Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the PC dying as a gaming platform???

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 5, 2008 7:26:04 AM

I am a PC gamer and my son has an XBOX 360. Both are good at what they do although I prefer my PC purely because of the type of games I play such as Flight Simulator X. However there is an interesting article discussing the possibility of the PC dying as a gaming platform.

Let me know your thoughts!

(See Link)

http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=1...

More about : dying gaming platform

February 5, 2008 8:41:30 AM

Last year was a fantastic year for PC games and gaming so I'd like to say no, although with more and more PC games being console ports, you can understand people's fears!
February 5, 2008 8:48:04 AM


In two words. No Way.

All gaming platform WILL die eventually, but not the PC. There is no sign that people would stop using Personal Computers(PC) even with the new all-in-one type of cellphones (iPhone..etc). You still going to need a Laptop or a Desktop, and when you do have that then you're a candidate market for PC Game. Which means, a company will find a good marketing power in the world because of everyone having a PC around then they'd find it profitable to develope a game for those PC owners. Simple Economy, as long as there are PC owners, you will find PC games.

Actually, the quantity of PCs in the world is MUCH higher than XBOX or PS3 or whatever. So, the PC market is always bigger no matter what. The gaming industry comes by default and will keep going. Even if big companies find it more profitable to switch to console(and easier) small companies will still produce PC games. Worst case scenario is that we go back to the Single-Person-Developer which brings again the GREAT games that are really fun. Or simple project games that we still love, the classic.

But honestly, with all this HUGE market share I find it hard to believe that big companies dont want to invest in it and they are. As long as you're getting profit, the industry remains.

The truth is, PC is developing globally. Not by 1 company(like PS, Ninetendo.etc) but by the whole world. Intel and AMD? nVidia and ATI? and so forth. PC Is being developed to run faster and better. It is here to stay and it is NEEDED unlike console machines.

So, the market is strong and the market is only getting bigger and better. Investing in a PC game will always be a good thing if done right.

PC platform gaming dying? No way.
PC platform gaming flourishing? hell yeah, like it always did. Steady improvements since the day PC became available for consumers.

Related resources
February 5, 2008 9:01:23 AM

I agree with you to a large extent, obviously there are millions of PC's in the world but how many are actually capable of playing games? I have a standard laptop (as well as my game rig) with 1gb ram and core 2 duo T7200 processor 256Mb Intel video. Fine for business but I can't even install most games as the on board video doesn't meet minimum requirements such as Shader model 2.0 or above. So to me that meens that probably 3/4 of PC's won't be able to play games which does cut the market down significantly.
February 5, 2008 11:23:27 AM

Long of the short gaming consoles always tend to be much more stalwart and stable.. omitting Xbox360's that I've seen prone to lockups. Aswell .. gaming consoles will always always be the best 'bang for the buck' as with gaming experiences and titles I love the PC as it is not restricted to games liscensed for only one console. Aswell as previously mentioned but not clarified all consoles become obsolete simply because the hardware in them gets outdated in time; even the Xbox360 hardware specs is becoming near mid-entry level gaming computer as for power and speed of most typical gaming systems today. Aswell as the obvious the internet adds alot of replayability; eventually I find console games to lose their appeal because your just playing vs the computer or on some ultimatley akward hard to see split screen multiplayer mode in a game; provided he can con someone else into playing with him.. XboxLive and other console subscription services I find a far cry from what the inet is to modern gaming on PC's.

My thoughts;
Not yours :) 

-Dylan Orr-
February 5, 2008 11:34:03 AM

as much as quoted by companies I have yet to see a 'gaming laptop' that can handle high graphic settings above 15fps. even the high end ones. As with PC gaming which he asked about Modern day gaming rigs require a decient cpu; minimum 1gig ram, 2gigs ideal, and atleast one 8700 geforce card running on them. Most laptops I see simply don't have the GPU for the video cards or the memory; largley due to cost; heat and energy consumption of said cards. You can get a low end 8800 (GTS) low end 8800 is somewhat of an oxy moron I'm aware but if you want a 'gaming system' that can play games.. not just open them; you'll be dumping 300+$ into a video card; pretty much how it goes; I run a single 8800GTX myself and have little to no problems running any game reasonably, But as previously mentioned; you'll end up having to drop a few bills on a video card for any self respecting gaming rig

Kkkk1 said:
I agree with you to a large extent, obviously there are millions of PC's in the world but how many are actually capable of playing games? I have a standard laptop (as well as my game rig) with 1gb ram and core 2 duo T7200 processor 256Mb Intel video. Fine for business but I can't even install most games as the on board video doesn't meet minimum requirements such as Shader model 2.0 or above. So to me that meens that probably 3/4 of PC's won't be able to play games which does cut the market down significantly.

February 5, 2008 12:25:28 PM

Hydrotricithline said:
as much as quoted by companies I have yet to see a 'gaming laptop' that can handle high graphic settings above 15fps. even the high end ones. As with PC gaming which he asked about Modern day gaming rigs require a decient cpu; minimum 1gig ram, 2gigs ideal, and atleast one 8700 geforce card running on them. Most laptops I see simply don't have the GPU for the video cards or the memory; largley due to cost; heat and energy consumption of said cards. You can get a low end 8800 (GTS) low end 8800 is somewhat of an oxy moron I'm aware but if you want a 'gaming system' that can play games.. not just open them; you'll be dumping 300+$ into a video card; pretty much how it goes; I run a single 8800GTX myself and have little to no problems running any game reasonably, But as previously mentioned; you'll end up having to drop a few bills on a video card for any self respecting gaming rig


Absolutely,

However the argument that Consoles are outdated is true but it is also true for the PC. My current gaming rig is a P4 3.0Ghz oc @3.4Ghz, 7800GS+ 512Mb AGP, 2gig RAM, Raptor, XFi etc. This will play latest games at medium settings on a playable framerate. I can just about live with this at the moment. However in order for me to upgrade, i've now got to go the full hog and buy a new Motherboard, which will then require new RAM, Video Card and Processor. I might get away with my current 550W PSU but don't know. My system is 4 years old and is now out of date and I can't upgrade it any more. If there is a more powerful AGP graphics card my CPU would be a bottleneck for it etc. I'm not sure If I can afford to upgrade again, I might have to make do with a PS3, although I would love a new PC. So I reckon the life span of PC's and Consoles aren't that different.
February 5, 2008 6:32:42 PM

The PC platform isn't dying as there will always be a way to make money out of the PC gaming industry. On the other hand, consoles provide a better profit margin and therefore attracks more publishers to distribute on this platform.

