Which is better Console or PC ?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



coolmovies
Is it better playing games on a console or on a PC ?? Games consoles have been coming out for years and the only new change for a pc is the windows (e.g xp vista)

General Kaliero
You have opened a can of nitroglycerin worms.

I think I should point out right now that if this thread devolves into flaming, it will be closed. Everyone play nice.

Smasandian
Both.

I love playing on my PC, I find that the PC games I play are more rewarding than anything on the console, but it has its limitations (price, and some games just dont work on the PC)

Console, has alot of games, relatively inexpensive (unless you want to go HD), and has a ton of great games.

Both have thier advantages and disadvantages. Both are great.

ragesRemorse
with a console i dont need to constantly keep my system upgraded or worry if my system specs will support the games software. I can also rent games. These two aspects alone make consoles more accessible and appealing to me.

Especially with the advent of online capabilities in the console world. I can acquire patches, specials and online competitiveness that used to be only available on PC's. The only edge i think PC gaming has over consoles anymore is the graphics (and this is relative most times anymore) and streamlined online capabilities. With the exception of few games, i really dont see that much of a glaring difference in graphics between consoles and PC's. Im sure this is because the 360 and PS3 hardware is relatively new. In a another year or two, im sure PC will be far beyond the 360 and PS3 capabilities, but by then there will be a new sony and microsoft system out.

Personally, i am solely an adventure, Fps, sports gamer. The very best games in these genre's are usually always found on the consoles anyway. I have no use for PC gaming...,and i have a mac now, so i couldnt go back to computer gaming if i wanted to. One other point, it always felt like a chore playing games on my PC, it was always an event and i always had to worry about lag because i couldnt afford a super computer

Blax_Hydralisk
If you want to be able to play all sorts of weird stuff in your games via mods and patches, would like to play games that usually have large servers (A lot of PC games have like 50+ players at one time.) and great graphics, yet are willing to spend literally thousands of dollars just to play games, go for the PC.

If you want to be able to just buy your game and play, at the cost of graphics (Console graphics are good but not s good as souped up computer graphics.) and versatility, then go for the Console.

Nowadays consoles are for the casual gamer.

Utrigita
I don't know if one is better then another, I will admit right away that I doesn't own a Console because I have never seen the need for one the Games that I want to play is buyable in a PC version.

And upgrading to a newer computer can be expensive, however I'm under the impression that it is just as expensive to have a console, in my country the PC-games for instance is cheaper then console versions.

But IMO it depends on what kind of gamer you are, and what fascinates you.

Smasandian
You dont need to spend thousands of dollars on a machine.

Yesh, over dramatic arent we?

You can easily by a great system for 1000 bucks nowadays. Maybe, a bit more if you have to buy a complete system from the ground up but once you get that, you can just upgrade whenever you need too.

Considering RAM, videocards and processers are getting cheap, its not that much of a difference. People though use extreme examples of why console is cheaper but not everybody wants, or needs an quad core 3ghz, 4 gb or ram, 2 videocards to play games. In two years, you'll see that medium quality graphics in most PC games will look alot better than the consoles.

coolmovies
The games are much cheaper on PC plus i can do other work on a PC e.g office work or surfing. Console is only for playing games. Are the graphics for a PC game good as the xbox 360 ?? I think a good PC needs a good graphics card right ?

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by Smasandian
You dont need to spend thousands of dollars on a machine.

Yesh, over dramatic arent we?



I spent 1900 bucks to fully upgrade my computer erm

Furion
PCs pwn Consoles for 1 reason: Games like Star Craft, War Craft and other games like that. oh and WoW >>>>>>>>>>>> Every Multiplayer Console game.

Utrigita
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I spent 1900 bucks to fully upgrade my computer erm

To upgrade it yes. But how long will it then take before you need to upgrade it again... I have had a old computer until recently, I only bought a graphic card and that computer I used for four years, it's about how high level of detail you want, I on my part is perfectly happy with medium settings 1024x768, that fine by me. But if the highest level of detail constantly is required to get pleasure from playing a game then I have no doubt that PC is the most expensive.

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by Furion
PCs pwn Consoles for 1 reason: Games like Star Craft, War Craft and other games like that. oh and WoW >>>>>>>>>>>> Every Multiplayer Console game.

WoW is one of the worst video games I have ever played in my life, wtf are you talking about?

The only game on your list i like is Starcraft. tis' were my own username comes from.

Furion
WoW is where the noobs live. Noobs = Great Game. WoW >>>>>>>> All other Multigames.

