So you're saying gaming on a console and gaming on a PC is not even comparable? Really? Interesting viewpoint.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
GPU prices go boom
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
Yes that is what I'm saying. I'm also saying I use my GPU for things other than gaming.
And to be clear, we're just considering gaming here. Not the other use cases for a PC. Just gaming.
Console gaming and PC gaming are not comparable by any means?
It depends on where you are coming from. While playing through Kingdom Come I also had a look at it on a friends PS4 and it felt, coming straight from the PC, unplayable. I would get used to it using it for a period of time I'm sure but it was not an enjoyable experience. Kicking KCD over to a 60HZ 1440P monitor was still a more enjoyable experience than the PS4. Add in high FPS, ultrawide and G-Sync/Freesync and the experiences are very different.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
The games i mostly play are not on console, so for me (the subject), subjectively, no theey are not.
I haven't, and I don't think anyone else has, said that the consoles give a better experience. If you want 1440p, 140Hz, 4K, utlra-wide (etc) then PC is your only choice.
I don't consider the X1X or the PS4 Pro to be 4K consoles despite the marketing nonsense.
So let's be absolutely clear: PC is more powerful; PC is "better" on an absolute scale.
The question was always which is the better value for mainstream consumers. Those of us who are quite happy with 1080P/60. Those of us on 5+ year old PC hardware.
I don't have KCD and I have a Pro rather than a standard PS4. So far I've been extremely impressed with the Pro. I was braced for stuttering and early 2000s low-poly models
It has been a real eye-opener for me.The take-away for me personally is that I don't need a PC to enjoy most games. And with PC hardware prices being so insane, I can think of no justification whatsoever to upgrade my PC anymore.
Whilst that's just my personal position, and no more important that andybird123's, I can see there will be others in this same situation. Who can afford, but not justify, the cost of PC gaming today.
If he is I would agree with this point. The purpose, power and flexibility of a PC is utterly different, resale is vastly different, experience is completely different.
I can sit in a gaming chair with a lovely keyboard and mouse, or I can use the big screen and controller from the sofa. I can install hundreds of games, infinitely increasing my storage, I don't need discs to avoid filling up my SSD, I can adjust settings to tailor performance, I have considerably more choice in games at a better price, I have over 15 years of games available without needing additional machines, I have access to Xbox exclusives, I can work, research, multi task, mine, communicate from a single device, I can install multiple operating systems and VMs. The list goes on.
I haven't seen the poster you quoted being aggressive or rude, unfortunately I can't say the same for you. From my point of view he's not the troll.
And why are we doing that? A personal computer is not a device for gaming, it is a multi purpose device which is also able to offer a significantly broader and better gaming experience than a device whose sole purpose is to play games, (consoles can do a few things, poorly, that I can do with a TV stick). PCs do cost more.
I have a PS4, if you want a one dimensional gaming experience, in the lounge, with little other functionality, it's definitely better value. Though the demographic here is unlikely to tend toward that opinion considering it's a PC enthusiasts forum.
Surely you can see why people might put more value in a PC? Just as someone who wants the above may console as a better value proposition?
Almost like it's a matter of opinion...
I've answered that about two or three posts ago. Suggest you go back and read it instead of me posting it again.
Yes the PS4 Pro is better value. So you're agreeing, then?
Nobody said the PS4 gives a better experience. It doesn't. If you have the money to splurge PC is more powerful. No debate possible!
Check Rock_N_Roll's posting history. He's constantly posting dribble such as "Consoles can only do 24FPS" in this thread. It's either trolling or plain stupidity. I can't decide.
I haven't, and I don't think anyone else has, said that the consoles give a better experience. If you want 1440p, 140Hz, 4K, utlra-wide (etc) then PC is your only choice.
I don't consider the X1X or the PS4 Pro to be 4K consoles despite the marketing nonsense.
So let's be absolutely clear: PC is more powerful; PC is "better" on an absolute scale.
The question was always which is the better value for mainstream consumers. Those of us who are quite happy with 1080P/60. Those of us on 5+ year old PC hardware.
I don't have KCD and I have a Pro rather than a standard PS4. So far I've been extremely impressed with the Pro. I was braced for stuttering and early 2000s low-poly models
The take-away for me personally is that I don't need a PC to enjoy most games. And with PC hardware prices being so insane, I can think of no justification whatsoever to upgrade my PC anymore.
