Gaming Is PC gaming still worth the investment?

[twiztidsinz]

Older Processors.
The "Intel Pentium 4" 2.26ghz processor scores 288.

Newer Processors.
The "Intel Core 2 Duo P7350" 2.00ghz processor scores 1,318.

There's a hell of a lot more to processors than ghz and cores.

All single cores vs all dual/quad cores. That's why there's a difference.
Also, benchmark apps are designed to use dual and quad cores optimally, many games aren't.

Also also, benchmark apps (like Furmark) don't accurately represent a real-world result.
For example, one of the last things I did with my Radeon x1900XT and first things with my GeForce 9800GT was run Furmark.
I don't recall the scores but I noticed a huge improvement with the GeForce, however in Borderlands I only got a 3~5FPS bump.
Admittedly, the GeForce is a better card in just about every way (the Radeon choked on 1080 video, the GeForce plays HD fine), but benchmark tests don't always equal real-world results.

 

[Rydian]

Older Processors.
The "Intel Pentium 4" 2.26ghz processor scores 288.

Newer Processors.
The "Intel Core 2 Duo P7350" 2.00ghz processor scores 1,318.

There's a hell of a lot more to processors than ghz and cores.
All single cores vs all dual/quad cores. That's why there's a difference.
Also, benchmark apps are designed to use dual and quad cores optimally, many games aren't. 2 x 288 =/= 1,318

I'll just toss out my whole copy-paste here.

Processors!​

1 - Multiple cores.


A dual-core processor is NOT two processors in one. A dual-core 2ghz processor is NOT the same as a single-core 4ghz processor! Lots of people think that dual-core means EVERYTHING goes twice as fast. Not true. Only things that actually USE more than one core will benefit, while things made for only one core don't benefit from more cores.

Each core allows you to do a task. Having multiple cores allows you to do multiple tasks at once.

Let's say that the task is baking a cake. You have to mix the batter, then bake the cake, then decorate it. These three steps cannot be done out of order, you cannot do two or more at the same time. You have to do the first step, then do the second, then the third... so more cores (more people cooking) wouldn't speed it up.

However, if the task was making spaghetti, then multiple cores could speed it up. You could have one person cooking the sauce, another cooking the meat, and a third cooking the noodles, all at the same time. Three cores are being used, the entire process is almost three times as fast as cooking them all in order one at a time.

In order for a program to get a speed boost from multiple cores, two things must be true. It must be doing a task that can benefit, and it must have been coded to use multiple cores. A program does this by spawning multiple threads, and having complex control code to synchronize the actions of the threads to make sure they are running and communicating with each other properly. This is a complex thing to be built into a program's design... so a lot of the time a program won't be able to use multiple cores because the programmers are not willing to spend a large amount of time rewriting the core of their program. This is especially true if what the program is doing will not get a boost from multiple cores in the first place. With the way some programs run, multiple-core support on a single-core processor will actually make things slower, so in some programs you need to go into the options and enable multi-core support (threading). However, most current games do not benefit from more than 2 cores, and none benefit from more than 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)

The amount of performance gained by the use of a multicore processor depends on the problem being solved and the algorithms used, as well as their implementation in software: see Amdahl's law. For so-called "embarrassingly parallel" problems, a dual-core processor with two cores at 2GHz may perform very nearly as fast as a single core of 4GHz [1]. Other problems though may not yield so much speedup. This all assumes however that the software has been designed to take advantage of available parallelism. If it hasn't, there will not be any speedup at all. However, the processor will multitask better since it can run two programs at once, one on each core.

QUOTE

In addition to operating system (OS) support, adjustments to existing software are required to maximize utilization of the computing resources provided by multi-core processors. Also, the ability of multi-core processors to increase application performance depends on the use of multiple threads within applications.

That's right, you actually have to go into the options of most programs and TELL them to use more than one core (sometimes called "threads" in the settings) to make them use more than one core.

So just because a processor has more cores does not mean it is always faster.

But things are still faster on a dual-core processor than a single-core...
Why is that? Because multi-core processors a newer and have a better architecture than older ones.




2 - More GHZ is better, right?


Older Processors.
The "Intel Pentium 4" 2.26ghz processor scores 288.

Newer Processors.
The "Intel Core 2 Duo P7350" 2.00ghz processor scores 1,318.

So it's 100% possible for a processor with LESS ghz to be better. More ghz does not mean the processor is better in every case. Only when comparing two of the SAME processor.

Ghz is like RPM in cars. It describes how fast it's cycling. How much it does per cycle, however, varies between processor models, like it depends on what gear you're in in a car.

