Chips aren’t improving like they used to, and it’s killing game console price cuts
Chips aren’t improving like they used to, and it’s killing game console price cuts
Op-ed: Slowed manufacturing advancements are upending the way tech progresses.
"These price increases have multiple intertwining causes, some direct and some less so: inflation, pandemic-era supply crunches, the unpredictable trade policies of the Trump administration, and a gradual shift among console makers away from selling hardware at a loss or breaking even in the hopes that game sales will subsidize the hardware. And you never want to rule out good old shareholder-prioritizing corporate greed.
But one major factor, both in the price increases and in the reduction in drastic “slim”-style redesigns, is technical: the death of Moore’s Law and a noticeable slowdown in the rate at which processors and graphics chips can improve."
You're viewing a single thread.
Consoles are just increasingly bad value for consumers compared to PCs.
Are they tho? Have you seen graphics card prices?
You don't need a top end card to match console specs, something like a 6650XT or 6700XT is probably enough. Your initial PC build will be more than a console by about 2X if you're matching specs (maybe 3X if you need a monitor, keyboard, etc), but you'll make it up with access to cheaper games and being able to upgrade the PC without replacing it, not to mention the added utiliy a PC provides.
So yeah, think of PC vs console as an investment into a platform.
If you only want to play 1-2 games, console may be a better option. But if you're interested in older or indie games, a PC is essential.
2060 super for 300, and then another 200 for a decent processor puts you ahead of a ps5 and for a comparable price. Games are cheaper on PC too, as well as a broader selection. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/zYGmJn here is a mid tier build for 850, you could cut the procesor down, install linux for free, and im sure youve got a computer monitor laying around somwhere... the only thing stopping you is inertia.
2060 super for 300, and then another 200 for a decent processor puts you ahead of a ps5 and for a comparable price.
you're going to have to really scrunge up for deals in order to get psu, storage, memory, motherboard, and a case for your remaining budget of $0.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/zYGmJn here is a mid tier build for 850
This is $150 more expensive and the gpu is half as performant as the reported PS5 pro equivalent.
Ok so, for starters, your 'reported equivalent' source is wrong.
The custom AMD Zen2 APU (combined CPU + GPU, as is done in laptops) of a PS5Pro is 16.7 TFLOPs, not 33.
So your PS5 Pro is actually roughly equivalent to that posted build.... by your 'methodology', which is utterly unclear to me, what your actual methodolgy for doing a performance comparison is.
The PS5 Pro uses 2 GB of DDR5 RAM, and 16 GB of GDDR6 RAM.
This is... wildly outside of the realm of being directly comparable to a normal desktop PC, which ... bare minimum these days, has 16 GB DDR4/5 RAM, and the GDDR6 RAM would be part of the detachable GPU board itself, and would be ... between 8GB ... and all the way up to 32 if you get an Nvidia 5090, but consensus seems to be that 16 GB GDDR6/7 is probably what you want as a minimum, unless you want to be very reliant on AI upscaling/framegen, and the input lag and whatnot that comes with using that on an underpowered GPU.
Short version: The PS5Pro would be a wildly lopsided, nonsensical architecture to try to one to one replicate in a desktop PC.... 2 GB system RAM will run lightweight linux os's, but not a chance in hell you could run Windows 10 or 11 on that.
Fuck, even getting 7 to work with 2GB RAM would be quite a challenge... if not impossible, I think 7 required 4GB RAM minimum?
The closest AMD chip to the PS5 Pro that I see, in terms of TFLOP output... is the Radeon 7600 Mobile.
((... This is probably why Cyberpunk 2077 did not (and will never) get a 'performance patch' for the PS5Pro: CP77 can only pull both high (by console standards) framerates at high resolutions... and raytracing/path tracing... on Nvidia mobile class hardware, which the PS5Pro doesn't use.))
But, lets use the PS5Pro's ability to run CP77 at 2K60fps on ... what PC players recognize as a mix of medium and high settings... as our benchmark for a comparable standard PC build. Lets be nice and just say its the high preset.
(a bunch of web searching and performance comparisons later...)
Well... actually, the problem is that basically, nobody makes or sells desktop GPUs that are so underpowered anymore, you'd have to go to the used market or find some old unpurchased stock someone has had lying around for years.
The RX 6600 in the partpicker list is fairly close in terms of GPU performance.
Maybe pair it with an AMD 5600X processor if you... can find one? Or a 4800S, which supposedly actually were just rejects/run off from the PS5 and Xbox X and S chips, rofl?
Yeah, legitimately, the problem with trying to make a PC ... in 2025, to the performance specs of a PS5 Pro... is that basically the bare minimum models for current and last gen, standard PC architecture... yeah they just don't even make hardware that weak anymore.
EDIT:
oh final addendum: if your tv has an hdmi port, kablamo, thats your monitor, you dont strictly need a new one.
And there are also many ways to get a wireless or wired console style controller to work in a couch pc setup.
Short version: The PS5Pro would be a wildly lopsided, nonsensical architecture to try to one to one replicate in a desktop PC.... 2 GB system RAM will run lightweight linux os's, but not a chance in hell you could run Windows 10 or 11 on that.
Fuck, even getting 7 to work with 2GB RAM would be quite a challenge... if not impossible, I think 7 required 4GB RAM minimum?