The consequences of consoles being more attractive for publishers are simple. PC gamers should expect more console ports to the PC and you will see less PC exclusive titles such as Crysis. If they don't increase security on PC titles, we will find more title exclusif to the consoles (which won't be available to the PC). MMORPGs will soon hit the consoles when they figure out the networking issues and when this happens, the PC will have very little more to offer.

However, PC gaming industry remains a good market to make reasonable profits which shouldn't change as long as they can figure out the piracy contraints.

February 6, 2008 11:38:04 AM

Kkkk1 said:
I am a PC gamer and my son has an XBOX 360. Both are good at what they do although I prefer my PC purely because of the type of games I play such as Flight Simulator X. However there is an interesting article discussing the possibility of the PC dying as a gaming platform.

Let me know your thoughts!

(See Link)

http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=1...


Ive been into pc gaming since about 1996, at the time it didnt strike me that it was that popular but had some games i was really impressed with and fiddling around with the machine and software really appealed to me at the time. Fast forward to now and i still feel the same way about it. Its never been a massive platform in my opinion but it will always retain more than enough fans to keep going in a more than healthy state. Plus things like online shooters and rpgs, both on and offline are enormous draws for people. Deviaiting from topic a bit my only gripe with pc's is that racing games are a bit thin on the ground compared to consoles, and Pro evolution soccer just seems much more fun (and bitter and enfuriating and ecstacy inducing lol) on a cheapo console with a mate than on the pc, even with a gamepad. If you think the pc is under pressure as a viable gaming platform, its nothing compared to when the ps1 was released, and a 1300 quid p133 with all the fancy trimmings was easily beaten by a small grey box with 5 chips in it and a loud cd-drive.
February 6, 2008 1:39:48 PM

I think that there is a temporary downsturn in the pc game market. Prime evidence of this is the fact that The Force Unleashed is not going to be initially released for PC, which is really the platform that pushed LucasArts to its position today.

I think part of the problem is game engine technology has far outpaced what user's systems are capable of running. When developers fully realize the potentially MASSIVE market for pc games (most everyone owns a computer by now) they will begin to make games more scalable for varying hardware configurations. Also, the unfinished game business has to stop. Part of the reason the pc game market has dwindled so far is because of the sheer number of problems people encounter trying to play pc games, problems that exceed the skill level of the majority of users.

So this is hopefully a temporary downturn and developers will begin to see the potential in the pc game market again.
February 6, 2008 4:24:04 PM

console games don´t have the same graphics quality than pc games because they use low range procesors and gpu and they expande the pixels so the can meet the screen resolution. besides how many console generations came every year? a console life time is up to 3 or 4 years, and games dvelopment slow down because of hardware limitation. meanwhile pc manufacturers are improving hardware every day and in just one year you can see 3 generations of graphic cards. besides you can adjust and scale your pc for new and improved graphics in games. console will always be the choice of people who just want to play, but dont know about hardware
February 6, 2008 5:11:19 PM


People who own Consoles hype their machines as much as a man with a old Skoda with a 3.5 turbo litre engine in it.

At the end of the day its still a Skoda.

Yes when consoles come out sometimes, there features raise some eyebrows and say pcs are over.

But a console is still a console and its done at a budget

Yes they are getting better all the time but the pc gets even better with so many more options that a console will ever have..

When was the last time you typed a letter in xbox or playstation 3 land to the tax office, or downloaded a porno clip sent to you by email.... Or printed a photo on one from mates in Australia for example.....

PC's are tried and tested games platform with the greatest input devices called keyboard and mouse, and the biggest back catalogue from ebay etc...

most can be bought for peanuts on ebay and there is some great games out there...

Games are cheaper on the pc too not costing up to £50 for one.

PC versions end up being better than consoles

You can down load extra content made by the publisher and fans of the game - look what happend to battlefield 1942 with desert combat....


The only thing that knackers pc games is people copying them....

Bit torrent and such is the reason why not so many games are out on our beloved platform..

Pirates crack them, hack them and put them on the net for free...

I always buy games im gonna play due to the fact i get all the patches...

And patches are also available easier on pc - sometimes adding extra content - bf series for example

Graphics are always better on pc too.....

All the best



February 6, 2008 5:45:42 PM

I don't think the PC will die as a gaming platform, buth with so many people just downloading the games, it's hard as a developer to stay true to it as a platform for release. Why develop something that will just be copied as many times as it is bought, if not more.... see what i'm saying? to do so with a console takes a little more work, but it can still be done... but it's just much easier on a pc. I'm not saying "bring on the crappy drm" but what i am saying is that if you really want a game... support the people that made it... go buy it. even if you wait till it's in the bargain bin. or off a friend. or used somwhere else... it'd help the industry out, and we WOULD start seeing more high quality games for pc.
February 6, 2008 7:06:46 PM

I've been gaming on PCs since my Apple II+ was new (man, that RAM upgrade from 48K to 64K made that sucker SING!), and I've heard the same thing over and over again. Reports of the death of the PC as a gaming platform have been greatly exagerated...
February 6, 2008 7:42:08 PM

Kkkk1 said:
Let me know your thoughts!

They're yet another errant doomsayer. They, too, fail to realize that should PC gaming fold, there'd be little to zero incentive for console makers to actually put anything more into their consoles; you'd just get a re-hashed machine with pretty much no new features, and not really much more powerful, that would still run you $300US... It's not a pretty picture.

Kkkk1 said:
I agree with you to a large extent, obviously there are millions of PC's in the world but how many are actually capable of playing games? I have a standard laptop (as well as my game rig) with 1gb ram and core 2 duo T7200 processor 256Mb Intel video. Fine for business but I can't even install most games as the on board video doesn't meet minimum requirements such as Shader model 2.0 or above. So to me that meens that probably 3/4 of PC's won't be able to play games which does cut the market down significantly.

Well, given that Steam's hardware survey reports that 9.37% of their users have GeForce 8800 series cards, and if that is anywhere NEAR representative of their some 13 million users, that's some 1.2 million people ALONE that have graphics that will rival what 8th-generation consoles will sport. And that doesn't count all the other series of cards out there, of course.

