Nvidia Wants Gamere to Forget New Consoles, Go SFF PC

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I love Steam and agree with Nvidia. Steam is awesome and yes a PC costs more upfront than an Xbox or PS4 but... I don't have to pay 60 dollars a year to play online and I can buy awesome games on Steam for less. And I can get some awesome games free (like LoL).
 




Your rig building skills seriously need some wax on/wax off time :). Sorry, I couldn't resist.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($117.79 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock 960GM/U3S3 FX Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($53.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card ($139.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Rosewill Challenger-U3 ATX Mid Tower Case ($24.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Pioneer BDC-207DBK Blu-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer ($45.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $522.71
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-04 12:22 EST-0500)

The xbone/ps4 aren't running BF4 at ultra, they are slightly above medium settings. (and of course, they're running at 720p/900p respectively).

This above rig eats the consoles for breakfast, easily running BF4 on high settings at full 1080p
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page2.html

...the 7870 puts out 55 fps on high @1080p...if it runs at 900p (which is what the ps4 runs it at), it pulls 66 fps on high.

Once steamOS comes out, the PC will be even farther ahead. OR you could leave it on windows, slap XBMC on that bad boy, and in addition to a more powerful gaming system, you'll have a better multimedia system than the consoles can muster as well.
 
While having to spend another $90 on an OS is a fair argument, I would reply that the actual games are cheaper on the PC.

Even brand-spanking new titles are often $10 or so cheaper. If the game is a few months old, it will still be full price on consoles, but much cheaper on PC (especially if it hits a steam/gamefly sale)
 
what about the PICO sized form factors? Mini ITX and such? My home PC w/ gpu (apu) is half the size of my 360 and has more processing power too. NVIDIA is in a bad place because you can't stick an external GPU into the micro ITX cases. AMD's APU has the upper hand on this one. And trust me if PC's want to take over the gaming sector, they better find a way to jump on the Micro ITX case future and NVIDIA has no answer to the APU.
 
$400 system that slightly outpaces the new consoles

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-4300 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-78LMT-S2 Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($47.49 @ Newegg)
Memory: Kingston Blu 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($32.58 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Rosewill Challenger-U3 ATX Mid Tower Case ($24.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($24.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Pioneer BDC-207DBK Blu-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer ($45.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $416.00
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
 
"Look guys, we know we overcharged the shit out of our desktop graphics cards, and our competitor is now raking it in due to fair prices, and proprietary console tech, but please keep buying our overpriced hardware, because we are Nvidia."
 
PCs get old every year at least, in the other hand consoles can perform flawlessly until the the next gen released, not to mention the exclusive titles on console (the very anticipated Quantum Break on XB1 for ex.). That said, I'm huge PC Fan and very proud that I never owned a console, but I hate it when Nvidia pretends to be the only part to decide the future of gaming platforms... this is just hysterical. Final note : let's not forget that the graphic part of PS3 has been handled by a 550 MHz NVIDIA/SCEI RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'.
 
Those of you who think a console is a better value than a gaming PC need to understand one important thing. Consoles are just stripped down PC designed for one primary purpose. Games. A PC is a multipurpose computer which is more powerful than a console and has far more uses than a console. They are a better media device than the new consoles are. They also can play a wider range of video formats than any console. Comparing a PC to a gaming console is like trying to compare a golf cart to an ATV. The only down side to a PC vs a gaming console is the need to configure it to do what you want it to do.
 


You forgot to put the original price for each component. And like I said, going with nVidia/Intel, that's as cheap as it will go, or close.

I am expecting SteamOS to run very nice with low hardware, but until then, neither of your systems will run close-to-console fidelity, I'm sure. I already built a system around a FX4300 OC'ed to 4.3Ghz and it's not anywhere near the same as a Console yet. Maybe with a video card change and a bigger OC down the road it will, but for now, it is not. Why? I tried streaming and voice chatting (Skype/Steam) while gaming and the stutter fest was horrible. Its just one indicator of performance, but I'm sure of my statement.

Also, I do know how to build systems and pick the right component for the job, so I will pass on your offer.

Cheers!
 
To add to the PC vs console price/performance debate I would like include the fact that we PC gamers have become spoiled with these huge game sales. Because of this even a high end PC ends up being cheaper than the console over time. Even a mere 20 games bought for console gamers equals out to be the price of a pretty good PC.

Oh and before anyone dares tries to bring up the monitor is included into the price of the PC than I am including your TV to the price of your console as both are equally useless without such. This makes the console more costly right off the bat unless you have a terribly cheap TV.

*edit* I also forgot consoles also charge for online services. Which is what averagely $5 monthly? Assuming that the life cycle of the console is 5 years that adds another $300 assuming the gamer cancels the service after the console is replaced with a new.
 


I don't recall saying anything about original MSRP. I said a $500 system can destroy consoles, and I built one. I then posted benchmarks proving it outpaces the consoles. If folks pay $500 for a system, no one cares that it was $750 when all the parts first came out...except maybe for bragging about the deal they got.

If you're talking about the price before rebates, it was 587 before rebates....but a "$500" console is going to cost you $530-550 after tax, so the system is actually a bit cheaper than a "$500" console when all is said and done.

here is the benchmark again, since you quoted before I added it.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page2.html



...as far as your component knowledge, you asked for it...for one you put a crappy gtx 650 in the rig. You also put 1333mhz RAM in an LGA 1155 motherboard with the I3. . that tells me you don't know what you're doing right there without even looking at any other mistakes you might have made.

