Dual Core Consoles?

Charlie Hustle said:
How bout i bring the Hardware forum to you since i am an IT person....
Click to expand...

:D

CPU: Q6600 $270
RAM:pqi (2 x 1GB) DDR2 800 $38
MOBO:GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L $89.99
HD:Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250410AS 250GB $70
Optical:SAMSUNG SH-S203B $30
Case:CoolerMaster Centurion 5 $35
Vid Card:MSI 8800GTS (G92) 512MB $309 OR eVGA 8800GT 512MB $249
PSU:CORSAIR CMPSU-550VX $99

If you don't already have an OS available:
Vista Home Premium $109
XP Home $90

Now I'd be surprised if you didn't already have an OS, but depending on the config you can either rock a G92 GTS or a GT. It all works out to +-$1000, and if you're adventurous and go for the MIRs you can save more. You can save more by going with a higher clocked dual core (quad, apart from SupCom, really isn't utilized in gaming, but it's nice to have the extra two), so you have some flexibility as far as options go. You'll also notice that while I didn't necessarily go for the highest end parts, I certainly didn't cheap out. Each part is good for its purpose; even the really cheap RAM is spec'd well above what that Q6600 needs, so you have quite some overclocking headroom (which the P35 should do well with).

and I know that this is technically derailing the thread, but I'd just like to point out that this was a train wreck in waiting. I just put the penny on the track :D

EDIT: I also want to mention that all of the prices above are not taking in to account possible MIRs, and more importantly aren't necessarily the lowest prices. I really didn't bother to look, considering I'm doing this at work (shhhh)
EDIT2: I also forgot that they're still selling those 640mb GTS (G80s)...I haven't checked the benches but it should slot in nicely between the GT and G92 GTS
 
Everyone here trying to make 360 and PS3 comparisons should listen to the latest Critereon podcast...they explained many of the difference between the 360 and PS3. Oh, and they pretty much debunked the myth that the 360 GPU is better than the PS3...they each had their pros and cons (I believe they settled on that the 360 GPU had a larger fillrate, but the PS3 GPU was far more capable when it came to shaders).
 
ex0du5 said:
(I believe they settled on that the 360 GPU had a larger fillrate, but the PS3 GPU was far more capable when it came to shaders).
Click to expand...

I've found pages 7, 8, and 9 of this article quite good at explaining the differences between GPUs (as well as getting behind the marketing fluff).
 
quadnad said:
:D


and I know that this is technically derailing the thread, but I'd just like to point out that this was a train wreck in waiting. I just put the penny on the track :D
Click to expand...

Actually you didnt put the penny on the track.. Or if you did, these posts were the one's which put bricks on the track.

Sagan said:
consoles sux. PCs are better at gaming.
Click to expand...

BladeVenom said:
Neither one has a good CPU.
Microsoft's Xbox 360 & Sony's PlayStation 3 - Examples of Poor CPU Performance
Click to expand...

i was just informing him about whats inside a console, not regular pc. Its not an argument, i cant hate on pcs due to the fact of what i do and what im in school for.
 
quadnad said:
I'll wager that more people own monitors than own HDTVs. More importantly, isn't the entire point of this "nex gen" to improve the graphical fidelity of the games? Why bother with one of these consoles (the Wii is another matter) unless you've got an HDTV or PC monitor to play on? Otherwise a comparable computer would cost far far less if it only had to display such a small resolution.

and finally, monitors are used for "MUCH more than just playing games." I don't have to explain myself here.
Click to expand...

Like Erwos said, you can use the computer monitor for the console. So I am not sure what your point is there. If you already own a computer monitor then you wouldn't need to buy an HDTV anyway.

You can also use an HDTV for your PC. I personally love being able to play games on my 46" 1080p LCD while sitting on my couch. This goes for both my consoles and my PC. So why the tv would be included in the cost of my console is a little strange to me.

My assertion still stands. I don't think you should add the cost of an HDTV when figuring out what a console costs. I understand that anecdotal evidence means pretty much nothing, but FOR ME an HDTV is worth the cost of admission whether you have a video game system or not. Both television and movies look fantastic in HD and I would surely own one whether I owned a console or not.

*This is of course all in my opinion.
 
The_Law said:
Like Erwos said, you can use the computer monitor for the console. So I am not sure what your point is there. If you already own a computer monitor then you wouldn't need to buy an HDTV anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% aware that they can be used with monitors, which is why I said "Why bother with one of these consoles (the Wii is another matter) unless you've got an HDTV or PC monitor to play on?" However I was referring to your comments about how "HDTVs are used for much more etc etc." I'm also 100% aware PCs can be run on HDTVs (they become almost entirely useless for things like web surfing and productivity, but it's great fun when playing games).

Erwos' post was defending SDTVs, which I think is a load of bullshit when you look at the mandate given by the 360 and PS3 this generation. Sure, it's great to have all sorts of additional shader effects etc. but how the fuck are you going to enjoy those at SD resolutions? He's grasping at straws, which is why I didn't reply to him.

The point I'm making is this: It isn't that you have to include the price of a display with a console and not a PC, but that you don't include the price of the display with either. The price of the display is irrelevant because of the interoperability between consoles and PC monitors now.
 
Charlie Hustle said:
Actually you didnt put the penny on the track.. Or if you did, these posts were the one's which put bricks on the track.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hundreds of these types of threads crash and burn each month...though most are titled "PS3vs360" or "Console vs PC." Whenever someone enters with some useful information, it doesn't take long before someone else takes it as though they're insulting consoles (or PCs) and it all goes to hell. It's a bummer really, because I quite enjoy talking about the topic..

