Does it costs 5000$ for a pc to play gta v?

[RyanBurnsRed]

Vista is a piece of crap.

 

8.1>>>7>>>XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vista

 

 

Ironic because all 3 of those OSs run on the exact same kernel. In other words they're all the same under the hood.

 

I got my PC with 1200EUROS (1650usd) in 2010. It overheats on Watch Dogs. Soo...

 

Sounds like you need to work on your airflow.

Edited June 27, 2014 by RyanBurnsRed

[Wylight]

$5000 HELL NO

 

But I tell you what, don't belive the ''$500 gaming rig'' bullsh*t either cause in my opnion you need at least $700 for a decent rig with good components from good manufacturers, and that is without periferals and monitor.

[Stinky12]

$5000 HELL NO

 

But I tell you what, don't belive the ''$500 gaming rig'' bullsh*t either cause in my opnion you need at least $700 for a decent rig with good components from good manufacturers, and that is without periferals and monitor.

$500 if your playing at potato cam resolution, but definitely not at 1920x1080.

The higher the resolution you play, the more powerful a graphic card needs to be.

[K.Walters]

$5000 HELL NO

 

But I tell you what, don't belive the ''$500 gaming rig'' bullsh*t either cause in my opnion you need at least $700 for a decent rig with good components from good manufacturers, and that is without periferals and monitor.

 

I said 500$ could do and it can, that is no BS. But not on 1080p and on high settings. Point is 500$ PC will be able to RUN GTA5. It might have to be at 720p at low to medium settings at 30-50 FPS, but it will. In order to achieve high or ultra settings at 1080p at least 700$ should be spent on a PC. Previously I had gigabytes GTX 650 1Gb card (less than 100$) and I could max out most of the games at 720p. I played Far Cry 3 with that card for a while on a 900p monitor on high settings and I was getting 30-50 FPS.

[utack]

I found the ultimate answer to the question raised.

A complete and well informed guide on how PC's beat consoles, even at the same price.

Especially the Chapter "Isn't PC gaming more expensive than console gaming?" is a good read.

Edited June 27, 2014 by utack

[Killerdude]

My Rig:

 

AMD FX8320

AMD HD7850

16GB ECC Kingston + 4GB Kingston HyperX Black - ECC/Non-ECC hybrid (The 16GB was an afterthough 2 months later, which explains the combo)

ASUS Crosshair V forumla Board

Rosewill Stallion 600W PSU (Honestly don't fall for the "Corsair, Antec is the only good PSU stuff" bullsh*t, I've had this apparently "sh*t Tier" PSU for over a year with ZERO issues, so take that as you will)

Generic 5$ Rosewill CPU cooler (rarely runs hotter than 50C, unless I'm doing something intensive, or prolonged.)

Noctua/Corsair Case fans

Rosewill Challenger U3

 

Total was somewhere around 1500$ and I can run Watchdogs on high with 60 FPS.

 

Went and looked at Nvidia/Intel prices and it wasn't hard to choose the AMD Pricing. Dat price:performance ratio tho

Intel Equivalent - Nearly 300$ MORE at the time I bought my CPU.

Nvidia Equivalent - There is none, but the closest were either 40$ MORE and not good enough to be worth it, or 40$ LESS and not very good.

 

Prices have dropped since then, So you can probably build a decent rig for ~1000$, and whatever you do, Don't go for the "500$" PC(get a console then), You'll just be wasting your money and time. Get great hardware now, and it will last you longer.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Killerdude8

[Aleph-Zero]

 

Vista is a piece of crap.

 

8.1>>>7>>>XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vista

 

 

Ironic because all 3 of those OSs run on the exact same kernel. In other words they're all the same under the hood.

 

That is so wrong in every way possible.

[RyanBurnsRed]

That is so wrong in every way possible.

 

Tells me that I'm wrong.

Does not post anything proving me wrong.

 

MFW a typical GTA Forums post:

 

 

 

Here are my sources:

http://www.osnews.com/story/19793/No_New_Kernel_Builds_on_Vista

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/05/ms-no-new-kernel-for-windows-7-same-requirements-as-vista/

Now let's see yours.

