670
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
670 points (100.0% liked)
Steam
14826 readers
1 users here now
Steam is a video game digital distribution service by Valve.
Steam News | Steam Beta Client news
Useful tools:
SteamDB
SteamCharts
Issue tracker for Linux version of Steam
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Gaming PCs are almost universally faster and more powerful than any gaming consoles, no matter how flashy and prettily designed. (Hell, even mid tier PCs generally kick the ass of most consoles) So why the hell would a PC gamer downgrade their gaming experience by wasting their money on a console?
For me it's the paid multiplayer that ruins it.
Yeah that amazing people are paying extra to be able to use internet
I think that current-gen console gamers are becoming increasingly aware of the reason why consoles can still be competitive: quantity, optimization, and upscaling. It becomes very apparent when every AAA game ships with two graphics modes, performance and quality, which are usually just changes in internal resolution/upscaling, LoD, texture budget, and lighting/RT.
Purely in the perspective of gaming performance per dollar, the current-gen consoles just barely beat out mid to upper-mid range PCs, but factoring in all the other uses of a PC pushes the comparison in PC's favor.
Do they? Last time i checked decent pc was at least twice as expensive. Granted pc does have advantage in versatility but if you dont need it then consoles win. Also price to performance is flawed metrics. Ultimately the only thing that matters is that game works fine. And since they are targeted for consoles first usualy they do work on them good enough. Sure on pc they technicaly can have higher resolution or a bit more detail but it really doesnt matter that much in a grand scheme of things.
I think this is completely misguided. An equivalent GPU as in the ps5 is reportedly an RTX 5700 XT ~$200.
The RTX 4060 Ti ~$400 or RTX 3080 ~$450 is comparable if you want 4k gaming, but since most people don't have TV hardware suitable for 4k gaming it's a dumb comparison unless you include the $2000 TV in addition to the cost of the console. The TV alone compares the cost of a competent 4k PC rig before you consider the $500 console, multiplayer subscription cost and higher price of games so unless you're part of the niche that has a very high quality TV already, the claim that console gaming being cheaper seems mistaken.
Sure you can get a cheap 4k TV way less, but without a good refresh rate and response time it's not suitable for gaming. $2k may be high, I've not been in the market super recently but it's certainly wrong to say an entry level 4k Samsung from Costco is suitable for gaming, the response time isn't close to give the right experience. Same logic as setting graphics to 4k and playing at like 15 fps on a computer on a dog of a GPU.
A computer does need a monitor, and honestly a decent one does cost often upwards of $300, but smaller size without any of the bundled processors etc make it way cheaper than a TV that can do the same.
There is something to say about how well the storage is integrated into the PS5 in particular. The latency is much lower than PC storage generally is, even for m.2 NVMe. That probably isn't actually that large of an issue that the games using that couldn't work on PC, especially if you have a lot of RAM, which is even faster.
My $1000 home built machine from 10 years ago can run circles around the XBox One so I respectfully disagree.
That's with an AMD FX-8150 and 16 GB or Ram and a standard Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti running on an 8 year old Samsung solidstate.
Tflops is floating point math genius, and the FX-8150 gets around 8 of 'em so it's handling a huge chunk of it and offloading a lot of the finer details to the graphics card. Not even mentioning the added instruction sets. The Ryzen is handling both cause all the graphics is being run through the processor instead of through a card. So it's doing double duty. And yeah, ram makes up for a lot. There's also separate ram on the card so in addition the the 16 gigs of ram on board the mobo, there's 4 more gigs on the graphics board. Not to mention the vram running off the solid state. So I will happily put my 10+ year old machine right up against any and all the consoles and it will kick every one of their asses.
I said I respectfully disagree but you wanted to take it to the floor.
Edit: here's a spec sheet including the tflops on the Xbox one, one s, and one x.
Edit2edit: wrong GPU. Still, 2.1 beats the shit out of Xbox 1 and 1S at 2.1, and that's without the processor doing all the heavy lifting.