Burning thought
this thread has an obvious answer...cash

if your on a fairly low paid job, dont get much cash flow, the Consoles are an obvious and fairly good piece of hardware

but if youve got the cash then a PC can beat a console in alsmost every way, speed, capabilities, uses etc etc, for gaming PC if youve got the cash, overall PC is better by far, cash or not but yeh

imo a lot of the best games come on PC in the end anyway and often with additions

Smasandian
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I spent 1900 bucks to fully upgrade my computer erm

Yeah, well you dont need to.

I'm spending a shitload because I want too.

But if you live in the States, you can easily upgrade a computer, or fully build one for $1100. According to PC gamer, an e6700 Duo, 2gb of ddr-800, 250GB HD, and a 8800 GTX 768MB videocard is $1166.

That's a sweet system and can play any PC game on high settings outside of Crysis.

Utrigita
Originally posted by Smasandian
But if you live in the States, you can easily upgrade a computer, or fully build one for $1100. According to PC gamer, an e6700 Duo, 2gb of ddr-800, 250GB HD, and a 8800 GTX 768MB videocard is $1166.

That's a sweet system and can play any PC game on high settings outside of Crysis.

Impressive setup, what about the Ram what company produce them, kingston Corsair??? and what motherboard

ESB -1138
Originally posted by coolmovies
Is it better playing games on a console or on a PC ?? Games consoles have been coming out for years and the only new change for a pc is the windows (e.g xp vista)

Consoles can't get viruses so that's a plus for consoles.

Smasandian
Corsair Ram, and Asus P5N-E SLI, onboard audio though.

My system that I'm looking to get built from a local shop is probalby going to have, or in the area of.

Intel QX9650, Antec Nine Hundred Case, X-Fi Extreme (hate onboard audio), OCZ DDR-2 PC2-6400 Reaper Edition, ASUS SKT. 775 NF 680I, OCZ GameXStream (or Pro) 700W, WD Digital Raptor 150GB, and 250GB 7,200 HD, and 2 BFG's 8800 GT's 512MB, or if they dont have them in for awhile, 2 BGG's 8800 GTS 512MB and Vista Premium 64Bit Edition.

Somewhere in that area. I'm not too good with Mobo's so I dont know if that one is going to be alright with it, probably ask to see if it will be good, but overall with tax $3300 (without system fee)

Burning thought
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Consoles can't get viruses so that's a plus for consoles.

not really, i mean they can sorta get viruses, they can break, they can still go wrong, design flaws and what not, their still a system, although simple system, they can break and are often better to buy a new one if your old one breaks coz their not the best to fix

Bicnarok
PC.

Better graphics, sound, upgrade possibilities, cheating, copying, selection of pads/joystick, online code etc..

Plus you can do other things on a PC as well.

grey fox
They both have pros and cons.


Pc - Better Graphics
Wide range of unique add-ons (Patches, Mods ect)
Better control (Certain cases)

Console - Cheaper
Simpler to understand
Wider Variety of games

Ect...

General Kaliero
Both have their pros and cons. The PC has superior graphics and customization, at the cost of high prices. You can constantly upgrade a computer to stay top of the line, whereas consoles stay essentially the same for their 5-7 year lifespan.

Consoles have lower graphics capabilities, but for a lower cost (generally). You also never have to worry about compatibility issues so long as you remember which console you own. Upkeep is generally easier, and thus far console owners haven't had to worry about viruses. And of course, there are flagship titles you'll get on a certain console and nowhere else.

Lana
I have to go with consoles because I can't afford to keep my computer upgraded, and there's just very few games available on the PC that I am interested. Consoles have the stuff I like. I think there's like...one game for the PC out right now that I want that I can't get for my PS2 or 360.

But, really, it's just one of those things that comes down to personal opinion.

Morridini
For me I prefer consoles for most genres, however.
I prefer to play RTS games on the PC, as well as MMO games, also games where the multiplayer is better the more people are playing. Like Battlefield 2, I would only play that on a console if they also could have 32 vs 32 matches on huge maps.
So to sum up:
PC - RTS and big multiplayer games
Console - the rest

Smasandian
I dont really know how you can use viruses as an example of con for PC gaming considered most people have a computer anyways and if they do alot of PC gaming they would use for everything else, unlike a console.

I dont have a problem spending alot of money every 4 years or so to buy, or overhaul a system when I use my system pretty much 24/7, while my Wii and 360 is just for gaming, if no games are released they just sit there and collect dust.

But I agree with Lana, its more of an opinion and alot of times that opinion is based on how much money you make a work.

BackFire
Depends on the genre and how much money you have available to spend.

