PC Master Race debates heating up?
A lot more articles like these are popping up lately... and I can't help but wonder if this is commonplace historically, or if Sony and Microsoft both made a strategic error with their next gen gaming platforms.
When I say they may have made a strategic error, I AM NOT agreeing with these articles. The strategic error would be going with x86/64 based processors and AMD graphics. The error being that direct comparisons between console and PC hardware are a lot easier to draw. Even when they are invalid.
To explain, console hardware HAS NEVER had the edge over PC gaming hardware. NEVER! But, the arguments never got anywhere because historically consoles didn't use hardware that allowed for direct comparisons. Companies like NVidia and AMD weren't the suppliers of the GPUs and the entire processor architecture was completely different. So, while I do remember seeing the occasional report attempting to make the comparison, they rarely popped up and seemed to get as much attention as the PS4 and XB1 are getting. Amusingly of note, the Wii-U which is DRASTICALLY less powerful isn't mentioned in the title of the article. And, it wasn't even really comparatively any better when it launched either. BUT, the Wii-U isn't using chipsets you can find in traditional computers.
Buying a cheap gaming PC with better hardware than a PS4 or Xbox One is an idiotic idea. You are either being conned, or being influenced by idiots.
There are a few problems:
I'm not saying a gaming PC is a bad investment. But, if history has shown us anything, a new gen of consoles might not get replaced for the better part of a decade. To build a gaming PC today that will be able to handle console quality gaming titles even as much as 5 years from now means building a top of the line PC, which means forking out WAY more than $400-500.
The point? Don't bash the cost of consoles or waste people's time by telling them that they can build a better gaming PC for the same money. The link above actually built a rig for more than $600 and recommended killing the optical drive or scouring the web for deal to get it in under the price. Problem is, my Xbox One DOES have a Blu-Ray player AND I didn't need to invest hours/days/whatever scrounging for deals to get it at $500. So, from what I can tell, you can't even truly argue that you can build a comparable system for the same money.
If you want a gaming PC, buy a REAL gaming PC. It will put you back well over $1k but you'll probably love it and more than a console. But, if you just want to be able to play modern games with decent frame rates and resolutions for the next several years and are a little more cost conscious, you're better off buying a console.
And, the great part about console ownership... you know when it is outdated. Comparing one PC to the next is arduous task, but the second the next gen of consoles hits the shelves, you know have a year, maybe 2 of life left in your current system before you stop getting new modern games.
[update]
The article I referenced pointed to another article which claimed to be able to build a comparable system for $399 (actually less, $365 in the end I think). But, it omits an OS, which already makes it more expensive than a PS4 or Kinect-less XB1. So, already loses on the claim to be cheaper than a current gen console. And we haven't even dissected the hardware choices yet.
The case is huge, the PSU the article admits is loud, and again, there is no optical drive. It runs a quad-core instead of an Octa-Core processor. While the processor argument is weak since the 4.0GHZ is probably faster than the procs in the consoles and almost nothing uses that many cores, it could be factor later. The case and PSU noise mean that there are 2 potentially huge issues thinking about putting one of the under their TV. And the optical drive means it drops all attempts at hardware parity just to get in under budget. I don't actually own a Blu-Ray player and so my console is actually an integral part of my media experience. Also, by dropping hardware you ignore the possibility that the XB1 and PS4 could be cheaper if they too dropped that component.
The nail in the coffin is that in the last paragraph they admit that the setup doesn't actually beat out the performance of current gen console hardware.
So, it isn't actually cheaper since the OS pushes you over budget. It is bulkier and noisier and missing features AND for all those concessions, it STILL doesn't beat current gen consoles. I'm not sure at this point that I understand why EITHER article actually exists.
[/update]
When I say they may have made a strategic error, I AM NOT agreeing with these articles. The strategic error would be going with x86/64 based processors and AMD graphics. The error being that direct comparisons between console and PC hardware are a lot easier to draw. Even when they are invalid.
To explain, console hardware HAS NEVER had the edge over PC gaming hardware. NEVER! But, the arguments never got anywhere because historically consoles didn't use hardware that allowed for direct comparisons. Companies like NVidia and AMD weren't the suppliers of the GPUs and the entire processor architecture was completely different. So, while I do remember seeing the occasional report attempting to make the comparison, they rarely popped up and seemed to get as much attention as the PS4 and XB1 are getting. Amusingly of note, the Wii-U which is DRASTICALLY less powerful isn't mentioned in the title of the article. And, it wasn't even really comparatively any better when it launched either. BUT, the Wii-U isn't using chipsets you can find in traditional computers.