Edited June 29, 2014 by RyanBurnsRed

[r34ld34l]

 

That is so wrong in every way possible.

 

Tells me that I'm wrong.

Does not post anything proving me wrong.

 

MFW a typical GTA Forums post:

 

 

 

Here are my sources:

http://www.osnews.com/story/19793/No_New_Kernel_Builds_on_Vista

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/05/ms-no-new-kernel-for-windows-7-same-requirements-as-vista/

Now let's see yours.

 

I bet he doesn't know what Kernel is.

[Mister XeeL]

If a machine from 2007 can run GTA V at 720p 30FPS (prob. ultra settings?) then surely can do any at least $500 computer.

[K.Walters]

If a machine from 2007 can run GTA V at 720p 30FPS (prob. ultra settings?) then surely can do any at least $500 computer.

 

Depends on the machine. I built a PC in 2008 with Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200, GeForce 9500GT and 4Gb RAM @800MHz. And this can`t run any modern day titles at 720p. When my brother used it he could get as much as 40 FPS on 720p and lowest settings. I`m presuming that it wasn`t the "high-end" gaming PC for the time, but still. If indeed GTA5 will run 720p, high settings on a high-end PC from 2007 while maintaining stable 30 FPS. Then my i7 4771/GTX770/8Gb RAM should handle it. As long as the benchmarks for "maxed out" show above 60, I should be fine. I don`t aim for the Ultra settings with 16AA. I usually go for High settings instead of Ultra and with 4 AA, because I don`t really notice much difference. I bet there is though, it`s just not that big to bother me.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Zoidbergs_LV

[Mister XeeL]

 

If a machine from 2007 can run GTA V at 720p 30FPS (prob. ultra settings?) then surely can do any at least $500 computer.

 

Depends on the machine. I built a PC in 2008 with Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200, GeForce 9500GT and 4Gb RAM @800MHz. And this can`t run any modern day titles at 720p. When my brother used it he could get as much as 40 FPS on 720p and lowest settings. I`m presuming that it wasn`t the "high-end" gaming PC for the time, but still. If indeed GTA5 will run 720p, high settings on a high-end PC from 2007 while maintaining stable 30 FPS. Then my i7 4771/GTX770/8Gb RAM should handle it. As long as the benchmarks for "maxed out" show above 60, I should be fine. I don`t aim for the Ultra settings with 16AA. I usually go for High settings instead of Ultra and with 4 AA, because I don`t really notice much difference. I bet there is though, it`s just not that big to bother me.

 

 

You got me all wrong.

 

By "machine from 2007" I meant PlayStation 3.

[K.Walters]

You got me all wrong.

By "machine from 2007" I meant PlayStation 3.

Oh, sorry. In that case I would like to comment on the "(prob. ultra settings?)" part. It`s most likely on low. Have you seen the texture quality? It`s all blurry and pixely. Not even medium. Texture quality is very noticeable especially when you look at tattoos when in Online lobby.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Andreas
Removed quote-train.

[kipakolonyasi]

I found the ultimate answer to the question raised.

A complete and well informed guide on how PC's beat consoles, even at the same price.

Especially the Chapter "Isn't PC gaming more expensive than console gaming?" is a good read.

that thing is a one big joke. and it's hilarious.

[IDredMan]

Didn't you make the 4 troll threads right before the game came out? I specifically remember the saturn name and profile picture.

[utack]

 

I found the ultimate answer to the question raised.

A complete and well informed guide on how PC's beat consoles, even at the same price.

Especially the Chapter "Isn't PC gaming more expensive than console gaming?" is a good read.

that thing is a one big joke. and it's hilarious.

 

Some points are overstated. But what exactly do you think is wrong with it.

[AndreyKva]

My computer was about $1000, and it is a bit overkill, I bet it can play on highest settings though. People who are saying it costs so much to do PC gaming are biased console fanboys or are terribly uninformed. Or both.

[Mister XeeL]

 

You got me all wrong.

By "machine from 2007" I meant PlayStation 3.

Oh, sorry. In that case I would like to comment on the "(prob. ultra settings?)" part. It`s most likely on low. Have you seen the texture quality? It`s all blurry and pixely. Not even medium. Texture quality is very noticeable especially when you look at tattoos when in Online lobby.