RTS, FPS and hack and slash RPG's are generally better for the PC.

Everything else is generally better for consoles.

((The_Anomaly))
I really cant stand to have to upgrade constantly in order to play each new "1337" PC game that comes out. Plus I HATE playing with a keyboard. I'm a console gamer, never have and never will be a PC gamer, with the exception of Star Craft of course.

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah, well you dont need to.

I'm spending a shitload because I want too.

But if you live in the States, you can easily upgrade a computer, or fully build one for $1100. According to PC gamer, an e6700 Duo, 2gb of ddr-800, 250GB HD, and a 8800 GTX 768MB videocard is $1166.

That's a sweet system and can play any PC game on high settings outside of Crysis.

Do you realize that 1100$ is a lot of a money to a lot of people? You sith there and say it's only 1100 bucks without flinching. A lot of people aren't so dedicated and can't afford to randomly go blow upwards a thosuand dollars just to play some video games.

As I said the PC is for the hardcore gamer, not casual.

Smasandian
Understandable, but I'm just commenting on how you say that you dont need to spend thousands of dollars to play PC games, and I just said you dont need to spend that much cash to play PC. That was for a midrange system, there is another one that he has for $500 bucks that could easily play most games.

Another thing is that if you use a computers alot, an extra $500 bucks to add in a decent processor, RAM and videocard is the same price for a console nowadays. You need a computer, you spend $500 bucks on a computer used for the Net, Word and other things, but if you want to play games on it too, well, there's an extra $500 bucks to upgrade to play games and play games at really good settings too. That's the same price as a console, or even less if your talking about the PS3 when it was first released.

Another thing, if everybody wants to play console games at the top quality well, if you dont have an HDTV, well, there
s $1500 for both (if you want to go cheap).

And PC games are not just for hardcore gamers, thats a misunderstanding. The most popular games in terms of sales have always been PC games and those are generally casual games anyways. The Sims, WOW and others are for casual gamers and they have amazing sales. So both console and PC are hardcore, or casual. I would actually think that most console games are meant for hardcore players than PC games, we just tend to dwell on high end games like Crysis, the Dooms and the Half Lifes.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Smasandian
I dont have a problem spending alot of money every 4 years or so to buy, or overhaul a system when I use my system pretty much 24/7, while my Wii and 360 is just for gaming, if no games are released they just sit there and collect dust.

I use my Wii pretty much 24/7 and not just for playing games but also browsing the net...but now I'm no the PC. 360 is collecting dust...I haven't touched it since Halo 3 came out but my Wii is an everyday thing. I perfer the Wii because well unlike a PC to play the best game (with best graphics) I don't need to spend money for updates on the Wii. Moment I got Galaxy I was ready to play it. When I got Battle for Middle-Earth II for the PC...I basically couldn't play it on the lowest setting so I got a new PC.

Really it comes down to the owner. I wish Nintendo would release a keyboard attachment for the Wii to make typing easier but hey what can I do? Plus it comes down also to the games.

Smasandian
Well, it always comes down the games.

I think that's main turning point on who likes what.
I just think people are exaggerating how much and how many times you NEED to upgrade your computer.

@st
Not gonna say which one is "better", there is no definitive answer. But I prefer the consoles, always have and always will. One big strike on PC is the price of course.


Reasons for console include playing on my tv, which i understand PCs do as well, but i dont want to do every day PC stuff on my tv. I prefer the controller to the mouse and keyboard, especially the 360 controller which I think is the best controller to date. I like that consoles dont have to worry about performance, atleast if the developer does there job. I like just popping in the disk instead of installing cd after cd.

I think the setup for the xbox 360 is just perfect, xbox live, the media stuff, everything is just setup easily to use. My 360 and PS3 have become my entertainment centers, they play my movies, my games, my pics, and my music.

Smasandian
That's one thing I absolutely hate is that if the game doesnt work on your console, its pretty much ****ed and hopefully you can get your money back if its a disc issue, but if it isnt, well, your screwed until the developers decided to patch your game through XBOX Live.

Atleast with the PC, if the game doesnt work, well, there's alot of people out there that find out how to fix that game and usually companies release patches as soon as possible.

MadMel
i dont mind both...both have their advantages/disadvanages and using them both cancels the disadvantages out, exept for prices, of course erm

Spidervlad
If your going to play Graphic powerhouses such as Crysis or Bioshock on comp, sure, you'll have to spend a good amount of cash on computer upgrade. Games such as Guild Wars, World of Warcraft, and etc aren't demanding in graphics, yet they are one of the most popular games out there.