I'd say that while obviously, most computers aren't suited for gaming, I'd counter to note that there are hundreds of millions of PC; were they all gaming-capable rigs, we wouldn't be hearing about consoles at all. Rather, only a tiny fraction of those machines are gaming-ready, but that still very much works out to a number in the millions and millions.

Hydrotricithline said:
as much as quoted by companies I have yet to see a 'gaming laptop' that can handle high graphic settings above 15fps.

That would depend heavily on the game. Certainly, for something like Crysis, but other games which are still quite modern, (Crysis is something I'd call before its time) like STALKER or Supreme Commander.
February 7, 2008 1:02:29 AM

Quote:
Well, given that Steam's hardware survey reports that 9.37% of their users have GeForce 8800 series cards, and if that is anywhere NEAR representative of their some 13 million users, that's some 1.2 million people ALONE that have graphics that will rival what 8th-generation consoles will sport. And that doesn't count all the other series of cards out there, of course.


I would just like to make a note that this is probably because people who have powerful PCs like to take these surveys more. I have been a PC gamer pretty much all my life, I haven't owned a console since the time the coolest games you could play were Contra and the like (until recently I acquired a PS3). And I can remember being much more interested in filling surveys like this when my PC was brand new and top of the range. It's a bit of an Internet ego and it makes you feel good to be able to tell other people just how great your PC is. So takes those %s with a grain of salt.

Quote:
I'd say that while obviously, most computers aren't suited for gaming, I'd counter to note that there are hundreds of millions of PC; were they all gaming-capable rigs, we wouldn't be hearing about consoles at all. Rather, only a tiny fraction of those machines are gaming-ready, but that still very much works out to a number in the millions and millions.


I agree, a lot of people in the world own a PC and few enough of those are Gaming PCs. Still, a little from a huge amount is still a lot.

Another point is that PCs are the ones that keep pushing the hardware forward. Sure, the companies probably don't give a damn of how advanced their games are as long as the money comes in, but the people who make the games do. They are the type of people who are more enthusiastic about games then the gamers and they do care about pushing boundaries. Consoles don't let them do that, except for when they have just been released I suppose.

Quote:
Games are cheaper on the pc too not costing up to £50 for one.


I agree fully and I absolutely hate the companies for coming up with these ridiculous prices. The only reason I bought a PS3 was so that I could have a next gen console for the few games that will end up being PS3 exclusive and to at the same time be able to go back and play all the PS2 games that never came out on PC and I missed out on.


And finally - there are games that just aren't great on anything other then PC. Now, I haven't ever played a strategy game on a console, but I bet I'd be happier with my mouse and keyboard then a gaming pad. Shooters too. [Of course, I realise this point is only valid until large number of people start using keyboard/mouse with their console. After all, there's a reason you have a USB slot on your console...]
February 7, 2008 2:19:37 AM

Doesn't everyone want to play a console game with those lameass controllers? PC's are the only way to go as far as gaming goes. There are so many cool gaming mice and input devices like steering wheel setups and HOTAS flight controls and the Track IR systems. The trouble with PC game developers is that they have gotten into a rut with the types of games they make. I would like to see more flight and driving games. And I would love to see a decent hunting game come out. With the level of graphic engine technology nowadays, you would think they could make one that looked really good.
February 7, 2008 4:57:44 AM

Furious5k said:
I would just like to make a note that this is probably because people who have powerful PCs like to take these surveys more. I have been a PC gamer pretty much all my life, I haven't owned a console since the time the coolest games you could play were Contra and the like (until recently I acquired a PS3). And I can remember being much more interested in filling surveys like this when my PC was brand new and top of the range. It's a bit of an Internet ego and it makes you feel good to be able to tell other people just how great your PC is. So takes those %s with a grain of salt.

That's also why I said "if anywhere near representative." I noted that the survey managed to account for roughly 9% of Steam's user base... And it was also a safe assumption that also, all 13 million users they have are gamers. And I'd be having a hard time believing that nVidia's only sold some 112,000 GeForce 8800 series card, what with everyone and their brother looking to get one, from the time they unveiling the 320MB GeForce 8800GTS, to the 8800GT, and so on; 1.2 million of those cards sounds about fair to me, if not higher.

I suspect that there may be a SLIGHT bias in favor of more powerful PC owners being more likely to submit tech data, though it can't be too strong, given the relatively noticeable numbers of people submitting stats from weak and ancient hardware.

Furious5k said:
Another point is that PCs are the ones that keep pushing the hardware forward. Sure, the companies probably don't give a damn of how advanced their games are as long as the money comes in, but the people who make the games do. They are the type of people who are more enthusiastic about games then the gamers and they do care about pushing boundaries. Consoles don't let them do that, except for when they have just been released I suppose.

That's very true; after the consoles are out, they are doomed to very rapidly fall behind the lastest PCs in terms of hardware processing power. Since the steps tend to average only every 5 years, it'd be possible for console makers to produce what still appears to be an upgrade every generation yet still fall well, well behind the implications of Moore's Law.
February 7, 2008 6:35:20 AM

OK, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Will you, please, stop linking PC gaming to piracy as if it is only exclusive to PCs?
All consoles (with the exception of the PS3... for now) can easily be cracked and used to play backups. All portable consoles included.

And, no, please do not tell me that the downloads for PC games are higher than the downloads for consoles.. I know for a fact it is not true.
Go to any torrent site and see how many have downloaded the popular X360 games (and we're talking about the most lucrative platfrom nowadays). Don't even get me started on the Wii, PS2, PSP and DS.
On one torrent's site game section, the highest downloaded game was Bioshock for the 360 with more than 6670 downloads, Odin Sphere for the PS2 comes in second with with 6665, and Crysis comes in third with around 5900 downloads. Of the highest 20 games to be downloaded, there are only three PC games. The other 17 games are console games.
On another torrent site, the highest seeded games were *free* to download PC games, Planeshift and FEAR Combat, third place comes in some NES ROM set, fourth place is Taxi 2 for the DC (yes the DC). Looking at the highest seeded PC games, it seems that most of them are games that don't require much of a machine to run.

Game companies are already trying to "crack down" on PC piracy with highly intrusive DRM schemes, however, that, if anything, will only negatively affect them. I know that myself, and MANY people as well, refuse to buy any game that goes that way.
I think the game companies should instead focus on the games themselves, and actually *finish* them, rather than releasing incomplete and buggy ones that need to be patched God knows how many times, in order for the consumer to actually enjoy them.