 

 

Well, you surely do have a point there. Looking at grass and those ground textures, awful.

 

We just need to wait for system requirements. What we're posting here are just some facts for which we even don't have arguments.

[hunk41]

I found the ultimate answer to the question raised.

A complete and well informed guide on how PC's beat consoles, even at the same price.

Especially the Chapter "Isn't PC gaming more expensive than console gaming?" is a good read.

• Faster than a PS4 or XBox One, even for $400 -> Proceeds to put an r9 270 in the rig, that has the same power as the ps4, but won't get developers to do tricks and optimizations.

Edited July 1, 2014 by hunk41

[RyanBurnsRed]

Eh? The PS4's GPU is nowhere near an R9 270. It's like a modified HD 7850 with more stream processors.

[hunk41]

Eh? The PS4's GPU is nowhere near an R9 270. It's like a modified HD 7850 with more stream processors.

You're right, but still, that rig is kind of an overexaggeration

[kipakolonyasi]

 

 

I found the ultimate answer to the question raised.

A complete and well informed guide on how PC's beat consoles, even at the same price.

Especially the Chapter "Isn't PC gaming more expensive than console gaming?" is a good read.

that thing is a one big joke. and it's hilarious.

 

Some points are overstated. But what exactly do you think is wrong with it.

 

i think it's bullsh*t that's all. i can buy a PS4 or an Xbox One today for $400 and i'm set for the next 8 years. build the best $400 computer today and see if it's anything other than a calculator in 2022.

[utack]

i think it's bullsh*t that's all. i can buy a PS4 or an Xbox One today for $400 and i'm set for the next 8 years. build the best $400 computer today and see if it's anything other than a calculator in 2022.

 

You are set as well because

• the f'ing consoles keep every development back for the next years
• You can still play newer games with console quality. What you see on PS4 today os going to be the same in 8 years.

And besides: With what you save from buying games alone you can easily put a new GPU in the PC in 4 years with double the performance...

 

 

 

• Faster than a PS4 or XBox One, even for $400 -> Proceeds to put an r9 270 in the rig, that has the same power as the ps4, but won't get developers to do tricks and optimizations.

R9 270 has significantly more power than a PS4. Hell it can even run the PC (and supposedly ATI) deasaster Watch Dogs at 1080p30+ easily with a little AA on top.

 

And another question: is any of you surfing Facebook or this forum from his Console/Phone: looks like you need a PC anyways...

I personally chose not to deal with an annoying console and a slow PC that together cost the same as a decent PC.

Edited July 1, 2014 by utack

[kipakolonyasi]

 

 

 

 

I found the ultimate answer to the question raised.

A complete and well informed guide on how PC's beat consoles, even at the same price.

Especially the Chapter "Isn't PC gaming more expensive than console gaming?" is a good read.

that thing is a one big joke. and it's hilarious.

 

Some points are overstated. But what exactly do you think is wrong with it.

 

i think it's bullsh*t that's all. i can buy a PS4 or an Xbox One today for $400 and i'm set for the next 8 years. build the best $400 computer today and see if it's anything other than a calculator in 2022.

 

You are set as well because

• the f'ing consoles keep every development back for the next years
• You can still play newer games with console quality. What you see on PS4 today will be the same in 8 years.

And besides: With what you save from buying games alone you can easily put a new GPU in the PC in 4 years...

 

no. because

 

1. i don't care if they keep development back or whatever that's your problem. in fact it's a plus for me because like you said they develop games with consoles in mind primarily.

 

2. nope. just look at PS3 games that's released in 2006-2007 (Resistance, Uncharted 1 etc.) and then look at 2012-2013 releases (The Last of Us, GTA V etc.). it always gets better and better towards the end

 

3. you save a lot on consoles too. there's been mad sales on PS Store. and on top of that PS Plus and Xbox Gold give you free games every month.

[utack]

2. nope. just look at PS3 games that's released in 2006-2007 (Resistance, Uncharted 1 etc.) and then look at 2012-2013 releases (The Last of Us, GTA V etc.). it always gets better and better towards the end

 

So you basically did not even read the article I originally linked?

