What i mean is if i spent a 1100 on a computer, could i get my games to look and run as SMOOTH as the next gen games on the ps4, even future ps4 games. If not than i'll probably get the ps4 and use it for gaming and online( if the web browser is faster than the ps3 one). Than wait till maxwell gtx 880 comes out and get that in mid 2014 instead. Thanks in advance.
That is tough to answer. I just upgraded my rig to a 660 Ti and it is running most of the games I am playing at near max settings. I am likely going to grab a 2nd one for SLI in the next 6 months which will run multi-platform games well. The problem is we do not know what is to come from these systems in the distant or even near future. X1 has Cloud computing which extends its longevity almost indefinitely.
Also I am running a VERY old CPU (2009 AMD Phenom x2 BE) It runs at 3.5Ghz Quad Core but it is old tech. Old MOBO and SSD running through SATA 3GBs not 6GBs so my system is by no means modern. Even so it is rocking BF3 at Max, Bioshock Infinite at very high-max etc. It is a good rig but not an 1100 rig.
I would say if you are looking to build a PC for 1100 to compete with a 400 console, why not go console now and then build the PC in 1-2 years with better tech? If you are using the PC for something else then by all means.
For $1,100 you can build a PC with hardware that is more powerful than the PS4 will have. The 8 core Jaguar CPU from AMD is pretty weak. The Jaguar CPU is much less powerful than AMD's FX CPUs. It's predecessor was Bobcat and it's primary function was to be used in netbooks and it's main competitor is Intel's Atom CPU, not Intel's Core series CPUs.
The GPU for the PS4 is about as fast as a Radeon HD 7850 if I remember correctly. On the PC end, there are much more powerful GPU options.
For a $1,100 you can afford an AMD FX-8350 or Intel Core i5-4670k (Haswell). The Intel CPU costs more and it only has 4 core vs. 8 core for AMD, but Intel can basically beat AMD in most game benchmarks. For example, Battlefield 3 multiplayer can take advantage of up to 6 core, but when matched with a GTX 680 GPU the Intel HD 3570k (Ivy Bridge) beats the FX-8350 by just over 20 FPS at 1920x1200 resolution. Skyrim (uses only 2 cores) runs better on Intel because it is a CPU and GPU dependent game.
The problem with PCs is that new hardware is always being released so as time progresses games becomes more demanding. So games coming out 2 years from now tends to be more grahpics demanding that they are now. On a console, the hardware never changes so buying a PS4 game 5 years from now so that means that it should work fine for a PS4 bought and the performance should be the same a on a PS4 bought in 2017.
Try running a game released for the PC 5 years from now on the PC to intend to build this year, and you will be in for a shock. To flip things around, 5 years ago (2008) was the era of the Intel Core 2 Duo / Quad, AMD Phenom I CPUs along with AMD's Radeon HD 4xxx series and nvidia's GeForce GT 9xxx series. Imagine trying to play a game Metro 2033 or Crysis 3 on those types of rigs. You will still be able to play those games, but you need to lower the graphics quality and also accept somewhat low frame rates.