I play both. I find playing on a console somewhat smoother since I know that I will be up to date on technology for the next five years, and added to that althought consoles have problems too, the computer has much bigger variety of glitches. Sure, a red ring of death may come up once in a while, but I rather get a red ring of death and send my Xbox for repair for a week or two instead of spending sleepless nights trying to understand why the hell my computer is trying to sell me viagra, or to understand which software installed on my computer is crashing this game back to desktop althought all my hardware requirements meet it.

I can't favor one over the other, in controls I favor the computer by alot, and by it's compatibility with all the gear sold out, with all the jacks and plugs, and the creative patch and mod communities out there for nearly every game. The graphics and speed are higher for a full upgraded computer, but I find the console to be a tad less frustrating.

Burning thought

coolmovies
But people with consols can make the most of it becouse they have a Big HD tv screen where as we only have a small monitar

Burning thought
who has a small monitor? you can have massive things for TVs, and you can use a big screen if you really wanted to for your gaming, personally i wouldnt prefer to have a big screen somtimes for my monitor, basically because you need to be looking at the whole thing and id prob get eye twicthiness or ache if i tried to look at my big screen for as long as i want to play my games

my monitor is only small but i enjoy it still

((The_Anomaly))
Originally posted by coolmovies
But people with consols can make the most of it becouse they have a Big HD tv screen where as we only have a small monitar

You realise that you can get like 26 inch HD monitars for a decent price now right? And that you can hook your PC up to a 50 inch HDTV if you wanted. That's not really an issue anymore.

Smasandian
And that your alot closer to the screen than the TV.

I always felt that I get a better experience and I feel in a strange sense more involved with the game I'm playing on the PC than the console just because I'm alot closer to the screen.

When I play scary games, I always get freaked out by the PC one, than the console.

((The_Anomaly))
Yea that makes sense I suppose. I never play any PC games unless I'm at a friends house, the only game I play at home is StarCraft which isn't scary at all lol. Needless to say Doom 3 scared the living sh!t outta me when I played it on my friends PC a few years back, granted I was high as hell, but it was still much scarier then anything I've played on my TV. stick out tongue

Smasandian
Hahahah...yeah, I was freaked out by Doom 3 also.

That scene in the bathroom man.....
One my scariest moments was AVP2 and turning on the security systems. I was so freaked about that.

DarkC
PC, although a lot of consoles are starting to have excellent features too. Nothing beats a tank PC.

Burning thought
Originally posted by Smasandian
And that your alot closer to the screen than the TV.

I always felt that I get a better experience and I feel in a strange sense more involved with the game I'm playing on the PC than the console just because I'm alot closer to the screen.

When I play scary games, I always get freaked out by the PC one, than the console.

amen to that, when ime sitting on my sofa, feet up, controller in my hand and about a few feet away from the television screen, whats to be afraid off? i mean okie i give it to ya if you were home alone, turned off the lights in a creepy creeky building it would scare the bejeezus out of me but hell

so a can a PC normally, my rooms pretty dark and can get darker, i like it dark in my room so i dont get too much bright light on the screen messes it up and makes it hard to see, creeping about in Doom 3 with nothing but your flashlight, and everything around you in your own room is as dark as the screen, now thats immersion on a level you cant get on a playsation or not as likely to get, theres something about the PC that makes it diffrent, also having my hand on my mouse, and anotheron the keyboard also makes me feel more imersed for some reason, taping a few buttons on a hand set ime secured onto with both hands cannot be as creepy as having your hands far away from eachother, even your hands will get lonely and creeped out, i find my mouse is sliding more and more towards my keyboard

ESB -1138
Are yall joking? Doom 3 was anything but scary. It had stale storytelling techniques, repetitive gameplay, similar level design, and no innovation at all plus the same cliche moments.

The only game that ever made me sit on edge was Eternal Darkness on the Gamecube.

Smasandian
No we're not.

I thought it was scary. You didnt, so I guess you have bigger balls than I do.

I do agree that the game wasnt that special but I would disagree with you on the storytelling aspect of that, it was pretty good in my opinion. Level design and gameplay though got old pretty quickly. Another example of a game trying to be more than 12 hours when it should be only 12 hours.

BackFire
Doom 3 had a great atmosphere. The station really felt quite alive and plausible.

Utrigita
Originally posted by Smasandian
Corsair Ram, and Asus P5N-E SLI, onboard audio though.

My system that I'm looking to get built from a local shop is probalby going to have, or in the area of.

Intel QX9650, Antec Nine Hundred Case, X-Fi Extreme (hate onboard audio), OCZ DDR-2 PC2-6400 Reaper Edition, ASUS SKT. 775 NF 680I, OCZ GameXStream (or Pro) 700W, WD Digital Raptor 150GB, and 250GB 7,200 HD, and 2 BFG's 8800 GT's 512MB, or if they dont have them in for awhile, 2 BGG's 8800 GTS 512MB and Vista Premium 64Bit Edition.

Somewhere in that area. I'm not too good with Mobo's so I dont know if that one is going to be alright with it, probably ask to see if it will be good, but overall with tax $3300 (without system fee)

Nice computer for a small amount.

The computer you are buying there friend is insane, but why doesn't you buy 8800 GTX ore Ultra in SLI when you are determind to make a killer computer???

Burning thought
Originally posted by Smasandian
No we're not.

I thought it was scary. You didnt, so I guess you have bigger balls than I do.

I do agree that the game wasnt that special but I would disagree with you on the storytelling aspect of that, it was pretty good in my opinion. Level design and gameplay though got old pretty quickly. Another example of a game trying to be more than 12 hours when it should be only 12 hours.


not neccerily, he probably just runs and hides at other things like Mario blocks chasing him and technicolored characters

Smasandian
Originally posted by Utrigita
Nice computer for a small amount.

The computer you are buying there friend is insane, but why doesn't you buy 8800 GTX ore Ultra in SLI when you are determind to make a killer computer???

Because that would be around 1400 bucks instead of 600. I do have an budget its around $3500. Even though the GTX and Ultra in SLI are the best, I cant afford two of them, but I could afford one of them but 8800 GT's and GTS 512 in SLI are cheaper and offer higher performance gains. Its not really worth while to get an GTX or Ultra in single card anymore.

Utrigita
Originally posted by Smasandian
Because that would be around 1400 bucks instead of 600. I do have an budget its around $3500. Even though the GTX and Ultra in SLI are the best, I cant afford two of them, but I could afford one of them but 8800 GT's and GTS 512 in SLI are cheaper and offer higher performance gains. Its not really worth while to get an GTX or Ultra in single card anymore.

Okay I just thought that maybe you wanted to go all the way if you where already in that amount of money. smile

Agreed with the last part.

Smasandian
Nah, too much.

Fiance gave me $3500 budget.

BackFire
Dude don't spend 3500 right now. Spend like 1500 now and get a totally solid computer, and then upgrade what you need at a later date when the next gen of video cards come out later this year.

Burning thought

Neo Darkhalen
Both, but for me I always like playing on a console more.

Smasandian
Originally posted by BackFire
Dude don't spend 3500 right now. Spend like 1500 now and get a totally solid computer, and then upgrade what you need at a later date when the next gen of video cards come out later this year.

I cant.

It's either now, or never. Also, there always going to be a new set of videocards coming out in the near future. 8800 GT's are some of the best cards available for $300 or less.

I would agree if I was getting GTX, or the Ultra but for the GT's, I'm not going to wait.

The only thing I could wait for is the new 780sli motherboards that support DDR3, PCI express 2.0, but I have no idea when those are going to be releases.

InnerRise
Consoles are better in my Opinion.

More accessible and overall a cheaper investment.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

BackFire
Originally posted by Smasandian
I cant.

It's either now, or never. Also, there always going to be a new set of videocards coming out in the near future. 8800 GT's are some of the best cards available for $300 or less.

I would agree if I was getting GTX, or the Ultra but for the GT's, I'm not going to wait.

The only thing I could wait for is the new 780sli motherboards that support DDR3, PCI express 2.0, but I have no idea when those are going to be releases.

Why is it now or never?

Morridini
Possibly it's something to do with his fiance allowing it now. Priorities might change come wife, kids etc etc. Or that's just a guess.

BackFire
If the money's going to be spent, it wouldn't matter when.

Smasandian
Yeah, it does.

In a year, when I'm in school again, cash is tight and I wont be allowed to get a computer when I dont really need one at that time.

If we dont spend it now, but in Nov when we might need the money, other things will be a priority.

But in reality, those two cards I was looking at have been just released, the processor is using a new Interl core and other compenents will be the same price in a few months. Might as well just get it now.

theburningSKULL
Im more a console guy. i love the shooters like The Orange Box and stuff on the comp, but i like a controller rather than keyboard and mouse

BackFire
Errr, that makes no sense, man.

If you spend all the money now, it won't make cash less tight later. And spending it later won't make it any more tight. Either way, the money will be spent on the computer, all the same.

