£1000 for a gaming rig? Are you stupid? You take a normal PC that anyone has (Quad core around 3.5GHz, 4GB RAM, 1TB HDD etc) and just put in a £200 graphics card like the 6950, then you can flash it to a 6970 and play every game on max, for the same price, and better gameplay/graphics etc. Also you get better games, more of them, free online that you only get with a PS3/PC, not Xbox... I can go on and on.
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft I'm sorry but that's not true unless you only play WoW and Sc2 (which are good games, not talking shit). To play games at a professional level at 120 frames per second, you need a 1000$ pc at least. If not 1500$ if you want eye candy to.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Talk whatever shit you want, but I personally don't like losing to people because they have superior hard ware to me. Also, Xbox and PS3 games can't be emulated on PC. Wii can very well though.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE This only applies if you plan to play stuff like Battlefield 3, crisis 2, etc. The computer will also be very strong, and be able to do anything else, and be able to play new games for a while to come. Personally, I'm on an i7 2600k. In the same game as you, I'd get double the frames per second. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. (you trollz me so thought I'd return favour lolz)
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft You're right though, you could still play CoD games and almost everything else on what you said, a quad. I'd recommend a gtx 570 over a 6970 though tbh. Same price range.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Well... my computer is a normal £350 computer. 500Gb HDD, 4GB 1333MHz RAM, quad core AMD Phenom II. I placed a £130 6850 into it, and I'm now playing BF3 at high settings with 60 FPS+, aswell as every other game (except metro 2033) at ultra @ 60FPS or over.
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft True, but it would be better if your set up included a 120 hz monitor. They are better. Also, in 1080p on a 24 inch screen I'll bet you wouldn't get good fps. A 120 hz 1680x1050 would probably be a good thing to get. Wouldn't be to expensive for a 22 inch one. Maybe 200$.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE You're right though in a way. I agree you don't need the ultimate computer, but for 1080p on a 24 inch screen running over 80 fps and shit, you do.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE If you had a 120hz monitor your shooting would improve in every FPS game you play a bit. You'd notice everything looks more fluid on the screen and realistic.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1920x1080 high preset on BF3, I never notice any kind of lag. It's perfectly fluid, and looks as good as my friend's 6990. 120Hz monitors ARE better, but it's more expensive, and not really needed. The card can actually run BF3 at ultra in singleplayer, but in multiplayer the 1GB VRAM isn't enough for it :(.
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft Yeah, that's what I mean. To get high fps while your looking over a 3 mile battlefield in the jet or from a hill and shit, on ULTRA you need to have a freakish PC. Still though, its one of the only games that's very hard to run.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE You should have tried and got a 6870. They do pretty good. 560ti is a very nice card, and often cheap. Probably 15% better than your current card. 6950 would be good if you can only put AMD, but its more expensive then 560ti often. Your PC can probably get good FPS in Counter Strike and TF2 and CoD and all the other good shooter games though, so I know what you mean.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Still though, at the end of the day including everything and tax. I say a gaming PC costs 1000$ (including monitor) to 1200$. For not ultimate graphics and stuff and not playing some games, possibly 600$-800$. For playing WoW and Counterstrike TF2 and D3 and stuff, even a 400$ one can be used and get very good settings, so I know what you mean.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE For a PC that no one you face would have any sort of advantage, to play all the latest games including a monitor. 1500$ after tax. Many console players are expecting this, because it is what they get from their console (even if they're shitty low graphics games). Therefore, when some console guy asks me, I tell him straight up the truth.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE No. You can play the game fine on ultra in MULTIPLAYER with a 6950. My 6850 runs it fine in singleplayer on ultra. Also, my card is a modified 6850, it cost me much less than a 6870, and runs around 10-15% better than one, while staying at 35 idle and 60 at max load for 3 hours or so. I get good FPS maxed out CSS TF2 all CoD, and BF3 at high preset 1920x1080 I get great FPS.
