minilabs2020 said:
I'm stuck between a rock & a hard place regarding the purchase of a "next gen" console, or a PC that will have hardware to match (or exceed). Without making things too complicated I noticed that the PS4 will have 8GB of DDR5 RAM for it's GPU & the CPU will be 8 Cores; how fast are these cores is still a mystery. Before I address my questions to the community I'll give you some perspective on the person you're answering. I personally feel there's only room for ONE non-portable multimedia machine in a world of content on multiple screens & it's our PC's. I also acknowledge that consoles & PC's are different animals with different with different targeted audiences (I apply to both so stay unbiased when responding). My questions are as follows.
1. Should I concern myself with the next gen consoles or dump money into a PC that can match?
2. Are 4 cores running at 3.2Ghz better than 8 cores running at 1.6Ghz when it comes to gaming on console or PC?
3. Will the GPU take care of the gaming graphics even if my CPU is terrible, provided my GPU is able to handle ALL highest settings with no issues?
4. At what point does the CPU get involved in gaming regarding the graphic part of things assuming the GPU can take care of EVERYTHING (trying to determine if I can just focus on Mobo, Ram & GPU only).
5. The PS4 will have 8GB of DDR5 for it's GPU, what GPU for PC would be able to match this & would it be wise to build a PC rig with ATLEAST 8GB of GPU DDR5 memory to match any PC games for the next gen?
6. I thought of purchasing the next gen console (assuming PC hardware wont match at a subsidized price upon release) & then wait for 2 years THEN sell the console & build a competing PC rig with UPDATED specs & hardware to avoid having components that are "stuck" in their state & not upgradable. Is this recommended or not?
Ok. In my opinion you should stick with building a great gaming PC, and this why I think you should:
1)I would buy a PC and upgrade it from time to time.
2) It depends. In PCs 99% of games take much more advantage of quad core and dual core CPUs, and only a small percentage make use of hyper threading/ 6-8 cores. So if you want to run games at high settings on PC you should buy CPUs like the I5 (2500 or 3570) or I7 (3770 and so on...). As consoles work a little bit different I wouldn't compare them head to head. Consoles always run games fluently (99% of games at least), so you should only concern on the CPU if you are buying a PC. And yes, 4 cores running at 3.2 will most likely be better than 8 at 1.6.
3) Absolutely not. This is what is called bottlenecking. When your CPU is awesome and your GPU is not or your GPU is great and your CPU is old as f*** you are bottelnecking the system. One of those components (the slow one) can't process all the data as fast as the data that is being processed by the other fast component. So if you have an Athlon CPU pared with an NVidia GTX 680 (old CPU and new GPU) games are going to run really bad, specially the newer ones.
ALWAYS make sure CPU and GPU don't bottleneck eachother.
4) Taking into account what I said in point 3, both components are equally important. Nevertheless there are games that take more advantage from either the CPU or the GPU like Arma 2 and Skyrim (both need a fast CPU), or Bad Company 2 (both CPU and GPU dependant). The thing is that as long you have a good CPU your games will run smoothly (up to a point). I would say 60% is CPU and 40% is GPU.
5) There are no GPUs for PC that have more than 4GB of video RAM (expect GTX Titan that has 6GB but is $1500(). But it doesn't matter since you can max out ALL games with a good PC. For instance: an overclocked i5 3570ñ with two 680 and 8 gigs of RAM can run anything. And I mean anything.
6) IMO I'd rather get a PC. It depends on how much time you dedicate to gaming. If you are more of a casual player then a fast PC isn't that much needed.