SmokedMeat
Gamer™
It's refreshing when an honest PC owner steps in once and awhile that's not pretending every single PC runs everything at 60fps and 1080p.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gamespot: Can We Build a Gaming PC on a Console Budget?
- Thread starter Dombrowski
- Start date
It's refreshing when an honest PC owner steps in once and awhile that's not pretending every single PC runs everything at 60fps and 1080p.
There's a spread sheet that came out of this silly argument that consoles somehow have more highly rated exclusives over in the gamespot system war forums. I'm tryign to digg it out, but it's pretty ridiculous how lopsided it is to the PC side. There's just a TON more hihgly rated exlcusives on PC than consoles.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
So we're resorting to stealing to get the price to a more competitive level. I guess in that case you could just steal the Xbox One Titafall bundle lol
jim-jam bongs
Member
If you follow that discussion though, nobody was saying that you can get 1080p60 for the price of a console. Most of the PC gamers in this thread, myself included, have said that we'd rather spend more than the cost of a console to get superior performance than be limited to a $400-500 budget.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
Would be best to keep in mind that using game media scores to prove your point is going to have any self-respecting fan of videogames laughing your argument out.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
There are obviously people on this forum who give weight to them. Have you seen any of the meltdowns in exclusive review threads?
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Should be PS4 + top rated 3 or 4 PS4 games per month - value of 1 or 2 trade-ins per month of the last month's purchased titles.
whereas after a month of most good PC games you're still just scratching the surface.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
No. Everytime PC is brought up it's treated as though every single game runs flawlessly at 60fps and 1080p. NO PC gamer ever says depending on your setup.
The bolded is hyperbole you made up.
Outside of shit ports, it's very safe to say all PC games on a $600~ machine run at 1080p/60fps when you bring the settings down to IQ levels comparable or even slight above those of the consoles. Obviously all Ultra/max settings is dependent on the game and the machine.
Yeah because I never see PC gamers complain about games being unoptimized and hard to run at higher performance..
no never..
Come on man.
Sure there are stupid people out there that say stupid stuff.. but dont say its everyone. Im sure not all console gamers believe a good PC cost 3k... but there are those few that stick out. Im not going to generalize all based on that.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Because it's a pretty obvious caveat to any comments about an open platform where you can pick your hardware.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Of course it's safe to assume they speak for all hardware configurations the second they open their mouth about performance they experience.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
The article mentions a console budget but the budget they are using is 35-40% higher than the price of a PS4. They even went past the XB1 price...so right off it seems like a fail to me. I don't really see the price of PS+/XBL as a factor since the cost is offset by being able to resell 1-2 used games (which you can't do on PC).
The question really should be "can I build a gaming PC for $400". Pretty sure the answer is a flat out NO you cannot and they pretty much admit that in the article. So it begs the question, why bother with the console comparison to begin with? Why not just have an article that's "hey, here's how to make a 'cheap' gaming pc".
The question really should be "can I build a gaming PC for $400". Pretty sure the answer is a flat out NO you cannot and they pretty much admit that in the article. So it begs the question, why bother with the console comparison to begin with? Why not just have an article that's "hey, here's how to make a 'cheap' gaming pc".
Same goes for the consoles.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
LOL. Okay. Enjoy your MMOs.
I can just change the settings and if you know ANYTHING about pc gaming at all you would know that 60fps at 1080p is a very easy goal to achieve, might need to lower some settings at times but let's face it, you wouldn't be getting those settings on consoles anyway.
At this point just close the thread...
Completely agree, close the thread and end the absolute stupidity here
Some posters put in a lot of effort to belittle the value that you're getting with a ps4 or a x1. Its obvious that these systems have used their price points to their fullest. There is data out their that fully explains where they allocated the budget to on both the x1 and ps4. With the ps4 you are getting the best graphics and cpu that you can get for a $400 CONSOLE. On the other hand, MS opted for a weaker GPU/Memory system and instead focused money on an improved kinect. Whether you hate the kinect or not is irrelevant, both consoles give you what they feel is the best value for the amount you pay.
Their may be better PCs out there but to insinuate that consoles are inferior to pc based on power is ridiculous. I can guarantee that throughout a console lifecycle, I will be playing every ps4 game that interests me and at the best possible settings available on the console. whereas on the pc, there will be exclusive games within a few years that a 500 dollar pc will not be able to run at optimal settings without reinvesting in hardware, let alone 7yrs from now. On PC, Im limited in the AAA exclusives I like based on the hardware, on consoles I have no such worry.