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft The only way that your computer would run BF3 at 80-100 frames per second, is if you had an I5 or I7 with a 6950, and you'd need to turn the settings way down. I know a lot about computers bro, trust me.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I'm not saying you can't play it. Just trust me I assemble computers for people. Certain things would give you an advantage. Xbox, the playing field is level. Everyone has the same hardware.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I'll just shut up, because I agree, really there are only a couple games you couldn't play nicely on PC. Most games people play, you can handle no problem. Maybe not in all ultra graphics.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I didn't say 80-100, it can't. It can run it at a solid 60, and every other game I have at 60 too (Vsync on because I hate screen tearing) Also BF3 uses very little CPU. And a 6950 is overkill if you're only playing it on high. And yes, I can play every game at max graphics EXCEPT BF3, which is at high preset. I can run skyrim at ultra fine, any of the CoDs, Dirt etc etc.
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft That may be true, but people with better hardware and 120hz screen will have an advantage in BF3. In shooter games, try and get as much frames as possible. It in some cases literally makes the mechanics work better, so you can jump and climb and strafe more effectively.
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE They will have an advantage, but not much of an advantage at all. Being a better player will be the best advantage. And there is no pro level in CoD. Nothing that's serious plays a game like CoD...
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Source takes skill and CoD doesn't? Funny. Counter Strike is all about twitch shooting. Shooting isn't as hard as people make it out to be. Being pro in CoD requires a lot more map recognition. Don't talk out your ass.
its for a couple of seconds but it picks right back up but the difference with the pc lag is you might just have to adjust the Graphic Setting find the visuals you like and the fps you think is acceptable but with even saying that its still 20x better then consoles. Not trying to start an debate with anyone just giving facts.
Well spoken the only thing I disagree with is that you need to invest or spend a grand for a gaming rig, I build low/medium gaming system for ppl by what they like and I've built the cheapest for 200 and a mid for around 400 but it was capable of 1080p but the fps would take lag dips @ times thats just not acceptable to me but some ppl dont notice them its just like the thing when the consoles games lag or have that slow down in game play and console players dont complain cont..........
Your points are so fucking stupid in this video. Ofcourse if you invest $1000 into a PC, it's gonna be better than a PS3 priced at $299. Fucking Fool. How about we take a PC that is priced around the same as a PS3 or Xbox 360. Who Wins then? By the way i'm not being sarcastic, i just wanna know who would win?!
but "Are games better on PC rather than consoles?"
thats a matter of opinion, depends vastly on the person so the question is a little irreleavant.
but do games have far more potential on the PC than consoles?
defenitly without a doubt, unfortunatly the developers/publishers dont see the amount of money they get from the PC to be worth the little effort needed to even add basic PC features one bieng the very important mod support, and thats just the start.
before i had my quad my duel for gaming was perfect, and since most PC games dont utalize quad cores there really is no point to it, a very good duel core can outperform a basic quad very easily when it comes to daily tasks
but in games no, a quad is not needed yet, soon maybe but now, no
Because I've never seen any console commands that effect gameplay be useable in multiplayer servers. Maybe if the game shows the frame rate up in the corner...
consoles are on top right now because its supply and demand, I think that is BS! why
PC should be on top because of newer technology and game developers are not utilizing that technology Plan and simple, Game could be "ALOT" better than they are!!!
Consoles are lagging behind people thats a fact!!!
@R3t4rdedHoTtD0g Why would i buy an xbox and a TV to use with it when i can spend a mere £300 on an entire PC setup that can easily handle console level games.
saving money on the display and not having to spend £50 for xbox live.
@R3t4rdedHoTtD0g It doesn't cost $1000. Please get educated on it. Also, I'm thinking you already have a PC. Considering you're watching this and commenting on it.
Yes, I do realize you are a troll. And a bad one at that.
I bought a PC & PS3 at the same time & they both cost roughly the same amount. PS3 is my preferred platform for gaming because of the games i like.
