alexandros
Banned
You're good for now, no need to upgrade. Wait for more powerful cards in 2014.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How much would a PC cost that has the same specs as PS4? Form factor?
- Thread starter RaikuHebi
- Start date
You're good for now, no need to upgrade. Wait for more powerful cards in 2014.
This thread is about now not this time next year
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
Not really. I just gave away my old gaming desktop to a friend that is 5-6 years old. Still runs anything thats out and anything on last gen at 1080p in way higher settings and at a much higher frame rate.
But why do people seem to think you need to keep a PC cutting edge? One can easily last you 5-7 years in this day and age. Just like a console. Graphics are far from the only reason to own a pc for games. For me its choice to get it running smoothly, backwards compatibility, game prices and all the types of games you get on PC that dont tend to appear on consoles.
For me i find a sale on steam. Purchase game, download game and run it. Checking specs takes no time at all and if you built your PC to a certain spec is most definitely not a worry.
Now don't get me wrong. Im not saying PC is the only way to go and I fully appreciate what consoles offer. Its more how some people perceive what PC gaming is that I find baffling. It hasn't been complicated for a fair while now (mainly thanks to steam). Plus you have to admit consoles are gaining there own issues with each gen. With the new ones you have to add "install game" to that list of things to do and from what I have heard, can take longer than downloading a game from steam in some cases.
illegal? Since when is each license supposed to be tied to one machine?
I have a diablo 2 disc that I've installed on like 15 PCs over the years. How is that any different?
Can Crusher
Banned
We will see in 3 years how a PC built today for 400$ mirroring the specs of PS4, will compare. You always say this, yet history proves different.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Not really. Almost every generation one has been able to build a comparable PC to consoles for about 500-700 and have it last the entire generation at comparable graphics. One has generally had to wait about 3-6 months after the console release for the next GPU cycle though.
However! Thanks to the lower jump in technology in consoles combined with Moore's Law having PC graphics increasingly exponentially, and you are able to build one right of the gate at lower than ever prices that can easily out perform them.
The assumption that the "sacrifices" would be "small" may be wildly inappropriate. Then the decision to take the lcd approach will have a competitive marketplace cost.
Mantle deals with the metal-level details which the consoles access already (although probably not yet deeply). Mantle does not somehow magically allow CPU cores and GPU cores to access common memory, because PC's do not have common memory.
PC's cannot be used to demonstrate the advantage of common-memory program construction, because PC's cannot execute like that at all, which of course means that PC's are not as similar to consoles as one might like to think.
Can Crusher
Banned
The PS4 costs 399$. I want a 399$ PC today that in 3 years will offer the exact same performance and image quality as the PS4, blow for blow. If it's 100$ or 200$ more expensive, then it's irrelevant. If you have to wait for next year then it's also irrelevant.
jim-jam bongs
Member
To be accurate, what you're actually saying here is that a game designed for PS4 won't transfer directly to Xbox One or PC. There is no identical architecture shared between the PS4 and Xbone.
perfectsil
Member
huh? since when are games in Steam, Origin, Uplay tied to only one machine? I have 3 machines/laptops that I play PC games on.
answering your paragraphs.
1. I was referring to someone building a pc to match the ps4 in specs and size today.
2. I was not saying that people need to just that it is very expensive to keep a pc cutting edge.
3. although steam makes it easier its still not as easy as consoles where you put the disc in and go (I know there is the install), also my 42 inch tv and 5.1 system and playing games on the sofa is more comfortable for me that playing on the desk.
I understand pc gamers, I used to play games on the pc but now prefer to play consoles. I don't ones is better than the other its just people preference.
perfectsil
Member
that PS4 gaming costs $550 in 3 years because online is not free, and $700 in 6 years.
Maybe for the CPU, but not yet the GPU.
UnrealEck
Member
So your argument is that you think this generation's games will be made primarily for the consoles which utilise the shared memory architecture and that it would impose a large difficulty on porting games to run on a PC's architecture which tends to use main memory and graphics memory seperate?
Or am I missing something because that is not only a bit silly, it's an assumption that I can't understand the basis for.