Regardless, PC gaming will not die, IMO. As long as there is high-end hardware, there will always be someone who will want to make use of it. I wouldn't mind console to PC ports, as long as they're well made... if anything, that saves me the trouble of buying a console for only a couple of games. Plus that will make sure my X360 and Logitech controllers are put to some good use with platformers, third person games and the like.
I'd love to see more exclusives for PCs, but exclusivity does not make much sense from a business point of view, even for consoles. Why limit yourself to one platform when there is money to be made on all the others?

February 7, 2008 1:07:38 PM

All I have to say regarding the PC dying is that we are going into a global economic slump. Whenever this happens we see what we see now. Slow hardware development, a slow gaming industry, and a perception that is basically stagnant.

These games are mostly to all developed on PC platforms, no?
I just can't see it happening. It is my opinion that we just have a huge boom in the console industry right now due to the audience (kids who arent ready for a pc platform) and it is overshadowing the PC gaming industry because the console indistry has a larger demand.

But as the kids that fueled this console boom mature, they will see the benefit and the long strides in technology involved in a good PC platform. As a result the PC gaming Industry will pick back up.

I own a few consoles having a 9 year old myself, and I hate consoles because they are worthless for anything else, even though they try to push DVD, the web and all these other half-baked attempts at reaching a parallel with the PC platform, but it will never happen. They are also usually obsolete in a couple years too, where I can simply swap video cards in my PC and rock on for another year or two.

I highly doubt the PC gaming platform is anywhere close to death, but rather on the edge of a huge upturn. I just think the right companies need to get together and slap microsoft and sony around with great platforms showing the far superior tech and it'll all come out in the wash.

I see gaming console sales falling in upcoming years if anything, and people going back to the PC platform being far better adapted to any purpose you could throw at it.

February 7, 2008 2:02:26 PM

k, i dunno if you were replying to me with the "exclusive to pc" part... but i did post this in my last post "...to do so with a console takes a little more work, but it can still be done... but it's just much easier on a pc." as far as the pirateing goes. and my point was to bring up the number of games on a pc, all anyone has to do is go out and buy a pc game that they like rather than downloading it... same with any given console to support it and get more games... but console sales are going to be up for younger kids with parents that don't know how to operate a pc properly... they just pop it in and it's instant "kids being entertained time" see what i'm getting at? I doubt any given soccer mom will take a pc over a game console, it's not "convenient" and while i personally hate convenience shoppers because they help destroy our country (see wall*mart), i can understand the market for it and why it still exists and why a lot of developers target that market... imo, on that market, it doesn't mater how good or crappy the game is, or how the console makes it look as long as the kid tugs his/her mom's pants enough for her to pick the thing up and buy it. See? PC's are a bit different. I should know.. i had my fair share of crappy games when i was a kid... and now my little brother does too... although i'm trying to educate him... haha :-p

ps: if you think i'm wrong, look at the pokemon franchise, and all the barbie or mary kate and ashely olson video games and how much they reall suck yet for some reason they still do decently well.
February 7, 2008 2:36:58 PM

I did see what you wrote in your previous post, but what I got from it was that you think the PC is pirated for more than consoles, which is why developers are seemingly avoiding it. I was trying to show that it was not true, and that as a matter of fact, it is consoles that are being pirated for nowadays more than PCs.
Quoting what you said:
Quote:
I don't think the PC will die as a gaming platform, buth with so many people just downloading the games, it's hard as a developer to stay true to it as a platform for release. Why develop something that will just be copied as many times as it is bought, if not more.... see what i'm saying? to do so with a console takes a little more work, but it can still be done... but it's just much easier on a pc.

Also, I was talking in general in my post, so it was not directed at your post alone.

Anyway, I got your point in your last post, and there is a lot of truth to what you're saying in that one, and that I agree with.

Keep on working on educating your little brother. We need more PC gamers. :) 


February 7, 2008 2:50:54 PM

All this thinking makes my butt itch.
February 7, 2008 2:58:19 PM

The PC has never been a mainstream gaming platform, and it never will be. It will continue to be a niche market. Some of the things that have come out of it are popular, like World of Warcraft or the SIMS, but for the most part PC gaming will continue as it has. As the consoles grow more PC like, you'll see a lot of crossover titles, but the number of game sales will never reach the level of a console platform.

This isn't because of piracy either. Games are pirated on EVERY platform, not just the PC. It has more to do with a less stable development platform in the PC. For a console you're only shooting for one hardware design, so you can tweak the hell out of your code. For the PC it's almost infinite, which would require more R&D and development time. It is a good platform to show off the latest and greatest in graphics, AI, physics which will trickle down to the next generation of console.

Will PC gaming die? No. There will always be people testing and tinkering. The PC lends itself very well to titles like FPS, RTS, MMORPG, and flight sims. I've yet to see a console that can do these as well as a PC. Consoles will always be bigger though due to the cheap price tag (a fully loaded PS3 costs as much as an 8800GTX video card), easier setup, and stable environment.
February 7, 2008 3:28:53 PM

Confirmed deceased:
C64
ATARI STUFF
NES
SNES
GENESIS
32X
SEGA CD
PSX
N64
GC
PSX

There's a console graveyard somewhere.. right next to the pc one.
February 7, 2008 3:30:49 PM

haha, i know. When he finally moves into the city where i live i'll be getting him into crysis and all that. A giant dlp projector screen should suck him into pc gaming for the rest of his life.. he has a nintendo wii, which i give him props for going with a console with an innovative interface at least. it is kinda novel.
an idea that might help flip the intimidation is to have a "game os" bundled with an OS... so all you do is turn it on and decide to play games or run the os, and it would greatly simplify the process for people who are into the plug and play type interface that is offered with consoles. I personally prefer to have more control over my games and options and all that. I also think that once people start seeing how crappy consoles look compared to a good video card poped in a pc looks on a high definition screen that they may choose to play more pc games... I know that at lower resolutions consoles look pretty slick, but just don't compare at high resolutions. the switch to all digital tv in 09 may help with this as well... it's a transitional period right now.. and people who don't pay attention to the bleeding edge will go with whats easiest and in the now, rather than looking forward like most of us here on tg do. the growing popularity of htpc's are helping out the transition greatly, and may eventually be a saving grace of pc gaming, due to the fuctionality (watch/record tv, internet, movies, games, all in one box is very attractive to a large audience) htpc= what web tv wishes it could have been years back.

ps: you can thank sega and the dreamcast for being the first "real" next gen console... online gameplay was non-existent until the DC hit the market, xbox simply emulated the dreamcast and improved on some of it's features (dvd instead of cd, ethernet instaead of dial up, better graphics) but at a higher cost as well, and later down the road. basically the DC was before it's time, i honestly believe that if Sega was still in the market and put out a console in line with the xbox, MS prolly would have not had as big of a market share/not made it at all. but that's my speculation. :-p
February 7, 2008 5:57:48 PM

PC Gaming is not dead! (At least not in my country)

In Romania if you go to a game store there is a huge section (50m) with Computer games and in a small corner, about 10 times smaller, there are games for all consoles.

