Viewing Thread:
"PC vs Consoles"

who else finds the narrow-minded people who only ever consider consoles to overpower the PC very idiotic?

ive asked around at my school and alsmot everyone who plays the console thinks that consoles are WAAAAY better than PC's - at least 'for gaming' they said. WAKE UP PPL. the specs of most top half PC's today dwarf the tiny consoles that keep spewing out of mindwarped companies. no matter how hard they try, xbox online, ps2 hooking up to modem, PC's will ALWAYS be one step ahead, be it technology, power or even looks. everything about the PC is that much better than any console out to date. THE plans for gamecube 2 or PS3 that may arrive in the future, are already out of date, for PC's are growing in power at an astonishing rate. only a few monthas ago, i saw 2.4 ghz PCs being the top spec out to date, and not only that but a few years ago, 500mhz was top of the range, and while PS2s and xbox's have showed an improvement over their previous type, the PCs will always be growing and will NEVER be out of date, constantly improving and never falling behind any petty console. EVEN MICROSOFT submitted to making a console, which is quite foolish, as they should have concentrated on improving their own OS and other small details that would ultimately make PC users lives that little more smooth.

i find it a shame that so many people have been brainwashed by the fancy ads that overrate the console entirely. but generally, PC's are usually owned by the more intelligent of society (hehe unless ure an exception, like me :) ) while consoles that simply switch on and take hours to load or do anything for that matter, belong to the young people of narrow minds.

this is merely my opinion, but im sure that other pc users out there are sick of seeing more and more people buying machines that may instantly be out of date and thrown to the back of the shelf to make way for a new improved model.

what do yall think?

that reminds me, my brother in law was playing an imported game called animal crossing. it looked cute, cuddly and crap. now you dont get that kind of rubbish on PC's do ya?

someone gonna hurry up and say that i'm wrong or what?

i assume that the refresh rate measures maximum how many times the screen can refresh a second? e.g 60hz = max of 60 frames/sec?

so im guessing that higher refresh rates are in order for better AGP's otherwise the card will be going faster than your monitor and it will tear, unless vsync is turned on, which is a pain in the bum.

UrkiE-UK wrote:
> if you want a games machine by god you gotta get a good 'un, or you'll
> be sadly disappointed.
> if you DO get a good one then you are looking at a beautiful
> friendship. plus the fact that TV's have lower frame limit than PC's
> (though im not CERTAIN). PC monitors (a good one, that is) can go up
> to crazy limits. mine can go up to 120hz (or mhz, cant remember)
> refresh rate. thats 120 frames a sec ennit? i dunno, i think thats
> what it means, but some can go much higher, and most have much more
> res than TV's.



PC Monitors are generally higher performance than TV's - they support higher resolutions, higher refresh rates but also have a faster dropoff rate (the time it takes for an image to fade). While this is very good for clarity, it means whatever is driving your monitor (your graphics card) needs to refresh a lot more often than whatever is driving your TV. If your graphics card frame rate cannot keep up with your monitor refresh rate, then you get frame tearing, where frames are shown before they are fully drawn. This is a bad thing.

UK TVs refresh 50 times a second, enough to produce a smooth image on UK TV technology. PC monitors and graphics cards need to refresh ideally 85 times a second to produce the same smoothness. Stick your monitors refresh rate to 60Hz (if it's not a TFT) and see how much it flickers - it's still refreshing faster than your television. If you can get 85Hz/85fps on your game/DVD/whatever then the monitor will provide a better picture, but it's not always a case of 'more refresh = good innit'

i bought C&C Generals the other day, and my system can hardly keep up with it!!! :D

nuke blasts bring my system down to 4 frames/sec - thats a LOT of particles and effex

which means that a good machine can give games quality that is mind-blowingly smooth, fast, and smooth.

if you want a games machine by god you gotta get a good 'un, or you'll be sadly disappointed.
if you DO get a good one then you are looking at a beautiful friendship. plus the fact that TV's have lower frame limit than PC's (though im not CERTAIN). PC monitors (a good one, that is) can go up to crazy limits. mine can go up to 120hz (or mhz, cant remember) refresh rate. thats 120 frames a sec ennit? i dunno, i think thats what it means, but some can go much higher, and most have much more res than TV's.

WickedWare wrote:
> Pooer is not the word. The same quality graphics I mean.

Ah, well that makes more sense and it's what I originally said as well. Tell you one thing though, Metroid Prime on the GC is rediculously good looking, more so than Unreal 2 I'd say.

Odd since S.T.A.L.K.E.R is already approaching a level of graphical beauty that matches, and possibly beats in some respects Doom 3, one of the best looking games I've seen ever.

But then that's your opinion, so I won't argue with it, just say that graphics don't maketh the game, regardless of how good they can look.

Pooer is not the word. The same quality graphics I mean.