I have a hard time believing that the architecture of the consoles will cause game developers hassle in porting games which were initially only coded around the console hardware.
Can Crusher
Banned
?
I thought that would be the challenge. Otherwise what's the point in comparing? I usually build a gaming PC midway through every gen and spend most of my time there, as I build at an affordable price with much higher specs. It's a formula that has worked very well for me. With the added bonus that I can then play PC graphical showcases from years before without breaking a sweat.
This is a different proposition though, as the challenge is to build a PC for 399$ today that in 3 years will offer the same performance as a 399$ console. I don't understand why this seems to bother some of you.
I thought it was about specs. I guess it's not.
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
Am I to understand that the PS4 will be getting more powerful as the years go on and that PC will not? How does that work, exactly?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think this is an incredibly insincere argument.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
1. thats fair enough. But as with all these arguments its kinda strange thing to compare as the two are very different beasts. Consoles are cheaper at there launch but PCs can do a lot more things. Its just a strange thing to compare in any way. You should get a PC because of the things I mentioned before not because you can get one the same spec as PS4 etc when all you want to do is play the games out on PS4.
2. OK..... not sure what that point is then. Best just leave it as it is.
3. well you can do the TV thing with PC games now though. Hold the xbox button and steam switches to big picture mode and the whole thing can be controlled with the controller. You get away with out using a mouse at all apart from the few games that have that annoying menu pop up before loading (such as skyrim and tomb raider *shaley fist*)
I think he is referring to pc games will requiring higher specs over the years whilst ps4 games will improve (like the ps3/360) without requiring a new system.
Can Crusher
Banned
You misunderstood entirely. It's not getting more powerful, but devs constantly seem to be able to squeeze more out of the console hardware than the PC equivalent as the years go by. Essentially aging at a slower pace, again, in comparison to the same specs on PC.
Unless you buy used, expect to pay $200 more for a PC that can rival the value consoles bring (controller, operating system, 1 warranty)
Steam Machines and perhaps AMD's APU's and Mantle will make buying brand new and rivaling the PS4 a reality soon enough, but then again there are console price drops and bundles too
As for are consoles "gimmicks", I think they combine Apple's walled garden plug-and-play ease of use with Amazon-like prices because of mass production...but compared to what a PC can do they are much more limited
Steam Machines and perhaps AMD's APU's and Mantle will make buying brand new and rivaling the PS4 a reality soon enough, but then again there are console price drops and bundles too
As for are consoles "gimmicks", I think they combine Apple's walled garden plug-and-play ease of use with Amazon-like prices because of mass production...but compared to what a PC can do they are much more limited
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I do not think it is honest to suggest that the fact that Linux (and thus SteamOS) has numerically more games than PS4/Xbox One, which launched over the last few weeks, settles the question of whether or not one needs to consider the cost of Windows when building a PC. Those games are in many cases smaller titles that do not represent remotely the full breadth of PC gaming, and certainly not if we're conceptually comparing the cost of buying a PS4/Xbox One versus a PC designed to play multiplatform games.
If you happen to like the games on Linux today better than the games on Xbox One or PS4, that's one thing. But I think it's dishonest to imply that someone running Linux would not run into library constraints. I also think it's dishonest to say "What the PS4/Xbox One has available right now is limited", because absolutely no one buying these consoles at or near launch is doing so based on the launch lineup, but rather the reasonably certain promise of future releases from major publishers.
Now, there are counter-arguments. Valve purports that they are working to secure a higher number of ports in days to come--of course if we are talking today, future promises should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps this is an impetus to say "I think the parameters of this debate are going to change significantly in the next six months as we learn more about SteamOS and Steam Machine offerings", but not to say "Let's assume all major games are getting Linux ports ergo who needs Windows for gaming". Linux support is improving. And many people don't incur the full cost of Windows because they have an existing license or because they have access to free license options. And if you want to say "Instead of buying a PS4 or Xbox One for potential, wait a year until that potential is realized and an equivalent PC will be even cheaper due to price reductions or power increases in PC hardware", that's very reasonable too.
