or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › No BS - PS3 or PC gaming Rig
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No BS - PS3 or PC gaming Rig - Page 3

post #61 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HorrorScope View Post

Vectrex? If one wants to impress me to high-hell, show me the Fairchild video system, itcame out right before the 2600. I never knew a soul that had it.

Because it sucked!

My first videogame system was, for the record, the Bally Astrocade. It played GUNFIGHT...nuff said! My First Deathmatch game! (PS: I did not own the Astrocade, it was a buddies)....but it was the first cartridge-based one I messed with (from memory). This was my first system, which I still own...all yellow and brittle now




I also knew a kid who had this...man you want to talk about a system that made the Atari 2600 look like a HD Graphical masterpiece, this was it.

post #62 of 76
You can slap together your own system, (although these days it's probably easier and cheaper to buy your own) with a Q6600, 8800GT or 9800 and 500W PS, 4Gb ram, Vista 64 and harddrive for ~$600. That's more than adequate to run the faster games.

Computers just aren't as expensive as they used to be.
post #63 of 76
For 1920x1200 with max settings for almost all new games...on Nvidia side min I would rec a 9800GTX anything else can be an issue. For ATI an 4870. But to really get no issues at all and if the game can do it then SLI or Xfire and you can get down to a 8800GTS 512's or 8800GTX's or maybe even 8800GT's and maybe 4850's (guessing since I dont own 4850). That is from using all the NVidia cards mentioned.
post #64 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

You can slap together your own system, (although these days it's probably easier and cheaper to buy your own) with a Q6600, 8800GT or 9800 and 500W PS, 4Gb ram, Vista 64 and harddrive for ~$600. That's more than adequate to run the faster games.

Computers just aren't as expensive as they used to be.

The way you wrote that it doesn't seem expensive but, you seem to be forgetting some major parts. Where is the motherboard, case, monitor and input devices? What about a sound card? Which could easily add up to $800-1000 range.

The $600 range is just an upgrade if you already have a PC you can swap parts out with. $600 alone isn't going to buy you a complete PC. Unless your buying some old outdated parts. If you really want to get it cheap and still be within the $600 total cost. You could buy this Debranded HP desktop and add in new ram, video card, and power supply. Link. It will definitely play all the latest games, but the X2 4200+ will hold you back some in these upcoming new games. I can already fill the pinch with my old X2 3800+.
post #65 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazyxazn View Post

The way you wrote that it doesn't seem expensive but, you seem to be forgetting some major parts. Where is the motherboard, case, monitor and input devices? What about a sound card?

That's everything included. I'm telling you, you can get a deal if you look around. You don't need to buy a sound card, onboard sound is fine and cases are the least of your worries ($40).

Many places sell CPU/Motherboard combos. FRY's (too bad there aren't any in my area) sell Q6600+motherboard combos for $150 already. And then it's probably still cheaper to get a Dell refurb or something with coupons if you don't want to build.
post #66 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Colecovision box is at the top left.......but where's the Vectrex Box!??!?

Damn, how could I miss that?!!!
post #67 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Because it sucked!

Oh it sucked, but that is the one to score ultimate geek points with. None the less an impressive collection.
post #68 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazyxazn View Post

The way you wrote that it doesn't seem expensive but, you seem to be forgetting some major parts.

New Egg that system listed is $700 everything included even O/S.

The big three VC/Proc/MB <$400 now.
post #69 of 76
I played somemore COD4 tonight on my PC. Only this time with 4xaa turned on at 1080p. Ok....Ok....I'm gonna have to admit I was wrong on this one. It does look nice, it looks very, very nice. Nicer than I was giving it credit for.

Having said that, however, the 360 version is still plenty fine by me.....in fact the PC version in some instances almost looks a little, well, "too sharp'....that, and I can't maintain a solid 50+ framerate with my 8800gtx...and the drops in framerate tend to get me killed.
post #70 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

I played somemore COD4 tonight on my PC. Only this time with 4xaa turned on at 1080p. Ok....Ok....I'm gonna have to admit I was wrong on this one. It does look nice, it looks very, very nice. Nicer than I was giving it credit for.

