A brief glance at the top 5 best selling GPUs reads like an entry-level PC extravaganza. The most expensive graphics processor in the list is the very affordable 768Mb version of Nvidia’s GTX 460.
With most developers focusing on the "creative constraints" side for their multiplats rather than the scale and visuals of the game itself, there is little reason for an average PC gamer to buy over-the-top costly GPUs and CPUs. There is too little jump in visual improvements over the last couple of years that most people don't feel the need to have an "overkill" rig just yet.
I agree. Its been a while since ive upgraded my core duo 2.8, I mean, if it can run games just fine, then whats the point with buying overpriced products?
This. Most games these days on PC are designed with consoles in mind first which kind of sucks but what can you do really. My laptop core i5/4gb RAM/Nvidia 360m has run every game I've thrown at it thus far and most on high settings and there are a lot more powerful machines than that out there.
That's exactly right. With practically everything being multi-platform, there's really no need for anything more than a dual core and a mid range graphics card. http://www.tomshardware.com...
Once the new generation of consoles comes out we will be ready for the next great leap in perfomance because most games will finally be able to move beyond the LCD of 6-7 year old hardware.
Its worth considering what will happen of NVidia and AMD if people stop considering upgrades. To be honest since games are now designed with consoles in mind there is no need to upgrade a PC even from 2006. In the end this may just lead to bad sales for Nvidia and AMD. Which inevitabally will result in smaller budgets to research in new tech. If things went real bad and the GPU divisions of these companies went under i wonder where the console makers would get GPUs for their next gen systems.
Good point. Also you have to consider that most PC purchases these days are laptops/netbooks, most of which have integrated graphics chips
Yes well my point is Console gamers need to understand where the tech comes from and they need to play their part in supporting the industry. If Nvidia and AMD GPU divisions go under all of us as Gamers lose. While xbox 360 and PS3 have some good exclusives. They are also ensuring the industry stays stagnant. Which inevitabally may cause these companies to suffer, in the end losing any of them will be a bad blow to gamers.
Seriously, who looks to Amazon first for computer parts anyway? The only people I can think of are maybe people that live in California. Since they get taxed at every other computer retail site on the web besides Tigerdirect.
Damn dude. You read me like a book. I was an egg cusomer in minnesota for Years until I came back to Cali. Now it's amazon and tigerdirect
I just got a 160$ set of speakers for 89 bucks off there...so Yeah I do Amazon from time to time. No tax in Tn either.
Most games are designed to run on consoles these days, so if you've got a half-decent rig from 2006, you can most likely play 99% of games released in 2010. 8800 GTX, Core 2 Duo and 2-4 GB of RAM should play just about any game at 1080p at at least 30 FPS.
This, and for those of use who enjoy 60fps, or 3 monitors, or 3D, or 8-32x AA, etc. The hardware is available to anyone, gotta love the freedom of PC =)
I love PC gaming too but you have to admit consoles really get most of the games and love these days =\ Few exceptions of course..SCII, Diable III, Amnesia, etc. 90's were the golden years for PC gaming imo.
if pirating wasn't so bad on the pc, they would have more exclusive games.
Did you know that Software Pirates are some of the biggest spenders out there? It's kind of annoying how most people assume they know everything about Pirate culture. (side note: it's proven that pirating occurs just as much on any console wherever it's able to be done. The Nintendo DS, PS2, PSP, Xbox, Xbox 360 are prime examples)
I think that piracy on other systems is just as bad (except for PS3), it is just easier on pc. I think developers make piracy seem worse than it really is and should just develop more on the pc.
If trolling wasn't so bad on N4G, there would be no bubble down button.
no one is trolling. it's the truth. just ask some of the developers. it's funny how stating the facts is called trolling.
You do relise that the developers make the piracy problem seem bigger than it actually is, right? It's like how the TV was going to kill the movie industry. And home taping was going to kill the music industry. Those things never happened. The game companies make the problem seem larger than it actually is in order to justify increasing the amount of DRM and other useless utilities that just inhibits people that actually buy the games. On a side note, the PC has more exclusives than the 360 and PS3 combined. And I hope to God some fanboy doesn't come on here and post a list of first party PS3 exclusives to try and make an argument.