This is not me intervening to shit on PC gaming. Just me saying I think it's very dishonest to use what is obviously a very selective, coy framing of the situation to prop up your argument in a way that is more than a little misleading to those raising the concern to begin with.
At the cost of framerate and a closed platform.
I understand what your saying I was just answering the OP. I have and buy reasonable high (par gpu) as I do development. good thing with a pc is that it is a multi purpose machine. I just prefer playing games on a console.
Can Crusher
Banned
I'm not saying there's this huge gap, I just think it's a losing battle to argue you can get the same performance of an identically priced PC at the start of a generation, for the remainder of the generation.
Personally it's a debate not even worth arguing because the result is always the same. You can wait certainly wait a bit (which IMO is effortless) and get a PC with better specs for the same price, that will offer at the very minimum similar performance barring poorly developed code for the PC.
The argument should be, why buy a PC now when you can wait a couple of months and leap frog the issue. It's like trying to make a square work like a triangle.
I'm not debating what added value you get from each purchase, I know first hand how great it is that you can mod shit and tweak graphic settings on PC even when devs don't streamline the process. I think PC is the best platform to own if you have no interest in consoles or consoles exclusives.
I don't see a problem with this. all consoles have been closed.
TheChocolateWar
Member
That is generally because of major technological innovations on the PC side, which really only happened this last generation because of Crytek and the ilk. However, that won't be the case this generation, like it was not the case the prior generation and the preceding.
Why? Because we live in a multiplatform age. Blockbuster titles are getting more and more expensive to make. You do not see very many hugely expensive exclusive titles outside of first party developers any more. And those that do generally go to other platforms after a time. Its too expensive.
Because of that, games are jointly developed for the PC and console, which has the happy outcome of this generation not requiring any kinds of major hardware updates.
Well said. I haven't made new a pc at the start of the generation since the 90's and for good reason. Just better to wait it out and get something that has performance than try and think a pc built at the same time the console comes out will last. I upgrade when I start losing performance in games be it new or old nothing more I don't care what consoles do nor care too since they are locked and closed.
TheChocolateWar
Member
I have no problem with building a rig at the beginning of the generation, at least this one. Especially since consoles did not evolve all that much comparatively speaking this time around. It is easier than ever to have a rig outperform consoles for nearly the same price. Add in lower overhead over the course of the generation and that price differential sinks. PCs can be and often are less expensive.
What history are you talking about dude? Seriously.
It's a bit hard to find benchmarks of older cards these days, but here is one.
http://www.overclock.net/t/381806/gtx-280-vs-gtx-260-vs-8800-gtx-review
Look at the benchmarks for the GTX 8800, look at the framerate and the RESOLUTION that card was handling.
2560x1600 in Mass Effect with an average 35FPS.
Remind me again of the resolution that the Xbox 360 version was running on?
Same thing with Call of Duty and FEAR.
This stupid argument about some magical optimizations that the consoles have has been destroyed so many time in this thread alone that it's getting painful to watch be repeated again and again and again.
Just like that 6Gb VRAM and unified memory nonsense.
I had to with my 3570 build currently, my other mobo finally tapped out after 5 years. I don't mind but I wanted to wait it out till 20nm stuff started showing up for gpus. CPU wise I couldn't be any happier without spending nearly double to triple for what I got for my current
I totally know that pc gaming can be cheaper when you factor in all costs involved. Neither hit my wallet that much, really toned the amount I was spending the last few years.
The architectures of the PS4 and Xbone are extremely similar, since both are using an AMD APU. Obviously there are differences in detail, but it is not mere detail between an APU on the one hand, and a PC with a video card on the other. Absent an actual technical statement one way or another, one might assume that the Xbone is close enough.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I thought that we were specifically talking about how the a unified pool of fast-memory changes the way that a game is programmed, you don't think that the much slower memory and requirement to utilise the ESRAM for maximum throughput on the Xbone makes it pretty different to code for than a PS4?
alexandros
Banned
Only if you want to interpret it in a very specific way. SteamOS already gets a lot of support from PC publishers, almost all indies and some bigger publishers like Sega. We still don't know if SteamOS will receive support from the likes of EA or Activision, a fact that I have pointed out multiple times. That doesn't mean that the OS will be lacking in quality games, especially if we take into account the amount of support it's receiving before it's even out yet. So no, it's not at all an insincere argument since I've explained the situation multiple times in this thread.
Can Crusher
Banned
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I just checked the linux store on steam and it currently states it has 405 games.
The selection is better than I thought it would be. I think one of the hurdles will be getting UE3 games over to linux. I asked a dev of a current ue3 game that is in CB testing whether a linux port would happen and they said very low priority since porting UE3 to linux is a lot of work. UE3 has been ported to linux, but not many UE3 games have been.
Source appears to be linux friendly, so I wouldn't be surprised if titanfall gets a linux version.
I also think dice is going to support linux. I think EA will go wherever money is to be made, leave when it isn't rolling in, and rejoin when they have that "aw man" moment.
Unity is of course compatible.
I have a pretty good degree of confidence that there won't be a shortage of software for steamboxes, as some appear to suggest. Will they be AAA games? Not sure. But there aren't even many AAA games that are very appealing to me anyway. I can't speak for everyone, but I kinda think people put too much emphasis on AAA games. Too much of it is recycled experiences. But I digress. I still like AAA games.
edit:
Also about the 8800 gtx, you probably could have gotten by with that the entire console generation. I don't get why people think old hardware is obsolete so fast. Sure you don't play on max settings, but still you can play comfortably with games looking as good as consoles if not better.
The selection is better than I thought it would be. I think one of the hurdles will be getting UE3 games over to linux. I asked a dev of a current ue3 game that is in CB testing whether a linux port would happen and they said very low priority since porting UE3 to linux is a lot of work. UE3 has been ported to linux, but not many UE3 games have been.
Source appears to be linux friendly, so I wouldn't be surprised if titanfall gets a linux version.
I also think dice is going to support linux. I think EA will go wherever money is to be made, leave when it isn't rolling in, and rejoin when they have that "aw man" moment.
Unity is of course compatible.
I have a pretty good degree of confidence that there won't be a shortage of software for steamboxes, as some appear to suggest. Will they be AAA games? Not sure. But there aren't even many AAA games that are very appealing to me anyway. I can't speak for everyone, but I kinda think people put too much emphasis on AAA games. Too much of it is recycled experiences. But I digress. I still like AAA games.
edit:
Also about the 8800 gtx, you probably could have gotten by with that the entire console generation. I don't get why people think old hardware is obsolete so fast. Sure you don't play on max settings, but still you can play comfortably with games looking as good as consoles if not better.
Considering how the 360 got it's ass handed to it by two didferent systems who cares if it was a year. 1 year out of a generation that lasted that long. The best looking games didn't come out in the first year either. A year meant crap for ms in the long run and it doesn't mean much in the bigger picture of the argument both sides are trying to have.
The prices on cards dropped dramatically once ATI started giving nvidia trouble and the cards were much more powerful too.
Can Crusher
Banned
Regarding steamboxes, they are essentially going to lose many of the advantages PC's offer. You won't simply install office on it and work your theses on your T.V, or install maya, or work on a rendering solution on it etc etc
Steam box has to prove its value, and I don't see why PC gamers are championing it so much as if it's going to be exactly as your PC, but in the living room. It will become a console, and we have such little details right now, that it seems incredibly premature and simply biased to already be championing the advantages.
And I'm actually interested in it, Steam is one hell of a service.
I don't see how having a 1 year gap, and a gpu at 599$, doesn't matter in the "Build a PC for the same price right at the beginning of the generation". That argument essentially shifted to "You could build a PC that outperformed consoles". Well no shit.
Steam box has to prove its value, and I don't see why PC gamers are championing it so much as if it's going to be exactly as your PC, but in the living room. It will become a console, and we have such little details right now, that it seems incredibly premature and simply biased to already be championing the advantages.
And I'm actually interested in it, Steam is one hell of a service.
I don't see how having a 1 year gap, and a gpu at 599$, doesn't matter in the "Build a PC for the same price right at the beginning of the generation". That argument essentially shifted to "You could build a PC that outperformed consoles". Well no shit.
alexandros
Banned
It will have to prove its worth in the market, but we know a lot more than you perhaps think. We know a lot about the OS, the UI, the control method, the hardware and form factor, the price for one model, the works. The only thing we don't know is whether big publishers like EA and Ubisoft have plans to support it.
Can Crusher
Banned
Won't the question by then be.... why buy a steambox when you can build your own PC, with Windows and Steam OS?
I'm just trying to read the situation here, because I'm seeing double standards imo. I think steambox should be more appealing for console gamers than PC gamers, since steam box won't be part of the "PC master Race". Is it just because it's Valve, and they are seen as a PC company, and therefore it's a PC?
And how is that any different than your cherry picked argument?
PC gamers were enjoying a DX9 based feature 2 years before the 360 showed and quite well I might add. I didn't shift the argument I'm calling that bs you and others keep using for what its. The amount of tech changes be it software/hardware from 2k4-2k9 were insane placing it in that specific console bubble doesn't change what actually happened.
Also last time I checked the my that wasn't the argument you were having with someone on a certain response. You got shown up by a user who called out your side saying that pc hardware didn't do something he just pointed out with a fact that it did. You're only injecting price in to a performance situation and moving the goal post yourself on a comment that had little to do with what you mentioned.
Can Crusher
Banned
You are all over the place. I said this:
He replied this:
And I replied this:
And now you are calling me out on a bs argument and talking about DX 9 features 2 years before the 360 came out... I mean what the fuck playboy, it makes no sense.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I for one am pretty sick of having to use Windows to play games, so if SteamOS encourages devs to port to Linux as a serious platform then that's a good thing for me. More people playing games on PC is good for the whole ecosystem too, it drives down prices and creates a larger player pool for online play. More Steamboxes means more enhancements to Steam BPM, which also benefits me as I generally hook my PC up to my TV and play games with a controller where possible. And on that note, the Steam Controller might be great for me too.
There are a lot of reasons to want to see the Steambox do well as a PC gamer, even if you don't intend to purchase one yourself necessarily.
Can Crusher
Banned
Will there be cross play between steam box and windows steam? If so then that makes sense, on the gaming side of things. Either way steam boxes won't actually be PC's, as they won't have an open environment like a PC. At least that's what Valve says, that the environment will be more controlled.
I know what I said and so do most here.
This alone is what these responses are based on. The price has nothing to do with the performance does which is what the response is based on.
You're flat out wrong on that comment whether price is involved or not.
Are games going to be designed for consoles, or not? Is that a strange concept? And all console programs use shared memory, because that is all there is. They just may not exploit the advantages of shared memory (yet), because no such advantages exist on the PC side.
The PC architecture does not "tend to use" separate memory spaces, it only has separate memory spaces. The PC cannot use a hardware feature which simply does not exist.
If console games will be designed and played, they will be compared, and those which perform better identified, along with those which perform worse. This is a competitive environment for any company participating, multi-plat or not.
Since console hardware is limited compared to PC, there is ample motive to use all the features available, even if they are not available on the PC.
Nevertheless, it is true. Optimal use of console hardware requires a deep re-design of normal PC game implementation ideas. Once that is done, it is not the normal PC design anymore. It will be tough to coordinate two fundamentally different designs and implementations for the exact same game.
Is it possible to optimize only somewhat (to make a PC port easier)? Possibly, but there is that competitive thing again, which favors raw performance, not compatibility.
Some companies may try to support a different game engine on each side (if that can be done), but continued development may make that awkward and costly.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I'd assume so, thought it's obviously going to depend on the developer. Valve has cross-platform multiplayer going with DOTA2 so I'd assume that anyone using Steamworks for their games will be doing the same.
Only on the OS side of things, since you can put Windows on them if you want you can just as easily put a different Linux distro on them and have a gaming PC running a completely open FOSS OS.