Having said that, however, the 360 version is still plenty fine by me.....in fact the PC version in some instances almost looks a little, well, "too sharp'....that, and I can't maintain a solid 50+ framerate with my 8800gtx...and the drops in framerate tend to get me killed.



Just think what you can get with dual 8800GTX and CoD4 will support multi Vid cards...SLI, but thats never going to happen.... If it look real good at 1920x1080 think what it would look like at 1920x1200 or at 2560x1600 with everything max'd out.

ADD: I know your pain on paying $500 for the 8800GTX...thats a lot better then I did, 1st 8800GTX $700 and 2nd $600. Now you can get an 8800ULTRA at Tigerdirect for $200 a pop...
post #71 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HorrorScope View Post

Vectrex? If one wants to impress me to high-hell, show me the Fairchild video system, itcame out right before the 2600. I never knew a soul that had it.

I never found one new in box. And my entire collection consisted of new in box, since I have OCD pretty bad

I had a deal on a new Neo Geo for $800, but it got sold right before I got a chance to grab it.

Same thing with the Laseractive. Talked the person down to $1k, and someone offered more. I'm pretty cheap

And I never found the CD-i version that I wanted, NIB.

As for Vectrex, I guess I never got around to it.

I usually get compliments on the Jaguar CD. Such a bad system though


Oh, and my favorite in my collection, Fighting Street for the TB16CD. First Street Fighter console game.

Also, the Sega Genesis CD 32X games are pretty unique...



Also, anyone play this before?
post #72 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HorrorScope View Post

New Egg that system listed is $700 everything included even O/S.

The big three VC/Proc/MB <$400 now.

Guess you could, haven't been paying much attention to prices over the past few months. Back when I was planning on upgrading to Intel Quad from Athlon X2 that Proc/MB/RAM was around $550-$600.
post #73 of 76
Yeah I've played the Amiga CD32.......some flying game, like Mach III-ish or Afterburner.

About..oh....gotta be...crap...10+ years now, my buddy was working at a local Toy Works store as manager. He worked inventory one loooong weekend and as a thank you the store manager said he could take some boxes of crap they found stuffed up in some back storage room. Inside were more than a thousand MIMB packaged cartridges for the Atari 2600, the Atari 5200, 7800, Intellivision, Colecovision...including some rare ones (Atari Waterworld, for example).

He gave me one of each, which I still have to this day....only its more like about...oh...maybe 100 unique ones (I mean out of the 1000 maybe 100 were Yars Revenge ).

Cool to have.....I hope to one day re-vamp my little recroom and put them up on the wall as Objects Du Art

I'm not really into collecting videogame rarities however..so if any of those titles are rare or hard to find at this point, you're kinda talking to the wrong group Try CAG!
post #74 of 76
If you are going to game on a decent HDTV and sit down some distance away on the sofa, then to most eyes, there will be little difference. Resolution junkies (I prefer high res if I can get it) will prefer to get the PC version, and run it at 1920x1200 or even 2560x1600. This high resolution allows you to sit closer to the screen (more immersive IMO), and still not suffer from screen door effect or visible pixels.

As pointed out, sometimes perfect clarity can show up games as being a little bit behind, so in some cases you can argue that the fuzzy vaseline-smeared-lens look of a 640p (Halo 3) console game upscaled onto a 1080p display (plus LOADS of bloom) covers up these defects.

PS3 versus PC. If you have $600 you can get a PC that is significantly more powerful, what with the ridiculously low price of the 8800GT now. Hook said PC up to a 1440x900 monitor, or if you prefer, a 720p HDTV (easy to run games at that low a resolution), and you are laughing.

However, if you want to play Crysis on Very High (one of the few games out there that shows the disparity in PC/Console hardware) at 1080p or higher, then I would recommend the bare minimum of 4850, but ideally a 4870 or better.

A good gaming PC still costs more than a PS3, even using good value parts (8800GT, E4500), but if you are going to use it a lot it will be worth it.

Also, if you are a sad nerdy loser like me, the PC opens up many more crazy options. My triplehead gaming setup
post #75 of 76
My 2 Centavos -

If I had kept that crappy Magnavox 32" LCD, then playing just about anything at 1366 x 768 is easy as PIE for modern hardware and can be done with an $79 graphics card....

