Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC vs Console

Last response: in Video Games
Share

Is gaming on a PC better than gaming on consoles ???

Total: 8 votes (1 blank vote)

  • Yes
  • 43 %
  • No
  • 0 %
  • It's the same thing
  • 15 %
  • PC, hands down
  • 43 %
  • Consoles, hands down
  • 0 %
  • -
  • 0 %
  • -
  • 0 %
  • -
  • 0 %
  • -
  • 0 %
  • -
  • 0 %
December 19, 2009 4:52:17 AM

Is gaming on a PC better than gaming on consoles ???

More about : console

December 19, 2009 6:07:09 AM

usually yes.

but its also much more complicated, more likely to go wrong and the online gaming is much less fully featured.
i do both, and love both. im at my pc much more, but things like unified friends lists, achievements, easy chat features and matchmaking keep me going back to consoles.
and i still think there is nothing on the PCs that rivals Halo 3 and its bungie.net integration. its stuff like that that makes consoles atractive.

but if i had to have one, it would be pc every time. better controls, better graphics, more control. and being able to get to all teh pr0n without turning on another device is always a bonus....
December 19, 2009 6:30:17 AM

Why was this question even asked.
Related resources
December 19, 2009 11:54:17 AM

PC, always has and always will.
December 19, 2009 1:49:26 PM

thats tough to say since the community is much nicer on the console it seems. There is also no reason to worry about upgrading until a new console is released. The mod community is also really fun on some games on the pc though.If only they could create a console that could run mods....
December 19, 2009 4:43:22 PM

Angrymobsters44 said:
thats tough to say since the community is much nicer on the console it seems. There is also no reason to worry about upgrading until a new console is released. The mod community is also really fun on some games on the pc though.If only they could create a console that could run mods....


They day mods and word processing apps are created for a console, is the day a console will no longer be called a console. - It will be called a PC with a fancy name and a shinny price tag hanging of it.
December 19, 2009 10:41:41 PM

I prefer PC and I think its all about personal preference. I prefer to game on my PC as it allows me to watch football as I game. Not to mention I like the customizable aspect that you get when gaming on PC.
December 22, 2009 3:06:58 PM

PC means better graphics but fewer games but console means poor graphics and hundreds of games..
December 22, 2009 4:39:25 PM

sayantan said:
PC means better graphics but fewer games but console means poor graphics and hundreds of games..

Actually the PC has many more games than the consoles. I think what you mean is that consoles have more major titles released by major publishers. But in total games PC has many many more if you consider all the indy, free and casual games that you can get for the PC. Watching the trends in the gaming market going forward I think the $49.99/$59.99-shrink wrapped-retail video game (the bread and butter of the console market) is on the way out. The independently developed, alternatively distributed, non-blockbuster is what is probably going to drive gaming going into the future.
December 23, 2009 1:58:05 AM

purplerat, i have to disagree on that one.

i tihnk that with downloadable distribution, those games will become much more common. but it will still be the million dollar big-studio releses that define the generation of games.

in that sense, i think its good to have a pc and at least one major console. there are far too many briliant games that are console exclusives. i have a 360 and a ps3, and my pc is still my main gaming rig. but im glad i never had to miss Halo 3, gears 2, or uncharted 2.

if its one or the other though, i think a pc is the better choice. like i said earlier though, its not as black and white as PC>console.
January 1, 2010 12:16:32 PM

Games like Crysis never made it to the consoles. You think the Xbox 360 over heats now. They would probably catch on fire trying to run Crysis on high settings.
January 2, 2010 11:50:49 AM

tinmann said:
Games like Crysis never made it to the consoles. You think the Xbox 360 over heats now. They would probably catch on fire trying to run Crysis on high settings.


High? Haha. My PC couldn't run it on high, let alone a console.
January 4, 2010 6:43:30 AM

PC is better for gaming...

Only one reason:

WASD+Mouse is better than Gamepad...
January 5, 2010 5:47:13 AM

joymanavath said:
Is gaming on a PC better than gaming on consoles ???




If you are on a budget, Buy a goddamn console.
If u r REALLY RICH, get yourself a Gaming PC.

