OS Neutral 650M/750M vs Next-gen Consoles

[Zellio]

Image




1) your iMac is roughly 4-5 times as expensive.


2) launch games always suck. They are unoptimized and mainly ports of older gen /pc games. You won't see them take advantage of their hardware for a good while.




A next gen console is a great investment if money is tight. If you want a Mac but can't afford a gaming PC, a console is a really good 5-7 year investment. It's a financially good investment.

The launch games excuse is a really poor one for a crappy console generation. NO PC GAME was near the level of Super Mario 64 at launch, games like Sonic Adventure for the dreamcast was a good step up, the xbox launch brought games like Halo and Dead or Alive 3 in 2001, the 7th generation brought launch titles like Perfect Dark Zero, Resistance: Fall of Man, and Condemned.

In order to beat the 7th generation, I bought a core 2 duo e6400, 4 gigs ram, and a x1900xt 512 in 2006. It took a new generation of gpus to beat the new consoles, although the core 2 series had the cpus beat.

Now, it's the 8th generation, and TONS of video cards beat them AT LAUNCH. Not only that, but something like a 680mx, A FREAKING MOBILE VIDEO CARD, can beat them too!

A new console should be able to defeat the older hardware, or at least equal it. Quit making excuses for what is a crappy generation. It's now all x86 tech anyway, so you really aren't going to see a huge difference over time as the devs already understand the machines.

 

[Zellio]

And speaking of $2000+ machines, when I had that machine I also had an Alienware m5750. It had a core 2 duo t(something), 2 gigs of ram, and a x1800m. This thing was one of the fastest laptops on the market at the time, yet didn't really come all that close to the new consoles performance wise.

The simple fact is, a mobile graphics chip, even the best on the market, should not be beating the new consoles performance.

 

[nateo200]

Every Call of Duty runs SO well on PC and Mac, I didn't know they were PC originated and ported to consoles but that seams to make most sense...don't understand why more games aren't like this. I like the fact that I can play COD (albeit older ones like COD4) maxed out on my rMBP, yes at 2880x1800 everything up...there are allot of games I really like but are just poorly optimized....like Ghost Recon Future Soldier, its so horrendously optimized that even guys with the beefiest GPU's and CPU's are getting stuck at 30fps :O Someone posted about how their Intel 2600K Overclocked to like 4.8GHz with Dual Nvidia Titans was lagging...both using 1 and 2 cards and SLI is pretty good at scaling (unlike Crossfire).

 

[mslide]

The simple fact is, a mobile graphics chip, even the best on the market, should not be beating the new consoles performance.

Why shouldn't it? Once again, we're talking about systems that only cost $400. Plus, they don't have to care about resolutions greater than 1080p, multiple monitors, etc.

I still fail to see why you expect a $400 device to perform at the same level as a gaming PC that costs at least 3x more.

 

[Cougarcat]

.

I still fail to see why you expect a $400 device to perform at the same level as a gaming PC that costs at least 3x more.

He was comparing it to an iMac, not a gaming machine. An iMac is just a laptop with a stand, so yes it is a bit disappointing that consoles aren't much better....but not surprising.

Back in the day, it used to be the case that consoles were better than PCs. But then graphics companies spent tons of money on R&D, to the point where everything is just PC parts now.

 

[Zellio]

He was comparing it to an iMac, not a gaming machine. An iMac is just a laptop with a stand, so yes it is a bit disappointing that consoles aren't much better....but not surprising.

Back in the day, it used to be the case that consoles were better than PCs. But then graphics companies spent tons of money on R&D, to the point where everything is just PC parts now.

Well now an iMac is basically a high end gaming laptop with a desktop cpu.. But yeah, the best comparison is to a high end gaming laptop. Which was what I got after the Xbox 360 came out. I played Half Life 2 at 20-40 fps, high settings, 1440x900...

 

[mslide]

He was comparing it to an iMac

He was comparing more than just that. Besides, comparing it to an iMac is even worse. Just change my statement to: "I still fail to see why you expect a $400 device to perform at the same level as an iMac that costs 6-7x more" (assuming you're comparing it to a max'd 27").

 

[Zellio]

He was comparing more than just that. Besides, comparing it to an iMac is even worse. Just change my statement to: "I still fail to see why you expect a $400 device to perform at the same level as an iMac that costs 6-7x more" (assuming you're comparing it to a max'd 27").

I hope you realize that the last time a console launched, you need something like an Alienware m9700 with dual gpus to match and beat performance?

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/alienware-aurora-m9700.aspx

And the highest configs got really expensive on that.

Even for desktops, you needed the newest core 2 processors, 2-4 gigs of ram (Which in 2006, was $200 for 2 gigs!), and a $500 video card.

You obviously have to be too young to remember what happens when consoles launch.