DF Titanfall BETA Tech Anlysis X1/PC
- Thread starter TeKPhaN
- Start date
Sorry but you don't need a 1000$ pc to run titanfall at 1080p 60 fps. That gpu pretty much just proved that. It's 150 dollars, what else are you spending all that money on in a pc? gpu is typically the most expensive part. You are definitely wrong.
2005 called, they want their hyperbole about PC prices back.
GTX 750ti $150
Case $30 (mid-tower)
CPU + Motherboard $300 (i5 4670k + average socket 1150 MB)
HDD $80 (1TB WD caviar black, twice as large and faster than X1 HDD)
OS $80
RAM $85 (8GB 1866)
PSU $100 (650w Corsair)
X360 Pad $30
Would you look at that, I can build a PC for under $900 WITH this GPU that will most certainly play TF better than the X1. Hell, it'll play most games better than the X1.
And those prices? Those are the ones I picked from the very first I saw on pcpartpicker. If I took even an hour to shop around I could probably shave another $100-200 off that.
So it's still $400 more than the X1, right?
I saved more than $400 buying my games on PC last year alone, let alone over the course of a 5-8 year console cycle.
So please, in the future do us all a favor and stop posting regarding something you've no clue about.
How about both of you look at the actual Gamespot article and look at the specs for the PC they used for the test and then tell me exactly where I misspoke.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Wow, please tell me more about these mystical computers. You saved $400? Wow.
I have a PC too.... I probably have just as many games as you on it, but this isn't what we're talking about here, are we?
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Wow, please tell me more about these mystical computers. You saved $400? Wow.
I have a PC too.... I probably have just as many games as you on it, but this isn't what we're talking about here, are we?
Last edited:
Of course it won't.You guys think Titanfall will look the same on the 360 as it does the X1? Why so?
It will be lower resolution, lower quality textures, reduced details, effects and geometry, and very likely a lower frame rate. That's not to say that Blue Point aren't capable of a very decent port, but it is guaranteed to not match the Xbox One version.
A loaded statement... a GTX 750 TI can't play Titanfall w/o a CPU/RAM/Motherboard/etc.
Still rather sad that $150 GPU's are all it takes GPU wise to outclass a next-gen console.
Really a better statement is that a $500 gaming PC could now really easily outpace an Xbox One.. at least on these launch games.
I don't mean to be hostile here, but did you even read my post before you and derp decided to respond?
I could analyze it word for word and be a condescending douche about it, but maybe just read it once or twice more and then get back to me on the "So please, in the future do us all a favor and stop posting regarding something you've no clue about."/"You are definitely wrong"-part.
Put lightly, you both missed the point. But go ahead and get defensive.
There's no way that graphics card runs Titanfall better than the X1.
You're probably going to need to build the rest of the PC around it.
Dude.....you can get cheaper graphics cards that can run Titanfall better than the xb1.
Like a 650ti
660....hell a 660 would max it out at 60fps or very close to it.
Those cards cost like 99-130 bucks...
But PC gamers have known that the next gen consoles 'graphics' would be behind....it is just disappointing to see the Xb1 struggling like this.
I don't mean to be hostile here, but did you even read my post before you and derp decided to respond?
I could analyze it word for word and be a condescending douche about it, but maybe just read it once or twice more and then get back to me on the "So please, in the future do us all a favor and stop posting regarding something you've no clue about."/"You are definitely wrong"-part.
Put lightly, you both missed the point. But go ahead and get defensive.
no no, let them keep having their LULZ at the 149$ GPU being so much better than the X1... soon they will read and see where you were coming from. well maybe... it might be more fun to LOL more for them
I don't mean to be hostile here, but did you even read my post before you and derp decided to respond?
I could analyze it word for word and be a condescending douche about it, but maybe just read it once or twice more and then get back to me on the "So please, in the future do us all a favor and stop posting regarding something you've no clue about."/"You are definitely wrong"-part.
Put lightly, you both missed the point. But go ahead and get defensive.
Maybe if you just come out and be clear about what you're saying instead of "read the article". I'm not going to bother fishing for an article in this thread, but rather responded to what you said.
You're refercing the cost of the pc with a $150 gpu, but that's neither here nor there, you can run a more expensive card on a sub 1k pc.
You're trying to make connection with cost using a budget gpu on an expensive pc, but the game isn't cpu intensive, so you could drop the cost of the other components....and still beat out the console.
Last edited:
no no, let them keep having their LULZ at the 149$ GPU being so much better than the X1... soon they will read and see where you were coming from. well maybe... it might be more fun to LOL more for them
Maybe if he was clear on his point.....
Well my point was that the PC that they used in the Gamespot article to test that GPU was absolutely a $1000+ PC. Probably around $1300-1400 with all the fixins', including this GPU. No hyperbole.
You two seemed to take that as me saying that "it takes $1k+++ to run the game better than console version!!". That wasn't my intention.
Come on man. wut?
You glanced at my post, saw $1000+ and PC and started responding.
He has a good point here people.
I'm playing the BETA on my old ass PC. A Q8200 quad core @2.3ghz. 4GB DDR2 and a 2GB ATI 6950. and I'm running 1080P with almost everything high except ragdoll and shadow detail ( can't tell a difference between high and medium).
I don't mean to be hostile here, but did you even read my post before you and derp decided to respond?
I could analyze it word for word and be a condescending douche about it, but maybe just read it once or twice more and then get back to me on the "So please, in the future do us all a favor and stop posting regarding something you've no clue about."/"You are definitely wrong"-part.
Put lightly, you both missed the point. But go ahead and get defensive.
But you are wrong. Who cares what pc they used in the article? that's not really important. You still don't need a 1000$ pc to max titanfall and run it better than the xb1.
And you seem to miss the point that DESPITE what pc gamespot was running, that you CAN run the game maxed on a MUCH cheaper pc.
YOU were to one to reference the pc they were using as if it was lol worthy to console gamers...like "but, but....lol, look at the price of all the other components, ignore that why don't you".
The lol is on you, because you don't need a 1k+ pc to max the game.
So, let me ask you....where's the lulz that you think is there?
Where's the lolz? The fact that they used a more expensive pc is not relevant, and the inclusion of "other" more expensive parts has not much of an effect on performance in relation to an XB1.
So maybe I should have done the word for word interpretation of my post.
The "lolz" was in reference to the people having a laugh about the Xbone being outperformed by a $150 GPU.
As for me mentioning that it was a $1000 PC, in context, I'm saying that you aren't looking at the entire picture. Bunz said it perfectly.
but it was outpferformed....kinda the point. The other costs of the pc IS NOT RELEVENT as you could reduce those costs, and STILL outperform TF on XB1.
See?
Let me throw the X1 version a bone...Because of the X1's better communication abilities and its better controller (Both IMO of course)
Id rather and am getting the X1 version at 1st.
Id rather and am getting the X1 version at 1st.
