 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
Ok, so everyone says that if youre getting a PC you want to build it yourself or have it built, so you can get the best parts available, have something you can upgrade easily etc.
OTOH folks say the Console is The Wave of the Future, cause it has, er, standardized parts. Which avoids all the hassles developers have designing for diverse PC's, and assures one of less hassle with games that wont run on your machine, etc.
So help me here. Why doesnt this also argue for going for a more standard PC, IE one from an established manufacturer?
Is it that console makers use better parts, etc than big name PC makers? Is it that PC designers will still be designing for diverse systems, and it wont help that I have a Dell or Emachines PC? Is it that the PC's problems only effect "dumb" users, and that this effects market size, etc, but not my personal experience?
I mean it just seems that the conventional wisdom on WHAT PC to get, and the advantages of consoles, seem in direct conflict.
(For those who are curious, yes Im back in the new PC market again - just bought a new DVD/VCR player, which took priority)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:23
|
|
Consoles are 'better', from a game-design point of view, because they are *completely* standardized - ie, the game developer knows EXACTLY what the architecture is. That, and the fact that they are designed, physically speaking, from a games point of view, so there are a lot of things to be taken advantage of.
Until and unless PCs become the same - a single video card or at least card design for all PCs, a single motherboard architecture, etc. - they will never have this advantage.
However, PCs have the opposite advantage. While a console has a speed-to-speed advantage (a 3.0ghz 1gb ram console will beat a 3.0ghz 1gb ram PC hands down), a console *can't* be upgradeable - or you lose that advantage of known architecture. A PC on the other hand is built to be upgradeable, and the programs written for it are meant to take advantage of upgrades when possible. Thus, while a PC in 2002 would be whipped by a PS2, a current PC would probably whip a PS2 in a head to head contest, pretty soundly.
The reasons for custom-builds on the PC are that you can optimize each of the variables on your PC. You can get a fast, reliable motherboard, combined with a fast chip, and a fast and reliable RAM type (and brand). OR, you can get cheaper varieties of any of these - it's your choice, based on available money etc. You can *decide* where to cut costs - not the manufacturer's decision.
If you buy a Dell or a Gateway or an HP or whatever, you likely will get a top-line chip, a high quantity but poor quality of RAM, and the cheapest motherboard and video card available.
AND, you can use your brain, and make sure you don't have any conflicts that might mess up games  (Of course, sometimes you create these conflicts - but if you built the computer yourself, you know how to fix them as well.)
TBH, at this point, computers are pretty darn good whether homebuilt or bought as is, if you know what to look for. You get a sligthly faster computer homebuilt, probably, unless you're willing to spend $2.5k on an Alienware ... but it's more that you really learn what each part does and where they are. It's a learning experience and a feeling of satisfaction from *making* something, not just buying it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:23
|
|
To answer some questions directly:
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
OTOH folks say the Console is The Wave of the Future, cause it has, er, standardized parts. Which avoids all the hassles developers have designing for diverse PC's, and assures one of less hassle with games that wont run on your machine, etc.
|
Honestly, IMO it's mostly that consoles are EASIER to develop for, as you state, that causes developers to (often) praise consoles. I don't think they're the Wave of the Future - just the wave of the Now. The wave of the future is probably a Home CPU that runs everything for your entire home
quote:
Is it that console makers use better parts, etc than big name PC makers?
|
No. They use *standard* parts, but not necessarily better. Although many established PC makers do chince on certain parts...
quote:
Is it that PC designers will still be designing for diverse systems, and it wont help that I have a Dell or Emachines PC? |
Yes. PC designers must always design for diverse systems.
quote:
Is it that the PC's problems only effect "dumb" users, and that this effects market size, etc, but not my personal experience?
|
I don't think there are 'problems' in the sense of PC being inadequate. Morrowind runs better on even a mid-line PC of today than it does on the X-Box (IMO). Next year, the X360 and the PS3 will probably look better running Oblivion than the top-line PC does ... and three years later, it will be the reverse again. But I don't think it's 'dumb' user problems, as most gamers talking about the difference are talking about their personal rigs. However, consoles certainly are easier to use for a, let's call them 'novice', user, and that is some of their attraction (especially for children). I'd never let my (future) kids near a PS2 until they have learned a PC and a Mac and probably Linux; but then i'm weird.
quote:
I mean it just seems that the conventional wisdom on WHAT PC to get, and the advantages of consoles, seem in direct conflict.