Then why does the PC have exclusives such as Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 and Civilisation 5 ? If piracy is the reason the PC loses exclusives because of piracy why have those titles remained exclusive to the PC platform ? Tell you what I will save you the energy of replying. Those games have stayed exclusive because they don't make any money on the consoles. They are games that are ONLY successful on the PC. So why has games like Crysis gone multiplatform ? That is because games like Crysis do as well in terms of sales on the consoles as they do on the PC. So if you are a developer it is actually quite moronic to limit your customer base if your game is likely to appeal to BOTH PC and console gamers. If you look at consoles you will see the vast majority of exclusives are down to either "dodgy" deals by either Sony/MS or the fact that Sony/MS own the developer in question. You can even see Sony and MS losing exclusives to each other, is that down to piracy too ? or is it just a case of developers where possible trying to bring their game to the widest audience possible to make as much money as possible. In short if you are a PC developer there is nothing to stop you going multiplatform, the PC platform allows developers to do what they please. That is why you see developers going multiplatform it has nothing to do with piracy.
if pc has so many exclusives, then why is crysis 2 comin to the ps3 and 360?
I explained why Crysis 2 has gone multiplatform, it is for the same reason Mass Effect 2 is now fully multiplatform, it is why Final Fantasy 709 is multiplatform. It does not make good business sense to restrict your audience for no good reason. Crytek have gone multiplatform because their game will sell on the console just as well as it would on the PC so why shouldn't they make it for the console as well ? After all there is no organisation on the PC that is going to PAY Crytek to keep the game exclusive to the PC. If it wasn't for the fact both Sony and Microsoft invest massive sums of money to "encourage" developers to produce games for their machine there would be a hell of a lot more multiplatform games out there. After all why did Insomniac go multiplatform ? because it makes sense for them to do so, their games will sell just as well on the 360 as they did on the PS3. In short if there is no barrier to a developer going multiplatform then they will go multiplatform because it makes sense to access as big an audience as possible.
lol Crysis 2 on consoles, have fun with that.
I just got a custom built i7 930 gtx 460 sli 8 gb ram, 1 tb hdd, so not all of us are "budget conscious" and like other posters before me said, when i can max out games that came out THIS year (ME 2 for example) i know this system is in it for the long haul, off topic, looking forward to playing fallout new vegas on PC with mods!
if you're serious about PC gaming you're eventually gonna need more than a Terabyte HDD, especially if its Steam games. Oh and ME2 was not exactly a taxing game. works on max on most budget PCs I know much less that beast,it wasn't exactly the usual graphical leap from the console version.
yeah i know its running on the very dated UE3, but i was just agreeing with other posters that games have been tailored to consoles in that even games released this year dont require beastly computers (i can barely max out crysis), what do you think i should get in terms of hdd size? I thought 1 TB was plenty, damn...
My laptop with a GTX260m (260M is based on older desktop gpus and in terms of power can be comparable to gpus from 2006) can run ME 2 better then the xbox 360 can. It can run any multiplatform better then consoles for that matter.
it depends, if you have space in your case then you can always add another HDD later on so you should be ok, what I realise is that if you use your PC for purely games then you should be fine, but like me I use my gaming pc for everything else, music, vids, programs etc so it really adds up, I bought 2 640GB HDDs less than a year ago and already I'm down to 100GB and that's after some cleaning up, games right now on my PC are topping the 600GB mark with dozens of different games. Its up to you to see if 1TB is enough for your uses, obviously you plan to use the comp for games and if thats all then you should be fine for quite some time, even if you purchase alot. But if you store and use your pc for other things like me or use it heavily otherwise the space will rapidly drop.
I love how well optimized ME2 was on PC. If the PC version isn't going to push the envelope technically, at least run smoothly and demonstrate a significant leap technically compared to other versions. I was very pleased with ME2 even though I could have ran something much more demanding. What I can't stand is when the PC version looks marginally better yet is very demanding to run a la GTA IV. Yes, it clearly looks better, but it shouldn't be such a resource hog.
I have a HD4850 and an old Phenom II X4 (2008) and I'm really happy. It'll probably even do a good job of running "next gen" stuff (i.e. PS4/720). Also, really I see NO point in investing in DX11 technolgy. It looks OK. But it's not a huge enough leap to want to upgrade, and it (was) too expensive.
It's only worth going DX11 if you have an old card that needs upgrading anyways. I'm getting so very very tired of my GTS 8600 and now that I finally have a bit of money, I plan on going DX11. It's not a feature set worth jumping on or upgrading for (yet at least), but it is a decent extra.