The Professional Gamers League and WGC and other competitions use computers and computer games. They DON'T use consoles.

The mouse and keyboard is much better than the gamepad. I tried both because I have a gamepad, and the mouse is FAST and PRECISE. With a gamepad it can be either fast or precise but not both. The gamepad is good for racing games. I had a PS1 and played NFS3, 4 and 5.

Some people like consoles because you can use a HDTV and sit on the couch. I can do that with the PC too. I bought a 10m USB cable and hub, a 10m HDMI cable and a 10m audio cable and it's the same as a console because you can plug anything in the USB hub. All the cables cost about 50$ total (they're so cheap here :D  ). Now I have 1080p FULL HD.

Companies like nVidia and ATI (AMD) won't die. They're actually doing well!!!

I built PCs for my friend for 500$ with 8600GT (OC) and AMD X2 with 2GB ram and a 250GB HDD and can run CRYSIS!!! For a console you also need to buy a HDTV. A good res (1600 X 1200) PC monitor is 400 $.

Every one says the graphics are too advanced for the hardware. The game can run at low verry well and at low have graphics like a console. But they give you the choice to go to high setting if you have the hardware. Nobody is forcing you to set the graphics to high.

Games like Counter-Strike aren't dead. Everybody I know play them!!! Even at school! :D 

I can try PC games free and then buy if it's a good game. I downloaded games (used them like a better demo) and then bought. For consoles if you buy a CR@P game that's it!

Multyplayer on the PC is way better. It exist for far longer than on the consoles.

PC game salles aren't lower on the PC.
Everyone says that salles for PC vs consolles (PS2, PS3, XBOX, XBOX 360, WII) are lower for the PC!
They are comparing wrong, PC is a platform too, then why not compare like this:
Xbox 360 vs others (PS3, PS2, PC, WII)
or PS3 vs others Xbox 360, wii, PC)

It should be Xbox 360 VS. PS3 VS. PC VS. Wii. Everyone for himself

PC GAMING IS NOT DEAD!!! :bounce: 

February 7, 2008 6:21:43 PM

stemnin said:
Confirmed deceased:
C64
ATARI STUFF
NES
SNES
GENESIS
32X
SEGA CD
PSX
N64
GC
PSX

There's a console graveyard somewhere.. right next to the pc one.


Call yourself an enthusiast? making a list without the amiga?????? blah. school boy error! ;) 
February 7, 2008 8:36:14 PM

I can't resist jumping into this conversation. PC gaming isn't going to die unless either PCs die or Gaming dies. I hardly think either of those will happen soon. Gaming is a growing industry and if anything will further grow on PCs, even if it grows faster on consoles. As far as the hardware a day will come, and probably sooner rather then later, when the most average PC will be capable of high end gaming. Think about this, a few years ago the idea of editing and encoding video for home users was limited to only those with top of the line hardware and even then it was a stretch. Now even the cheapest PCs and laptops come with Dual core CPUs and plenty of RAM and hard drive space(yes hard drive space was an issue for those of us doing video editing just a few years ago). I think the current downturn in the PC gaming market can be mostly attributed to the gaming market outgrowing itself and PCs being the platform to take the hit since unlike the others it's not a unified platform. Once things catch up a bit they'll go right back to developing more PC titles because there's money to be made there.
a b 4 Gaming
February 8, 2008 2:40:02 AM

I don't think PC games will die. Most of the games that I've played have only come out for the PC. Such as:

Far Cry - (Far Cry: Instincts was a console game and it heard it sucked).

Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines

S.TA.L.K.E.R.

Civilization 4

X3: Reunion - (Xbox 360 version was planned, but it was going to be such a cut down version that it was gonna be laughable. Glad that it never saw the light of day.)

Crysis


Those are just a few.
February 8, 2008 12:58:42 PM

I remember seeing a informal "study" about forums and blogs a while back. Interesting information. Seems the number one question/subject discussed is "why does my machine only see 3.X of my 4 gigs of memory", closely followed by the "pc-console" debate. Bet the latter has been going on since the original Play Station came out.
February 8, 2008 3:00:50 PM

spoonboy said:
Call yourself an enthusiast? making a list without the amiga?????? blah. school boy error! ;) 


never used it lol, never even saw one until today (looking it up), reminds me of the sega cd, and how could anyone use that controller lol?

I assume this is the amiga?

February 8, 2008 4:15:56 PM

PC gaming is dying or has been undergoing a transformation for several years.

I love flight sims, military sims. I can remember great games like Task Force 1942, Falcon 3.0, M1A1 Abrams, Aces of the Pacific, etc....

Those days are dead.

It used to be that Intel/AMD and the video hardware companies were challenged by flight sims. Not first person shooters.

Maybe it's cyclical. Maybe some upstart company will rehash Task Force 1942 or some other sim of yore and update the graphics and gameplay.

One can only hope.
February 8, 2008 4:36:49 PM

pc gaming is having trouble because when many companies make pc games, they make a lot of mistakes

they always assume that we all have the latest $500 video card when in reality only like 0.00001% have the latest hardware (so they just knocked out over 99% of their market)

then you get companies that feel the need to drm the hell out of their games making it too much of a hassle to run

also 8 cores is starting to become mainstream
so most likely when the first gaming motherboard that supports 2 quad core cpu's comes out,

you can bet that a week later, a company will make a game that requires you to have 8GB memory and 8 cores to run

i understand making games look better but they also have to think about game play (crysis looked better than cod 4 but cod4 had better game play and won out)

another problem is that game makers don't make their games efficient

if you run crysis on the lowest settings, it looks 10 times worst than FEAR, but fear runs at least 5-6 times faster

most hard to run games are only optimized to run at full settings, lower settings are are not well thought out so you can lower it and make it look worst than most older games (which ran 100% smooth) and yet it may still lag

what game makers need to do is target the mid range for their games that way more people will be able to max the game out (they will still look batter than many console games and best of all everyone will be able to play them, and high end pcs will stay high end for for a much longer time)

also with consoles you don't have to upgrade every year to be able to game

software developers in generally have become lazy when it comes to making things efficient
vista is slow compared to windows xp,

outlook 2007 is harder to run than doom 3 and all it does is check mail

office 2007 uses more memory than battlefield 1942


second life (a cool pc game, but it is harder to run than crysis and the graphics look like they were from the 90's)

why is second life so hard to run

at 1024x768, you can get 50FPS in crysis maxed out
at 1024x768 in second life, you only get 30-40FPS

and tell me which looks better to you

(second life)
or crysis

believe it or not, crysis runs at least 50% faster than second life and has much less lag (personal experience)



