5 ms·
>To be fair we're in one of the worst chip shortages in a long time, GPUs are supposed to be like 3-600 for low to early high range. What's your point exactly?
by Hinrik 6y ago
>To be fair we're in one of the worst chip shortages in a long time, GPUs are supposed to be like 3-600 for low to early high range.
What's your point exactly? The recently released PS5 and Xbox Series X had launch prices of $400-$500 in the U.S.
So, even without the chip shortage, GP's point about the GPU alone costing more than a console still stands.
- kibwen 6y agoYou don't need a beefy rig to play games. The majority of developers are already struggling to produce art assets that can put a strain on top-tier hardware. The PS5 launch was dominated by two games: Demon's Souls, a jaw-droppingly beautiful game that made great use of the hardware, and Bugsnax, whose graphics looked like it could have been a Gamecube game (don't take this as a denigration). The hyped PC game of the past two weeks has been Valheim (having the fifth most-simultaneous players of any Steam game ever), whose graphics compare favorably to Tribes 2, a game from 2001. A select number of AAA studios have the resources to invest in pushing the graphical envelope; everyone else can get by just fine on five year-old hardware.
- Buttons840 6y agoAnd, of course, the Demon Souls game you touted as the graphically impressive one, originally played well on a PS3.
- pja 6y agoThe new version makes full use of the GPU on the PS5, visually it's far more impressive. Not having played either I have no idea whether the gameplay differs between the two!
- hnick 6y agoValheim is very poorly optimised right now, graphics aside. I am not sure how well it works on older hardware but on my RTX2060 and corresponding CPU I get frame drops all the time and global locks when it decides to save the world state in combat or I walk towards somewhere new. I'd imagine it's worse on an older computer, it'll run but it might not be as enjoyable at sub-30-FPS. Hardware creep inevitabily leads to optimisation decisions about how much effort to spend getting things to run well. I do agree that PC hardware tends to last around 5 years now though unless you run the latest AAA games, and there is a wealth of older games. Just the stuff I missed since 2000 would be enough to keep me busy for at least a decade.
- belval 6y agoi5-4XXX + R7 260X (a very bad and old card) works well at 1080p low settings. 3800X + 1080Ti gets you 58 fps at 4k. YMMV but be sure to put the window in fullscreen, that helps with the frame drops.
- Sebb767 6y agoI play sufficiently modern games virtualized (VFIO) on an i5-2500. If FullHD is fine for you, old hardware is still extremely good.
- jboog 6y ago1. You don't need a $300 GPU to play modern games on a gaming PC. 2. Sony and Microsoft subsidize the cost of the hardware. They lose money on every console that goes out the door and make their cash on online passes, accessories and individual games. After a couple years the cost to produce goes down and they start to make some margin on them. This is the way they've been doing it for several console generations now.
- PhillyG 6y agoI have a memory of reading that the strategy Nintendo have used from the n64 days, was always make a slight loss on each console but make big profit on games and developer licences, so that they start making profit after the third or fourth game sold per console Edit: looked for proof but for the life of me I can't find evidence amongst all the results for articles and blog posts reminiscing about old games and consoles!
- panda88888 6y agoNintendo is the exception where the hardware are *not* sold at loss, but rather alight profit. See https://www.google.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nintendo-wont-sell-switch-at-a-loss-plans-to-ship-2-million-units-in-march/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nint...
- mikewhy 6y agoPeople will say "you don't need a $500 card to play PC games", but they'll never acknowledge the caveat that a budget card won't run games anywhere near as nice as a PS5/XSX.
- Grimm1 6y agoAt even $600 a GPU will last you longer than the quality of a similar gaming device like that. I guarantee the games on the console begin to look dated and lose out on features much sooner than building your rig. If a console is $500 and lasts 3 years your $600 gpu, and overall build (mine is about $1200 new but has features that I splurged on for work and could be 300 cheaper for just gaming) will last at least double if not a little more than double that time. At least that's been my experience. I would say looking at lifetime value building your own rig is much more cost effective and has a much higher lifetime on graphical features that are added. As an example my 1070 that I only replaced this year and only because I felt like it was easily still getting me 80+ fps in modern games and supporting new features like DLSS. I could have easily kept using it and been fine for a few more years with new features and updates all the time.
- NationalPark 6y agoWhat $600 GPU is going to look like a PS5 though? The new consoles run games at 60fps/120hz on top of the line screens, that's a lot of performance for a budget PC.
- whynaut 6y agowhy would a console last 3 years (barring failure obv.)? Typical generation is 5-7 years.
- Grimm1 6y agoGeneration yes but I don't remember a whole lot of fidelity updates occurring to my xbox 360 or my xbox one past the first couple years is what I was trying to say. Where as my NVIDIA cards get regular tweaks and improvements for much longer. I'm mainly a PC gamer though so I could be wrong here.
- pjmlp 6y agoGame developers love consoles, because the hardware is known for the whole generation. Whatever tricks your NVidia card can pull, aren't reflected on someone's else GPU card, let alone everything else on the computer.