This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

PC already cheaper than next-gen console, just for hardware

#91AgdistisPosted 11/4/2013 3:26:14 AM
AsucaHayashi posted...
and unless something like the majority of amiga games had actual console ports of equal quality, my argument still stands.


Never owned an Amiga. The Mega Drive had better arcade conversions and the SNES generally had better multiplats.

http://retro-sanctuary.com/Comparisons-Cool-Spot.html
http://retro-sanctuary.com/Comparisons-The-Lion-King.html
http://retro-sanctuary.com/Comparisons-Mortal-Kombat.html
---
http://backloggery.com/MajesticFantastc
#92DarkZV2Beta(Topic Creator)Posted 11/4/2013 3:41:55 AM
Rigby_Raccoon posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...

Of course it does. Games don't have access to those cores.
The GPU in this build is faster. Can you not read?
The CPU is a much faster desktop part. More than twice as fast in every respect. The RAM is effectively better as well, with dedicated video memory and more memory available to games.(actually, 6+2 is closer to next gen consoles.)

GBA runs linux.

No you aren't. You're whining that my superior-to-ps4 build is somehow magically inferior in spite of being better in every spec, and then getting your panties in a knot over it. Just calling it how it is, kiddo.


1. You can't properly format a post to save your life -_- I don't understand what half of your post is even saying because you screwed it up so bad. Really goes to show the intelligence level of the person I'm talking to.

2. You don't have better RAM just because you have the same amount, you have single channel GDDR3 RAM. That's inferior to dual channel GDDR5, even if 3GB is reserved for OS and 8 for gaming. Do you even know the difference between single and dual channel ram?

3. GBA isn't a console. Even if it was, I can't find anything to confirm that it has Linux, just something that about you can install Linux to a cartridge, as in an archaic form of Linux that's completely useless. But hey, I'm not surprised your mind equates 'Linux properly running on a gaming console' to 'you can get a s***ty, broken version of Linux to kinda work on a GBA with a special cartridge you have to make yourself.'

4. Dual channel and twice the HDD capacity isn't 'magically inferior.' They're objectively advantageous.

You've also got a really elementary understanding of how cores work in a CPU. Eight cores at the speed of the PS3 isn't functionally comparable to a six core processor like you have. 'Durrr it's 6+2 so it's close!' That's not how it works -_- at all.

And you say 'omg so what if the RAM and HDD aren't as good as they can be? it's equivalent to PS4!!!' then say 'so what if the CPU isn't equivalent? it's better!!!' you can't have it both ways with both of these without having a stupidly awkward f***ed up build. it's the kind of build someone who has never built a computer would put together. single channel ram? really? is it 2008 in here?


Typical of a peasant to blame the post for their own lack of understanding. Not my fault you can't read "to save your life".
Did you seriously just suggest that build has GDDR3? I could stop right here, because you've pretty much made every single thing you've said in this topic invalid with that. Thanks. :)
You should learn a bit about RAM. It's fun and interesting.
You can install Linux onto a toaster. Everything runs Linux. Ergo, every console can use Linux.
We're not talking about what could in theory be a better computer between the build in the OP and some theoretical (more expensive) build. This is a comparison to PS4.
You're right, it isn't functionally comparable because this 6 core blows PS4's 8-core out of the water. It's no contest. In fact, you can't buy a desktop CPU low-end enough to compete with PS4. Since there's more overhead, and PS4 is based off a pretty well documented part, we can draw some conclusions based on common sense and relative performance. I guess that's too hard for you to follow, though.
---
Even people have toenails. Of course PCs have toenails. -claytonbuckley
#93AsucaHayashiPosted 11/4/2013 5:44:14 AM
Agdistis posted...
AsucaHayashi posted...
and unless something like the majority of amiga games had actual console ports of equal quality, my argument still stands.


Never owned an Amiga. The Mega Drive had better arcade conversions and the SNES generally had better multiplats.

http://retro-sanctuary.com/Comparisons-Cool-Spot.html
http://retro-sanctuary.com/Comparisons-The-Lion-King.html
http://retro-sanctuary.com/Comparisons-Mortal-Kombat.html


"majority".

http://www.classicamiga.com/component/option,com_jreviews/Itemid,193/

there are 3k+ amiga games in all compared to the less-than-1k~ on each of the 3 consoles most of which don't have any amiga equivalent.
---
PC hardware doesn't need to match console hardware in price when PC gamers save literal thousands from the software they buy. http://www.steamgamesales.com/
#94El_ZaggyPosted 11/4/2013 7:34:03 AM
TheWayOfTheGun posted...
GrabacrLeader posted...
I'd rather buy a decade old PC than a "next-gen" console. Way more games, timeless PC gaming classics, emulators and no stupid paywalls.


I agree except when I think of timeless classics, I think of emulating console games. lol

PC has the LucasArts point and clicks and the Id games, That's about it. NES, SNES, PS1, N64, Dreamcast, and GC host the real classics.

PC exclusives are trash, just admit it. It sucks but it's reality.


classic pc game
civilization
sim city
x wings vs tie fighter
alone in the dark
warcraft 1-2
command and conquer
deus ex
Ultimas
Might and magics
grabriel knight
king's quests
TLJ
Maniac Mansion
Day of the tentacle
MDK
Myst 1-2
Prince of persia
Scorched earth
Syberia
Thief
Xcoms

And thats without even thinking a lot about the classic, I did not even searched in my head for them