Whilst that's just my personal position, and no more important that andybird123's, I can see there will be others in this same situation. Who can afford, but not justify, the cost of PC gaming today.
I would still spend the money on my PC to keep it going at 1080p60 because you can't just ignore the other stuff a PC can offer (and also for the games I play I can't get on console). Even just for gaming it's more versatile. If all you want is to play AAA and some of the older PS1, PS2 and PS3 games (which is a bigger draw for me) then sure.
KDC did look good on the PS4 Pro no doubt though.
Even if you just factor in upgrades to maintain 1080p/60, you're talking (at the current time) at least as much as a brand new console. Given that the only 580 in stock here at OcUK is currently £450
That's the point of this thread. "GPU prices go boom". You're talking more than the cost of an entire console to buy a mid-range 580 atm!
e: Want a 570? Current cheapest is £350 - the cost of a PS4 Pro+games!
Even if you just factor in upgrades to maintain 1080p/60, you're talking (at the current time) at least as much as a brand new console. Given that the only 580 in stock here at OcUK is currently £450
That's the point of this thread. "GPU prices go boom". You're talking more than the cost of an entire console to buy a mid-range 580 atm!
e: Want a 570? Current cheapest is £350 - the cost of a PS4 Pro+games!
I would still assuming I was financially able. Maybe GOG and Steam have spoiled me but there are so many games I would miss playing. That side of it I guess is subjective, the games we want to play.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
Even if you just factor in upgrades to maintain 1080p/60, you're talking (at the current time) at least as much as a brand new console. Given that the only 580 in stock here at OcUK is currently £450
That's the point of this thread. "GPU prices go boom". You're talking more than the cost of an entire console to buy a mid-range 580 atm!
e: Want a 570? Current cheapest is £350 - the cost of a PS4 Pro+games!
I think the main thing you are proving there is that AMD is currently a much worse value proposition than nvidia for gaming cards.
Unfortunately I had started my post before you wrote this. I can quite happily agree with majority of the points you make. Unfortunately none of them seem to address the point that a Personal Computer and a Playstation 4 are utterly different devices, filling utterly different roles. You also seem to have performed a U-turn as to what constitutes value. As you have now said, it's an opinion, and different for everyone. So I'm glad we can agree on that; and by extension, a PC is better value for some people, and a console for others.
For people who want only gaming, only in the lounge and with average but uniform performance accross a comparitively limited number of titles, with no flexibility in modification; yes absolutely. Unfortunately we're talking about graphics cards in personal computers, and the use case for most here is unlikely to be that limited.
Excellent I'm glad we agree on this point. So the value of the products depends entirely on whether you view your needs against the cost of the specification as representing good value.
Unfortunately this is where we can't agree. You're being rude and it's unnecessary. You're obviously intelligent enough to discuss the topic reasonably, yet you resort to using insults. As to post history, you can see I have stated that I understand why people are turning to consoles, and even said to a user I would be tempted to do so were I in his postition.
The points I originally (and lenghtily) made were that the flexibility and functionality of the PC sets the two devices entirely apart, and just because consoles are cheaper to purchase as gaming only devices does not mean that they necessarily represent better value, it depends on the needs of the potential purchaser versus their relative cost. The opinion you seem to be presenting, at least to me, is that the other functionality and massive flexibility of a PC is not a contributor to value, and I'm afraid I cannot see any logic behind this view.
Last edited:
Then you clearly didn't read my posts of literally one or two pages ago.
For anyone posting here - and likely the vast majority of people interested in gaming at all - we will have a PC of some description already.
Whether that's an off-the-shelf Dell basic office model or a gaming PC that's now getting a bit long in the tooth.
It's all very well saying "ah but a PC does more than gaming". But ask yourself this:
How many people are choosing between their very first /only PC and a console? It's not a choice many are likely to be making. If you need a PC you better get a PC (for productivity).
So the choice that we're really making here is:
1. Upgrade my PC to a gaming PC that can play 2017/2018 games at 1080p/60
2. Buy a X1X/ PS4 Pro for gaming
I will throw you a bone and say for anyone who has no PC and needs one, a console makes no sense. I don't feel that's what we're discussing here. I think it's deflecting the debate to somewhere it doesn't need to go.
