What would it cost, right now, to beat the horsepower in an Xbox One or PlayStation 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The recommended specs for the pc versions of these next gen games will cause that mentioned setup of yours to fail in comparison.
Have you seen COD Ghosts pc recommended specs yet?
 
Qbert said:
Dude, a 3gig 7950 could be had right now at amazon for 270. Sure, 5 years from now, you won't be able to max out games that come out...5 years from now......BUT, neither will next gen console. If anything, next gen will start reducing resolutions and dumbing settings down to keep up.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you trust off brands who have a history of reliability issues. (in b4 RROD, an isolated issue well beyond the normal rate of defect for a console)

But yeah there are some OK 3GB card deals.. that don't push the price too much higher. Not a bad point, but definitely brings you beyond the $700 or so price a lot of people are throwing around, especially if you want a better brand.

And sometimes it's not about power or what's possible it's about what software is written. And especially early in a generation the PC doesn't always get the best support.

If a dev builds a game to really take advantage of 5-6GB of unified RAM on a console without bothering to really code very well for the much more variant balance PC cards have we COULD see some games suck on anything but high end PCs, even if "technically" an $800 2013 PC could run a better version of said game.. that better version isn't always written.

I'm hoping the "lazy port from console to PC" isn't as much of a factor this gen.. seems like we MIGHT avoid it.. but there are some differences that at least concern me and make it seem possible that some games might be missing features on PC unless you can nearly match the next gen consoles architecture advantages.
 
BunzHoles said:
Only if you buy cheap PC's though and never upgrade them.

The PC I just bought would pay for an entire generation of console gaming for someone even with extra controllers, online fees and plenty of games.
Click to expand...


Cheap does not necessarily mean bad. There are good AMD solutions out there that'll get you good performance for the buck (8150/8350 + 7950). You get 3 free games for just getting the GPU.

Ok, so say you get an xbox one and get 8 years out of it with no technical problems. $500 for console and $400 for xbox live. Already you're at $900 and that's without the hundreds you'd save on games. I'd rather pay the ballooned cost up front than follow the replacement razor model of gaming. My GTX 670, like you have, could last for years. Think about it, all the games in the first year of launch (BF4, Watch Dogs, Titanfall) will run better on the 670 than it will be on consoles.

Now, I'm going to upgrade in the future, I'm just greedy though. lol
 
What if you could play ps4 and xbox one games on a pc set up. You think everyone would ditch the consoles and build a 900 dollar pc?
 
Lucid Rifter said:
Cheap does not necessarily mean bad. There are good AMD solutions out there that'll get you good performance for the buck (8150/8350 + 7950). You get 3 free games for just getting the GPU.
Click to expand...


This.
I've never had issues with the pc parts I've purchased.
 
BunzHoles said:
If a dev builds a game to really take advantage of 5-6GB of unified RAM on a console without bothering to really code very well for the much more variant balance PC cards have we COULD see some games suck on anything but high end PCs, even if "technically" an $800 2013 PC could run a better version of said game.. that better version isn't always written.

I'm hoping the "lazy port from console to PC" isn't as much of a factor this gen.. seems like we MIGHT avoid it.. but there are some differences that at least concern me and make it seem possible that some games might be missing features on PC unless you can nearly match the next gen consoles architecture advantages.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the question of what would it take to build a pc that would beat a console. A poorly ported game doesn't make that more powerful pc any less powerful. I never understood why some people want to judge a pc by a game. It's like saying (at the time) that high end PCs weren't good enough because they struggled with GTA4. That's like me saying 360 wasn't good enough because it struggled with Two Worlds.
 
VaLLiancE said:
The recommended specs for the pc versions of these next gen games will cause that mentioned setup of yours to fail in comparison.
Have you seen COD Ghosts pc recommended specs yet?
Click to expand...


No, it won't. That pc will far exceed the recommended specs of Ghosts. Bet your right nut that Ghosts recommended specs won't be much higher.