|
Just think of them as having 2 seperate goals. The console's goal is complete standardization, which if you go 100% of the way there, you get some benefits; the PCs goal is complete choice, which if you go that way you get some benefits. But there's no benefit to going halfway each direction - you just lose both benefits. (Although it's easier, so that in a way is a benefit too... )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snoopy369
To answer some questions directly:
Honestly, IMO it's mostly that consoles are EASIER to develop for, as you state, that causes developers to (often) praise consoles. I don't think they're the Wave of the Future - just the wave of the Now. The wave of the future is probably a Home CPU that runs everything for your entire home
No. They use *standard* parts, but not necessarily better. Although many established PC makers do chince on certain parts...
Yes. PC designers must always design for diverse systems.
I don't think there are 'problems' in the sense of PC being inadequate. Morrowind runs better on even a mid-line PC of today than it does on the X-Box (IMO). Next year, the X360 and the PS3 will probably look better running Oblivion than the top-line PC does ... and three years later, it will be the reverse again. But I don't think it's 'dumb' user problems, as most gamers talking about the difference are talking about their personal rigs. However, consoles certainly are easier to use for a, let's call them 'novice', user, and that is some of their attraction (especially for children). I'd never let my (future) kids near a PS2 until they have learned a PC and a Mac and probably Linux; but then i'm weird.
Just think of them as having 2 seperate goals. The console's goal is complete standardization, which if you go 100% of the way there, you get some benefits; the PCs goal is complete choice, which if you go that way you get some benefits. But there's no benefit to going halfway each direction - you just lose both benefits. (Although it's easier, so that in a way is a benefit too... ) |
So its essentially a "corner solution" thing? Full standardization, and full customization are good, but partial standardization gives the disadvantages of both, more or less?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970
time: 06:23
|
|
I don't know anything at all about the technical aspects of the answers to your questions, but from a practical point of view surely there must be huge coordination problems to overcome?
Not only that; I suppose every manufacturer in the computer industry wants to be the provider of the standard within its sector (CPU's, video cards, RAM, hard drives etc)...
Who is to stand down and who is to continue? Which manufacturer would voluntarily give up their knowledge and position to someone else? Hence the need to coordinate efforts and pool resources (at least at the surface), but I suspect there would be a fierce battle to stay in the race and grab the larger part of the pie...
Isn't there two competing standards for high definition TV battling it out right now? Each one supported by different constellations of major japanese, european and american players? Each side trying to convince the public and decisionmakers (politicians) that their standard is the better one...
Carolus
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:23
|
|
AMD, don't look at speed - look at the 2800 number. That's its theoretical equivalent speed of a P4.
A 2200 1.8ghz AMD chip is roughly comparable (according to them) to a 2.2ghz P4.
They're not quite accurate, but indeed they are better than their speed rating, as that's mostly irrelevant.
You can play anything at all, at all, on a 2200 chip. At least I haven't found anything I can't play, including Morrowind and several MMORPGs like FFXI with somewhat big graphics reqs for some parts (well, the cutscenes in FFXI  )
2200 Athlon: $80
Motherboard: $60
PC2400+ RAM 1GB: $100 (could go $60 on 512MB, but i rec 1GB)
GeForce card: $60-80 (anything from that range is good enough)
HardDrive 80GB: $60-$80
--
Under $400. Then add in a case, power supply, and other things that you can probably cannibalize, and for under $500 you have a very decent computer. (Heck, you can probably go up to an AMD 2800 for under $500 easy.) (Still need a monitor, but you have one that you're staring at right now, right?)
I made a P4 3.2ghz 800FSB system for $600 about a year or a year and a half ago ... similar setup otherwise. It's really not that expensive, if you stay away from top-of-the-line crud that's just not worth it ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
OTOH folks say the Console is The Wave of the Future, cause it has, er, standardized parts. Which avoids all the hassles developers have designing for diverse PC's, and assures one of less hassle with games that wont run on your machine, etc. |
It's standardised as cars are standardised. Every single car of the same model is exactly the the same, before you start putting in the optional thingies.
A gearbox from a model probably won't work in another model.
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
So help me here. Why doesnt this also argue for going for a more standard PC, IE one from an established manufacturer? |
PCs are also standardised, but on a lower level.