For example, I built a pc for around $1700 on newegg right before the next gen consoles launched because I needed a pc for work and wanted to go the extra mile for a gaming rig but I hardly ever use it for gaming and even when I did, the experience was less than optimal. I couldnt even get through a game of BF4 until recently. Not only that but because I opted for a i5 3570k instead of a i7, I am currently under the minimum requirements for certain games. I prefer consoles games over pc games but I dont expect everybody to share that same view. If you prefer staying on the bleeding edge and like pushing performance than more power to you, but there is more than one way to game nowadays and some people should understand that not everybody shares the same view on what constitutes being the best.
Their may be better PCs out there but to insinuate that consoles are inferior to pc based on power is ridiculous. I can guarantee that throughout a console lifecycle, I will be playing every ps4 game that interests me and at the best possible settings available on the console. whereas on the pc, there will be exclusive games within a few years that a 500 dollar pc will not be able to run at optimal settings without reinvesting in hardware, let alone 7yrs from now. On PC, Im limited in the AAA exclusives I like based on the hardware, on consoles I have no such worry.
For example, I built a pc for around $1700 on newegg right before the next gen consoles launched because I needed a pc for work and wanted to go the extra mile for a gaming rig but I hardly ever use it for gaming and even when I did, the experience was less than optimal. I couldnt even get through a game of BF4 until recently. Not only that but because I opted for a i5 3570k instead of a i7, I am currently under the minimum requirements for certain games. I prefer consoles games over pc games but I dont expect everybody to share that same view. If you prefer staying on the bleeding edge and like pushing performance than more power to you, but there is more than one way to game nowadays and some people should understand that not everybody shares the same view on what constitutes being the best.
What exactly is in that PC besides the i5?
So one that compromises enough to allow for 900p or 1080p with somehow stable 30hz
What is optimal setting again?
What?! Are You from 2024 or something?
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
Do you mean that I don't need to slide every bar to maximum?
So one that compromises enough to allow for 900p or 1080p with somehow stable 30hz
But it is optimal for the console, on pc their will be experiences that you will be gated from based on your hardware let alone being competitive against someone with better hardware.
What is optimal setting again?
Optimal as in the way the developers intended the player to experience the game.
What?! Are You from 2024 or something?
LoL - I meant to say my expensive PC that could max out games already is failing to do so months out of the gate. That was just a stream of consciousness and it came out like that.
But it is optimal for the console, on pc their will be experiences that you will be gated from based on your hardware let alone being competitive against someone with better hardware.
What is optimal setting again?
Optimal as in the way the developers intended the player to experience the game.
What?! Are You from 2024 or something?
LoL - I meant to say my expensive PC that could max out games already is failing to do so months out of the gate. That was just a stream of consciousness and it came out like that.
grandwizard
Member
And the point is that last generation you would have needed much more to match the value represented in the consoles on launch, because they were sold at a loss. The difference this time that this article and KKRT00 have been saying is that they are already matching PC hardware in the same price range.
The reason people are bringing up the GPU that cost as much as the console is because that is what had comparable power at the time, and was much more expensive. It's performance throughout the generation with matching or besting the console in multiplatform game benchmarks at similar settings is just dispelling the myth that PC hardware depreciates faster in game performance.
You seem to be missing the big deal here is that now you don't have to pay twice as much as the console for just the GPU that matches it, you can get an affordable midrange card and be set. I don't want to accuse you of anything but it seems like you are intentionally being obtuse here.
Why the 'absolutely have to' qualifier? If someone wants to play a game that happens to be exclusive to a platform and they're willing to buy that platform for said game or games, they have the freedom to do so without judgment from insufferable elitist snobs. Those $400 are not better spent on a PC if the game you want to play is on the PS4. Conversely, spending $400 on a PS4 when the game you want to play is PC exclusive is stupid.
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone in this thread. I used to be such a console warrior, debating PSP vs DS on forums for ages and secretly thinking Sony exclusives would be best even when I got my 360. I've grown out of it, finally, but damn if watching you all bicker isn't as entertaining as pulling out a movie or book I loved as a kid.
Keep on fighting, GAF. We may be considered the scum of the gaming community, but no matter how reductive or circular the arguments get, it still works as delicious, junk-food entertainment.
Keep on fighting, GAF. We may be considered the scum of the gaming community, but no matter how reductive or circular the arguments get, it still works as delicious, junk-food entertainment.
Even so , I feel that the prices may still be in favour for consoles. A good example would be that the ps3 is now going for around £160.
I don't think you can make a computer that can play games like GTA V for that much.
Similarly I feel that the ps4 may remain the best value to play games.