I mean, $3500 is an assload of money to spend on a computer. And you could still get a great computer, with an 8800 graphics card and a quad core processor now for about $2k, and then in a year or so upgrade to the next generation of graphics card, so that you can run Crysis and shit at the very best settings (no graphics cards out right now can, even in Sli mode they struggle at 'very high settings').

After all, the first generation of graphics cards for a new Dx model are always the weakest ones in relation to the jump in performance. The next gen ones will probably be excellent and run DX10 games like butter, and those would be able to last a good few years. If you get an 8800 now, the card will run games right now really well, and games that are on the horizen, but in a year you may be back where you started. Where as if you saved simply 500 or 600 bucks, you could upgrade again and be set.

What are you planning on buying for $3500 now? Does that budget include a new 28" monitor as well? If so, that's understandable.

Smasandian
It's more that there is priorities and the future wife in a years time might use that money for something else and not the computer, so I have to get it now because she might change her mind in Novemeber.

I totally disagree with you. A system at $3500 is going to cost the same if you buy an $2000 system and then upgrade everything again in a years time. I would think it would cost more. You only save the money at the start but in the end, you still pay the $500-600 that you saved. There will always be next cards, processors and such coming out in the near future every year. The cards that are out are awesome. 8800 GT and 8800 GTS are in the $250-350 range. Those are the 3rd and 4th best cards in the market in terms of performance. This doesnt really matter considering if I do what you said, I'll probably get these cards anyways because they offer the best price/performance ratio. I'm going SLI because I want to and two cards are cheaper in price but provide much better performance then one single 8800 GTX.

But in my opinion, you cant wait for new high end videocard because when your going to get the videocard in a years time, it wont go down in price, and there will be another new videocard on the horizon and then you just wasted a whole year waiting for a new videocard for no reason. Especially considering what you described about the first generation cards dont do so well then the second generaton is more about the drivers than the physical card itself. Also, there is always a brand new game that is being made that will push the card you were looking at to its limits.

The only time I would wait is when there is actually new type of hardware like PCI Express 2.0, or when card went over to PCI Express from AGP.


The system I was thinking at is written down a page or two ago. The actually price of the computer was around 3000 but with tax, its around 3300

BackFire
Yes, you're right, you absolutely won't save money by doing what I described, that wasn't what I was getting at. You'll spend $3500 either way on the computer, my point was that by splitting the cost and spending like $2k or $2.5k now and then spending another 1k later, you'd stretch out the lifespan of that money.

For instance, you spend $3.5k now all at once, you get an amazing computer, but in about a year, or a year-and-a-half, maybe two years at the very most, you'll need to upgrade again, the graphics card/s specifically, so that will end up being about a year and a half that that $3500 bought you before needing to upgrade again.

Doing what I describe; that is, don't wait to buy a new computer, do it, but don't blow your load all at once; will get you an excellent computer for $2.5k (which I would suggest you do by getting a more modest CPU, as any quad-core that you get will last a good long while, and the difference between the highest end CPU's like the one you listed, and the midrange ones are very very small when it comes to games, and also perhaps not going sli with this system unless you plan on playing on a big screen) and that will last a year or so, and then when that year comes, spend that extra $1k on the new equivalent to the 8800, and get THAT sli. Now with that upgrade that would push your system ahead strong for another year or year and a half, meaning that that same $3500 would last 2.5 years instead of 1.5/2 years.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the system you're planning on getting is excellent, the only thing that would probably need upgrading anytime soon would be the video cards, so either way it's going to be a good purchase. I'm just suggesting this because I think this way you could get more out of your money in the long run.

Then again, if your gf may take away your money later (whos money is being used to buy this, anyways?), then yeah, you're kinda out of options, heh.

But, moving away from my prior suggestion, if I may, I would suggest not spending so much on the CPU anyways, instead, get the very top end Graphics cards and get a cheaper quad-core CPU, as the CPU is not as important for gaming and won't need to be upgraded for a good long while regardless of the specific one you get, just so long as it's quad core.

bodach
I like them both equally.

If I had a better computer, no doubt I'd prefer to play games on it, but since my computer sucks ass, my XBOX owns it from a performance stand-point.

Callan
Originally posted by BackFire
But, moving away from my prior suggestion, if I may, I would suggest not spending so much on the CPU anyways, instead, get the very top end Graphics cards and get a cheaper quad-core CPU, as the CPU is not as important for gaming and won't need to be upgraded for a good long while regardless of the specific one you get, just so long as it's quad core.
The decision to go quad core should be dependent on how frequently you plan on upgrading your computer. Right now, there are virtually no games that can take full advantage of quad cores. Developing multi-threaded games that do take advantage of them is a bit more difficult than developing just any old game, so we may not see such advancements until pretty far into the future (I'd wager at least three to four quarters). If can upgrade in about two year's time, then I'd suggest just getting a moderately priced dual core CPU, since it will handle games just as well as a quad core in this day and age.