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Is it that console makers use better parts, etc than big name PC makers? |
Who knows? There is certainly a huge amount of hype surrounding Playstation 3 and Xbox 2. For example, if you look at the video subsystem of the Xbox 2, it is asserted that it has a throughput of 256GB/s or something fantastic. Until somebody finds a way of testing it, however, who knows what speed it will be running?
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Is it that PC designers will still be designing for diverse systems, and it wont help that I have a Dell or Emachines PC? Is it that the PC's problems only effect "dumb" users, and that this effects market size, etc, but not my personal experience? |
PCs are fundamentally different from consoles. PCs are designed to be open systems, consoles are designed to be closed systems. Closed systems tend to be more, hm, idiot-proof. They can also do funny things (e.g. copy protection) under the hood much more easily.
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
(For those who are curious, yes Im back in the new PC market again - just bought a new DVD/VCR player, which took priority) |
I recommend a AMD Athlon 64 (socket 939) system. You don't even need DDR2, SLU, or PCI-E. Very nice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snoopy369
AMD, don't look at speed - look at the 2800 number. That's its theoretical equivalent speed of a P4.
A 2200 1.8ghz AMD chip is roughly comparable (according to them) to a 2.2ghz P4.
They're not quite accurate, but indeed they are better than their speed rating, as that's mostly irrelevant.
You can play anything at all, at all, on a 2200 chip. At least I haven't found anything I can't play, including Morrowind and several MMORPGs like FFXI with somewhat big graphics reqs for some parts (well, the cutscenes in FFXI )
2200 Athlon: $80
Motherboard: $60
PC2400+ RAM 1GB: $100 (could go $60 on 512MB, but i rec 1GB)
GeForce card: $60-80 (anything from that range is good enough)
HardDrive 80GB: $60-$80
--
Under $400. Then add in a case, power supply, and other things that you can probably cannibalize, and for under $500 you have a very decent computer. (Heck, you can probably go up to an AMD 2800 for under $500 easy.) (Still need a monitor, but you have one that you're staring at right now, right?)
I made a P4 3.2ghz 800FSB system for $600 about a year or a year and a half ago ... similar setup otherwise. It's really not that expensive, if you stay away from top-of-the-line crud that's just not worth it ... |
1. We have one PC at home. Thats it. The plan is to get a second one and keep the first. So no cannibalizing of anything.
2. Im not ready to build a PC. So add on a $69 build fee from the local PC shop - though that comes with a 2 year warranty as well.
3. based on the above, and looking at the shops parts list, I couldnt come up with anything under $600, and that was with no video card. so the shops "special" (also with no discrete vid card) at $550 looked appealing. Its more than the cheapest manufactured PC's, but comes with the warranty, is more upgradeable than the cheapest manufactured models, and I THINK has better parts.
4. My impression was that the cheaper motherboards all came with integrated graphics. My plan had been to buy with integrated first, and upgrade by adding a video card later on. If i could save on the motherboard by foregoing integrated graphics, that would make getting a discrete video card now more attractive. I guess I need to talk to the shop about that.
5. I knew about the AMD rating thing, but thanks. Is 2.2 Ghz (or AMD equivalent) enough, you think? The manufactured machines all come with at least 2.4, and very few with less than 2.6. I dont remember what the cheapest ones the shop had were. Im somehow more intimadated at the prospect of later upgrading the CPU than of say, adding a video card or more RAM. Does that make sense?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrSpike
|
 |
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. We have one PC at home. Thats it. The plan is to get a second one and keep the first. So no cannibalizing of anything.
2. Im not ready to build a PC. So add on a $69 build fee from the local PC shop - though that comes with a 2 year warranty as well.
3. based on the above, and looking at the shops parts list, I couldnt come up with anything under $600, and that was with no video card. so the shops "special" (also with no discrete vid card) at $550 looked appealing. Its more than the cheapest manufactured PC's, but comes with the warranty, is more upgradeable than the cheapest manufactured models, and I THINK has better parts.
4. My impression was that the cheaper motherboards all came with integrated graphics. My plan had been to buy with integrated first, and upgrade by adding a video card later on. If i could save on the motherboard by foregoing integrated graphics, that would make getting a discrete video card now more attractive. I guess I need to talk to the shop about that.
