View Single Post
Old 25th Feb 2014, 16:04   #28
Gareth Halfacree
WIIGII!
bit-tech Staff
 
Gareth Halfacree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bradford, UK
Posts: 3,669
Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.Gareth Halfacree is definitely a rep cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otis1337 View Post
I had a big discussion about this on t'Twittorz when the review was published. Simply put: no, a 120 graphics card *doesn't* run Titanfall better than the 450 (now ~370) Xbox One. Do you know how many frames per second you'd get on Titanfall using the pictured card? Zero. You can't play a game on a graphics card alone.

If you read the review, you get a clearer picture: the 120 GPU beats the Xbox One in Titanfall performance when paired with a 170 CPU, 130 of RAM, 100 motherboard, 120 PSU, 25 cooler, and 90 SSD. Oh, and 80 OS. Plus you're going to need a case for that, so you can add on a fistful of tenners for that. Basically, the machine that beat the Xbox One also cost twice as much - and didn't include a controller (that's another 30 pleas, sir) or Kinect (which may or may not be a problem, depending on your personal preference for a device that SEES ALL AND HEARS ALL.) Or a free game.

The discussion then took a sideways turn into total cost of ownership (TCO). Even there, the case for a PC isn't as clear-cut as you might think: using the specifications for a mid-range PC (build cost, including an Xbox for Windows controller but excluding Kinect, around 600), we worked out that the overall costs are very similar. That's even allowing for buying eight new-release games at the full 50 rip-off Xbox Marketplace cost compared to the same games at 40 for PC via Steam, basically 'cos you're going to have to keep upgrading the PC roughly every three years to stay on top of the latest titles. (Three-year figure reached by having a shufti at how similarly-priced components from three years ago fare in today's games. By contrast, in March I could buy Titanfall for the Xbox 360, a console now nine years old, and it'd play fine. T'won't look as good as the PC version, true, but the PC version won't run on nine-year-old hardware no matter how far I dial down the settings.)

I even did a graph. No, really. Here:



That's TCO for the PS4, Xbox One and the aforementioned PC, tracked over a seven-year lifespan (and assuming no hardware failures in that period - if only that were true!). Both the Xbox One and the PS4 include the cost of annual membership to their respective online services, at full bought-through-the-console price.

In short: you might save money buying a PC instead of a console, but you won't save much.

Think I've gone off on a bit of a tangent now. S'amazing what I'll do instead of the work I'm actually supposed to be doing, innit?
__________________
Author, Raspberry Pi User Guide, Meet the Raspberry Pi | gareth.halfacree.co.uk | twitter
bit-tech news correspondent, Custom PC columnist, other things to other people
I'm a filthy freelancer! Hire me!

Last edited by Gareth Halfacree; 25th Feb 2014 at 19:50.
Gareth Halfacree is online now   Reply With Quote