I like having friends over (who aren't necessarily into gaming). Sports games and fighting games (and little big planet) are so much better to play with people in the room with you. I don't know if you can you do that with a PC.
Anyway,the point of games is to have fun & for me that means inviting friends over.... Just my thoughts.
@SoulSurvivor1652 It is possible, but only on a few games do they come with splitscreen (L4D), and the others... you have to mess with the files to get splitscreen to work, though I'm sure there's tutorials for that. I've seen one for Borderlands, and it looked like it worked. And if I had friends over, I'd probably do something other than playing games, but whatever. :P
@Grannn Where did you buy it from and what country are you in? Because you can get a 5770/6770 (which has better performance than the 5750) for only about $100 here in the US from Newegg. :/
@yerfdog1935 Romania. I bought it from the store thus the higher price. I can't remember the exact price either because I can't find the receipt, but I spent around 450 RON on it, which is 150 $ ( depending on the $ value). Also it was 7 months ago :). Not one of my best deals I must admit :(
@yerfdog1935 Sometimes retailers don't even bother checking the market prices and slap a sum on the box. If you don't know your stuff you can get burnt pretty bad :(.
I agree with you man. PC is far more superior than consoles. The Hardware is more larger than the consoles. As where consoles, you have to stay with that same Hardware for i don't know, 5-10 years until they get a Hardware Refresh. Also PC has a less chance of failing.
Consoles are pretty much a waste of time and money. Great vid!
@infinitypark003 Yeah, I've had more problems with my 360 in the few years I've had it than in my entire time using a PC. Disc reader errors, discs getting scratched, RRODs, etc. The most common is the disc reading one. I don't think I've ever had an E74 error, or whatever it's called (that is for 360, right? Not PS3?)
@yerfdog1935 The E74 Error is for the Xbox 360, which I believe is the Red Ring of Death. The PS3 only gets YLOD as far as I know. Disc scratching? The 360 S does that when you move the system, but It's common sense to turn off the system when your going to move It. PC will always be better than consoles.
@infinitypark003 I'm not talking about the major scratches when you move it when it's running, I'm talking about the smaller scratches and cracking that happens even when you treat the discs well.
1 or 2 of my games have stopped working due to the disc cracking on it's own. :/
@yerfdog1935 Ah, I see. That's what I noticed with Xbox 360's. My relative has a Xbox 360 and for some reason they tend to get smaller scratches after removing It from the tray. Probably because those discs spin at a faster rate, which lowers the lifespan of the disc, thus causing cracks on them or scratches. The PS3 games rarely get scratches. Because every Blu-Ray disc has a special coating that prevents scratching.
£1000 for a gaming rig? Are you stupid? You take a normal PC that anyone has (Quad core around 3.5GHz, 4GB RAM, 1TB HDD etc) and just put in a £200 graphics card like the 6950, then you can flash it to a 6970 and play every game on max, for the same price, and better gameplay/graphics etc. Also you get better games, more of them, free online that you only get with a PS3/PC, not Xbox... I can go on and on.
TheWorldOfWoWcraft 1 week ago
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft I'm sorry but that's not true unless you only play WoW and Sc2 (which are good games, not talking shit). To play games at a professional level at 120 frames per second, you need a 1000$ pc at least. If not 1500$ if you want eye candy to.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Talk whatever shit you want, but I personally don't like losing to people because they have superior hard ware to me. Also, Xbox and PS3 games can't be emulated on PC. Wii can very well though.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE This only applies if you plan to play stuff like Battlefield 3, crisis 2, etc. The computer will also be very strong, and be able to do anything else, and be able to play new games for a while to come. Personally, I'm on an i7 2600k. In the same game as you, I'd get double the frames per second. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. (you trollz me so thought I'd return favour lolz)
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft You're right though, you could still play CoD games and almost everything else on what you said, a quad. I'd recommend a gtx 570 over a 6970 though tbh. Same price range.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE A better choice would be a 6950, or 560ti for good price, and performance.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Well... my computer is a normal £350 computer. 500Gb HDD, 4GB 1333MHz RAM, quad core AMD Phenom II. I placed a £130 6850 into it, and I'm now playing BF3 at high settings with 60 FPS+, aswell as every other game (except metro 2033) at ultra @ 60FPS or over.