5. I knew about the AMD rating thing, but thanks. Is 2.2 Ghz (or AMD equivalent) enough, you think? The manufactured machines all come with at least 2.4, and very few with less than 2.6. I dont remember what the cheapest ones the shop had were. Im somehow more intimadated at the prospect of later upgrading the CPU than of say, adding a video card or more RAM. Does that make sense? |
Yes and no. Why not post all together (a) your estimated budget, (b) the cost of one of those awful budget machines with onboard sound and graphics that you like so much, and (c) the total cost to you of building a machine like I've recommended before, and Snoopy does above.
Then we can see.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
2. Im not ready to build a PC. So add on a $69 build fee from the local PC shop - though that comes with a 2 year warranty as well. |
Sounds pretty expensive, no nephew in the family that can do it for you for half the price?
quote:
4. My impression was that the cheaper motherboards all came with integrated graphics. My plan had been to buy with integrated first, and upgrade by adding a video card later on. If i could save on the motherboard by foregoing integrated graphics, that would make getting a discrete video card now more attractive. I guess I need to talk to the shop about that.
|
DO NOT buy integrated graphics!! It's a waste of money..and if you're unlucky you might have some conflicts when you do add a real card
quote:
5. I knew about the AMD rating thing, but thanks. Is 2.2 Ghz (or AMD equivalent) enough, you think? The manufactured machines all come with at least 2.4, and very few with less than 2.6. I dont remember what the cheapest ones the shop had were. Im somehow more intimadated at the prospect of later upgrading the CPU than of say, adding a video card or more RAM. Does that make sense? |
To be honest, buying to upgrade later is, well, a myth. Buy what you need now and see what happens.
At the moment there are 2 kinds of ram (DDR1 and DDR2) and soon we'll see the introduction of DDR3, none of which are inter-changable.
[/q]
Can't you get anything second hand? I just bought myself a 3 month old ATI 9800PRO for about 2/3 of new price.
Last edited by alva on 09-06-2005 at 17:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Qilue
I agree with snoopy with some additions.
Buy popular parts, that is ones with are common among custom built computers. Things like SoundBlaster sound cards, ASUS/Abit/Gigabyte motherboards, ASUS/Abit/Gigabyte video cards etc.
Also, avoid any motherboard with 'onboard' video/sound/LAN/eggtimer as these only add to the price for functions better served with a expansion card (like graphics, sound, LAN, an actual eggtimer) that is less likely to cause a game compatibility.
Also get a decent sized power supply (350-400W), better to have too much than too little. |
Completely agree. Onboard video etc. is crud. Tho i'd say that if you find a better cheaper board with it than without, go with it - some of the big brands like to include it, and some specials are good deals.
Altho I can't offer a warranty, i'd be more than happy to put a computer together for you undoubtedly for less than the local shop tho transportation costs may be a pain, unless you live in Chicago.
I suggest looking at www.newegg.com - they're a pretty reputable place for parts, and tho they're slightly expensive they're not horribly so - the prices there are usually about 10% higher than the "lowest possible price from some guy in a shack of undetermined location", but they're good about shipping quickly and good about service (in my experience).
There's nothing wrong with a manufacturer PC tho - I think that, if you're talking about the sort of upgrade you are, you'll notice enough increase that you don't need to worry about the fine-tune details. Certainly if you can find something in a decent price, go for it - you'll get adequate performance for most purposes. Of course, any chance you get for gaming tuning - go for it; no integrated graphics if you can avoid it, but rather a dedicated card, and same for sound; and choose more RAM (up to 1gb at least anyway) over faster processor speed. RAM makes more difference than processor speed at the point we are at - heck, FSB (Front Side Bus) and other 'invisible' pipeline speeds and flowthroughs that are 'invisible' to you because they won't tell you the speeds unless you really dig deeply, matter more than processor speed. A 3.2ghz processor is largely a waste compared to 2.8ghz if the speed info goes from memory to processor is 333mhz 
[techie rant]
I disagree with UR's suggestion for Athlon-64 though - that's reaching further than you need to, and adding at least a hundred dollars to the price for not much more functionality (right now). In a few years, yes it will help - but at the moment 64 bit chips cause as many problems as they solve, and there's not really a good version of windows to take advantage of the chips yet. It's going to be a good idea, but i don't think it's necessary. (Sort of like the SATA hard drives - also not a big advantage now, if any, but in a few years  :b Although I'll probably build a 64bit system when i build my next (hopefully before oblivion comes out!!) ... that's because i'm obsessed with performance You can easily get adequate performance for even top games, as i said before, with a pretty mid-range system or even low end (for the current market).
[/techie rant]
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005 21:24
|