In today's market, even the AVERAGE gaming PC Beats the crappy CPUs and GPUs of consoles like PS3 and XBOX 360.
January 5, 2010 12:20:42 PM

ninjawarlord said:
If you are on a budget, Buy a goddamn console.
If u r REALLY RICH, get yourself a Gaming PC.

In today's market, even the AVERAGE gaming PC Beats the crappy CPUs and GPUs of consoles like PS3 and XBOX 360.

OMG, will people stop this moronic bullshit. "REALLY RICH"? Unless you are 10 years old and a few hundred dollars seems like "REALLY RICH" and you are relying on your parents to buy you everything PC gaming is not that expensive. I'm not going to even bother trying to explain it again since I've done it so many times and there are entire threads and articles on this site dedicated to budget PC gaming. It's suffice to say that a gaming capable desktop can be had for close to or a little more than the cost of a console (at the $300 price point) and a laptop that can do about the same for only about 2X that price (which isn't a lot considering all you get in a laptop).
January 5, 2010 7:43:44 PM

purplerat said:
OMG, will people stop this moronic bullshit. "REALLY RICH"? Unless you are 10 years old and a few hundred dollars seems like "REALLY RICH" and you are relying on your parents to buy you everything PC gaming is not that expensive. I'm not going to even bother trying to explain it again since I've done it so many times and there are entire threads and articles on this site dedicated to budget PC gaming. It's suffice to say that a gaming capable desktop can be had for close to or a little more than the cost of a console (at the $300 price point) and a laptop that can do about the same for only about 2X that price (which isn't a lot considering all you get in a laptop).




:pfff:  Hey!!!
What I am trying to explain is that CONSOLES are a 1-time investment when hardware is taken into account; it doesn't need to be UPGRADED for at least 8-10 years !!!!! :pfff: 

But PCs need to be upgraded every 1.5-2 years because game developers develop MORE and MORE POWER-HUNGRY games !!!!! :cry: 

As far as the games are concerned, PC games can be downloaded for free or pirated easily. :sol: 
Whereas, you would need to spend $60 to buy a console game.

DO YOU GET IT ???!!!!!!!!!
January 5, 2010 7:47:28 PM

Angrymobsters44 said:
thats tough to say since the community is much nicer on the console it seems. There is also no reason to worry about upgrading until a new console is released. The mod community is also really fun on some games on the pc though.If only they could create a console that could run mods....



Isn't that the reason why GameShark exists ???
January 5, 2010 7:52:54 PM

ninjawarlord said:
:pfff:  Hey!!!
What I am trying to explain is that CONSOLES are a 1-time investment when hardware is taken into account; it doesn't need to be UPGRADED for at least 8-10 years !!!!! :pfff: 

But PCs need to be upgraded every 1.5-2 years because game developers develop MORE and MORE POWER-HUNGRY games !!!!! :cry: 

As far as the games are concerned, PC games can be downloaded for free or pirated easily. :sol: 
Whereas, you would need to spend $60 to buy a console game.

DO YOU GET IT ???!!!!!!!!!

Who is using a 8-10 year old console? Even if console developers extend product cycles that long I doubt most users will use the same piece of hardware for the entire cycle. How many people who bought a 360 in 2005 are still using the original unit (ie no red ring of death)?

It's true that many PC gamers do upgrade more frequently, but that's because they can not because they have to. A 2005 gaming PC (even one that wasn't very expensive in 2005) can still run just about every current game at least at the level of a console. Like I said PC upgrades are usually out of luxury and not necessity. If I could spend another $100-$200 to get my 360 to run a little faster I would jump all over that, but it's not even an option.
January 5, 2010 8:01:27 PM

purplerat said:
Who is using a 8-10 year old console? Even if console developers extend product cycles that long I doubt most users will use the same piece of hardware for the entire cycle. How many people who bought a 360 in 2005 are still using the original unit (ie no red ring of death)?

It's true that many PC gamers do upgrade more frequently, but that's because they can not because they have to. A 2005 gaming PC (even one that wasn't very expensive in 2005) can still run just about every current game at least at the level of a console. Like I said PC upgrades are usually out of luxury and not necessity. If I could spend another $100-$200 to get my 360 to run a little faster I would jump all over that, but it's not even an option.




