8 ms·

The Golden Age of X86 Gaming

54 points by dwaxe 10y ago

LeoPanthera 10y ago
It feels like this thing is tailor made for SteamOS.
- emrecan 10y ago
  Isn't steam great for mostly indie games, which doesn't really need cutting-edge, power-hungry hardware to render (let alone 4K) ?
  - LeoPanthera 10y ago
    No? Not sure where you'd get that idea. The only games that aren't on Steam are the ones that have Origin exclusivity. And increasingly they have SteamOS (=Linux) compatibility, thanks to the Steam Boxes. You can browse the Steam store on the web: http://store.steampowered.com http://store.steampowered.com
    - ekianjo 10y ago
      > thanks to the Steam Boxes. More like thanks to Valve. I have not see ANY indication that the Steam Machines marketed by Alienware or other vendors are selling well at all. Most of them are massively underpowered for some of the best games available on Steam for Linux.
    - emrecan 10y ago
      Hey Leo, maybe I wasn't 100% accurate. Comparing games in Steam vs. Origin, I get the idea, but console gaming has moved into a whole new level already and they are the ones that are (relatively) more power-hungry in my assessment. The fact that console games have started diverging from PC games, and even when there is a PC version, the big title games are primarily being developed for consoles and then being (kind of) ported to PCs, was my point in evaluating SteamOS. In a world where 2 consoles will single-mindedly focus on driving hardware power and distribution plays with big studios, I am still thinking that Steam might end up representing primarily the distribution channel for indies to get into console business.
      - LeoPanthera 10y ago
        Both the PS4 and the XBone are PCs. They just run a fancy OS. It's still Intel and a standard GPU underneath. There's no "porting" going on, not like in previous gen systems, which were Weird. Console exclusives are exclusives because the console manufacturer paid for them to be so, and not because the hardware is special, because it just isn't. Yes, Steam is great for indies, but that's completely irrelevant here.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    You know that Steam is working on the Vive with HTC for VR games right? That's going to be downright power-hungry.
supercoder 10y ago
The PC gaming treadmill is the worst. You're committing to throwing so much money to continue to be able to play the latest games at a consistent FPS. At least developers are forced to fine tune games for a very specific platform when it comes to consoles. Sure, the PC can look better, but at least the console plays better most of the time.
- Eerie 10y ago
  Or you use the XKCD 606 method, and save tons of money.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  That hasn't been true since 2006 for everything but the GPU. And since 2012 for the GPU too. A decent build could last a console generation with a GPU upgrade in the middle.
- TimPrice 10y ago
  > You're committing to throwing so much money Only if you make bad choices buying hardware, like the obsolete stuff that comes with consoles (even on release) > console plays better most of the time PCMasterRace plays real 1080@60 for over a decade Enjoy your PS4K/Neo/neXt
  - supercoder 10y ago
    I'll enjoy playing uncharted 4 ;)
  - kakwa_ 10y ago
    Maybe that's exactly the reason why consoles are successful. It provides an unified device, which lasts around 8 years, which permits to play recent titles, which is simple to setup up and which is comparatively cheap. The PC I'm typing this message is a 9 years old thinkpad, and I would not attempt to play any "less than 5 years old games" on it. Some people don't give to much of a shit about highly impressive graphics and just want to play the fucking game without checking the "minimal configuration required". However if consoles tend to be like PCs (same or worst hardware, same or worst upgrade process, etc), they will just become meaningless.
sgt101 10y ago
I do enjoy my xbox one, but the author is right, the DRM checking which has a significant user interface bug and slow boots, slow loads make it much less fun than it should be. The interface bug is that it checks the drm with no reference to what is currently in the tray, asks if I own the disk and will only continue if I eject and reinsert the disk in that interaction. If I click continue because the disk is in there it won't load. This is a case of lazy lazy ui design and management! Also when I did rivals first in Forza 6 it gave me a target of 41min for Nurburgring!
walrus01 10y ago
For $699 you can build a Skylake based mini-ITX system that uses a real, PCI-Express 3.0 x16 video card (in the $225 price range for the video card alone) that will kick this thing's butt in every benchmark. The Intel "gaming" NUC is $699 before you put in any RAM and an SSD, so its actual total build cost as a barebones is probably around $899. The mini-ITX system will be slightly bigger, but also more robust in nearly every way. Yes it's tiny and slim but it's effectively laptop grade CPU with onboard GPU in a single motherboard.
- aavotins 10y ago
  I am genuinely interested in such mini-ITX setup. Can you post an example please? Disclaimer: Last time I built my own computer was in 2004 or 2005, so I have no idea what to look for and what is considered powerful these days.
  - chx 10y ago
    For $664.26 http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d you can buy an ITX motherboard, CPU, case, PSU and even a GPU. Needs memory and storage added, same as the NUC, after all it's the same price. How much faster wil this be? Intel's own benchmarks show Iris Pro 580 to be between a 750 and a 750 Ti. The GTX 960 is about twice as fast as a 750 Ti. http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960-vs-Nvidia-GTX-750-Ti/3165vs2187 http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960-vs-Nvidi... CPU wise the difference is much smaller, I couldn't find a direct comparison but I found for the 6700HQ but that's just as good because the 6700HQ and the 6770HQ uses the same CPU http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,93341 http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,93341 and then user benchmarks show the 6700 desktop a 20% performance benefit over the 6700HQ http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ/3515vsm34954 http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700-vs-I... Of course because you are not restricted by the integrated parts if you were to spend another $150 then you can get a GTX 970 which is thrice as fast as a 750 Ti and in three weeks when the GTX 1070 lands at the same price as the GTX 970 that'll be four-five times as fast as the GPU in NUC. For the NUC to be competitive, it would need to be $499 perhaps $549 and the external GPU box $150 tops. Now that'd be a very different ballgame -- at that point we would need to look at the significant size advantage and concede that the much smaller ITX cases are typically small run and tend to be more expensive so then the NUC+GPU box would give them a run for their money when space is at the absolute premium. At the current $699 and $499 prices it's hard to see their niche. Here's an example for a real small, artisanal :) ITX case for when space is at an absolute premium: http://nfc-systems.com/shop/s4-mini-chassis http://nfc-systems.com/shop/s4-mini-chassis You could buy this chassis, the necessary accessories as listed on the page, a GTX 960 GPU ITX card for the price of the NUC + Razer Core and end up with a single box barely bigger than the Razer Core still packing a much bigger punch. Here's a forum post http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/post-your-computer-build.182/page-3#post-34337 http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/post-... mentioning a similar build (i5 6600 vs i7 6700 is the only diff, it might worth the savings actually).
williadc 10y ago
These two statements from the article seem to argue against his point. > The CPU and disk performance on offer here [in the latest NUC] are hilariously far beyond what's available on current consoles ... But most importantly, its GPU performance is on par with current consoles. > Zero games are meaningfully CPU limited today Why would I pay over $1000 for a game machine that is basically identical to current consoles in the most important aspect of hardware?
- dmoy 10y ago
  In 5 years you can drop in a new GPU and keep rolling with the new AAA titles coming out. Sandy bridge handles things fine still...
  - williadc 10y ago
    It'd have to be an external GPU though, and the harness alone looks like it's $500. That's likely to get cheaper with time, but even if it were free, an external GPU takes away the primary advantages of a NUC over a mini-ITX or micro-ATX PC, which would likely be much cheaper as well.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > Why would I pay over $1000 for a game machine that is basically identical to current consoles in the most important aspect of hardware? Because you have access to thousands more games than on consoles? And you know, you can do about everything with it, not just gaming.
  - williadc 10y ago
    Yes, but a NUC is not the only option for living-room PC gaming, and doesn't really seem like the best one.
    - ekianjo 10y ago
      Agree, but in terms of space it's a compact solution.
venomsnake 10y ago
The golden age of x86 gaming is past (or ahead of us). We are in a bad valley right now. Modding is getting progressively harder - compare the fan made content for BGII vs MASS EFFECT. Local servers to play multiplayer too - we had them back in doom and starcraft, so there is no excuse from excluding them from new doom and starcraft II. Save at anytime is long past gone - everything is checkpoints, or in the case of XCOM - even if allowed not "real". There was more to PC gaming than 4K PC master race superiority (guilty of being proud member of said race myself). Back in the day - you played the game, the ways you liked. Right now you play the game, the ways the developers like in the majority of big games - that is the console way.
- Tobold 10y ago
  Yeah, when I read the title I expected a nostalgia piece about the late 90s and early 2000s. Basically after the Amiga died and before the Xbox360 came out (I would say off the top of my hat).
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    Offtopic but any relation to "tobold's blog" ? It was my main source of WoW sanity back in the day when WoW was a thing.
    - Tobold 10y ago
      Never heard of it, sorry. Tobold was a very minor character in The Lord of the Rings (better known as Old Toby), so it's not an entirely original nickname ;)
- Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago
  As someone who has been gaming since the early 80's, I think we indeed are in a golden age of gaming. But the thing is that you (mostly) have to look at indie titles, not AAA titles. Games like FTL, The Curious Expedition, Rocket League, Papers Please, Super Hexagon, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Chaos Reborn, Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes... bring back the originality and the pure, unadulterated fun that we had gaming in the late 80s and early 90s, which had been mostly lost in the late 90s and in the full 00s decade, where everything seemed to be franchises and iteration on old formats. Of course if you look at AAA games it's still mostly rehashes, grindfests and simplified remakes of classics, but I'd argue you're looking at the wrong place.
TwoBit 10y ago
He keeps saying x86, but all these computers -- including the consoles -- are x64.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mackal 10y ago
  They're 64-bit variant of x86, or x86-64. x64 is a shit name and people should stop using it. Sadly that probably won't happen thanks to Microsoft.
  - derefr 10y ago
    In fact, the term "x86-64" came into existence as a term-of-art because "x64" technically refers to the Itanium ISA (Intel's first now-forgotten attempt at a 64-bit ISA), not the IA64 ISA (Intel's canonicalization of AMD's unofficial extension to IA32.)
    - qznc 10y ago
      The most correct term is "amd64" IMHO.
    - ferbivore 10y ago
      Uh, "IA-64" is Itanium. Intel officially calls x86-64 "Intel 64".
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Yeah, Itanium is IA-64. It's also dying but not forgotten: people who like RISC, reliability, security features, and high-speed all in one remember their vain attempt well. Are also reaping benefits of used HP Integrity and SGI Altix boxes on eBay selling cheaper than consoles. I'm eyeballing a few of those suckers myself. :)
- gruez 10y ago
  "x86" refers to the family of instruction sets, including the 16, 32, and 64 bit variants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
foepys 10y ago
> This is old hat for PCs, but to release a new, faster model that is perfectly backwards compatible is almost unprecedented in the console world. Nintendo has done this for years with their consoles. You can play Game Boy games on the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance (1989 -> 2001), Gamecube games on the Wii and Wii games on the Wii U. The same was true for Playstation 2 games in the first few versions of the Playstation 3. There will definitely be games that require a Playstation Neo and will not run on the Playstation 4.
- szatkus 10y ago
  > There will definitely be games that require a Playstation Neo and will not run on the Playstation 4. According to leaks Sony doesn't allow that.
  - patresi 10y ago
    For now...
- serge2k 10y ago
  According to rumors song is absolutely not allowing neo only games.
- johnny22 10y ago
  didn't they remove the ability to play gamecube games on later versions of the wii?
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    That's weird. The Wii hardware is completely compatible with the GC hardware. The only extra cost was adding the ports.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Let's not go and forget that the N64 could be upgraded with more memory, optional on some games and mandatory on others.
hyperpallium 10y ago
> $1,080 plus tax compared to $399 for one of those console x86 boxes It's like he's arguing against PC gaming.