Are you saying that value for money is purely subjective?
Are you saying that somebody can buy a top-end model and not realise that the VfM sweet-spot is a cheaper card?
You're saying that someone buying a 911 cannot appreciate that a family car would be better value for money? So someone buying a top-end device must always feel that it represents the best value for money, for them? That nobody ever bought something knowing that it was a vanity purchase and they were paying a premium to buy top-end?
Because if we're re-defining value for money like that, then literally whatever you decide to buy is the best value for money for you. That makes the phrase "value for money" utterly meaningless.
Just so long as you see what you're doing, here. You're making a well-established concept (value for money) and saying that means whatever you decide it means.
Soldato
uhh
value for money doesnt have a fixed definition. It really IS down to what you think is important.
Look at this for example: https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/articles/definition-best-value-money
Quality.
Is a console fit for purpose? if it isn't, then there's no debate at all - it represents 0 value for money.
value for money doesnt have a fixed definition. It really IS down to what you think is important.
Look at this for example: https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/articles/definition-best-value-money
Quality.
- quality means meeting a specification which is fit for purpose and sufficient to meet the customer’s requirements
Is a console fit for purpose? if it isn't, then there's no debate at all - it represents 0 value for money.
Clearly people comparing the VfM proposition of a console and PC (for gaming) have already determined that they could use either.
The comparison is meaningless if a specific need demands you prefer one over the other.
If you absolutely must mod your games then you would have to reject a (theoretical) next-gen console that gave Titan performance for £50. That doesn't mean that for the vast majority of people the (theoretical) console wouldn't be better VfM.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, since people are insisting on throwing around edge cases to justify top-end products as being "high VfM".
In before someone says, "For me, TitanV is the best VfM on the market."
The comparison is meaningless if a specific need demands you prefer one over the other.
If you absolutely must mod your games then you would have to reject a (theoretical) next-gen console that gave Titan performance for £50. That doesn't mean that for the vast majority of people the (theoretical) console wouldn't be better VfM.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, since people are insisting on throwing around edge cases to justify top-end products as being "high VfM".
In before someone says, "For me, TitanV is the best VfM on the market."
Soldato
If the titan v was the only card out there that did what that consumer wanted, then they wouldn't be wrong.
So it's not just needs, it's wants now? Therefore a Bugatti Veyron is the best value for money for people who want them/ own them.
Therefore you have rendered VfM to be an utterly meaningless phrase. There can be no discussion of VfM in such a world. Whatever you want is the best VfM there is.
It's what we call a circular definition! "I want the best VfM, so it's lucky for me that the best VfM is whatever I want."
Therefore you have rendered VfM to be an utterly meaningless phrase. There can be no discussion of VfM in such a world. Whatever you want is the best VfM there is.
It's what we call a circular definition! "I want the best VfM, so it's lucky for me that the best VfM is whatever I want."
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
I think you've completely lost the plot.
You were the one militantly demanding people agree that consoles are better value, the problem is you have a really constrained view of what it is that a console can do that a gaming PC can also do that isnt fitting with several other peoples view of what they want from a gaming machine.
Yes, if you want to play console games a console is better value, a lot of us here dont just play console games though so it isnt an option. If you are going to make up statistics like "99%" of people are in your situation you might be a bit dissapointed when you go on a forum called "overclockers uk" and find that not everyone on a niche PC gaming/hardware forum agrees with you.
I can use my phone to take photos, according to your definition that means that anyone who also owns an SLR for non-proffessional use is completely wasting their money, yet there are dozens of forums dedicated to amateur photography where people spend thousands on hardware, why dont you try going on one of those to discuss vfm of a camera phone vs slr and see how far it gets you.
Value for money IS a meaningless phrase when its used out of context such as trying to force people who dont like or want a console to agree that a console is better value for money than something which is in some ways similar but in other ways really not. Value is subjective, so what represents value to YOU is NOT the same thing as to someone else. That is exactly what subjective means.
If someone wants a car that can do (whatever it is) 250mph? Then yes the bugatti might be the best value if it is the only one that can do it. Yes that is an edge case, however wanting to play PC games over console games is not an edge case, its the whole point of why a majority of PC gamers choose PC gaming.
Last edited: