• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Can you overclock consoles?

Qazym said:
Then it would just be like a PC.
Click to expand...

No.

Qazym said:
The whole point of a
Click to expand...

No.

Qazym said:
console is that everyone
Click to expand...

No.

You're not saying anything.

Open your eyes. consoles are taking over. great games are out on consoles that will never be on the PC. More and more people are switching over, and more and more people would be willing to spend their $ on a way to improve their console experience.
 
Revenicus said:
Open your eyes. consoles are taking over. great games are out on consoles that will never be on the PC. More and more people are switching over, and more and more people would be willing to spend their $ on a way to improve their console experience.
Click to expand...

Ho boy...
I'm staying out of this one...
 
Most people who buy a console buy it because it's a console. The whole "thing" about consoles is simplicity and the "wow" factor of going through 5 years of the same thing and then suddenly being bombarded with a major upgrade in the features/graphics department. It's not like a PC where you upgrade every year or so for that new game with slightly better graphics.

If you suddenly turned a console into a completely upgradeable machine, you'd be turning customers off because in 2008 they can play "Bla" on "ConsoleX", but then they find out they have to buy either a new processor, more RAM, a new video card, or all of those things in order to play "Bla part 2" in 2009.

Catch my drift? With consoles, it's all about simplicity and ease of mind that the game you buy is going to work.

Revenicus said:
No it wouldn't actually if it was done correctly.

MS/sony could design an upgradeable 'base' console with extra slots. you just add more 'insert upgrade here' into each slot and you'd get more power. similar to SLI.

Sure the cost of making the board, including better cooling would be considerable, but those upgrades would sell like hotcakes. not to mention there would be bundles with 'full upgraded' systems, and it would mean big profit for them.

people who didn't want to fool around with upgrading and weren't die-hard best graphics whores could just get a vanilla console.
Click to expand...
 
Overclock console / play MP / works faster than anyone elses game -> cheat. Right?

And as what goes for consoles taking over.. that's a pipe dream. As long as console games are tied to no mouse control, they're 100% unplayable.
 
Jay_oasis said:
I think the games are directly effected by the clock speed, eg if you up the clock speeds the game will actually run faster making it hard to play.
Click to expand...

That is correct, i had the original xbox that is heavily modified with 128mb of ram and a 1.3ghz PIII instead of the 733mhz to run gentoox. There was a selector switch that would set the cpu frequency to stock while playing games, but instead it set the frequency to 800mhz so the games ran faster and the music played faster ect.
 
stop!theradio said:
Most people who buy a console buy it because it's a console. The whole "thing" about consoles is simplicity and the "wow" factor of going through 5 years of the same thing and then suddenly being bombarded with a major upgrade in the features/graphics department. It's not like a PC where you upgrade every year or so for that new game with slightly better graphics.

If you suddenly turned a console into a completely upgradeable machine, you'd be turning customers off because in 2008 they can play "Bla" on "ConsoleX", but then they find out they have to buy either a new processor, more RAM, a new video card, or all of those things in order to play "Bla part 2" in 2009.

Catch my drift? With consoles, it's all about simplicity and ease of mind that the game you buy is going to work.
Click to expand...

You're making 2 big assumptions.

1. Who said they would have to stop making the simple non-upgradeable console if they made an upgradeable one? They wouldn't. Know how there are different SKUs for the 360 and the ps3? Duh. These aren't the 80s and 90s anymore.

2. Who said that certain games would only work on an upgraded machine? They could design it so every game works on every console, but every upgradeable console could get a better framerate or add more AA, AF. There are many possibilities without screwing over anyone.
 
1. Who said they would have to stop making the simple non-upgradeable console if they made an upgradeable one? They wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Yes they would because why just give out a non-upgradable console when you can give out an upgradable one for the same price and have the adavntage of being able to get more monay out of the consumer with furture upgrade paths.

Know how there are different SKUs for the 360 and the ps3?
Click to expand...

But those are meerly about hard drive space rather than additional graphical power.
 
Revenicus said:
You're making 2 big assumptions.

1. Who said they would have to stop making the simple non-upgradeable console if they made an upgradeable one? They wouldn't. Know how there are different SKUs for the 360 and the ps3? Duh. These aren't the 80s and 90s anymore.

2. Who said that certain games would only work on an upgraded machine? They could design it so every game works on every console, but every upgradeable console could get a better framerate or add more AA, AF. There are many possibilities without screwing over anyone.
Click to expand...

1. Yeah, there are different SKU's. But each one plays every single game the same. The different SKU's amount to different levels of functionality that don't pertain to gaming. The cheaper PS3 didn't come with wireless and SD card slots, etc. A missing SD card slot or smaller hard drive won't amount to loss of FPS or lower-res textures. THIS is still that safety that console gamers enjoy.