Smasandian
It's a good idea and I can see where your going. The CPU is where I was on the fence about. I dont know if I was going to go that route or not.

The future wife is pretty much paying for it with roughly about $800 from me. She makes the most out of both so she agreed to buy a new computer (considering thats pretty much all I do) and gave me an $3500 budget. The funny thing is that she does not want to hear anything about computer upgrades after I get it so she rather have me spend that $3500 than what you describe. It might sound strange to you but thats pretty much the just of it.

It's in the budget that we have and if I only spend $2500, she'll probalby just spend the rest of it on the wedding, or a new coach and chair. I know its strange, but that's how she is.

But its not a bad thing, if you had a person who told you can get a computer at $3500, you would get what I'm thinking of getting?

BackFire
Oh ok, well if it's a gift from her, then yeah, I understand.

lol, and no it's definitely not a bad thing at all. It's awesome that she's buying you such an awesome computer.

As said, though, I think since it would primarily be a gaming computer, you should splurge on the video card department, rather than the CPU. You can still get a great quad-core CPU for less than half the price of the one you're planning on getting. The thing with those super high-end CPU's is the difference really doesn't justify the inflamed cost they carry, where as the very best GPU's kinda do, especially if you're going to go sli. Just something to consider.

Smasandian
It's going to be a last minute decision for that.

The high end videocard is the 8800 GTX, and Ultra and their still the powerhouses but are not a good buy now because the 8800 GT's, and 8800 GTS 512 are newer, support new features and are very close in performance that the price point is the sweet spot for performance. If you look at the charts, those two videocards are slightly less powerful. It also helps that the GTS 512 (most confusing name for a card considering there is lesser version called the 8800 GTS 640MB that perfroms alot less) is the first PCI Express 2.0 card.

It also doesnt help that the 8800 GTX, Ultra are the first generation cards while the 8800 GT's are the second generation and Nvidea hasnt released info on the successors of extreme high end cards. There is been talk that company might not release $700 cards and up because there midrange cards are so good and people rather buy those and not the highend.

BackFire
Good points.

When exactly are you planning on buying this computer? Because Nvidia is supposed to be releasing their next high end cards within two months -- http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ0MCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

((The_Anomaly))
I honestly much prefer consoles. Yet my MOST awaited game is on PC, StarCraft II. Funny how that works. I'll be buying a new PC for SCII sometime by the end of the year. w00t!

Burning thought
its not funny works, its the console hype and love always getting to people!!! PC>>>>Console easily

Smasandian
Originally posted by BackFire
Good points.

When exactly are you planning on buying this computer? Because Nvidia is supposed to be releasing their next high end cards within two months -- http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ0MCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

Next week if all things go well. After reading that website, waiting for that would make sense but its not an essential. There basically shrinking it and they have a bit more performance but not what you would expect.

Thanks for the info anyways.

EvilAngel
PC's a better for certain games, Just as are consoles.

For example, i can't imagine using a console for an RTS is remotely easy or comfortable. However i can't picutre using a PC for a beat-em up either.

Since i mostly play RTS, MMO and FPS, PC is much better for me smile my puta has some good time left before i'll have to replace her:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor (2.4GHz, 1066MHz, 8MB cache)
2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 RAM 667MHz
500GB Serial ATA II 7200rpm hard drive
256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GTS graphics

BackFire
Originally posted by Smasandian
Next week if all things go well. After reading that website, waiting for that would make sense but its not an essential. There basically shrinking it and they have a bit more performance but not what you would expect.

Thanks for the info anyways.

Cool man, enjoy!

Smasandian
Oh I will. Here I come Crysis.

Smasandian
So Backfire, I took your advice actually. I realized your right when it came down to the processor.

So my final system before I talk to the store and finalize it is....

Antex 900 Case - good fan support and its only 110.00
Intel q6600 processor
WD Raptor 150GB
WD 500GB 16MB - read reviews and a pretty decent second HD for only 90 something
4GB of OCZ DDR2 PC2-8500 Reaper Edition (might go to the lower one)
ASUS SKT.775 NVidia NF780i ATX (brand spanking new and supports high end RAM of the DDR2, PCI Express 2.0, and Triple SLI if the ever gets going, basically paid a bit more so its easier to upgrade later on, only complaint is that it doesnt support 1600mhz FSB for upcoming processors)
2x BGF 8800GT's overclocked editions
X-Fi Extreme Gamer
PC Power and Cooling Silencer 750 Quad power supply
and Windows Vista 64bit edition.