TheWorldOfWoWcraft 1 week ago
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft True, but it would be better if your set up included a 120 hz monitor. They are better. Also, in 1080p on a 24 inch screen I'll bet you wouldn't get good fps. A 120 hz 1680x1050 would probably be a good thing to get. Wouldn't be to expensive for a 22 inch one. Maybe 200$.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE You're right though in a way. I agree you don't need the ultimate computer, but for 1080p on a 24 inch screen running over 80 fps and shit, you do.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE If you had a 120hz monitor your shooting would improve in every FPS game you play a bit. You'd notice everything looks more fluid on the screen and realistic.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1920x1080 high preset on BF3, I never notice any kind of lag. It's perfectly fluid, and looks as good as my friend's 6990. 120Hz monitors ARE better, but it's more expensive, and not really needed. The card can actually run BF3 at ultra in singleplayer, but in multiplayer the 1GB VRAM isn't enough for it :(.
TheWorldOfWoWcraft 1 week ago
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft Yeah, that's what I mean. To get high fps while your looking over a 3 mile battlefield in the jet or from a hill and shit, on ULTRA you need to have a freakish PC. Still though, its one of the only games that's very hard to run.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE You should have tried and got a 6870. They do pretty good. 560ti is a very nice card, and often cheap. Probably 15% better than your current card. 6950 would be good if you can only put AMD, but its more expensive then 560ti often. Your PC can probably get good FPS in Counter Strike and TF2 and CoD and all the other good shooter games though, so I know what you mean.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Still though, at the end of the day including everything and tax. I say a gaming PC costs 1000$ (including monitor) to 1200$. For not ultimate graphics and stuff and not playing some games, possibly 600$-800$. For playing WoW and Counterstrike TF2 and D3 and stuff, even a 400$ one can be used and get very good settings, so I know what you mean.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE For a PC that no one you face would have any sort of advantage, to play all the latest games including a monitor. 1500$ after tax. Many console players are expecting this, because it is what they get from their console (even if they're shitty low graphics games). Therefore, when some console guy asks me, I tell him straight up the truth.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 1 week ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE No. You can play the game fine on ultra in MULTIPLAYER with a 6950. My 6850 runs it fine in singleplayer on ultra. Also, my card is a modified 6850, it cost me much less than a 6870, and runs around 10-15% better than one, while staying at 35 idle and 60 at max load for 3 hours or so. I get good FPS maxed out CSS TF2 all CoD, and BF3 at high preset 1920x1080 I get great FPS.
TheWorldOfWoWcraft 6 days ago
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft The only way that your computer would run BF3 at 80-100 frames per second, is if you had an I5 or I7 with a 6950, and you'd need to turn the settings way down. I know a lot about computers bro, trust me.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 6 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I'm not saying you can't play it. Just trust me I assemble computers for people. Certain things would give you an advantage. Xbox, the playing field is level. Everyone has the same hardware.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 6 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I bet sometimes it drops under 60 frames on yours. There's no way a 6850 can play multi player BF3 well...
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 6 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I'll just shut up, because I agree, really there are only a couple games you couldn't play nicely on PC. Most games people play, you can handle no problem. Maybe not in all ultra graphics.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 6 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I didn't say 80-100, it can't. It can run it at a solid 60, and every other game I have at 60 too (Vsync on because I hate screen tearing) Also BF3 uses very little CPU. And a 6950 is overkill if you're only playing it on high. And yes, I can play every game at max graphics EXCEPT BF3, which is at high preset. I can run skyrim at ultra fine, any of the CoDs, Dirt etc etc.