You still don't get it do ?

PC games are far superior than Console games.
But, you will always need an upgraded PC every 2 years; well it's my personal opinion to have a console to play games coming in the next 8-10 years.


January 5, 2010 8:09:07 PM

purplerat said:


A 2005 gaming PC (even one that wasn't very expensive in 2005) can still run just about every current game at least at the level of a console.


YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!
Ask this to the people who bought an AVERAGE gaming PC before 2008; even those people will tell you that their PCs cannot play the latest games/current games in demand.

To run today's latest games, people would need to buy a gaming PC which was a High-End configured one way back in 2008 to say the least.

As far as your replies are concerned,
|
|
|
|
v
January 5, 2010 8:11:12 PM

ninjawarlord said:
You still don't get it do ?

PC games are far superior than Console games.
But, you will always need an upgraded PC every 2 years; well it's my personal opinion to have a console to play games coming in the next 8-10 years.

You can have all the opinions you like but that doesn't make anything true. If you buy a console expecting it to be able to play a new game in 8-10 years you will be sorely mistaken (what specific console are you thinking of lasting for 8-10 years anyways?). The console itself may last that long and be able to play old games but no console to date has stayed current for that long. It's usually about half or less than the time frame you are expecting. And upgrading a PC every 2 years is far from needed. Like I said it's something a lot of PC gamers do because they can but not because they need to. But 3-4, or roughly the same time frame as console life cycles, is not unreasonable to use the same PC hardware for moderate gaming.
January 5, 2010 8:17:59 PM

purplerat said:
what specific console are you thinking of lasting for 8-10 years anyways?



PlayStation 3 and XBOX 360.
January 5, 2010 8:20:33 PM

purplerat said:
It's usually about half or less than the time frame you are expecting.


Even if it's half the time(5 years), that too for moderate gameplay, a console IS worth buying to play the latest games.
January 5, 2010 8:24:34 PM

purplerat said:
You can have all the opinions you like but that doesn't make anything true. If you buy a console expecting it to be able to play a new game in 8-10 years you will be sorely mistaken (what specific console are you thinking of lasting for 8-10 years anyways?). The console itself may last that long and be able to play old games but no console to date has stayed current for that long. It's usually about half or less than the time frame you are expecting. And upgrading a PC every 2 years is far from needed. Like I said it's something a lot of PC gamers do because they can but not because they need to. But 3-4, or roughly the same time frame as console life cycles, is not unreasonable to use the same PC hardware for moderate gaming.



The PS2 has lasted for 8 years..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2

BTW I am not a console fanboy unlike you being a PC fanboy!
January 5, 2010 8:25:15 PM

Looky here buckaroo,

I see you posting all over this forum asking for advice on how to spend a whopping $1600 that you plan on having 6 months from now, which tells me you're young, inexperienced and enthusiastic. But that's no reason to get all tense over this stuff and try to insult people or flex your net-muscles.

I'm just recommending that if you want to get into PC gaming not to get all wrapped up in rat-race of dumping large amounts of money just to stay on the bleeding edge just to get a 10% performance increase every 6 months. You can do that if you want but it's not necessary and you should worry about having to do so if you can't afford to.

Now 2005 machine would be a bit dated but you could get by with a first gen Athlon X2, a 7800GT and 1GB (for XP) could still do pretty good on most PC games at 1024x768, medium-low settings with no AA which would still get you frame rates and quality comparable to most console games. The option to constantly upgrade and improve is just that an option and should not be viewed as a negative.

BTW, weren't you the one asking for a build that would last 5 years?
January 5, 2010 8:33:51 PM

purplerat said:
Looky here buckaroo,

I see you posting all over this forum asking for advice on how to spend a whopping $1600 that you plan on having 6 months from now, which tells me you're young, inexperienced and enthusiastic. But that's no reason to get all tense over this stuff and try to insult people or flex your net-muscles.

I'm just recommending that if you want to get into PC gaming not to get all wrapped up in rat-race of dumping large amounts of money just to stay on the bleeding edge just to get a 10% performance increase every 6 months. You can do that if you want but it's not necessary and you should worry about having to do so if you can't afford to.