For a total of 2600 bucks, including tax. I think I did pretty well.

My only worry is getting the 64bit Vista but I know that sooner or later, most games will be using the 64bit edition and I know for a fact that Crysis runs better using that version.

PC Gamer did a edition about building a new computer and they used basically the same stuff and they got 51FPS at medium settings in Crysis at 1600x1200, while dropping the resolution to 1280x1024 got them 43 FPS at high settings. So I'm figuring with two videocards I will be able to get around 47 FPS at high using that resolution. That's damn good considering Crysis runs really smooth from what I heared.

Callan
I wouldn't worry about getting Vista x64. Its 32-bit emulation is good enough to run most current programs and, as you said, the industry will move towards 64-bit in the upcoming years.

Also, do you plan on overclocking your processor? If so, I'd recommend an aftermarket cooler.

And if you can wait a month or so, you might be able to get a brand new Q9300 Quad Core processor from Intel. Stock speed of 2.5GHz at comparable pricing to the Q6600. The biggest sell is probably the new 45nm manufacturing process, meaning that it's more efficient and will run cooler than the Q6600, which uses the 65nm process.

P23
i just started using my pc for games and im still new to it. but the pc does have more to offer for games. on the other hand if your use to video game controllers than roll with that. both options bring good status regardless.

theburningSKULL
Originally posted by EvilAngel
PC's a better for certain games, Just as are consoles.

agreed!

BackFire
Originally posted by Smasandian
So Backfire, I took your advice actually. I realized your right when it came down to the processor.

So my final system before I talk to the store and finalize it is....

Antex 900 Case - good fan support and its only 110.00
Intel q6600 processor
WD Raptor 150GB
WD 500GB 16MB - read reviews and a pretty decent second HD for only 90 something
4GB of OCZ DDR2 PC2-8500 Reaper Edition (might go to the lower one)
ASUS SKT.775 NVidia NF780i ATX (brand spanking new and supports high end RAM of the DDR2, PCI Express 2.0, and Triple SLI if the ever gets going, basically paid a bit more so its easier to upgrade later on, only complaint is that it doesnt support 1600mhz FSB for upcoming processors)
2x BGF 8800GT's overclocked editions
X-Fi Extreme Gamer
PC Power and Cooling Silencer 750 Quad power supply
and Windows Vista 64bit edition.

For a total of 2600 bucks, including tax. I think I did pretty well.

My only worry is getting the 64bit Vista but I know that sooner or later, most games will be using the 64bit edition and I know for a fact that Crysis runs better using that version.

PC Gamer did a edition about building a new computer and they used basically the same stuff and they got 51FPS at medium settings in Crysis at 1600x1200, while dropping the resolution to 1280x1024 got them 43 FPS at high settings. So I'm figuring with two videocards I will be able to get around 47 FPS at high using that resolution. That's damn good considering Crysis runs really smooth from what I heared.

Sexy, man. Enjoy that beast, I envy you.

Smasandian
It's been awhile. It's being in the making for a year or so.

Callan, if the 64bit edition is going to be used sooner or later, wouldnt it be worth more to get that instead of getting the 32bit edition and replacing that later on?

Also, I heared that the 32bit doesnt recognize a system with more than 3GB's of ram.

Callan
Yes, it would make more sense to get the x64 version of Vista now, especially if you plan on getting more than 3GBs of RAM. smile

Have you given any thought to my processor suggestions?

Smasandian
I thought about it.

I dont know if I'm going to wait or not.

Smasandian
So I bought my computer today and it's being built, so I should get in a few days.

So my final system is.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz
Asus Nvidia NF780i ATX
OCZ 4GB DDR2 PC2-6400
2x BFG GF8800GTS 512 Overclocked DDR3 PCI Express 2.0
WD 150GB Raptor X
WD 500GB SATAII Cavier 16MB
LG DVD Burner 20x
Antec Nine Hundred Case
PC Power &Cooling Silencer 750
Creative X-FI Xtreme Gamer
MS Vista Home Premium 64 Bit

All that for $2551.53 tax included.

Personally, I think I didnt spend alot of money for it.

I will try to post benchmarks and hopefully (if I find out how to post photo's) post photo of crysis at what I play it at.

Only a couple more days....hehe.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.