Seriously...the 650 can barely be considered a gaming card, what were you thinking?
BF3-HIGH.png


Regarding the rig you have that you say isn't running as well as consoles....if you're using a gtx 650 in your machine, that's your problem right there. swap it out for at least a 650 ti boost or 7580.

I have a system with a 7850 and a friggin Athlon x3 455 that is *already* running bf4 as well as consoles (high settings, 1600x900 @ 56 fps average)...It's a $361 system by current prices.

 
Nvidia has good technology but they are indeed becoming irrelevant in the consumer segment. That being said I am excited for G-sync but I already have an excellent IPS monitor and do not really want to downgrade to a TN panel at an additional $399 cost.
 
The interesting issue for me is that the PS4 can barely run today's games at 1080 on medium and the Xbone can't run 1080 at all. How exactly are these things going to hold up for 6+ years? That's like saying a 360 is still holding up which is laughable, and it's performance was equal to higher end gaming PCs when it was released, not mid to low range like the new consoles.
 


They are full of AMD kit so therefore they will automagically become better as time goes on. 😗
 


I have to strongly agree with this assessment.

The thing that is always brought up is "well I don't have to pay for the OS" or "the monitor".

You're right. But that extra $100 (if you're not a student, don't know how to find discounts, don't have a valid copy from another computer and simply have no money saving skills what soever) for Windows is more than reasonable for the functionality vs. a console if we're really going to compare apples to apples.

Second, you DO have to pay for the monitor, correct. But even a nice, 24in monitor can be had for under $300. So, I know, the next argument is "but my TV is 50in".... right, and it has a crap response time (probably above 10ms) and you sit 6-10ft away. A monitor doesn't NEED to be 50in because your perceived viewing radius is equivalent or better when sitting at your computer desk.

Find me a 50in, 1080p TV with a 1ms response time, ghosting compensation with DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort inputs for $300.

The fact is, a console and a PC could have equivalent functionality, but the console would have to cost more.
 


Things change fast in anything, tech doubly so. I'm sure AMD's console coup generated some sweat on Nvidia's brow (if not a bowel control issue). As much as I harp on AMD's frame pacing, the fact that they've been fighting two giants for so long is admirable. (Ok, well...Intel is a giant. Nvidia is still at least ogre sized)
 


AMD fans keep saying that despite reports to the contrary.
 


Read "original" as "non-rebate and non-offer" price.The "tax" you mention affects both things, so each component will be taxed as well, so...

In regards to the system... I went for cheap, not "competent" with Intel/nVidia. Nowadays the i3 is the bottom line of what a "gaming PC" should have and even then, I would say a cheap i5 is a better option. For the illustrative example I wanted to make, it was the same. Also, bugging me for the memory choice? Can you show me how 1600 vs 1333 affects gaming using a dGPU? 1% at most? And the GTX650... Well, it is not the fault of a buyer looking for nVidia that the GTX650 is utter craptastic hardware. Everything else jumps in price even more.

You're starting to come off very insolent on your replies and not taking into account the idea of what I said: "gaming in and SFF PC is inferior to console gaming for at least 3 years". Since nVidia is making the claims, I build with nVidia, why are you so obsessed with doing an AMD rig when we all know it's a better (overall inferior gaming) value proposition than Intel/nVidia?

I'm not even insulting your competence for building systems, but you are. That is not good to take you seriously.

Also, can you try MP while streaming with your 455? Let me know how it goes.

Cheers!
 



You would think with the sheer number of AMD fans out there, the company would be doing better... Maybe they just all hang out on Toms.

On a more serious note, I'd really like someone to explain this one. No matter how optimized the software is, these consoles aren't going to magically render games 3 years from now in 1080 when they (well really just one of them) can barely do it now.

Also, consider the additional costs of ownership. The monthly or yearly fees to XBL or PSN combined with the additional cost of games goes a long way to offset the already marginal price advantage of the consoles.

 


Maybe the rewards program is costing more than its making?
http://myamdrewards.amd.com/amd-rewards-app/bhub/default/show?page=landing
 


That last one is a good point, but it should be close to what upgrading components on your PC is. I would think a GPU is around 3 years of XBL Gold? A lot less if you go for an upper or mid-up GPU. So the "long term costs" are near for both platforms.

And the hardware doesn't change, but the coding practices for the dev teams do. I won't argue in favor of the HW that the PS4 or XB1 sport (i don't like it that much either), but 1st year games usually don't exploit 100% of the Console's capabilities. Now... I wonder how much margin is left though. BF seemed to exploit a lot of the potential right of the bat, so I would expect little variance in favor of performance down the road.

Remember as well that most studios are just trying to make their engines more parallel to load all 6+ cores they can use.

Cheers!
 


I covered that already...in fact it's in the quote you used. Also, you're wrong about component tax except for a couple states (e.g. newegg is taxed in california). For the vast majority of people there is NO tax on online ordering.



Hey, I tried to be nice in the first post (well, nice for me anyway). Sorry if you took offense. You insisted that your skills didn't need work, which implies you thought your system was about the best you can get for $500....

You're the one putting part restrictions on ...I simply said a $500 PC outperforms consoles, and I have proven that. Notice I didn't blast the I3...the I3 itself is fine, though a 6300 is better for the same price. You *could* have used a GTX 650 ti boost or 660...but you picked a terrible Nvidia card.

...as far as the RAM, a small boost is a small boost.The funny part is you quoted $88 for 8gb 1333...when gskill 1600 mhz 8gb was available for $50...without rebate. Really, almost al lyour quoted prices were ridiculous. You can easily put together a $500 system with an I3 and a 650 ti boost or 660.

In Bf4 multiplayer, the framerates do go lower...but that happens on consoles as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom