Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,017
Except that "averaging" 28-30fps means you could get ridiculous low FPS spikes at times
Locked 30fps is much more playable as you get consistent frametimes.
Console performance vs PCs over time
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
Except that "averaging" 28-30fps means you could get ridiculous low FPS spikes at times
Locked 30fps is much more playable as you get consistent frametimes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 16,037
- Location
- The land of milk & beans
That's also true. However my previous post was addressing the point that Windows 'needs to change the way it does graphics'.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2018
- Posts
- 254
It shows how game devs are sticking to the limits on the console market, what the chart will not show is that games are being restricted to the set memory limits of the consoles. All the horse power is the world will not overcome a shortage of memory and as such games are being limited by the console market. In the end both consoles and PC are heading to the same place, which is the limits of silicone. Watching my children on the consoles, pads or laptops, what they are doing is playing Robloxs and Minecraft rather then the big ticket games, which leads me to believe that what will happen is that all games will become an open platform, play it on what ever. The way cpu cores are going the over heads of OS will be none existent.
I can see Series X being about 20-25% faster than my PC even ignoring any benefits from a closed system.
I would love to be able to dual boot Windows on one, would render my PC pretty pointless.
Pretty sure they are not
But after a few months PCs will overtake them again. Plus you have the privilege of cheaper games and not having to pay microsoft to play them online...
They would yes, of course. But I've had the same GPU for 4 years, it's not like I change constantly.
Which you would also have if it ran Windows...
Pretty sure they are for certain games.
The days of pc being better value are long gone, the cost of a next gen console will still be cheaper than some graphics cards. Will take a lot of cheap games to make those numbers stack up.
I'll probably get a next gen console in a few years but unless I suddenly find a load of spare cash I dont have any plans to do a big upgrade on my computer again, maybe a cheap second hand graphics card but I'd never pay the ridiculous prices of the new ones.
That said I've got loads of unplayed games on both console and PC so I'm not the target market. Only took a national lockdown to get me to use them again
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,757
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
I rather pay for the privalidge of playing online but in a hack free environment.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
ridiculous argument when a gaming monitor and GPU combined are like £1500 alone these days for something decent.
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 7,823
- Location
- Hampshire
Ridiculous argument when you don't have to spend anywhere near that to get a good gaming experience
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,428
You sure about that, my gtx 1080 FTW only gets around 45fps at 1080 at high.
If you're going to include the cost of the monitor then please include the cost of the TV needed to play your console.
Besides, as has already been posted, you don't need to spend anywhere near that much
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,017
To get the equivalent of an Xbox Series X you would have to spend that sort of money though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Most people tend to have a TV though for TV use. I didnt have a monitor until I bought a gaming pc.
I don't know anyone that doesn't have a TV yet I know plenty that don't have a gaming monitor
Why does it need to be a gaming monitor? Many people also have a PC, you can game perfectly well on a bog standard ~£100 24" 1080p monitor. You can also plug your PC into your TV
Adding the cost of a monitor is an unfair comparison because a PC can be connected to a TV. So if you're excluding the display cost for a console on the basis that it can use a TV a person already has then you should exclude the display cost for a PC because the same thing applies. Also, while it's true that almost everyone has a TV those TVs are often used as a TV. All well and good if a person is on their own, but if there are 2 (or more) people and one (or more) wants to watch TV and the other wants to play a game then a second display is needed anyway regardless of what the game is running on.
I could do that. Or I could game on my pc when I want then game on my consoles when I want.
Not sure why using a console offends people so much.
I've put 30 hours into Final Fantasy 7 Remake this week. A game that was the most memorable of my childhood. Id have to wait over a year before that potentially came to a PC. Instead I've had an amazing experience.
Not sure why the "so one game then" attitude. Strange guy.
I like games so I'll play games on every platform I own. I don't give a crap if my PC would be capable of running God of War better than my ps4 Pro. Because God of War isn't on the pc.
I've never paid more than 45 for a ps4 game and that was Final Fantasy 7 Remake released last week. I also own all of the games physically and can sell them on for cash. If I sold Final Fantasy 7 now then I'd get £35 minimum.
I feel a lot of people who don't own a console just spout all this crap. We get it. You like Pcs (I do too). But it's condescending to assume anyone with a console can't be having a good experience.