Now 2005 machine would be a bit dated but you could get by with a first gen Athlon X2, a 7800GT and 1GB (for XP) could still do pretty good on most PC games at 1024x768, medium-low settings with no AA which would still get you frame rates and quality comparable to most console games. The option to constantly upgrade and improve is just that an option and should not be viewed as a negative.

BTW, weren't you the one asking for a build that would last 5 years?



Hey!!!
Don't take my replies as insults!!!

I personally own a laptop which i bought in late 2007 which can't run my fav. games like Assassin's Creed and Devil May Cry 4.
It's an Acer Aspire 4950, that's the reason why I would go for a console, as per my experience.
January 6, 2010 12:01:38 AM

ninjawarlord said:
Hey!!!
Don't take my replies as insults!!!

I personally own a laptop which i bought in late 2007 which can't run my fav. games like Assassin's Creed and Devil May Cry 4.
It's an Acer Aspire 4950, that's the reason why I would go for a console, as per my experience.

This Acer 4950? With an Intel GMA 4500M? I would be surprised if that laptop could play any DX7 or higher game. Clearly you don't have an understanding of what a gaming computer is if so maybe you should stick with the consoles. But just as an FYI, nothing with Intel graphics is intended for gaming. Intel graphics are simply just not intended for playing at all. Trying to play any 3D game on an Intel based graphics is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Or better yet it's like trying to play a XBox game in a PS3. Forget playing 2010 games, that laptop you listed wouldn't even be good for playing 2000 games.
January 6, 2010 8:04:15 PM

purplerat said:
This Acer 4950? With an Intel GMA 4500M? I would be surprised if that laptop could play any DX7 or higher game. Clearly you don't have an understanding of what a gaming computer is if so maybe you should stick with the consoles. But just as an FYI, nothing with Intel graphics is intended for gaming. Intel graphics are simply just not intended for playing at all. Trying to play any 3D game on an Intel based graphics is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Or better yet it's like trying to play a XBox game in a PS3. Forget playing 2010 games, that laptop you listed wouldn't even be good for playing 2000 games.



Again, u r wrong.
ACER Aspire 4520

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2
Dual Core Processor TK-55
1.80 GHz, 4GB RAM w/ 256 MB shared memory Nvidia GeForce 7000M.

And FYKI, I DO have an understanding of gaming requirements. I don't know what the fcuk are u trying to prove!!!
BTW I prefer AMD Processors.
January 6, 2010 11:28:55 PM

Really? Does THG need another PC vs Console thread? I mean...the gaming section is pretty dead and all but Fsake...
January 7, 2010 2:04:48 PM

ninjawarlord said:
Again, u r wrong.
ACER Aspire 4520

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2
Dual Core Processor TK-55
1.80 GHz, 4GB RAM w/ 256 MB shared memory Nvidia GeForce 7000M.

And FYKI, I DO have an understanding of gaming requirements. I don't know what the fcuk are u trying to prove!!!
BTW I prefer AMD Processors.

Please go back and read your own post where you listed the laptop you owned:

ninjawarlord said:
Hey!!!
Don't take my replies as insults!!!

I personally own a laptop which i bought in late 2007 which can't run my fav. games like Assassin's Creed and Devil May Cry 4.
It's an Acer Aspire 4950, that's the reason why I would go for a console, as per my experience.


You mis-identified your machine so stop being so belligerent. Regardless a GeForce 7000M was a low end chip when it came out and was only marginally better than an Intel GPU. Just as any FYI on Nvidia GPUs (and basically the same for ATI as well) anything in the lower range (x000 - x500) are not very good gaming cards. 7000 would obviously be on the lowest end of that scale and I would be surprised if it was much better than the commonly used GeForce 6150 IGPs being used around the same time (actually a little earlier).

