the genres. For someone like myself who doesn't care much for strategy games, sims or MMO's, consoles offer the best exclusive selection by far.

Subjectivity and personal preference. As much as people like to dismiss those two things when it doesn't suit their argument, those two things are what everything comes down to, ultimately.
 
On average console games are 20 dollars/euros more expensive, it's called platform holder royalties. No sane person will argue against this.
pc games have ALWAYS been cheaper than console games, long before steam and steam sales came around.

This has changed massively in the past few years as the PC platform has regained popularity. In 2005 - 2009 you could buy EVERY single brand new PC game on Amazon for between £19.99 and £29.99 while new console games were around £40.

Nowadays 90% of new PC games are £30+ with new console games usually available for between £35 and £40.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
I was browsing this thread when it was created earlier this morning, I come back to it now and nothing has changed... Everyone continues to miss the point of the OP completely.

The cost seems to be confusing for many, it's not really that important to the point.

When the PS2 first launched for example, the tech used inside of it was more progressed/advanced than that of PC consumer components at the time. You could theoretically brute force your way there and spend, lets say an arbitrary number of $2000, although this number isn't important.

When the Xbox 360 launched, the tech used inside was still more advanced/progressed that consumer PC components at the time, however, the difference was significantly lower than it was in the previous generation. Meaning the time it would take for PC to "catch up" was less, and the arbitrary number to "brute force" your way there was less, lets say $1000.

When the PS4 or Xbox One launches, the tech used will NOT be more advanced/progressed that of consumer PC components. This is a significant event, this means that PCs don't need to "catch up", they already have, and the arbitrary number to match them is again lowered, lets say $600.

How is this point not clear?

You must not look at the boards this much. Any topic involving these two sides is bound at some point to go completely off from the what the op intended.
 

bj00rn_

Banned
No. The logical approach is make threads like "OK here we are going to compare apples vs oranges based on taste but REMEMBER I'm comparing only the orange slices vs the entire apple and its not based on taste even though that is the metric we will use for comparison!"

How anyone is blind to such drivel is beyond me. Just because he keeps spouting "it's not about price!" Does not make it true when that is the metric chosen to base a comparison of complete vs incomplete parts.

Its absolutely mind boggling this shit is allowed.

No, what is absolutely mind boggling is that you after all this time still can't seem to get the point. And in addition you are bringing a terrible attitude to the thread. The point has been explained to you over and over and over again. You are the problem here, not the OP.
 
Maybe this will help:

This was in the op:

in 2013: $400 worth of PC gaming hardware > PS4

A better representation would be "A $400 cpu + gpu incremental upgrade to your pc that already has the other necessary parts such as case, storage, motherboard, optical drive you've already bought for X amount of dollars at X date as well as a psu and form factor that is well enough to accommodate the heat for such upgrade."

would have been a little better.
 

omonimo

Banned
What does humility have to do with responding to your post? You argued that I haven't contributed much to the conversation and I responded.

You really need to read again your post, seriously. You have just polimized all the time with people with different tastes to you from what I'm seeing. But you are free to do what you want.
 

Arulan

Member
You must not look at the boards this much. Any topic involving these two sides is bound at some point to go completely off from the what the op intended.

I know, I've seen the "cycle" in action several times. I don't post too often so I'll probably remain junior for a while longer.
 

@____@

Banned
You really need to read again your post, seriously. You have just polimized all the time with people with different tastes to you from what I'm seeing. But you are free to do what you want.

Your original post that I responded to didn't have anything to do with taste. It had to do with you not liking a thread and then rhetorically requesting that threads like this one are banned going forward. You were called out on it and instead of simply saying 'Yea, that probably wasn't the best thing to post but I just am frustrated with these types of threads' you continue to play the victim role not to mention referring to me as a junior and it wasn't in a matter of fact way. Your post was bullshit. That's it.
 
Top Bottom