February 8, 2008 6:09:32 PM

cool... pork and beans are for breakfast! ANYWAY... the number one forum post about a pc not recognizing ram... haha... people are stupid. :-p I've known about the memory limit since i was in 4th or 5th grade. :-p I also do agree with the fact that software is superbloated 99% of the time. I run ubuntu linux, and that is super lightweight and fast compared to any windows distro, but it still has the same problem in a lot of places... people need to start changing this... but they won't because they'll just say "oh, faster hardware will fix the problem" untill we hit a wall on how fast our procs are going to get at their current size, and eventually a "fast" computer will once again be the size of the living room sofa because it has 20 procs in it, 80 sticks of memory, 40 video cards, and a commercial air move to keep it all cool. just like the very first ones were... i just can't wait till they figure out how to use animal brains for computing, and human brains will be illegal of course, but everyone will want a human brain cuz it'd be the fastest!
February 8, 2008 7:40:43 PM

think about it, how many people pay ~2,000 for a gaming machine?
almost no one, but people are willing to spend 300 for a console and have much more fun with friends
February 8, 2008 7:45:56 PM

we have already hit that wall.

8 cores are starting to ease their way in

soon we will be at 16 cores



we are basically hitting a technology wall and multi core and SLI are starting to become more mainstream

the problem with multicore and SLI is that there not as efficient as 1 super powerful core

on paper, SLI should give you a 100% performance boost

if you got 30 fps with 1 card, then you should get 60fps with second card in sli

but in reality, if you got 30fps with 1 card, when you go sli you end up with 35-40FPS in sli


when you move from a single core to a dual core, if 1 core rendered a mental ray image in 2 minutes, on paper, the dual core should do it in 1 minute but in reality, it does it in 1 minute 20-30 seconds

sli and crossfire has the worst performance out of any multicore setup on earth

it has the most bandiwdth overhead and performance hits of any multicore setup

with dual core you at least get around a 80-90% boost

with sli, you get a 20-30% boost

which means you paid twice the price for a 30% boost



look at the super computers, having over 10000 cores and requiring their own building and power plant to power the power hungry cores and cooling system


multicore is a short term solution to technology limits.


i a long time ago, computers were much slower, and you will see some pcs with 8 500MHz processors more processors (single cores now are able to beat the 8x 500MHz processors )

if you look at the benchmarks, the 8 core pcs are not 100% faster than the 4 core pcs the boost is more like 30-40% faster

here is a everest benchmark i ran this list shows the results of many other multi core benchmarks



as you can see

the 2x 500MHz got a score of 755 and the 8x 550MHz got a score of 2239

on paper that 8x 550 should have gotten a score of over 3120 but it didnt

multi core is not efficient it is just a bandage for limits in technology
February 9, 2008 1:08:54 AM

the problem with multi cpu computers is that they use the same memory... you essentially need 2x the bandwidth on all fronts to take advantage of 2x the processing power... and crossfire and sli is just retarded to begin with because it's true you don't get that much more perfofrmance for 2x the price... you might as well just buy one hardcore card. unless you have an upgrade plan that involves selling each card individually to 2 separate people and then buying 2 more... or something like that... nobody in their right mind with the facts straight that would buy 2 cards. so i agree.... to an extent....

and a gaming pc doesn't cost that much, you basically have a pc.... say you built it and paid 500-600 dollars for parts, case and everything... the video card to turn it into a gaming machine is significantly less than any given high graphical processing console. so basically you're just paying to turn a PC into a gameing machine... if you look at it that way.. it's much more cost effective because you need a pc anyway... and a nice video card is not as expensive as a console... unless you buy an uber card... So i don't really agree with you on that front....

not to mention you didn't even address my thought about using BRAINS for computing! :-p
February 9, 2008 4:13:18 AM

the human brain is much slower than than current processors.

how many times can you answer the question what is 1+1

a computer can do it millions of times per second, while a human might do it 15 times per second. (also the brain is never able to make the same exact output twice. even though you can say the same thing twice, if the brainwaves are monitored, you will see that the output is different each time machines see the difference but for us, we don't notice it as the brain knows what it is doing and has very good ecc )


console gaming has a lot of ripoffs why do we have to play $8 a month for xbox live? most multiplayer games for pc have no charge for multiplayer

we already pay for a internet connection, we don't need to pay microsoft $8 a month just so they can keep out scores (something with 90% of the pc games that are multiplayer do for free )

console games are also more expensive and offer less content since the games are preinstalled from the cd, and not installed directly to a hard drive, levels have to be designed in a way that allows for quick level loading and for thins to be easier on the video hardware.

if you look closely at many console games you will see that only main focus objects have high res textures and and detail and mesh detail
everything else is generally badly down sampled and are later rendered properly when you go close to them or when they become a main focus

pc gaming is generally less optimized for performance as the makers always have the mind set that the new cpu and videocard coming out next month is twice as fast (but fail to see that 90% of us wont buy it because we don't want a negative balance in our accounts)

no matter how much secondary bandwidth is available, multicore will always have a performance overhead which will reduce performance and will never give you a full 100% increase in speed

but compared to dual core cpus, SLI is horribly inefficient

not to mention that it cost an average of $500 a year to run a gaming pc that uses SLI and drawing on every bit of power that 800 watt psu can offer (the average gaming pc uses just as much power as a microwave and it is on at least 18 hours a day )

1 500 MHz processors use more power than 1 1GHz processor

2 , 3 GHz processors use more power than 1 overclocked to 4GHz

but due to technology limits and lack of effort from the companies, instead of better processors, we wind up with power hungry multi core systems

also
February 9, 2008 9:40:53 AM

Power hungry multi-core systems? Are you kidding me?
If anything CPUs and video cards consume LESS power than they used to a year or two ago.
Take the Core 2 Duos for example, and compare them with SINGLE core P4s; which consume more power? That's right, the P4s do.
(http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/28/intel_cpu_power_...)