A bit hyperbolic but in any case that's because building gaming PC's that can outperform consoles for console level prices this close to launch is a new thing. Consoles this gen have one of the worst price-performance ratios. The point is that people in the past interested in playing the latest titles have not built gaming PCs on a console budget. They spent a bit more and ended up with machines that demolish consoles, at which point running all console titles at 1080p/60fps is nothing extraordinary and you end up with people starting to do things like downsampling (basically rendering at a super high resolutions then scaling it back down to your native 1080p or whatever resolution for a cleaner crisper image with less aliasing) just to put all that wasted horsepower to work.
In the future this will change. With economies of scale and a bit of time for prices to come down, seeing a console-like Steam Box being sold for less than $300 is a completely realistic possibility.
But what if you're not interested in the games released for that platform? Will it magically stay the best value to play games? I doubt it.
Keep in mind i'm only bringing up software because console gamers in this thread seem hell bend on letting people know that without those console exclusives you're not really gaming.
Here is a list of priorities you may have as a gamer when it comes to hardware selection:
+ one-time cost (hardware cost)
+ marginal cost (software cost)
+ AAA availability
+ exclusive availability from any platform holder
+ indie availability
+ barriers to game publishing
+ communications services
+ integration of services
+ ability to perform non-gaming tasks
+ form factor
+ power consumption
+ lifecycle
+ graphics horsepower
+ ethics of platform holder/manufacturers
+ marketplaces
+ physical vs digital media
+ ...
The reason this discussion is pointless is because you are debating the logistics of one-time cost as though it is the sole determinant. Some of you are bringing in these other priorities as though they support the one-time cost finding, but they are actually equal participants to one-time cost in a larger optimization that you all do when you decide what to get. As you debate, you reduce others' priorities because they were not given great weight when you made your personal decision.
I write this post because I used to live for debating on the internet and it's like an ex-smoker having a cigarette.
*edit* It's useful to elaborate each of these subjects (i.e. give people reasonable expectations of one-time cost of a PC, make available information about which indies are on which platform) but you can't really describe one outcome (PC vs PS4 vs Xbox vs WiiU vs All of Them vs...) as canonical.
+ one-time cost (hardware cost)
+ marginal cost (software cost)
+ AAA availability
+ exclusive availability from any platform holder
+ indie availability
+ barriers to game publishing
+ communications services
+ integration of services
+ ability to perform non-gaming tasks
+ form factor
+ power consumption
+ lifecycle
+ graphics horsepower
+ ethics of platform holder/manufacturers
+ marketplaces
+ physical vs digital media
+ ...
The reason this discussion is pointless is because you are debating the logistics of one-time cost as though it is the sole determinant. Some of you are bringing in these other priorities as though they support the one-time cost finding, but they are actually equal participants to one-time cost in a larger optimization that you all do when you decide what to get. As you debate, you reduce others' priorities because they were not given great weight when you made your personal decision.
I write this post because I used to live for debating on the internet and it's like an ex-smoker having a cigarette.
*edit* It's useful to elaborate each of these subjects (i.e. give people reasonable expectations of one-time cost of a PC, make available information about which indies are on which platform) but you can't really describe one outcome (PC vs PS4 vs Xbox vs WiiU vs All of Them vs...) as canonical.
If you're referencing my post, I never said that anywhere. I said spending money on one platform when the game you want to play is only on the other is stupid, in response to Muton stating money is better spent on a PC period purely for hardware reasons. I don't see any posts claiming you aren't a real gamer for not playing console exclusives.
EDIT: Also, you'd be better off not generalizing 'console gamers' and 'PC gamers' as the two groups do overlap, and often.
That's a good point but nowadays almost everything of note seems to be a multiplatform release of sorts.
You're correct, you cannot build a pc at $160 and have it run GTA V. But to be fair, GTA V doesn't run on PS3 either. =) I kid...
But then i would ask, if there are so many multiplatform releases in every genre imaginable, why would i ever need those exclusives that almost exclusively remain in done to death genre's like third and first person shooters.
I was aiming for people like jtenma and the like with that comment.
You're right! Anyone who likes highly refined examples of long-standing genres will surely open their eyes and see the light now.
These threads always become painful to read...
Any of the rigs in the article can run multiplats similarly/better than on consoles. Your standards for "optimal settings" differing on PC and consoles are arbitrary. I don't understand what you mean by being "competitive against someone with better hardware" as multi-player games don't offer advantages to those with better rigs unless they're designed poorly.
Despite spending $1.7k on a rig you seem to be unaware that there are still games on PC that you can't "max" out on any conceivable rig available to consumers.