Let me summarize that for you:

• PS3 and X360 were sold at loss, so you got realatively powerful hardware at the time. PS4 and XBONE are not sold at loss, so you get exactly what you pay for.
• PS3 and X360 had CPU parts the developers were not familiar with at the time, they can deal with PS4 in XONE in way they are used to already.

So the improvement we see in consoles over live time is easily matched with the release of DX12 on PC's in 1.5 years.

And besides: You are in the wrong forum to hate on PC's and my day is too short to argue with fanboys. I can tell you that I am not a blind fanboy and enjoyed playing on older consoles back when there was true innovation driven by them. Besides I would at least read an article on why the "next gen" consoles are better than PC: is there one?

Edited July 1, 2014 by utack

[kipakolonyasi]

 

2. nope. just look at PS3 games that's released in 2006-2007 (Resistance, Uncharted 1 etc.) and then look at 2012-2013 releases (The Last of Us, GTA V etc.). it always gets better and better towards the end

 

So you basically did not even read the article I originally linked?

Let me summarize that for you:

• PS3 and X360 were sold at loss, so you got realatively powerful hardware at the time. PS4 and XBONE are not sold at loss, so you get exactly what you pay for.
• PS3 and X360 had CPU parts the developers were not familiar with at the time, they can deal with PS4 in XONE in way they are used to already.

So the improvement we see in consoles over live time is easily matched with the release of DX12 on PC's in 1.5 years.

And besides: You are in the wrong forum to hate on PC's and my day is too short to argue with fanboys. I can tell you that I am not a blind fanboy and enjoyed playing on older consoles back then. Besides I would at least read an article on why the "next gen" consoles are better than PC: is there one?

 

no i didn't read it! because it's a long ass text and my day is too short for it and the moment i skimmed through it i knew it was sh*t by some PC fanboy. it's nonsense.

 

and here's your article you said you would read it now do it:

 

It seems to be an increasingly common belief that because the PS4 and Xbox One use x86, an architecture familiar to programmers, unlike previous consoles, who used less well known architectures, that there won't be as much they can learn or exploit throughout the generation, resulting in better looking and performing games.

A badly known architecture like the PS3 had will result in poorly performing games at first, compared to similarly powered PCs, this is true, and learning that architecture will improve performance over time. This is also true, but it's not the most significant thing developers can do to improve performance.

One of the biggest problems with developing on PCs is you can't know what CPU and GPU the player will have. This requires you to write very generic code that is compatible with a large variety of CPUs and GPUs. Furthermore, they can't predict what ratio of CPU power to GPU power you're going to have, so there's a good chance PC games run with GPU at 100% but CPU at a very low %, or the other way around. This severely bottlenecks performance on PCs, and it's something that can easily be overcome on consoles, since that hardware is known. That will be the first major optimization they can perform that will immediately make the consoles more efficient with their hardware than comparable PCs.

However, it doesn't stop there. As I said before, developers write code in a very generic form to support all CPUs. While all CPUs on PCs are x86 compatible, they're also all very different. Intel makes CPUs differently than AMD, and each generation of CPUs is different from each other as well. If Sony/MS had used previously well known CPUs such as the AMD FX series, this would have been less of an issue, but they used a mostly unknown brand of CPUs known as the Jaguar. Each CPU has the basic x86 instruction set, but also typically have their own extra instructions as well. Not only that, but they all process standard x86 instructions differently. Learning the unique capabilities of the Jaguar architecture, and learning what instructions perform faster than others will be key in optimizing CPU performance. These things will take time.

Similarly, all GPUs are made differently. On PCs, developers tend to use high level APIs such as DirectX or OpenGL. These APIs are pretty much compatible with every GPU, but at a major performance cost. Just like CPUs, and even more so, GPUs are all uniquely different from each other and have specialized capabilities unique to the GPU series as well. While the GPUs in the PS4 and Xbox One are very similar to a few models used in PCs today, they aren't exactly the same. They were designed specially for the consoles and have tons of extra functionality built in. Not only will developers have to learn the instruction sets of the new GPUs (which differ significantly from even other GPUs by the same manufacturer) but they'll have to again learn which instructions perform faster than others, and learn all the new features Sony and MS built into their GPUs, such as the ability to take idle GPU cycles and put them toward additional compute power, for example.