So what did you think about the build? Pretty reasonable parts, eh? $1k buys you quite a machine nowadays, and even better now that 45nm quads (Q9300/Q9450) and the next gen of video cards (G100/R700) are arriving to push prices down further (and performance up further).
 
quadnad said:
Yeah, hundreds of these types of threads crash and burn each month...though most are titled "PS3vs360" or "Console vs PC." Whenever someone enters with some useful information, it doesn't take long before someone else takes it as though they're insulting consoles (or PCs) and it all goes to hell. It's a bummer really, because I quite enjoy talking about the topic..

So what did you think about the build? Pretty reasonable parts, eh? $1k buys you quite a machine nowadays, and even better now that 45nm quads (Q9300/Q9450) and the next gen of video cards (G100/R700) are arriving to push prices down further (and performance up further).
Click to expand...

Actually, that build raised my eyebrow. No lie. If it wasnt for the fact that i just got my hands on this powermac g4 (dual 1.4ghz) desktop for my son's room, and also when i graduate i get to keep my lab desktop (ibm think centre p4 ht 3.0ghz), that makes 5 pcs in my household (3 desktops and 2 laptops). I would actually build that rig. I just might do it anyways, i have a couple of family members who i might give a tower to for a birthday present so my wife wont complain if i decide to build it.
 
quadnad said:
Erwos' post was defending SDTVs, which I think is a load of bullshit when you look at the mandate given by the 360 and PS3 this generation. Sure, it's great to have all sorts of additional shader effects etc. but how the fuck are you going to enjoy those at SD resolutions? He's grasping at straws, which is why I didn't reply to him.
Click to expand...
I'm only relating the experience of one of my friends who said the same damn thing you did, but when he got a 360, found the reality to be much different. To hear you tell it, connected to an SDTV, my 360 would look like a PS2.
 
erwos said:
I'm only relating the experience of one of my friends who said the same damn thing you did, but when he got a 360, found the reality to be much different. To hear you tell it, connected to an SDTV, my 360 would look like a PS2.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not saying it will "look like a PS2," but lets be honest here: playing at significantly less than half the resolution of 720p (which is still a mere 1280x720) you won't be getting most of the graphical fidelity of your machine. Last I checked, the whole pitch behind PS3/360 is their graphical capabilities.
 
quadnad said:
Look, I'm not saying it will "look like a PS2," but lets be honest here: playing at significantly less than half the resolution of 720p (which is still a mere 1280x720) you won't be getting most of the graphical fidelity of your machine. Last I checked, the whole pitch behind PS3/360 is their graphical capabilities.
Click to expand...
We'll just have to disagree, then. IMHO, even with PC games, resolution doesn't matter so much as the amount of shaders and geometry being used. I can tell the difference between Quake 4 at high settings and Quake 3 at high settings even with 640x480 resolution, and the difference is hardly small.

In any event, my original point in this little debate still stands: when it comes to price, factoring in the display is a non-issue when doing relative cost comparisons. You didn't address that, and instead hammered on a different point I was trying to make.
 
quadnad said:
The point I'm making is this: It isn't that you have to include the price of a display with a console and not a PC, but that you don't include the price of the display with either. The price of the display is irrelevant because of the interoperability between consoles and PC monitors now.
Click to expand...

erwos said:
We'll just have to disagree, then. IMHO, even with PC games, resolution doesn't matter so much as the amount of shaders and geometry being used. I can tell the difference between Quake 4 at high settings and Quake 3 at high settings even with 640x480 resolution, and the difference is hardly small.

In any event, my original point in this little debate still stands: when it comes to price, factoring in the display is a non-issue when doing relative cost comparisons. You didn't address that, and instead hammered on a different point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...

I apologize for "hammering" on another point you were trying to make, but I completely agree with you that the cost of the display should not be considered when looking at consoles and PCs.

Also, about the resolution question: I agree with you that there is certainly a difference, but like in your example, if you go from 640x480 to 1280x720 with some AA, you'll see another huge leap in image quality. I'm saying that you aren't getting a significant part of the visual quality when running an SDTV, and because visual quality is the entire point of this generation, I think you would be cheating yourself by running on an SD display.
 
quadnad said:
The point I'm making is this: It isn't that you have to include the price of a display with a console and not a PC, but that you don't include the price of the display with either. The price of the display is irrelevant because of the interoperability between consoles and PC monitors now.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems like we pretty much agree then. :)
 
quadnad said:
HDTVs are used for much more etc etc." I'm also 100% aware PCs can be run on HDTVs (they become almost entirely useless for things like web surfing and productivity, but it's great fun when playing games).
Click to expand...

Useless for things like web surfing? hmm I have never had a problem, I dont even own a computer monitor anymore.
 
Draax said:
Useless for things like web surfing? hmm I have never had a problem, I dont even own a computer monitor anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about where you'd usually find a TV: in your living room. Unless I've got some sort of TV tray or whatever, it's going to be quite an awkward trial which doesn't make much sense when I could be sitting at a desk comfortably surfing. Add to that the fact that productivity software suffers in a similar fashion (the visual quality of HDTVs isn't at the same level of PC monitors), and I just don't see it as a really useable option. I know I'm not alone in this position, but perhaps you're of a different opinion.

I certainly wouldn't trade my 20WMGX2 for my HDTV, although it is good fun to hook em up when friends are over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top