Buying a cheap gaming PC with better hardware than a PS4 or Xbox One is an idiotic idea. You are either being conned, or being influenced by idiots.
There are a few problems:
- The first is OS. Gaming consoles don't run with all of the bloat a full blown PC operating system runs. Even if all else was created equal the same game on the same specs as your console should run slower on your PC.
- Secondly, everything isn't equal. Drivers are next. On a PC drivers are constantly updated, but the same company also manages dozens of chipset across hundreds of variants and part of the reason for the frequent updates is that insufficient time is able to be dedicated to each chipset and variant. On a console, ALL consoles run the exact same chipset. All work on the platform is guaranteed to be dedicated to the same chipset you're using. So, once again, consoles will generally have better performing and more robust drivers.
- Hardware tweaks and optimizations come in next. Along the same lines as better driver support, knowing that the hardware in all consoles will be the same means things can be tweaked to a greater degree without worrying about weird configurations that might not work with certain optimizations.
- Second last is game level optimization. Like the last point... game developers can actually optimize their own code to take full advantage of hardware because they KNOW exactly what hardware the game will run on. This level optimization is COMPLETELY impossible on PC games. So, even if everything else could be written off, this point would mean the console version should again outperform a similarly spec'd PC.
- Last is dedication. Here that means, while a studio might make a game which pushes the boundaries, in the PC version they will just continue to ratchet up the required specs. But, often they don't want to miss out on selling to console gamers. So, they will break their backs tweaking the hell out of the game, or they may even gimp it in some fashion. But, until a new console comes out to replace you can guarantee that any new game for your console will run on the console you own.
I'm not saying a gaming PC is a bad investment. But, if history has shown us anything, a new gen of consoles might not get replaced for the better part of a decade. To build a gaming PC today that will be able to handle console quality gaming titles even as much as 5 years from now means building a top of the line PC, which means forking out WAY more than $400-500.
The point? Don't bash the cost of consoles or waste people's time by telling them that they can build a better gaming PC for the same money. The link above actually built a rig for more than $600 and recommended killing the optical drive or scouring the web for deal to get it in under the price. Problem is, my Xbox One DOES have a Blu-Ray player AND I didn't need to invest hours/days/whatever scrounging for deals to get it at $500. So, from what I can tell, you can't even truly argue that you can build a comparable system for the same money.
If you want a gaming PC, buy a REAL gaming PC. It will put you back well over $1k but you'll probably love it and more than a console. But, if you just want to be able to play modern games with decent frame rates and resolutions for the next several years and are a little more cost conscious, you're better off buying a console.
And, the great part about console ownership... you know when it is outdated. Comparing one PC to the next is arduous task, but the second the next gen of consoles hits the shelves, you know have a year, maybe 2 of life left in your current system before you stop getting new modern games.
[update]
The article I referenced pointed to another article which claimed to be able to build a comparable system for $399 (actually less, $365 in the end I think). But, it omits an OS, which already makes it more expensive than a PS4 or Kinect-less XB1. So, already loses on the claim to be cheaper than a current gen console. And we haven't even dissected the hardware choices yet.
The case is huge, the PSU the article admits is loud, and again, there is no optical drive. It runs a quad-core instead of an Octa-Core processor. While the processor argument is weak since the 4.0GHZ is probably faster than the procs in the consoles and almost nothing uses that many cores, it could be factor later. The case and PSU noise mean that there are 2 potentially huge issues thinking about putting one of the under their TV. And the optical drive means it drops all attempts at hardware parity just to get in under budget. I don't actually own a Blu-Ray player and so my console is actually an integral part of my media experience. Also, by dropping hardware you ignore the possibility that the XB1 and PS4 could be cheaper if they too dropped that component.
The nail in the coffin is that in the last paragraph they admit that the setup doesn't actually beat out the performance of current gen console hardware.
So, it isn't actually cheaper since the OS pushes you over budget. It is bulkier and noisier and missing features AND for all those concessions, it STILL doesn't beat current gen consoles. I'm not sure at this point that I understand why EITHER article actually exists.
[/update]
Comments
Post a Comment