If a developer wants to write high performing code on these consoles, they need to write engines that perform tasks using highly optimized machine code. PC developers don't do that today, and they can't. You can write CPU machine code on PCs, but you need to stick to the very basic x86 commands or the code will be incompatible with a lot of CPUs. You can't write GPU machine code at all, because of the driver/OS system on PCs. But even if developers were familiar with writing highly optimized machine code for PCs, the specific architectures of the specific models of CPU and GPU would be unfamiliar to them. There is a lot developers will be able to exploit that they aren't currently this generation. Knowing x86 will simply give them a head start at getting to work with those machine code level optimizations sooner.

There's one other thing that these consoles significantly do better than PCs right now as well, and that's memory. While most gaming PCs have more total memory than the PS4/XBO, that memory is not really used much in current PC games. Most current games you'll see using about 2-3 GB of system ram, and about 0.5-1 GB of video ram. That would be a total of 2.5-4 GB of RAM, and already the consoles have an advantage, as they have around 5-6 GB available to them as developers, however, it's actually more significant than that because of the unified nature of the memory. Since PC ram isn't unified, a lot of the same data will exist in the system ram as well as the video ram, meaning there is two copies of the data. In the current consoles, there would only be one copy shared by the CPU and GPU, meaning the total memory necessary for the example game above would still only be probably 2-3 GB, opening up even more room for expansion. About <1 GB of that data will probably be exclusive to the CPU, so what you have is essentially a GPU with up to 5 GB of VRAM. Much better than most PCs, and that number will only increase as OS memory footprints are decreased over time.

PS4 and Xbox One will improve graphically just as much if not better than previous generations.

FROM REDDIT

[utack]

and here's your article you said you would read it now do it:

 

I guess we'll have to see how things develop. It's pretty much Mantle/DX12 vs. Developers learning to deal with PS4. Meet back here in 5 years...

[Andreas]

R9 270 has significantly more power than a PS4.

It is not that significant. The R9 270 and 270X have both 1280 shaders, which makes them perform fairly similar to a HD7870. The GPU of the PS4 is nothing else than a slightly downgraded HD7870. To be specific, two Compute Units of the graphic-chip are disabled, to increase the yield in the production of those chips, which results in 1152 shaders. The HD7850 has 16 CUs, which results in 1024 shaders, in total.

 

As far as I know, the HD7870 is about 15-20% faster than its little brother, and considering that the PS4 is, at least when it comes to the number of shaders, between both of them, the difference between a R9 270 and the PS4 is 10% or maybe less. Of course, if you are going with a model that is overclocked and has a significantly higher clock than the chip in the console, then the advantages over it are theoretically significant.

 

But for that, you would need a game that is able to utilize the power of these cards pretty well, which is much harder to do on PC than it is on consoles. Videogame companies, like Rockstar, have to make sure that their games work as good as possible on the platform, and that in an entire sea of hardware with lots of possible driver combinations. So, in the end, just because your PC has hardware that is technically superior to closed systems, as for example the PS4 and Xbox One, doesn't mean that the results in games on PC is also better than on the said systems. You will notice it the more time goes by. This time, though, it possibly won't take as long until they are able to squeeze every single ounce out of the hardware, as in the last generation, due to the fact that the new consoles share the same architecture as PC. We shall see.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Andreas

[GN 92]

Didn't you make the 4 troll threads right before the game came out? I specifically remember the saturn name and profile picture.

 

Yep, that's the guy. He claimed that GTA V map is smaller than GTA SA map.

 

And he was mad about the jetpack too.

 

http://gtaforums.com/topic/588882-no-jetpack/

[mszigeti]

Giga 770 OC | around $370

8GB RAM | around $100

3570K | around $230

Any good motherboard | around $150

 

Plus a hard drive or SSD, power supply and stuff like that, the total is $1000 max, and that is a powerful config, most people will do good with even less.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Andreas