54 points by dwaxe 10y ago

LeoPanthera 10y ago

It feels like this thing is tailor made for SteamOS.

emrecan 10y ago
Isn't steam great for mostly indie games, which doesn't really need cutting-edge, power-hungry hardware to render (let alone 4K) ?
- LeoPanthera 10y ago
  No? Not sure where you'd get that idea. The only games that aren't on Steam are the ones that have Origin exclusivity. And increasingly they have SteamOS (=Linux) compatibility, thanks to the Steam Boxes. You can browse the Steam store on the web: http://store.steampowered.com http://store.steampowered.com
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    > thanks to the Steam Boxes. More like thanks to Valve. I have not see ANY indication that the Steam Machines marketed by Alienware or other vendors are selling well at all. Most of them are massively underpowered for some of the best games available on Steam for Linux.
  - emrecan 10y ago
    Hey Leo, maybe I wasn't 100% accurate. Comparing games in Steam vs. Origin, I get the idea, but console gaming has moved into a whole new level already and they are the ones that are (relatively) more power-hungry in my assessment. The fact that console games have started diverging from PC games, and even when there is a PC version, the big title games are primarily being developed for consoles and then being (kind of) ported to PCs, was my point in evaluating SteamOS. In a world where 2 consoles will single-mindedly focus on driving hardware power and distribution plays with big studios, I am still thinking that Steam might end up representing primarily the distribution channel for indies to get into console business.
    - LeoPanthera 10y ago
      Both the PS4 and the XBone are PCs. They just run a fancy OS. It's still Intel and a standard GPU underneath. There's no "porting" going on, not like in previous gen systems, which were Weird. Console exclusives are exclusives because the console manufacturer paid for them to be so, and not because the hardware is special, because it just isn't. Yes, Steam is great for indies, but that's completely irrelevant here.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  You know that Steam is working on the Vive with HTC for VR games right? That's going to be downright power-hungry.

supercoder 10y ago

The PC gaming treadmill is the worst. You're committing to throwing so much money to continue to be able to play the latest games at a consistent FPS. At least developers are forced to fine tune games for a very specific platform when it comes to consoles. Sure, the PC can look better, but at least the console plays better most of the time.

Eerie 10y ago
Or you use the XKCD 606 method, and save tons of money.
venomsnake 10y ago
That hasn't been true since 2006 for everything but the GPU. And since 2012 for the GPU too. A decent build could last a console generation with a GPU upgrade in the middle.
TimPrice 10y ago
> You're committing to throwing so much money Only if you make bad choices buying hardware, like the obsolete stuff that comes with consoles (even on release) > console plays better most of the time PCMasterRace plays real 1080@60 for over a decade Enjoy your PS4K/Neo/neXt
- supercoder 10y ago
  I'll enjoy playing uncharted 4 ;)
- kakwa_ 10y ago
  Maybe that's exactly the reason why consoles are successful. It provides an unified device, which lasts around 8 years, which permits to play recent titles, which is simple to setup up and which is comparatively cheap. The PC I'm typing this message is a 9 years old thinkpad, and I would not attempt to play any "less than 5 years old games" on it. Some people don't give to much of a shit about highly impressive graphics and just want to play the fucking game without checking the "minimal configuration required". However if consoles tend to be like PCs (same or worst hardware, same or worst upgrade process, etc), they will just become meaningless.

sgt101 10y ago

I do enjoy my xbox one, but the author is right, the DRM checking which has a significant user interface bug and slow boots, slow loads make it much less fun than it should be. The interface bug is that it checks the drm with no reference to what is currently in the tray, asks if I own the disk and will only continue if I eject and reinsert the disk in that interaction. If I click continue because the disk is in there it won't load. This is a case of lazy lazy ui design and management! Also when I did rivals first in Forza 6 it gave me a target of 41min for Nurburgring!

walrus01 10y ago

For $699 you can build a Skylake based mini-ITX system that uses a real, PCI-Express 3.0 x16 video card (in the $225 price range for the video card alone) that will kick this thing's butt in every benchmark. The Intel "gaming" NUC is $699 before you put in any RAM and an SSD, so its actual total build cost as a barebones is probably around $899. The mini-ITX system will be slightly bigger, but also more robust in nearly every way. Yes it's tiny and slim but it's effectively laptop grade CPU with onboard GPU in a single motherboard.

aavotins 10y ago
I am genuinely interested in such mini-ITX setup. Can you post an example please? Disclaimer: Last time I built my own computer was in 2004 or 2005, so I have no idea what to look for and what is considered powerful these days.
- chx 10y ago
  For $664.26 http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d you can buy an ITX motherboard, CPU, case, PSU and even a GPU. Needs memory and storage added, same as the NUC, after all it's the same price. How much faster wil this be? Intel's own benchmarks show Iris Pro 580 to be between a 750 and a 750 Ti. The GTX 960 is about twice as fast as a 750 Ti. http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960-vs-Nvidia-GTX-750-Ti/3165vs2187 http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960-vs-Nvidi... CPU wise the difference is much smaller, I couldn't find a direct comparison but I found for the 6700HQ but that's just as good because the 6700HQ and the 6770HQ uses the same CPU http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,93341 http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,93341 and then user benchmarks show the 6700 desktop a 20% performance benefit over the 6700HQ http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ/3515vsm34954 http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700-vs-I... Of course because you are not restricted by the integrated parts if you were to spend another $150 then you can get a GTX 970 which is thrice as fast as a 750 Ti and in three weeks when the GTX 1070 lands at the same price as the GTX 970 that'll be four-five times as fast as the GPU in NUC. For the NUC to be competitive, it would need to be $499 perhaps $549 and the external GPU box $150 tops. Now that'd be a very different ballgame -- at that point we would need to look at the significant size advantage and concede that the much smaller ITX cases are typically small run and tend to be more expensive so then the NUC+GPU box would give them a run for their money when space is at the absolute premium. At the current $699 and $499 prices it's hard to see their niche. Here's an example for a real small, artisanal :) ITX case for when space is at an absolute premium: http://nfc-systems.com/shop/s4-mini-chassis http://nfc-systems.com/shop/s4-mini-chassis You could buy this chassis, the necessary accessories as listed on the page, a GTX 960 GPU ITX card for the price of the NUC + Razer Core and end up with a single box barely bigger than the Razer Core still packing a much bigger punch. Here's a forum post http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/post-your-computer-build.182/page-3#post-34337 http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/post-... mentioning a similar build (i5 6600 vs i7 6700 is the only diff, it might worth the savings actually).

williadc 10y ago

These two statements from the article seem to argue against his point. > The CPU and disk performance on offer here [in the latest NUC] are hilariously far beyond what's available on current consoles ... But most importantly, its GPU performance is on par with current consoles. > Zero games are meaningfully CPU limited today Why would I pay over $1000 for a game machine that is basically identical to current consoles in the most important aspect of hardware?

dmoy 10y ago
In 5 years you can drop in a new GPU and keep rolling with the new AAA titles coming out. Sandy bridge handles things fine still...
- williadc 10y ago
  It'd have to be an external GPU though, and the harness alone looks like it's $500. That's likely to get cheaper with time, but even if it were free, an external GPU takes away the primary advantages of a NUC over a mini-ITX or micro-ATX PC, which would likely be much cheaper as well.
ekianjo 10y ago
> Why would I pay over $1000 for a game machine that is basically identical to current consoles in the most important aspect of hardware? Because you have access to thousands more games than on consoles? And you know, you can do about everything with it, not just gaming.
- williadc 10y ago
  Yes, but a NUC is not the only option for living-room PC gaming, and doesn't really seem like the best one.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    Agree, but in terms of space it's a compact solution.

venomsnake 10y ago

The golden age of x86 gaming is past (or ahead of us). We are in a bad valley right now. Modding is getting progressively harder - compare the fan made content for BGII vs MASS EFFECT. Local servers to play multiplayer too - we had them back in doom and starcraft, so there is no excuse from excluding them from new doom and starcraft II. Save at anytime is long past gone - everything is checkpoints, or in the case of XCOM - even if allowed not "real". There was more to PC gaming than 4K PC master race superiority (guilty of being proud member of said race myself). Back in the day - you played the game, the ways you liked. Right now you play the game, the ways the developers like in the majority of big games - that is the console way.

Tobold 10y ago
Yeah, when I read the title I expected a nostalgia piece about the late 90s and early 2000s. Basically after the Amiga died and before the Xbox360 came out (I would say off the top of my hat).
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Offtopic but any relation to "tobold's blog" ? It was my main source of WoW sanity back in the day when WoW was a thing.
  - Tobold 10y ago
    Never heard of it, sorry. Tobold was a very minor character in The Lord of the Rings (better known as Old Toby), so it's not an entirely original nickname ;)
Al-Khwarizmi 10y ago
As someone who has been gaming since the early 80's, I think we indeed are in a golden age of gaming. But the thing is that you (mostly) have to look at indie titles, not AAA titles. Games like FTL, The Curious Expedition, Rocket League, Papers Please, Super Hexagon, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Chaos Reborn, Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes... bring back the originality and the pure, unadulterated fun that we had gaming in the late 80s and early 90s, which had been mostly lost in the late 90s and in the full 00s decade, where everything seemed to be franchises and iteration on old formats. Of course if you look at AAA games it's still mostly rehashes, grindfests and simplified remakes of classics, but I'd argue you're looking at the wrong place.

TwoBit 10y ago

He keeps saying x86, but all these computers -- including the consoles -- are x64.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mackal 10y ago
They're 64-bit variant of x86, or x86-64. x64 is a shit name and people should stop using it. Sadly that probably won't happen thanks to Microsoft.
- derefr 10y ago
  In fact, the term "x86-64" came into existence as a term-of-art because "x64" technically refers to the Itanium ISA (Intel's first now-forgotten attempt at a 64-bit ISA), not the IA64 ISA (Intel's canonicalization of AMD's unofficial extension to IA32.)
  - qznc 10y ago
    The most correct term is "amd64" IMHO.
  - ferbivore 10y ago
    Uh, "IA-64" is Itanium. Intel officially calls x86-64 "Intel 64".
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Yeah, Itanium is IA-64. It's also dying but not forgotten: people who like RISC, reliability, security features, and high-speed all in one remember their vain attempt well. Are also reaping benefits of used HP Integrity and SGI Altix boxes on eBay selling cheaper than consoles. I'm eyeballing a few of those suckers myself. :)
gruez 10y ago
"x86" refers to the family of instruction sets, including the 16, 32, and 64 bit variants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

foepys 10y ago

> This is old hat for PCs, but to release a new, faster model that is perfectly backwards compatible is almost unprecedented in the console world. Nintendo has done this for years with their consoles. You can play Game Boy games on the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance (1989 -> 2001), Gamecube games on the Wii and Wii games on the Wii U. The same was true for Playstation 2 games in the first few versions of the Playstation 3. There will definitely be games that require a Playstation Neo and will not run on the Playstation 4.

szatkus 10y ago
> There will definitely be games that require a Playstation Neo and will not run on the Playstation 4. According to leaks Sony doesn't allow that.
- patresi 10y ago
  For now...
serge2k 10y ago
According to rumors song is absolutely not allowing neo only games.
johnny22 10y ago
didn't they remove the ability to play gamecube games on later versions of the wii?
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  That's weird. The Wii hardware is completely compatible with the GC hardware. The only extra cost was adding the ports.
Dylan16807 10y ago
Let's not go and forget that the N64 could be upgraded with more memory, optional on some games and mandatory on others.

hyperpallium 10y ago

> $1,080 plus tax compared to $399 for one of those console x86 boxes It's like he's arguing against PC gaming.