Hold your horses... Wait until the system requirements are released. You don't know how good/poorly they will optimize the game.

Well I'll be playing it on my ps3, I can understand why people prefer PCs but I'm more comfortable playing video games on my ps3. I don't really like pc gaming...

Even with a reasonably priced system, using an xbox 360 controller, running through your tv?

because alot of people out there keep regurgitating the crap about how hard computers are so hard to use and how you need to spend thousands of dollars to have a decent rig and you have to upgrade every year. oh and consoles are so much more reliable *cough* xbox RROD *cough* according to them they wouldnt even be able to figure out how to turn on a computer cause they are so difficult and yet they comment on stuff they have no clue about. i dont go around telling console users that real gamers use only wireless controllers. and yet consolers seem to think that they know all about computers.

edit: frequency isnt the biggest factor in CPUs. when i upgrade from athlon x2 5800.....or something it was a dual core. to the 920 i7 there was a HUGE leap in performance between them despite the 920 being at 2.4 GH stock and my athlon being at 3.2 GH OCd. im not sure how 3dmark handles 4 vs 2 cores so i dont know if it was just the extra cores or if the chip design was just that much more efficient. ill have to run it again cause i recently upgraded to a 950 that im running at 3.6 right now.

'' Like Seriously, they had to make the graphics [censored]tier for oblivion just so it could run on the
xbox360. ''

That is irrelevant. Could have done much better had they been familiar with the hardware in advance. They only got around to optimizing it for the 360 half a year before its release. Their own Fallout 3 proved they could have done much more had they gotten the time and know-how in 2005-2006. And after Fallout 3 games appeared that were graphically much better, really lightyears ahead of Oblivion. So what you said isnt saying much, it says nothing actually.

But ofcourse nobody is going to act as if the 360 version will look superior to the PC version on the highest setting. What does irritate me is that people would high-end PC's assume the PC version is ALWAYS better without asking the specs of the PC in question.

Precisely and same here.

I prefer to play everything on console. Sure mods are great but... They never really added anything amazing enough to make me want to sit in a computer chair and play with a mouse + keyboard as opposed to relaxing in my recliner and playing on my 1080p HDTV. :shrug: but that's just how I like to play.


Edit* before anyone attacks me I'm aware I can hook my pc up to my tv and play games on it still using my x-box 360 controller. However, I just prefer playing on a console. Always have since the days of regular nintendo. I liked consoles better than the arcade and I like them better than PC's. Just my personal preference. + Achievements. While you may not give a crap about them, highscores were something I did like about the arcades and gamerscore is basically a modern highscore. :wub:

Architecture is indeed important and it is how AMD is able to compete with Intel. Intel has more raw power(which also takes up more space and creates more heat, so much so that most intel motherboards are dwarfed and obstructed by huge heat sinks) but AMD has superior architecture.

Maybe. But back to the discussion, GPUs and memory are still the limiting factor, as graphics are handled by them (GPUs).

There's no point on having a carruage with a fast horse, if the carruage is awfully small and the second horse is an old nag.

The number of cores a processor has really isn't that important, and clock speed hasn't been the most important determining factor of a processor's potential performance for a fairly long time now. One processor can have half the clock speed and number of cores of another and still offer far better performance, and that's something that's not even very unlikely.

EDIT:
This is true only in some cases. There are games that are extremely heavily CPU-bound, and it's quite a bit more common for that to be the case with open-world games than with other genres.


This hasn't been true for quite some time. Unless they've made some serious leaps recently on AMD's side (as far as I know, they haven't), the last several generations of Intel's processors have been a complete reversal of the whole trend of AMD's processors having better architecture.

I am getting it for my Xbox 360.

I don't care anymore about what others say.
:woot:

I'm sorry guys and gals, I haven't been exactly honest with you. I am a pc gamer, with several very powerful machines. I have been watching constant flame wars on these and similar forums for a long time now. Rampant with misinformation.

My goal for this thread was not to bash consoles, but bring to light several common misconceptions people seem to have about them and also pcs.

The fact of the matter is, for very little money, you can build a pc which has several times the processing power of either console. This machine will also connect to your large tv if you so choose, delivering a gameplay experience that is supperior to consoles in almost every way. Money isn't an excuse anymore. Pc gaming isn't doing so well, and it's misconceptions about price and performance that is causing this. If more people decided to give it a shot, and piece together a low-mid range gaming/home theatre pc, it would change EVERYTHING.

:-) thanks for keeping this discussion flame free!

PC all the way. I first played Morrowind on the Xbox back when it came out with 2002, but the PC, construction set, and mods give it unlimited potential and longevity. Console can't do that.