Let's say you have two cars, both in second gear, doing 4000 RPM. One of the cars accelerates up to 6000 RPM, in the same gear. It is now going faster than it was previously.
If the second car kept accelerating to the point that it changed gears and dropped down to 3000 RPM, it would appear to be going slower (if you only compare RPM values), but it's going faster than the first car.

The reason people think that a higher ghz rating means a processor is faster is because of this. If you raise the ghz, the processor will be going aster than it was previously. However, when comparing two different processors, you cannot compare them by just ghz.

That's how processors are. If a processor can do more per cycle, then it can cycle less, while still doing the same amount or, or more work. The advantage of a processor cycling less is that less heat is generated, and less power is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_Myth

Modern processors which have multiple cores are newer than older ones which have a single core. The newer ones are more efficient, generally doubly or more. People have looked at newer processors, thinking that GHZ is everything, and wondered why a 2ghz processor beats a 3ghz one, see that the 2ghz one is dual-core, and assume that was the reason, when in reality it's because the dual-core was newer and more efficient.

 

[dills2]

go for it pc has superior digital distribution so you dont have to leave your house also you can do other things while you game like steam web browser also games made with pc in mind are great like left 4 dead and buy a decent pc then in a few years time when you need an upgrade youll have the money upgrading is cheaper than buying a new one

 

[Rydian]

go for it pc has superior digital distribution so you dont have to leave your house

You can buy many games on modern consoles, on the consoles themselves.

 

[Diablo1123]

Yeah, I doubt any of us will be debating the advantages of the PC's array of control inputs.

You'll have some games that will support 360 controllers for example. I use a 360 controller just to play Monday Night Combat because I don't like the keyboard controls. I don't even have a 360, got my friend to get me a wired controller.
Not saying you have to, but that's an option.

PC games seems to have better communtiy support. Mostly Valve games such as Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2.
Team Fortress has the obvious custom maps but also custom server/gameplay such as dodgeball and zombies
Left 4 Dead has custom maps such as I Hate Mountains and there's even an effort to port L4D2 maps to L4D1. Also free DLC.
Third party mods for Unreal and Source engine are also free and great games. My favourites are http://dystopia-game.com/ and http://empiresmod.com/

Most games rely on your graphics instead of your processor. My 5770 plays everything at max at 1080p (Except for that new Final Fantasy MMO). It only costed 150$, it's cheaper now.

There's also indie games such as Recettear, Penumbra, and others that are really cheap and are still great games. Steam is also good for the sales on these as they had 5 indie games for 5$ packs a while ago.
Steam is also great because they have sales every week and all that. Also, for indie games, there are some that support Mac, so you could try those.

I don't know much about macs, but Orange Box is available on Mac and only 30$ now I think. You could try it, and it'll still work on PC.

 

[murkurie]

The last PC game I've played that had an optimization problem was Guitar Hero III.
Then again, the last PC game I've played was Guitar Hero III.

EDIT: And WTF?

I find its also up to preference PC or console. I used to be a console gamer in till I found steam, Now the only time I use a console is too play mario or zelda. And if you can afford it, gaming on a eyefinity display is worth it, 3840X1024, using different res and size monitors that im borrowing from a neighbor so I could use 3.

Why is your resolution 1920x1024 on both monitors? Why not 1920x1080? I didn't even know monitors supported 1920x1024.

I use triple monitors for eyefinity,
I don't have all exactly the same res monitors, so it scales my largest screen down to fit the lower screens, all screens running at 1280X1024
here is what a game detects

Spoiler

Some people like it, some don't see the point, its great for Flight Simulator X

 

[KinGamer7]

Yeah, I doubt any of us will be debating the advantages of the PC's array of control inputs.

You'll have some games that will support 360 controllers for example. I use a 360 controller just to play Monday Night Combat because I don't like the keyboard controls. I don't even have a 360, got my friend to get me a wired controller.
Not saying you have to, but that's an option.

PC games seems to have better communtiy support. Mostly Valve games such as Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2.
Team Fortress has the obvious custom maps but also custom server/gameplay such as dodgeball and zombies
Left 4 Dead has custom maps such as I Hate Mountains and there's even an effort to port L4D2 maps to L4D1. Also free DLC.
Third party mods for Unreal and Source engine are also free and great games. My favourites are http://dystopia-game.com/ and http://empiresmod.com/

Most games rely on your graphics instead of your processor. My 5770 plays everything at max at 1080p (Except for that new Final Fantasy MMO). It only costed 150$, it's cheaper now.