Parallel processing is probably the best thing that ever happened to CPUs, IMO. Does it really matter how many CPU cores there are under a heatspreader as long as a CPU performs MUCH better, uses up less energy AND outputs less heat?
Keep in mind I'm talking about multi-core.
Multi-CPU is a different story, and that is what I would call inefficient.

Even dual card systems don't consume much power; 2 SLI'd 8800GTs do not exceed 185W in power consumption and two 3870s do not go over 190W (I'm talking about the power consumption of the cards alone). Add, say, 250W to that for everything else, and you get no more than 440W. A lot lower than your 800W estimation, and we're talking at load.
I doubt anyone plays 18 hours a day on a PC, so power consumption is cut by half (more or less) on idle.
However, I will agree that SLI/CF is a waste of money.

The way I see it, we're going in the right direction.
Next stop: multi-core GPUs and 32nm octo-core CPUs. :bounce: 

February 9, 2008 12:17:05 PM

instead of 2 gpus why cant they just do dual core gpus like they do with the core 2

ps a few years ago, my gaming pc did fine with a 400 watt psu, now we need 750-800 watts

power requirements go up each year because instead of companies working on how can i make this GPU better

there working on " how many videocards can i fit in this space"

usually when they make a new processor in a series, for example the socket 939 opterons, power requirements didn't change much when a faster model was released but when motherboards that support 2 physical processors then power requirements doubled

and the other problem with multicore is getting software to make use of it. certain programs will make use of 2 cores but not 4 and most quad cores have 4 slower cored instead of 2 faster ones (the 4 will offer a major performance boost but only if a program is multithreaded enough

many professional programs like maya only support up to 8 cores after that they wont use any more unless your running like 50 computers as render slaves then you can have 50 computers each having 8 cores and it will use all of them)

if we move to 16 cores per computer, it will be useless to pretty much all professional software

and based on how things are going, more companies are pushing more cored for everything instead of a single one that can do the same work or more

pc gaming will always be higher end and more advance than console games but no one if going to buy the games if you need a $5000 gaming pc to run it with some lag


gaming companies need to better optimize their games, the newer the games get, the more crap their graphics look when you lower the settings (crysis on low looks worst than many games that are years older than it and yet crysis duns 10 times slower than those games (and the problem is that this slowdown is happening in the videocard as crysis doesnt even use full cpu usage, it like many new games use inefficient rendering all leading up to the most inefficient being second life (second life looks like it came out 10 years ago, but it is harder to run than crysis )
February 9, 2008 2:28:48 PM

stemnin said:
never used it lol, never even saw one until today (looking it up), reminds me of the sega cd, and how could anyone use that controller lol?

I assume this is the amiga?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Amigacd32.jpg


THAT is the failed Amiga CD 32. It was Amiga's attempt to break into the young console market and it failed utterly.

No, when someone talks about the Amiga fondly, they are not referring to that thing. They are referring to the computer lines. The amiga 500, 1200, 2000, 3000 and such. They were ahead of their time and had graphics that beat anything else on a consumer level when they came out. Years after the company went out of business, these machines were still used for high end graphics manipulation. Babylon 5 for instance made good use of Amigas for their CG.

Poor Amiga though. They have a troubled and sordid history. Do a search for the history of Amiga and I'm sure you will come up with something. Should be an interesting read if you like to follow the computer industry.
February 9, 2008 2:43:46 PM

razor512 said:
the human brain is much slower than than current processors.

how many times can you answer the question what is 1+1

a computer can do it millions of times per second, while a human might do it 15 times per second. (also the brain is never able to make the same exact output twice. even though you can say the same thing twice, if the brainwaves are monitored, you will see that the output is different each time machines see the difference but for us, we don't notice it as the brain knows what it is doing and has very good ecc )


This is an oversimplification and also wrong. You are comparing a rock to an aardvark I'm afraid. A computer is a binary counting and arithmetic machine and nothing more. Now it is very VERY good at it, but it is not even comparable to a brain.

If you must call the brain a processor then it would more accurately be called an intuitive processor. The reason you get different results when you monitor brain activity when performing the same task repeatedly is because you are improving how you do it each time. For instance you ask a brain what the answer to 12 times 10 is. The first time it might actually calculate it if you have never done that operation before. Another time you may have noticed the trend that multiplying things by 10 results in the first number with an extra 0 at the end so it does a simpler operation to find the result. Another time you will simply remember that the answer to that was 120 and not do any calculations at all.

Computers don't do this. They reinvent the wheel every time a wheel is needed. There are a few technologies that try to optimize the process but it is just not as good at it.

Another thing to look at. How much work would a computer need to do to calculate where a ball will be once it is thrown? Now consider that it does not have accurate range finders and radar guns but only two crude optical sensors, though high resolution. It might not even have enough data to form a starting point for calculations depending on how it was programmed. Your brain on the other hand short cuts all that. It guesses and it does so with sufficient accuracy to catch the ball more often than not. Intuitive processing is powerful for vague situations where all the numbers and mathematical details are just not available.

Finally, when was the last time a computer invented something that changed the world? Computers are tools, used to help invent things, but they are incapable of creativity and creation. Once again that requires an intuitive processor such as a brain.

Brains > computers.
period.

Sorry, seriously tangental, but this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
February 9, 2008 3:13:22 PM

the brain is fast at what it does but not fast at what computers do.

the data the brain collects from the eyes is much higher than a processor can handle

but if you try to get a brain do something like find pi to a million places or solve a calculus equation that takes up a page (a the pc does it almost instantly while the brain just gives up 1/100 of the way through

also brains make mistakes, it is hard to overclock a brain because no one can figure out how to access the brains bios and overclock it

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.