1. Mods

2. The game won't look anywhere as spectacular on console as it will on PC

720 is the sweet spot for consoles I think, it's runs the best for them overall. Yeah I thought I might have been wrong on the 1440 part. Although I haven't seen any games on either console that run up there at 60FPS 1920 x 1080, Gt5 was the one hyped up to do that, but it didn't deliver on that...Mot that I care, some things in Gt5 svck and some are truely amazing(that highway at night)

I would prefare, if Skyrim runs at 720 30Fps and has decent distance on trees and stuff, and keep the framerate solid. The main problem with the consoles is their ram, i'm sure sony and MS will have learned for next gen though.

I have a personal reason that I'm definatly not getting it on ps3 again... my ps3 crashes constantly and have been crashing so much I've had it exchanged with a new one 5 times...

AND... with the pc I can use the console...

Many lolz.

Good for you, nobody will tell you it's stupid to get it on that, we're just saying that if you have the option to get it on a decent pc, that's the best choice, if you don't have a good gaming Pc, get it on a console of course, it's not like it will svck on consoles/

AMD ruled the roost for 5 years or so and i hated intel chips back then.......couldnt overclock them worth [censored]. the last few years however are the opposite. ive gotten some amazing overclocks from my last couple i7 cpus. my current 950 is 3.2 stock and im running it at 3.6 right now and im still in the 40 degree range on normal and dont even pass 60 degrees under stress. i would go further but there really isnt any reason to at this point, maybe when i get my nvidia 580 just before skyrim comes out............or deus ex human revolution if it supports DX 11 stuff.

I wasn't thinking about consoles there. And domestic PC's have a single predominant architecture (or two, if we count Macs).



That is true in all cases, unless the game is very low-graphics demanding. Most GPU operations can't be performed by the CPU, and if emulated, it'd easily take all the performance from it.

There's a good reason why GPGPU and GPU Computing is being so popular these days...even the most humble GPU's is far more efficient at floating point operations than any existing CPU.



I agree with this. The architecture is basically the same, only with several new instruction sets (SSE, etc) being added over the time. And in this, I think Intel has the winning hand, supporting the latest SSE versions avaliable.

I'd say PC for mods and the fact it will look better either on release day or after modders have made graphical mods etc.

However, some people never seem to like PC gaming what with the updating and general stuff you have to take care of; check out Oblivion Hardware and Software board and it's mostly PC issues.

PC gaming requires patience at times but is much more flexible where as console gaming is much simpler but much more restrictive.

I have Oblivion running at 1080p on my 48" Plasma and I have over 20 mods running and make my own as well; I would never go back to console version.

If your PC can handle it at decent settings, the PC.

I'm just curious as to why more people dont game on pcs. Seeing how the prices are soooo low, and the performance is so high.

Halo.

You didn't exactly hide this very well.


Actually, your goal seems to have been to waste everyone's time for several pages, and then to try and counter arguments about the PCs and consoles that are just about equally as misconceived.


You can't get "several times the processing power of either console" for "very little money". That's simply not true. You can build a considerably more powerful PC at a reasonably cheap price, but unless you sacrifice everything else in your machine for the sake of the processor you're not going to be able to make a machine that's got that much of a gap over console performance (at least in terms of games) without spending a decent amount of cash on it. Thousands of dollars? No. A thousand dollars? No. More than the cost of either of the consoles we're talking about? Yes.


And if it has an HDMI port, something that most (but not all) modern PCs allow. This statement ignores the general gap in convenience between hooking a PC to an HDTV and hooking a console to one - it's something that's far easier to do with the consoles, and if you intend to use your PC for anything other than gaming you're probably not going to want it hooked up to a large television (in which case you'd have to move it between displays, which would mean that a laptop's your only reasonable solution and that immediately destroys any chance of the PC having a price advantage).


Assuming that the PC version of the game is handled well by Bethesda, which isn't a safe assumption to make.


Pretty much everything in this pair of sentences is entirely false. PC games as a market are doing far better than they ever have, even if they can't compete with the consoles, and they're less successful than the consoles for a blend of different reasons that range from convenience to exclusive titles to severe piracy.

Thats not true, I played Oblivion on the console (on a 102" screen for that matter) and Im telling you to play it on the PC, as I've done both. The console versions are half the game for so many reasons.

Well hopefully your xbox doesnt crash right before it comes out. Which if you have an xbox 360 now, then the chances of it
[censored]ting the bed before skyrim releases are VERY high. Seeing as how xbox360s have an average lifespan of a year, to 2 years.
I had 2 xboxs and said [censored] it once the second one died. PS3 all the way! Of course if my computer can run skryim on higher
graphics, then im definitally getting it for the PC.