2. Developers aren't going to waste time creating a game for one tier of a platform that's inferior to the rest. Developers want their games to look good. They'd essentially be devloping different versions of the same game. You have, say, a low tier, a mid tier, and a top tier version of the same game to develop. Useless. This is also the reason that most big-name games come out for console, developers don't want to have to worry about tons of different configurations and such.
 
Qazym said:
Yes they would because why just give out a non-upgradable console when you can give out an upgradable one for the same price and have the adavntage of being able to get more monay out of the consumer with furture upgrade paths..
Click to expand...

Uhh because it WOULDN'T be the same price. the simple non-upgradeable one would be cheaper to make, thus cheaper for the consumer.

You'd have an option for the people who like it simple, and an 'enthusiast' option for those who want to further enhance the visuals and performance. It's really not that hard to understand.
 
Modern consoles have the same code/frame limiter as most PC games I'd expect...but systems without those in place exhibit strange behavior when overclocked...if you take a Nintendo DS and overclock it, you simply increase the game speed and everything runs accelerated and at a higher pitch.
 
Revenicus said:
.

You'd have an option for the people who like it simple, and an 'enthusiast' option for those who want to further enhance the visuals and performance. It's really not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...



yeah the enthusiast option is called a PC
 
Uhh because it WOULDN'T be the same price. the simple non-upgradeable one would be cheaper to make, thus cheaper for the consumer.
Click to expand...

The non - upgradable one would hardly be cheaper to make. How much more money would it take to add an extra RAM slot or simply to allow consumers to take out a part and replace it with something else?

You'd have an option for the people who like it simple, and an 'enthusiast' option for those who want to further enhance the visuals and performance. It's really not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I still think it would be more likely (if there were scalable consoles) that companies wouldn't want to lock the consumer into a non - upgradable console, but instead give them the option to upgrade, to get more money out of them. Even if they did do this it would still basically be a PC.
 
If I recall the N64 had an expandable memory slot which didnt do to well sales wise. Also the Genisis had the 32X attachment which was also a bomb. Consoles are bought because they are easy, most people do not want to mess with upgrades.
 
All I'm putting out here is an idea that would address a weakness of consoles. It would work from a business standpoint and it would make consumers happy.

The benefit of a console is that it's streamlined to develop for, making for faster development times, more performance out of the hardware, and less potential bugs.

The 'perfect' gaming platform would be as streamlined to develop for as a console, while being upgradeable to a degree, and supporting a keyboard and mouse. This isn't a pipe dream, it can be a reality, it's merging the strengths of the PC with the strengths of the current consoles.

the PC is a DEAD-END platform. It will always be a bitch to develop for, and this is what's scaring developers away to console development. Developers are what it comes down to, they are the ones that make the games.
 
All I'm putting out here is an idea that would address a weakness of consoles. It would work from a business standpoint and it would make consumers happy.

The benefit of a console is that it's streamlined to develop for, making for faster development times, more performance out of the hardware, and less potential bugs.

The 'perfect' gaming platform would be as streamlined to develop for as a console, while being upgradeable to a degree, and supporting a keyboard and mouse. This isn't a pipe dream, it can be a reality, it's merging the strengths of the PC with the strengths of the current consoles.

the PC is a DEAD-END platform. It will always be a bitch to develop for, and this is what's scaring developers away to console development. Developers are what it comes down to, they are the ones that make the games.
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand what you are trying to say about a compromise between a PC and a console, but as you said yourself a console is streamlined to develop for but trying to make upgradable graphics for a console would mean either harder and longer development times making the development process less streamlined (games are more expensive than ever to develop nowadays) or developers being lazy with the graphics options that the least amount of people have available to them (i.e. if less people have 'upgraded' consoles, then less effort will go to them, like when multi-platform games come out 360 is better sometimes than PS3).

Oh and if you want to quote me like before, don't quote the crap bits that are out of context, incomplete and don't make sense on their own please. :D :p

joking
 
Qazym said:
Yeah I understand what you are trying to say about a compromise between a PC and a console, but as you said yourself a console is streamlined to develop for but trying to make upgradable graphics for a console would mean either harder and longer development times making the development process less streamlined (games are more expensive than ever to develop nowadays) or developers being lazy with the graphics options that the least amount of people have available to them (i.e. if less people have 'upgraded' consoles, then less effort will go to them, like when multi-platform games come out 360 is better sometimes than PS3).

Oh and if you want to quote me like before, don't quote the crap bits that are out of context, incomplete and don't make sense on their own please. :D :p

joking
Click to expand...

Well, it still wouldn't be as less streamlined as coding for 2 different video card companies, for multiple models, as well as 2 different CPU companies. This is the whole weakness of developing for PC.

The hardware would still be the same, same instructions, but scalable, sort of like how SLI is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top