February 9, 2008 9:04:35 PM

Like I said, A rock and an Aardvark. You might as well be saying that google is a significantly better web search site than Xbox Live. They serve extremely different roles and have no chance of encroaching on the other's territory. Point is moot.
February 10, 2008 4:18:33 AM

it's a stupid question "1+1" because the brain doesn't have to answer it a million times... it answers it one-seven times and remembers for eternity... arg... i have a very frustrating audience. anyway. yes, brain is infiantly faster... try using 10% of your computers capacity to read a web page while at the same time having pictures of the web page layed out in front of you... not only will your brain recognize everything on the page and everything in the room, and the sound, and regulate everything in your body on 10%, it'll do it in a fraction of a second if you havn't fried half of it/keep it excersized by using it often. the information that passes into your brain is only as slow as you teach yourself to interpret it. :-p

and as long as we are comparing a "rock and and aardvark" shouldn't we be comparing a rock and a sloth? just kinda wondering, :-p

and the brain did not give up at finding pi to a million places... it simply invented a way to make it easier. DUH!

furthermore... my brain WOULD have a bios... but i dumped it and put in my own code... it works much better this way. :-p

and lastly, WAY TO STEAL A QUOTE! I sure needed that plagiarism to remind me of who's boss! i'll send you a nickel if you can name who coined that term. :-p
February 10, 2008 12:42:05 PM

nachowarrior said:
and lastly, WAY TO STEAL A QUOTE! I sure needed that plagiarism to remind me of who's boss! i'll send you a nickel if you can name who coined that term. :-p


I'm not sure I follow what quote you are talking about....


To get back to the OP though... No, the PC is not dying as a gaming platform. This happens in cycles. In 5 years people will be taking for granted how well PCs are doing and shortly after that the new console generation will start and people will be doomsaying PCs again. If you are truly concerned however, buy a few PC games that you have been considering picking up. Vote with your wallet as the saying goes.
February 11, 2008 10:25:09 AM

stemnin said:
never used it lol, never even saw one until today (looking it up), reminds me of the sega cd, and how could anyone use that controller lol?

I assume this is the amiga?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Amigacd32.jpg


Oh stemmin u are young lol ;) 

Like the other guy said, the 'proper' amiga was the 500, 500+ and 600, and it was an absolute LEGEND!

Seriously the amiga era deserves at least 5 minutes looking up on wikipedia. Hugely influential and popular machine. Its time is well and truly over since about 12 years or so. But in its time...

And yes I still don't think the pc is a dying gaming platform.
February 11, 2008 5:30:14 PM

razor512 said:
instead of 2 gpus why cant they just do dual core gpus like they do with the core 2

They are going to start producing multi-core GPU solutions.
The current popularity of multi-GPUs is just a temporary phase.

razor512 said:
ps a few years ago, my gaming pc did fine with a 400 watt psu, now we need 750-800 watts

No, we DON'T!
It seems you didn't even bother to read my post.
I don't know what kind of computer you're running, but there is NOTHING besides SLI 8800 Ultras that would require anything close to 700W, and that's depending on how many other components you have in a PC.
No offense, but saying 750-800W is a requirement is just ridiculous.

razor512 said:
usually when they make a new processor in a series, for example the socket 939 opterons, power requirements didn't change much when a faster model was released but when motherboards that support 2 physical processors then power requirements doubled

Again, it seems you completely disregarded what I wrote.
I said multi-CPU solutions were indeed inefficient (as in the two physical processors you're talking about now).
What I was talking about in the beginning of my last post was dual and multi-core processors.

razor512 said:
and the other problem with multicore is getting software to make use of it. certain programs will make use of 2 cores but not 4 and most quad cores have 4 slower cored instead of 2 faster ones (the 4 will offer a major performance boost but only if a program is multithreaded enough

many professional programs like maya only support up to 8 cores after that they wont use any more unless your running like 50 computers as render slaves then you can have 50 computers each having 8 cores and it will use all of them)

While you are right in that most software does not have the ability to use all cores, I will say that this is the fault of the software rather than the hardware.
Software will eventually adapt to hardware requirements, as it always has.

razor512 said:
and based on how things are going, more companies are pushing more cored for everything instead of a single one that can do the same work or more

The reason they're doing that is that it is MORE EFFICIENT (and faster) to have two cores or more working simultaneously rather than one taking care of all the load. Having more cores means the load can be split equally over all the cores, which equals more efficiency.
There is also a limit to everything, and single core processors have reached theirs.

razor512 said:
pc gaming will always be higher end and more advance than console games but no one if going to buy the games if you need a $5000 gaming pc to run it with some lag

There is NO game that requires a $5000 PC to run.
I would assume that you mean Crysis, though.
In the US, an $800 PC will run Crysis pretty decently on high settings at 1680*1050.
No offense, but saying that you need a $5000 PC to run games leads me to believe you have the mindset of console fanboys.

razor512 said:
gaming companies need to better optimize their games, the newer the games get, the more crap their graphics look when you lower the settings (crysis on low looks worst than many games that are years older than it and yet crysis duns 10 times slower than those games (and the problem is that this slowdown is happening in the videocard as crysis doesnt even use full cpu usage, it like many new games use inefficient rendering all leading up to the most inefficient being second life (second life looks like it came out 10 years ago, but it is harder to run than crysis )

That I cannot but AGREE with.
Game companies need to start working on better optimization for games. I can only imagine what a good gaming PC (no, not a $5000 one :p ) can do when a game like Crysis is better optimized.
Still I cannot say it is not optimized at all, since I did manage to run it on medium-high on my X1900XT with about 22-27 FPS. That was much more than I expected, to be honest.

February 13, 2008 8:00:07 PM

by power requirements increasing, you will notice that during the days when the 5200 was considered s high end card you could get away with a 250watt psu and run everything fine, try doing that with a modern pc with 8800

while power efficiency doesnt bother me too much as unlike card, with a gaming pc, we have need for all of the speed and more.

over the years, cars have become more and more efficient but all of that added efficiency is lost because the makers just use it to add more horse power and show their cars moving super fast on their tv ads while in reality we are only able to use 30% of that speed and power before we get a ticket (with the efficiency of cars now, if they were to make the engine 90 horsepower instead of 300, the car would probably do 100 miles to a gallon or more and still be able to exceed the speed limits on the highway

(a 1000 horsepower car gets around 5-6 miles to a gallon)

PS the last pc I built had 2 8800 GT's in SLI

the powersupply was a 750 watt by corsair

when idle everest showed 12.17 V on the 12V rail
then when i launched the fog in a box demo by nvidia and prime 95

the 12V readings will hover between 11.95 and 12.02V

and the powersupply has very good reviews (this has 100% no effect on stability but it is annoying to see that 11.95V)

the pc was using the onboard sound and 1 500GB sata drive and 2 dvd burners and 1 floppy drive

!