I'm actually trying to help you since you seem to be interest in getting into PC gaming. The first bit of advice I can give you is to learn what GPUs are gaming GPUs and which ones aren't (there's a whole section in this forum that can help with that). Don't go just based on price or the amount of dedicated RAM. There are cards that have more RAM and cost more that are no good for gaming while others have less memory and cost less and are much better.
January 7, 2010 2:19:54 PM

ninjawarlord said:
Again, u r wrong.
ACER Aspire 4520

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2
Dual Core Processor TK-55
1.80 GHz, 4GB RAM w/ 256 MB shared memory Nvidia GeForce 7000M.

And FYKI, I DO have an understanding of gaming requirements. I don't know what the fcuk are u trying to prove!!!
BTW I prefer AMD Processors.

Here's a link with relevant information to that graphics chip:

Older games like Fear can be played with minimum details (Fear e.g. with 8-35 fps).

F.E.A.R. was released in 2005. You said you bought that laptop 2 years after this game was released so obviously it was never a gaming laptop if it couldn't even play a 2005 game at better than 8-35 fps.
January 8, 2010 8:27:45 PM

So.... I have a computer UPGRADED around late 2005 (built a year/two before). Here's its specs (to my memory, my little brother uses it, now) Initial build price was ~$500 including the monitor, upgrade was ~$150

AMD 64 3000+ @ 2.0Ghz
1Gb PC3200 DDR RAM (Upgraded from 512Mb)
ATI X800GTO (Upgraded from a 9700Pro)
80Gb HDD

Up until last year it ran everything I threw at it @ 1440x900. I went into college high-level math and rebuilt a pc for MatLab, and gave it to my little brother. It's still running everything we've got (I share games with my brother), mostly on medium settings noAA. He even played through Crysis.

So... there's a pc built in 2005 still playing games. Cost was about $400. And for $100, now, you could toss a 9800GT or something in there, and it'd KILL any console. So upgrading every 1.5-2 years is definitely unnecessary.

Also, dont' use your one experience when you bought a laptop that obviously had no gaming potential/purpose for all computers and when they "need" to be upgraded.
January 9, 2010 12:00:05 AM

ninjawarlord said:
i never said it was a gaming laptop

Then why reference it in terms of how it plays games? It has no relevance to this discussion. Yet you stated how that laptop plays specific games as your point of reference for choosing a console over a PC. It would be like saying the PS3 sucks because it can't play XBox games - it has no relevance to the topic.
January 9, 2010 12:08:57 AM

purplerat said:
Then why reference it in terms of how it plays games? It has no relevance to this discussion. Yet you stated how that laptop plays specific games as your point of reference for choosing a console over a PC. It would be like saying the PS3 sucks because it can't play XBox games - it has no relevance to the topic.


Alright, I get the drift.
I guess a $1800 Gaming PC would kick PS3's A$$.
Thanks.
January 9, 2010 12:11:52 AM

purplerat said:
Then why reference it in terms of how it plays games? It has no relevance to this discussion. Yet you stated how that laptop plays specific games as your point of reference for choosing a console over a PC. It would be like saying the PS3 sucks because it can't play XBox games - it has no relevance to the topic.



Whatd'ya say about this........
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/273043-28-high-gaming...
;) 
January 9, 2010 12:13:03 AM

Dekasav said:
So.... I have a computer UPGRADED around late 2005 (built a year/two before). Here's its specs (to my memory, my little brother uses it, now) Initial build price was ~$500 including the monitor, upgrade was ~$150

AMD 64 3000+ @ 2.0Ghz
1Gb PC3200 DDR RAM (Upgraded from 512Mb)
ATI X800GTO (Upgraded from a 9700Pro)
80Gb HDD

Up until last year it ran everything I threw at it @ 1440x900. I went into college high-level math and rebuilt a pc for MatLab, and gave it to my little brother. It's still running everything we've got (I share games with my brother), mostly on medium settings noAA. He even played through Crysis.

So... there's a pc built in 2005 still playing games. Cost was about $400. And for $100, now, you could toss a 9800GT or something in there, and it'd KILL any console. So upgrading every 1.5-2 years is definitely unnecessary.

Also, dont' use your one experience when you bought a laptop that obviously had no gaming potential/purpose for all computers and when they "need" to be upgraded.