Seriously....do you honestly believe it's going to take a pc much higher spec'd to play Ghosts than BF4? And guess what, why bring up Ghosts? You do know that Ghosts will be better on pc, right? The question is what would it take to beat next gen consoles.
 
Just for reference:
You can Ebay your GPU and save a ton.

PS4/XbOne have a 8 core tablet CPU AMD Jaguar, any desktop quadcore CPU on the market now is going to be faster.

PS4 has a GPU that's equal to a 7870, and Xbox One is equivalent to a 7790, those cards are less than 200 bucks. and even cheaper if you EBAY. You can get a GTX 580 for 180 bucks on Ebay that smashes both of those.

8GB of RAM costs maybe 70 dollars. you can get a mobo for like 70 as well, disc drive 10-15 bucks, 500GB HDD 40 bucks. Case, 20 bucks, This really can be all done for like 500 bucks and wait till I am done work and I will build you a PC that will smash next gen for 500 bucks.
 
Last edited:
So it's more expensive upfront, $250-$500 more expensive up front, but in the long run you may save because of game deals? Buying a lot of games at launch makes the saving not much though right? Aren't PC games at most $10 different from console games at launch? That's not that big of a difference but maybe over 7-8 years it would add up and even things off. The biggest benefit I guess would be the ability to upgrade the graphics card as I see fit but that adds costs and pushes the gap even further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kassen
Plainview said:
So it's more expensive upfront, $250-$500 more expensive up front, but in the long run you may save because of game deals? Buying a lot of games at launch makes the saving not much though right? Aren't PC games at most $10 different from console games at launch? That's not that big of a difference but maybe over 7-8 years it would add up and even things off. The biggest benefit I guess would be the ability to upgrade the graphics card as I see fit but that adds costs and pushes the gap even further.
Click to expand...


And pc games drop very quickly in price, making waiting more bearable.

In the end, chances are, you still pay more for console gaming, and it's for inferior visuals and quite often, performance as well.
 
Qbert said:
Exactly. Bring up Ghost's requirements has not bearing in this discussion....as it's not a apples to apples comparison, since Ghost WILL be better on pc.
Click to expand...

And PC requirements are way over rated, and every real PC gamer knows that. They also said they are using higher resolution textures on PC than next gen.
 
eVo7 said:
And PC requirements are way over rated, and every real PC gamer knows that. They also said they are using higher resolution textures on PC than next gen.
Click to expand...



Indeed. I was running BF4 beta at 1080p at mixture of medium/high/ultra settings, and was getting a modest 35-40 fps....but that was on a old quad core, 4 gig ram and a 660 gpu.

Outside of 20 fps difference in performance, I'm already running the game at better visuals than on next gen console.
 
Qbert said:
Indeed. I was running BF4 beta at 1080p at mixture of medium/high/ultra settings, and was getting a modest 35-40 fps....but that was on a old quad core, 4 gig ram and a 660 gpu.

Outside of 20 fps difference in performance, I'm already running the game at better visuals than on next gen console.
Click to expand...

The requirements for BF4 didn't even make sense, recommended was a 7870 and a 660 with 3GB of VRAM, seeing as only the 660 has the option of coming with 3GB of VRAM and that card wouldn't be able to take advantage of that 3GB of VRAM anyway. -_-
 
Qbert said:
No, it won't. That pc will far exceed the recommended specs of Ghosts. Bet your right nut that Ghosts recommended specs won't be much higher.




Seriously....do you honestly believe it's going to take a pc much higher spec'd to play Ghosts than BF4? And guess what, why bring up Ghosts? You do know that Ghosts will be better on pc, right? The question is what would it take to beat next gen consoles.
Click to expand...

I dunno but either do you.

As far as what would it take to beat them I will say something along the lines of a 7950 ge and a 8350 with 12gb of ram.
 
True.

I'm will to bet my right nut tht Ghosts won't require much to run either. I suspect it's a ploy to get people to upgrade.
 
VaLLiancE said:
I dunno but either do you.

As far as what would it take to beat them I will say something along the lines of a 7950 ge and a 8350 with 12gb of ram.
Click to expand...


12 gig of ram......nahhhhhhhhh. Based on what we're seeing, it's already been bested by lesser systems. I've yet to see anything on next gen that tops Crysis 3 ultra.
 
Qbert said:
Indeed. I was running BF4 beta at 1080p at mixture of medium/high/ultra settings, and was getting a modest 35-40 fps....but that was on a old quad core, 4 gig ram and a 660 gpu.

Outside of 20 fps difference in performance, I'm already running the game at better visuals than on next gen console.
Click to expand...

No your not (told u wouldnt on txb)and expect the retail to push the needed horsepower even more so.
You need more ram and a better cpu.
 
VaLLiancE said:
No your not (told u wouldnt on txb)and expect the retail to push the needed horsepower even more so.
You need more ram and a better cpu.
Click to expand...



Yes, I am. Do you really believe that next gen console at 720p not even ultra is going to look better than 1080p medium/high/ultra?

AND, i am going to get a new cpu/mobo/ram.....just waiting until next week to see what kind of performance I really get. For less than next gen console, I'll be upgrading my pc and beating out next gen console.
 
VaLLiancE said:
These consoles would run crysis 3 better then you as well.
Click to expand...



That's what you think. What's the best game you've seen visually for next gen console? I've yet to see anything better than Crysis 3.
 
Plainview said:
So it's more expensive upfront, $250-$500 more expensive up front, but in the long run you may save because of game deals? Buying a lot of games at launch makes the saving not much though right? Aren't PC games at most $10 different from console games at launch? That's not that big of a difference but maybe over 7-8 years it would add up and even things off. The biggest benefit I guess would be the ability to upgrade the graphics card as I see fit but that adds costs and pushes the gap even further.
Click to expand...
The game deals are what is intriguing to me. So much better on PC.
 
Qbert said:
Indeed. I was running BF4 beta at 1080p at mixture of medium/high/ultra settings, and was getting a modest 35-40 fps....but that was on a old quad core, 4 gig ram and a 660 gpu.

Outside of 20 fps difference in performance, I'm already running the game at better visuals than on next gen console.
Click to expand...

As drivers are optimized and the game is optimized I am sure you will be getting 60fps at the end of the day.
 
Qbert said:
That's what you think. What's the best game you've seen visually for next gen console? I've yet to see anything better than Crysis 3.
Click to expand...

The only thing we could even compare is Ryse, and Ryse is running 30 FPS and 900p at what I heard. You're system should be able to run Crysis on high at 1080p at more than 30fps or there abouts which is already better than what Ryse is doing.
 
eVo7 said:
As drivers are optimized and the game is optimized I am sure you will be getting 60fps at the end of the day.
Click to expand...



Yeah. I was told the same thing, that I wouldn't be able to run BF3 well back when I had a 560, and sure enough, at release, I was.
I was told I wouldn't be able to run C3 well on my 660, sure enough, I was. And I do have plans to upgrade, so that point is moot. Point is, what I will upgrade to, will easily beat next gen consoles.
 
You also have to remember that the beta was not optimized at all. You'll be good. CPU may be holding you back a bit but you should be able to get a better than console experience.
 
VaLLiancE said:
Not with his current setup he won't.
Click to expand...



DICE already said that we should be getting better performance out of the final release.



You also have to remember that the beta was not optimized at all. You'll be good. CPU may be holding you back a bit but you should be able to get a better than console experience.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I have no issues with running a game at 40 fps. Hell, I used to limit BF3 to 40 fps before I had my 660 and the game still ran buttery smooth. In the end, I'll still be running the game at 1080p with settings pretty darn high.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back