TheWorldOfWoWcraft 5 days ago
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft That may be true, but people with better hardware and 120hz screen will have an advantage in BF3. In shooter games, try and get as much frames as possible. It in some cases literally makes the mechanics work better, so you can jump and climb and strafe more effectively.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 4 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE I've played near pro level in CS and CoD, so not talking shit.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 4 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE They will have an advantage, but not much of an advantage at all. Being a better player will be the best advantage. And there is no pro level in CoD. Nothing that's serious plays a game like CoD...
TheWorldOfWoWcraft 3 days ago
@TheWorldOfWoWcraft No, they will have an advantage, and I bet you'd get shit on so hard you can't imagine in Pro Mod, kid.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 3 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE Source takes skill and CoD doesn't? Funny. Counter Strike is all about twitch shooting. Shooting isn't as hard as people make it out to be. Being pro in CoD requires a lot more map recognition. Don't talk out your ass.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 3 days ago
@ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE If I go from 60 hz to 120 hz in CS my shooting instantly improves.
ROFLNOOBTROLLFACE 3 days ago
its for a couple of seconds but it picks right back up but the difference with the pc lag is you might just have to adjust the Graphic Setting find the visuals you like and the fps you think is acceptable but with even saying that its still 20x better then consoles. Not trying to start an debate with anyone just giving facts.
Tuga777 3 weeks ago
Well spoken the only thing I disagree with is that you need to invest or spend a grand for a gaming rig, I build low/medium gaming system for ppl by what they like and I've built the cheapest for 200 and a mid for around 400 but it was capable of 1080p but the fps would take lag dips @ times thats just not acceptable to me but some ppl dont notice them its just like the thing when the consoles games lag or have that slow down in game play and console players dont complain cont..........
Tuga777 3 weeks ago
ps3 has blue ray
Fabledorf 1 month ago
@Fabledorf so does my pc
pdmftw1 1 month ago
@pdmftw1
my ps3 is the only thing in MY house that plays movies
Fabledorf 1 month ago
@Fabledorf Both my PCs play movies, all 3 of my T.V.s play movies and my xbox plays movies. Your comment is retarded.
theangusbugg 1 month ago
@theangusbugg
hey im just sayin that in !!!!!!!!MY!!!!!!!!!! house i dont give a crap about your house. read the comment
Fabledorf 1 month ago
Your points are so fucking stupid in this video. Ofcourse if you invest $1000 into a PC, it's gonna be better than a PS3 priced at $299. Fucking Fool. How about we take a PC that is priced around the same as a PS3 or Xbox 360. Who Wins then? By the way i'm not being sarcastic, i just wanna know who would win?!
xRiziztahGT 2 months ago
@xRiziztahGT You could easily spent $300 on a PC and get better graphics etc. that ps3 or xbox 360.
BR4NDONcec 1 month ago
@BR4NDONcec Fine :) You win.
xRiziztahGT 1 month ago
Which is the best choice:
1) A full functioning gaming PC,
2) A decent Laptop and PS3,
3) A decent Laptop and Xbox 360?
TheSmartPresenter004 3 months ago
@TheSmartPresenter004 1
xJacho11x 2 months ago
I think the same as you!
Raziel0066 5 months ago
all that was said is correct
but "Are games better on PC rather than consoles?"
thats a matter of opinion, depends vastly on the person so the question is a little irreleavant.
but do games have far more potential on the PC than consoles?
defenitly without a doubt, unfortunatly the developers/publishers dont see the amount of money they get from the PC to be worth the little effort needed to even add basic PC features one bieng the very important mod support, and thats just the start.