Yup. I built almost exactly the same machine around the same time except with a 7800. It also was an upgrade (from a Athlon XP 2500 and 9200SE). I chose to upgrade more frequently but both of those base machines I listed are still running for the people I sold/gave them too. Like you said throwing a cheap video card in with the 3000+/1GB and you could still get decent gaming performance. Even the GeForce 7800 with setup would still do ok.
January 9, 2010 12:20:04 AM

ninjawarlord said:
Alright, I get the drift.
I guess a $1800 Gaming PC would kick PS3's A$$.
Thanks.

A < $800 gaming laptop would kick a PS3's a$$. Here's the laptop I own

Processor 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo P7450
Memory 4GB, 800MHz DDR2
Hard drive 320GB 7,200rpm
Chipset Mobile Intel PM45 Express Chipset
Graphics 512MB Nvidia GeForce 9800M GS

Cost me $800 last year. But you can get better now for the same price.
January 9, 2010 12:25:05 AM

purplerat said:
A < $800 gaming laptop would kick a PS3's a$$. Here's the laptop I own

Processor 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo P7450
Memory 4GB, 800MHz DDR2
Hard drive 320GB 7,200rpm
Chipset Mobile Intel PM45 Express Chipset
Graphics 512MB Nvidia GeForce 9800M GS

Cost me $800 last year. But you can get better now for the same price.



What you think about an i7 combined with an ATI Radeon 4350 ?
how long would it last with games at max settings ?
amd phenom x4 versus intel i7 ?
January 9, 2010 12:27:23 AM

ninjawarlord said:
Whatd'ya say about this........
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/273043-28-high-gaming...
;) 

I didn't answer because I haven't personally had to consider any major upgrades or rebuilds for a couple of years so I have no reason to pay attention to what is the best setup or give anybody advice on specific parts to buy.
January 9, 2010 8:11:22 AM

I would take a gaming PC any day over a console. The mere freedom of being able to upgrade to something more powerful at will and budget of course makes it so much more attractive. The most powerful gaming PC can do much more then the consoles on the market. Of course game distributors usually release much more big name games for the consoles first, as they want to maximize profit from the boxes. I have a Wii and Xbox 360 sitting in my home office and I spend way more time on the PC playing games.
January 11, 2010 10:11:51 AM

Here are some of the reasons why PC gaming is far better than consoles:
  • Consoles play games with 20-30fps and PC with 60+ fps.
  • Consoles have 1280x720 and even sometimes sub HD resolutions (1024x600) but PC have 1920x1200 and 2560x1600.
  • Also PC have far better graphics (lighting, textures, shaders, physics etc).
  • Consoles have very limited Anti-aliasing and Anisotropic filtering and most of the times they don’t have at all.
  • With the consoles you cannot mod the game.
  • Console gamers struggling with the controller in fps games.
  • PC have much better online expiries than consoles. It is a fact that with consoles you are limited in multiplayer(lack of dedicated server, very limited number of players that can play together etc.)
  • With Consoles in multiplayer you had to always mute everybody to avoid whiny kiddy voices talking "gangsta".
  • PC has free online gaming. Also pc games are cheaper than console games.
  • PC has more and better exclusives than consoles.
  • If you like RTS and MMORPGS then PC is your only choice.

    Also there are people that prefer consoles because:
  • Simplicity
  • Laziness
  • cost(but PC has a better cost/benefit ratio)
  • They are great toys for kids
    Anonymous
    a b 4 Gaming
    January 28, 2010 8:58:08 AM

    michaelmk86 said:

  • Consoles play games with 20-30fps and PC with 60+ fps.


  • You're retarded. There are many console games that play at 60fps.

    michaelmk86 said:

    Also there are people that prefer consoles because:
  • Simplicity
  • Laziness
  • cost(but PC has a better cost/benefit ratio)
  • They are great toys for kids

  • Not really. I prefer consoles because the games are more fun and memorable.
    January 28, 2010 9:50:55 AM

    Quote:
    You're retarded. There are many console games that play at 60fps.
    The overwhelming majority of games run with 20-30fps with usually huge drops below 20fps in heavy action. Very few games run with 60fps because of (1024x600, and low quality graphics).

    Quote:
    Not really. I prefer consoles because the games are more fun and memorable.
    !