There are reasons to buy and play on consoles but I'd rather you don't move goal-posts to make the the point that you get the best experience on consoles all of the time and a sub-par experience on PC at times.
Any of the rigs in the article can run multiplats similarly/better than on consoles. Your standards for "optimal settings" differing on PC and consoles are arbitrary. I don't understand what you mean by being "competitive against someone with better hardware" as multi-player games don't offer advantages to those with better rigs unless they're designed poorly.
Despite spending $1.7k on a rig you seem to be unaware that there are still games on PC that you can't "max" out on any conceivable rig available to consumers.
There are reasons to buy and play on consoles but I'd rather you don't move goal-posts to make the the point that you get the best experience on consoles all of the time and a sub-par experience on PC at times.
Nope. £160 is roughly US $270. You can easily build a $200-250 PC that beats the PS3. It's been done. We don't have GTAV on PC, but I imagine it would run quite a bit better than PS3 (unless it was a botched port).
I don't know where it came from and if it was ever true, but at this stage it's basically a lie that console gamers tell themselves; a false belief that they're getting a better, longer-lasting value with their hardware whereas PC gamers have machines that will soon stop playing games and will need "expensive mandatory upgrades" in 2-3 years.
I've moved on to bigger and better, but the slim-profile budget HTPC I built in early 2011 still easily outperforms the 360 and PS3. By console gamer logic, shouldn't it have already fallen behind and stopped working? A slightly more expensive PC already outperformed the PS4/XB1 at launch. By what sorcery will that continue to stop being the truth in 3-4 years? The only thing that a $550 PC stops doing in a few years is running games at max settings (a pointless comparison since consoles never could and never will). All you will have to do with a 2013/2014 budget PC is drop to medium which will still be better than what the more severely bottle-necked consoles will manage in that same time.
And if you fall into low settings* -- with the deep savings of PC gaming, saving up the cost of a couple of games will get you an affordable future GPU that will bring you back to medium-high settings.
*If this gen plays out like the last, "low sttings" of tomorrow's PC games will still be better than consoles for anyone who paid attention to cross-platform stuff like Crysis 2 and noticed the lowest possible PC settings at 720P still looked better than what the struggling console versions could pull off. Crysis 2 was even criticized by everyone for being "console-centric" in development so that's hardly a unique example.
Highly focused tested sure, highly refined? Nah.
I apologize but I don't follow your argument.
The point I was getting across was that most gamed nowadays are multiplatform ( not all I admit ) and as such unless you really want to play a certain set of games it doesn't matter which platform you pick .
I made a point that thus the consoles may be the cheapest option for someone in that case.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I have no need to venture into PC exclusive threads because I don't have a gaming PC. If a thread doesn't involve hardware I don't have why would I go in? I'm speaking strictly whenever consoles are brought into the equation, or when we're speaking about a multiplatform game.
Hell, it could be a person strictly asking about console versions, and there's always some dope jumping in saying get it for PC for 60fps and 1080p. Say what you want, but I know what I see.
Do you have a website or something where I can gain access to your enlightened objective breakdowns of quality?
I don't even like third-person shooters, but I think you're being pigheaded.
Then i misunderstood your post, apologies.
W-well....i think you're a....a..CLOWN!
QuantumZebra
Member
I built my PC (AMD X4 955 OC'd from 3 to 4 ghz, AMD 6850 OC, 8GB corsair RAM, 1TB seagate HD, 650 Antec PSU) for $550 2011. It runs BF4 & ESO on Ultra just dandy. People who think you need a $1000+ PC to play new games are just wasting $$$
In other words, you admit your utter ignorance and that you made an entirely baseless sweeping statement about PC gamers?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
BTW is there any word on when the Steam Machines are hitting? I would've thought they'd be popping up by now.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I own Atari 2600, NES, Super Nintendo, N64, PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, PS3, Wii U, PS4, and Xbox One. Pretty much everything important, with the exclusion of the Genesis, Dreamcast, PS1, and Gamecube, but the latter two were taken care of with backwards compatibility anyway.
(And handhelds: Game Boy, Game Gear, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance SP, Game Boy Micro, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS)
(Also, I've PC gamed my whole life as well, starting with the Commodore 64. I just don't do much of it anymore these days.)
Your turn. Show me the 3 times.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Perhaps your ignorance missed the part where I specified it rears it's head every time there's a discussion involving PCs and consoles together.
I remain skeptical of the fact that you can make a PC from scratch for £160 which will beat the ps3 .If possible could you give a breakdown of the components needed ?