09pcgamer 5 months ago
PC is better
mouse and keyboard + high res texrures + high native resolution + mods (not cheating mods BTW) + overall functionality = best all around machine ever
this means you can do video editing,have a fast computer and play games
don't tell me you enjoy your crappy celeron powred PC ? that thing is retarded and slow.
even dual core computers are retarded,you need a quad core ATLEAST
joshodst 5 months ago
@joshodst
before i had my quad my duel for gaming was perfect, and since most PC games dont utalize quad cores there really is no point to it, a very good duel core can outperform a basic quad very easily when it comes to daily tasks
but in games no, a quad is not needed yet, soon maybe but now, no
09pcgamer 5 months ago
@09pcgamer what about the i5 2500k? its a beast and out performs my last computer which had a 925 AMD quad core CPU
2.80 ghz vs 3.30
2mb of cache vs 6mb of smart cache
don't forget a 6950 or a GTX 560 TI
and a Logitech G500 + your average wired keyboard (since keyboard is not important lol)
and quad cores are better at video editing then dual cores
joshodst 5 months ago
@joshodst
what about it? yes its a very good quality processor and i have always liked the intels over the AMDs for performance
rofl i gots a GTX560 ti
o ye im sure they are but i was refering to gaming, there is no need for a quad for gaming ATM
09pcgamer 5 months ago
@09pcgamer and what about CPU heavy games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 or New Vegas
my fps in Fallout New Vegas is ALWAYS AT 60 FPS and!!!! never below and thats all because of my CPU making sure the Graphics card dosent bottleneck
joshodst 5 months ago
@joshodst
funny, i have fallout vegas, it uses the other cores sure but i never seen the usage go above 56%
cant comment on oblivion, never played it
never below 60? what card(s) you got then lol
09pcgamer 5 months ago
@09pcgamer single 6950 1 gb
joshodst 5 months ago
@joshodst
i managed to get new vegas down to 35 FPS lol, vegas strip with the nuke launcher using the tgm thingy :P, but never below 60 for a 6950 seems odd
09pcgamer 5 months ago
@09pcgamer yes but you must texture pack plus anti aliasing?
joshodst 5 months ago
@joshodst
i have all settings including AA to there fullest and i have a few graphics mods and force some effects using the NVIDIA control panel
09pcgamer 5 months ago
@09pcgamer turn down you anti-aliasing to 4x AA and you will get 60 fps,its more enjoyable that way OR crank on the AA and limit your self to 30 fps
i get 45 fps on 16x AA and i lock my frame rate to 30 fps OR like i sed run less AA and have 60 fps
its your choice !! OR get a second graphics card...if you can fit it...
joshodst 5 months ago
@joshodst
i could... i could.... but its pretty :D
09pcgamer 5 months ago
Gaming on computers is kind of cheating becouse some games have console comands
TheSkyrimfreak 7 months ago
@TheSkyrimfreak Please explain yourself.
Because I've never seen any console commands that effect gameplay be useable in multiplayer servers. Maybe if the game shows the frame rate up in the corner...
yerfdog1935 6 months ago
on pc's you have real time strategy games :)
rts games are quite a big part of the gaming community,dont understand why so much people forgett them.
mcfschmolz 8 months ago
plus you can even use a XBOX 360 controller with the PC now, if you think about it its like a console!
ezjohny1 9 months ago
consoles are on top right now because its supply and demand, I think that is BS! why
PC should be on top because of newer technology and game developers are not utilizing that technology Plan and simple, Game could be "ALOT" better than they are!!!
Consoles are lagging behind people thats a fact!!!
ezjohny1 9 months ago
Why would I put a grand into my computer when I can just play the game already on my xbox....money don't grow on trees...
R3t4rdedHoTtD0g 11 months ago
@R3t4rdedHoTtD0g Why would i buy an xbox and a TV to use with it when i can spend a mere £300 on an entire PC setup that can easily handle console level games.
saving money on the display and not having to spend £50 for xbox live.
crypticspoon93 10 months ago
@R3t4rdedHoTtD0g It doesn't cost $1000. Please get educated on it. Also, I'm thinking you already have a PC. Considering you're watching this and commenting on it.
Yes, I do realize you are a troll. And a bad one at that.
yerfdog1935 6 months ago
I agree, pc is the way to go if you understand how to use them really good. that's why consoles were made for people who don't.
iceyMCfly 11 months ago
I bought a PC & PS3 at the same time & they both cost roughly the same amount. PS3 is my preferred platform for gaming because of the games i like.
I like having friends over (who aren't necessarily into gaming). Sports games and fighting games (and little big planet) are so much better to play with people in the room with you. I don't know if you can you do that with a PC.
Anyway,the point of games is to have fun & for me that means inviting friends over.... Just my thoughts.
SoulSurvivor1652 11 months ago
@SoulSurvivor1652 It is possible, but only on a few games do they come with splitscreen (L4D), and the others... you have to mess with the files to get splitscreen to work, though I'm sure there's tutorials for that. I've seen one for Borderlands, and it looked like it worked. And if I had friends over, I'd probably do something other than playing games, but whatever. :P
yerfdog1935 6 months ago
I agree with you man .
I bought a mid range PC 3-4 years ago for 700-800 $ and it never gave my a problem .
I only replaced my 4 year old ATI X1950 with a HD 5750 2 weeks ago because I had 150$ to spare .
A lot of console players use the "You have to upgrade to often " comment and drop prices like 1000$ for a mid range graphic card .
Also hardware wise , consoles are stuck in 2005 .
P.S. My first game ever played was on a Atari gaming console .
Grannn 1 year ago
@Grannn Where did you buy it from and what country are you in? Because you can get a 5770/6770 (which has better performance than the 5750) for only about $100 here in the US from Newegg. :/
yerfdog1935 6 months ago
@yerfdog1935 Romania. I bought it from the store thus the higher price. I can't remember the exact price either because I can't find the receipt, but I spent around 450 RON on it, which is 150 $ ( depending on the $ value). Also it was 7 months ago :). Not one of my best deals I must admit :(
Grannn 6 months ago
@Grannn Oh. For some reason the 5750 is already more expensive in some places here anyway. :/
I think I saw for like $125 on Newegg, and I think that's one of the only ones on there. D:
yerfdog1935 6 months ago
@yerfdog1935 Sometimes retailers don't even bother checking the market prices and slap a sum on the box. If you don't know your stuff you can get burnt pretty bad :(.
Grannn 6 months ago
I agree with you man. PC is far more superior than consoles. The Hardware is more larger than the consoles. As where consoles, you have to stay with that same Hardware for i don't know, 5-10 years until they get a Hardware Refresh. Also PC has a less chance of failing.
Consoles are pretty much a waste of time and money. Great vid!
infinitypark003 1 year ago
@infinitypark003 Yeah, I've had more problems with my 360 in the few years I've had it than in my entire time using a PC. Disc reader errors, discs getting scratched, RRODs, etc. The most common is the disc reading one. I don't think I've ever had an E74 error, or whatever it's called (that is for 360, right? Not PS3?)
yerfdog1935 6 months ago
@yerfdog1935 The E74 Error is for the Xbox 360, which I believe is the Red Ring of Death. The PS3 only gets YLOD as far as I know. Disc scratching? The 360 S does that when you move the system, but It's common sense to turn off the system when your going to move It. PC will always be better than consoles.
infinitypark003 6 months ago
@infinitypark003 I'm not talking about the major scratches when you move it when it's running, I'm talking about the smaller scratches and cracking that happens even when you treat the discs well.
1 or 2 of my games have stopped working due to the disc cracking on it's own. :/
yerfdog1935 6 months ago
@yerfdog1935 Ah, I see. That's what I noticed with Xbox 360's. My relative has a Xbox 360 and for some reason they tend to get smaller scratches after removing It from the tray. Probably because those discs spin at a faster rate, which lowers the lifespan of the disc, thus causing cracks on them or scratches. The PS3 games rarely get scratches. Because every Blu-Ray disc has a special coating that prevents scratching.
infinitypark003 6 months ago