There's also indie games such as Recettear, Penumbra, and others that are really cheap and are still great games. Steam is also good for the sales on these as they had 5 indie games for 5$ packs a while ago.
Steam is also great because they have sales every week and all that. Also, for indie games, there are some that support Mac, so you could try those.

I don't know much about macs, but Orange Box is available on Mac and only 30$ now I think. You could try it, and it'll still work on PC.

I use my 360 controller mostly when I'm playing on emulators. From the small amount of PC games that I have on Steam, the majority are FPS', so I just stick to the K&M for those. I play TF2 on a very regular basis, I can't get enough of it. Excluding mods and custom-made resources (obviously these are pretty big factors), Left 4 Dead 2 is pretty well-supported on the consoles, but the DLC costs money. From what I've played, the majority of XBOX Live players either lack a microphone (communication is impossible as there's no keyboard, either) or just blaze through the campaigns without any strategy involved. I know this a generalisation, but it can be pretty rare to find some decent, friendly players who you can have a laugh while you enjoy the game on Live. They are definitely there, though!

Strangely coincidental, but the 5770 is the exact card that I'm considering to buy.

It's more than strong enough for me, and on ebuyer.com it sells for £100; I'm willing to pay that! (In the UK, so Newegg isn't a viable option for me.)

I'm planning on getting Portal 2 for the PC as well. I can't even run Left 4 Dead 2 without having framerate drops, but it just doesn't seem quite right on a console. The majority of modern games are locked at 30fps, and there's no customization involved...loads of people like the simplicity of the entire process, and while I can easily see why, I guess I'm not in the majority. Seems like I'm leaning more towards getting a new PC! Only thing to do now is think of what to do with my iMac...My parents bought me this as a gift a year ago, and to already be considering an entirely new computer just seems completely ungrateful and selfish of me. We wouldn't need to get rid of it, but it's likely to be replaced by the rig (if they even permit me to get it; I can already hear them saying "That's what your consoles are for! Computers aren't meant for playing games. There's nothing wrong with your Mac!". They have a point, but even my dad has noticed that I haven't touched my 360 or Wii in months (been playing mostly on the PC and DS / 3DS, believe it or not). I would be paying for the entire thing myself, and I'm an adult now, so perhaps they wouldn't mind.

 

[Lodis]

Even if developers completely shaft the PC game genre, the community mods make it live on forever. Some of the mods I have seen rival 2010 commercial releases too.

 

[moose3]

There really isn't much point in talking about 720p and 1080p with computers. Computers are much more flexible than TVs (and indirectly consoles) and can go to insane resolutions if needed. Not that it matters since I tend to either play games in 900p or 1050p (or, more specifically, 1440x900/1680x1050). Any bigger and it just doesn't look so good on my 22" monitor.

I don't know what you mean by AMD breaking their older tech... my HD 4870 and my brother's HD 4870X2 work fine. We'll continue to use them until games start crying for better (I'll prolly switch to a GTX 860 by that point). Also my Asus Rampage Extreme is doing just dandy.

Also, CEX (UK game trade shop) would disagree with you on the used PC games bit. I still find great older games at great prices every now and again (most recently was Crysis for £6).

What I mean by breaking older tech, specifically with the 4870x2 is that once the 5000 series started coming out, drivers around mid 2010 were having serious problems on the 4870x2 cards due to the second GPU/memory not going from the 2D idle clock speeds in windows up to the full 3D clock speeds in games, and little or no activity on the second GPU, then while they were later activating the second GPU in future drivers, the second GPU was being stuck in 3D clock speeds and never throttling down when back in the 2D windows environment. Not a good thing for a card that has has been prone to heat related failure. There were also memory leaks and outright crashes due to some drivers in Borderlands on my 4870x2, which died, followed by the RMA'ed card dying, and now on a 5870, working so far.

While ASUS is normally a quality company, I have had a M3A79-T Deluxe MB that came with a bad chip locking the multiplier in the cool 'n quiet stage, and the replacement board had a bad northbridge resulting in memory and cpu performance at 2/3 expected levels, third one is working fine.

Back on topic on advantages of PC gaming, I believe the OP mentioned himself about mods giving new life to old games: Fallout3, ESIII: Oblivion, etc.

 

[CCNaru]

1. refer to tinyurl.com/falconguide
2. Minecraft?

Never had a Mac myself but even if it's not gaming, just not having any lag in comparison to the laptop I have is a huge improvement.

you're not gonna see any maddens or final fantasys (well, not mmorpg ones), but with a ~$600 computer (without a monitor) you can pretty much play the newest games on full setting (i did, i have the 460 768mb gpu), no lag on everyday tasks like e-mail, browsing internets and stuff...