Maybe I should have, OTA is 720p/1080i Direct TV HD is 720/1080i

Crysis is a poor example to use to hold up an argument, its a great example of the State of PC Gaming however. Program a game and assume the buyer has the correct machine specs to run it. If they don't, they are willing to upgrade. Multiply that with how many video cards or complete PC's you buy over a given time and I'm sure you don't want to know the total cost of money you just spent to play maybe 2-3 key games.

One console plays all games the same way. I said that already.

I would like to game at 1920x1200, the default of my 24" screen but I was not willing to spend the min ($250) to assure 60fps average with GRID (Ultra detail). I rather take the detail down. I mean are graphics are really the end all? Nintendo said graphics aren't the end all and can't build Wii's fast enough and a few here have them as well. So its NOT ABOUT THE GRAPHICS is it? If it was, how could I play PRD3 when GT4 looks a TON better on my PS2. Actually PRD3 is full of errors, the cars actually "bounce" on replays, but it has some cool circuits and online play, something GT4 lacks.

I'm actually in no hurry to buy a PS3 mainly because there hasn't been a game released that I have to play. MGS, Warhawk, of course GRID and Madden/NCAA Football are good enough reasons to buy a PS3, but I just can't justify it.

I recently picked up 3 games for $9 each -

GTR2 Game of the Year Edition, which includes GT Legends

NFS: Pro Street

Sim Bin's Race '07 which you need to get the GTR-Evo upgrade ($19)

and a Sapphire HD 4670 for $79

Only Race '07 is cutting edge and needs the latest hardware to run max detail at 60fps.

For that and GRID will take it down to 1280x768 (720p) and imagines will be slightly larger, but not unbearable and it should run quickly.

Consoles Owned ? -

In the past:

Original Intellivision (first game system)
ADAM Computer (first family PC system, aka Colecovision)

Currently:

Intellivision 2 with Intellivoice Module
NES (Broken, one day will fix)
Sega Genesis (actually my sister's, still works!)
PS1 Console (to replace my uncounted for original unit)
Sega Dreamcast w/ Keyboard (wish I had ethernet adaptor)
SlimLine PS2

Graphics Cards:

S3 Virge
ATI All In Wonder (original)
3DFx Voodoo Add-On 3D Card
Geforce 440MX (came with Dell PC)
ATI All In Wonder 9600XT
*ATI Radeon HD 4670 (ETA 9/15)
post #76 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephJEHancock View Post

If you are going to game on a decent HDTV and sit down some distance away on the sofa, then to most eyes, there will be little difference. Resolution junkies (I prefer high res if I can get it) will prefer to get the PC version, and run it at 1920x1200 or even 2560x1600. This high resolution allows you to sit closer to the screen (more immersive IMO), and still not suffer from screen door effect or visible pixels.

As pointed out, sometimes perfect clarity can show up games as being a little bit behind, so in some cases you can argue that the fuzzy vaseline-smeared-lens look of a 640p (Halo 3) console game upscaled onto a 1080p display (plus LOADS of bloom) covers up these defects.

PS3 versus PC. If you have $600 you can get a PC that is significantly more powerful, what with the ridiculously low price of the 8800GT now. Hook said PC up to a 1440x900 monitor, or if you prefer, a 720p HDTV (easy to run games at that low a resolution), and you are laughing.

However, if you want to play Crysis on Very High (one of the few games out there that shows the disparity in PC/Console hardware) at 1080p or higher, then I would recommend the bare minimum of 4850, but ideally a 4870 or better.

A good gaming PC still costs more than a PS3, even using good value parts (8800GT, E4500), but if you are going to use it a lot it will be worth it.

Also, if you are a sad nerdy loser like me, the PC opens up many more crazy options. My triplehead gaming setup

Nice triple setup....

I choose the other route, turn down the detail, run it at 720p. But I agree with your comment about 3 screens in games like COD4. I sit close, I sit on the bed, still close 3-4 feet. I dunno PS2 games look bad compared to current PC games of course, I'm not a complete graphics nut, detail is fun but gameplay is more important, otherwise I wouldn't play RockNES, Z-NES , ePSX or MAME, on here...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC Gaming
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › No BS - PS3 or PC gaming Rig