My Geforce 9800 GTX+ is still going strong. I will never buy the best of the best when it comes to PC hardware again. I play games because I enjoy playing them, not because I want to look at them. Although good graphics can greatly enhance the experience, it can only take you so far.
so far enjoying my newly, and first, built i7-950 system with 2 GTX 460's in SLI =)
Maybe it has something to do with the world wide recession we are still in ... dugh I dont believe many commentors around here who say all the stuff they buy, especially since they hide behind alias.... and wont use their gamer tags...whimps I am buying far less games...and pushed our next HD purchase till the 3D sets come down next year
well im relatively new to the pc gaming space (havent had a gaming pc since 2004? PS3 mainly) but yeah I've had a samsung 1080p tv since 2006 and im not upgrading until the 3d tvs come down in price.
I think PC gaming still as its goods like before, the thing here is the money, a console nowadays tends to be a primary option cause its easy,cheap and 100% garantee you ill get quality titles. I just prefer PC gaming to play certain games (mostly FPS and RTS) but my primary option for gaming in the first place is a console cause is more pratical in my opinion and the 100% garantee of quality titles of course. Bass Fisherman
"a console nowadays tends to be a primary option cause its easy,cheap and 100% garantee you ill get quality titles. " Dont let the 300usd price tag on consoles delude you mate. After you add in all the extras console gaming is much more costly then PC. Xbox 360 for instance 50 XBL per year * 5years = 250usd 20games bought per year * 10(because console games cost more)= 200usd * 5 years = 1000 There the XBL pricing plus the price of games alone makes up the cost of a very good rig, which probably would last 5 years. Lets not forget the xbox probably wont last 5years you probably will need a replacement in that time frame. Bottom line PC is cheaper and does a lot more then a console ever can.
Get used to it! PC Gamers are smart period! While your console is confined to the spaces of its technology, the PC can expand and has limitless possibilities. New Ram, New motherboard, New operating system, and variety in how you can purchase customization. You are in control not some greedy corporation that can shut you down at the flick of a switch or control your internet access that was already free to begin with. Without a PC you can't even make a game so this article is dumb and I'm out.
Case: Thermaltake Xaser VI CPU:Intel i7 980 @ 3.5//Mobo:Evg x58 CLASSIFIED 4-Way SLI/XFIRE RAM:12 gigs of Corsiar3X2//GPU:Crossfire 5870's PSU:Antec 1200 Walt//OS:Windows 7 & Windows XP Upgrading, maybe another 5870 when it drops Life Cycle: Another 5 years
For me the PC is the most cost effective I have spent around £1000 to get my RIG where it is and I have 197 games on Steam for around £600 Hardware £1000 Software £600 So to play 197 games at maximum I have spent around £1600 plus all the other benefits PC can offer that no console can GTX 460 best price to performance card in years
I have a p4 and a ati 3650 2 gig of ram it runs unreal 3 games sweet for an old dog and source games as long as 2142 looks ok im happy by the time i update ill get a cheap bargin.
PC Enthusiast like myself will fix PC's, work overtime, wash cars, mow grass, babysit, and prostitute ourselves to our girlfriends to get the cash we need for Top of the line hardware "If the upgrade is worth it". Right now with the games developers are making, it's so not worth it. Great games pretty graphics but not demanding a $3000 PC. Most PC gamers are playing RTS and MMO's and yes they have great graphics but with so much going on you need a fast CPU w/ 4gb ram and a mid or low range DX11 GPU and your good. Not too much cash spent here. The rest of the games are console ports that a 8800 gtx or even an integrated AMD gpu could run with ease. No extra cash spent here either. BFBC2 Crysis Metro2033 Stalker Amra2 Far Cry 2 and a hand full of other DX11 title are the only games requiring a GPU with "Some Muscle". Spending some dough here but well within anyone's budget. a GTX 480 SLI set up is overkill unless your trying to max out Metro 2033 in which it will just barely do it. This my friend is around $1200 just for 2 Gpu's and a 1200 watt PSu so this is costly but Metro 2033 maxed out in full 1080p HD with Full Tessellation at 30 fps makes Crysis look old. But other than that a solid $700 PC will be just great for what's out right now and in the future until Developers get down to business and really push the hardware like Metro 2033. AMD sold over 25 million DX11 GPU's in 1 year with an average sale price of $300 so PC gamers are not on a budget.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.