Over the past few years PC GAF has grown in size, from Borys (rip) shouting in the desert to many members dabbling with PC gaming. I hope to have contributed to this in my own small way back when I started the first "I need a new PC thread" in 2008 which is now a GAF staple, or when
I tried and succeeded in building a 399 Crysis PC. It's great to see so many people here enjoy PC gaming now and see it's not intimidating or complicated and that the fidelity of graphics is often unmatched.
That said over the last few months when I was banned as usual (xoxo to the hard working mod team for locking thugs like me up, kabouter je weet toch) I've noticed that some people are under the impression that their current PC rig is all they need next gen. Now obviously this doesn't go for everyone or even the majority of PC GAF, but it seems some people that are maybe new to PC's think "I don't need next gen consoles I already have a super duper PC". This is why I would like to show some examples in this thread of why that is not true.
My thesis is that if you built a top of the line gaming rig last year (with a 400/500 dollar/euro GPU) it won't play the same games with the same performance as next gen consoles by the end of next gen. Anything you have now is simply not good enough. Even if you build a new rig on 720/PS4 launch day you will struggle to get to the finish line.
To prove my point I have done a little research, choosing a top of the line 2004 graphics card, the X800 pron (400 euro at launch) or Geforce Ultra 6800 (500 euro at launch) since that is the best one a year before the 360 launched. For my second point I have chosen the best card of 2005, the GTX 7800 (480 euro at launch) I have chosen these GPU as recommened by tweakers.net who do high end gaming system best buy guy every month since 2002.
We can see the 3DMARK 06 scores of these cards in this graph
The X800 scores 2200, the Ultra 6800 scores 2800, and the 7800 GTX scores 4800. By comparison my 2008, 399 euro rig that cost less to build that any of these cards does 8800. Thats how fast things move in PC land.
But what does this mean for game performance? Lets take a look at how todays or yesterdays GPU's handle games. How does the creme the la creme of 2004 stack up to Crysis? God bless the internet for this little gem where a good pc head makes a nice excel
Sub HD, 20 FPS.
The Ultra 6800 fares little better, playing RE5 in 1024x768 but barely...
Youtube video of Ultra 6800 choking on RE5
What about the GTX 7800 then? Surely this card which cost 500 euro when the 360 launched would beat the 360 to death now? Let's see how it does with Skyrim here
2005 king of the hill crying itself to sleep with Skyrim
Sub HD, 20 FPS.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 with the 7800 GTX fares no better. 1024x768, low settings to get 30 fps. Another vid of 7800 performance
So as you can see 2004 top of the line cards don't even play todays games really (as in some games simply won't boot up with them due to direct X shits), and even 2005 top of the line stuff from around the 360 launch is struggling. Meanwhile your 2005 360 is still playing RE6, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3 and Skyrim (or it would be playing if it didnt RROD 360 times). You can apply this to next gen too, your 2012 top of the line PC won't be enough by the end of next gen, it won't play the games even probably. Even your 2013 rig will be struggling. I didn't even mention the fact that 2004 rigs where running with 1/2 GB ram on single cores and such, but games today wont even let you launch with that setup.
So the next time you're thinking of posting something about not needing next gen consoles since you already have a super gaming rig, think of this. Don't set yourself up for some huge disappointment when the new consoles hit and required specs skyrocket.
I tried and succeeded in building a 399 Crysis PC. It's great to see so many people here enjoy PC gaming now and see it's not intimidating or complicated and that the fidelity of graphics is often unmatched.
That said over the last few months when I was banned as usual (xoxo to the hard working mod team for locking thugs like me up, kabouter je weet toch) I've noticed that some people are under the impression that their current PC rig is all they need next gen. Now obviously this doesn't go for everyone or even the majority of PC GAF, but it seems some people that are maybe new to PC's think "I don't need next gen consoles I already have a super duper PC". This is why I would like to show some examples in this thread of why that is not true.
My thesis is that if you built a top of the line gaming rig last year (with a 400/500 dollar/euro GPU) it won't play the same games with the same performance as next gen consoles by the end of next gen. Anything you have now is simply not good enough. Even if you build a new rig on 720/PS4 launch day you will struggle to get to the finish line.
To prove my point I have done a little research, choosing a top of the line 2004 graphics card, the X800 pron (400 euro at launch) or Geforce Ultra 6800 (500 euro at launch) since that is the best one a year before the 360 launched. For my second point I have chosen the best card of 2005, the GTX 7800 (480 euro at launch) I have chosen these GPU as recommened by tweakers.net who do high end gaming system best buy guy every month since 2002.
We can see the 3DMARK 06 scores of these cards in this graph
The X800 scores 2200, the Ultra 6800 scores 2800, and the 7800 GTX scores 4800. By comparison my 2008, 399 euro rig that cost less to build that any of these cards does 8800. Thats how fast things move in PC land.
But what does this mean for game performance? Lets take a look at how todays or yesterdays GPU's handle games. How does the creme the la creme of 2004 stack up to Crysis? God bless the internet for this little gem where a good pc head makes a nice excel
Sub HD, 20 FPS.
The Ultra 6800 fares little better, playing RE5 in 1024x768 but barely...
Youtube video of Ultra 6800 choking on RE5
What about the GTX 7800 then? Surely this card which cost 500 euro when the 360 launched would beat the 360 to death now? Let's see how it does with Skyrim here
2005 king of the hill crying itself to sleep with Skyrim
Sub HD, 20 FPS.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 with the 7800 GTX fares no better. 1024x768, low settings to get 30 fps. Another vid of 7800 performance
So as you can see 2004 top of the line cards don't even play todays games really (as in some games simply won't boot up with them due to direct X shits), and even 2005 top of the line stuff from around the 360 launch is struggling. Meanwhile your 2005 360 is still playing RE6, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3 and Skyrim (or it would be playing if it didnt RROD 360 times). You can apply this to next gen too, your 2012 top of the line PC won't be enough by the end of next gen, it won't play the games even probably. Even your 2013 rig will be struggling. I didn't even mention the fact that 2004 rigs where running with 1/2 GB ram on single cores and such, but games today wont even let you launch with that setup.
So the next time you're thinking of posting something about not needing next gen consoles since you already have a super gaming rig, think of this. Don't set yourself up for some huge disappointment when the new consoles hit and required specs skyrocket.