It's shared memory, so you would need to guarantee access to 16gb on both ends.
The RX 6600 in the partpicker list is fairly close in terms of GPU performance.
I don't know how you could arrive at such a conclusion, considering that the base PS5 has been measured to be comparable to the 6700.
It's shared memory, so you would need to guarantee access to 16gb on both ends.
So... standard Desktop CPUs can only talk to DDR.
'CPUs' can only utilize GDDR when they are actually a part of an APU.
Standard desktop GPUs can only talk to GDDR, which is part of their whole seperate board.
GPU and CPU can talk to each other, via the mainboard.
Standard desktop PC architecture does not have a way for the CPU to directly utilize the GDDR RAM on the standalone GPU.
In many laptops and phones, a different architecture is used, which uses LPDDR RAM, and all the LPDDR RAM is used by the APU, the APU being a CPU+GPU combo in a single chip.
Some laptops use DDR RAM, but... in those laptops, the DDR RAM is only used by the CPU, and those laptops have a seperate GPU chip, which has its own built in GDDR RAM... the CPU and GPU cannot and do not share these distinct kinds of RAM.
(Laptop DDR RAM is also usually a different pin count and form factor than desktop PC DDR RAM, you usually can't swap RAM sticks between them.)
The PS5Pro appears to have yet another unique architecture:
Functionally, the 2GB of DDR RAM can only be accessed by the CPU parts of the APU, which act as a kind of reserve, a minimum baseline of CPU-only RAM set aside for certain CPU specific tasks.
The PS5Pro's 16 GB of GDDR RAM is sharable and usable by both the CPU and GPU components of the APU.
...
So... saying that you want to have a standard desktop PC build... that shares all of its GDDR and DDR RAM... this is impossible, and nonsensical.
Standard desktop PC motherboards, compatible GPUs and CPUs... they do not allow for shareable RAM, instead going with a design paradigm of the GPU has its own onboard GDDR RAM that only it can use, and DDR RAM that only the CPU can use.
You would basically have to tear a high end/more modern laptop board with an APU soldered into it... and then install that into a 'desktop pc' case... to have a 'desktop pc' that shares memory between its CPU and GPU components... which both would be encapsulated in a single APU chip.
Roughly this concept being done is generally called a MiniPC, and is a fairly niche thing, and is not the kind of thing an average prosumer can assemble themselves like a normal desktop PC.
All you can really do is swap out the RAM (if it isnt soldered) and the SSD... maybe I guess transplant it and the power supply into another case?
I don't know how you could arrive at such a conclusion, considering that the base PS5 has been measured to be comparable to the 6700.
I can arrive at that conclusion because I can compare actual bench mark scores from a nearest TFLOP equivalent, more publically documented, architecturally similar AMD APU... the 7600M. I specifically mentioned this in my post.
This guy in the article here ... well he notes that the 6700 is a bit more powerful than the PS5Pro's GPU component.
The 6600 is one step down in terms of mainline desktop PC hardware, and arguably the PS5Pro's performance is... a bit better than a 6600, a bit worse than a 6700, but at that level, all of the other differences in the PS5Pro's architecture give basically a margin of error when trying to precisely dial in whether a 6700 or 6600 is a closer match.
You can't do apples to apples spec sheet comparisons... because, as I have now exhaustively explained:
Standard desktop PCs do not share RAM between the GPU and CPU. They also do not share memory imterface busses and bandwidth lanes... in standard PCs, these are distinct and seperate, because they use different architectures.
I got my results by starting with the (correct*) TFLOPs output from a PS5Pro, finding a nearest equivalent APU with PassMark benchmark scores, reported by hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of users, then compared those PassMark APU scores to PassMark conventional GPU scores, and ended up with 'fairly close' to an RX 6600.
- The early, erroneous reporting of the TFLOPs score as roughly 33, when it was actually closer to 16 or 17... that stemmed from reporting a 16 digit FLOP score/test, when the more standard convention is to list the 32 digit FLOP score/test.
...
You, on the other hand, just linked to a Tom's Hardware review of currently in production desktop PC GPUs... which did not make any mention of the PS5Pro... and them you also acted as if a 6600 was half as powerful as a PS5Pro's GPU component.... which is wildly off.
A 6700 is nowhere near 2x as powerful as a 6600.
2x as poweful as an AMD RX 6600... would be roughly an AMD RX 7900 XTX, the literal top end card of AMDs previous GPU generation... that is currently selling for something like $1250 +/- $200, depending on which retailer you look at, and their current stock levels, and which variant of which partner mfg you're going for.
Just to add to this, the reason you only see shared memory setups on PCs with integrated graphics is because it lowers performance compared to dedicated memory, which is less of a problem if your GPU is only being used in 2D mode such as when doing office work (mainly because that uses little memory), but more of a problem when used in 3D mode (such as in most modern games) which is as the PS5 is meant to be used most of the time.
So the PS5 having shared memory is not a good thing and actually makes it inferior compared to a PC made with a GPU and CPU of similar processing power using the dominant gaming PC architecture (separate memory).
Basically this is true, yes, without going into an exhaustive level of detail as to very, very specific subtypes and specs of different RAM and mobo layouts.
Shared memory setups generally are less powerful, but, they also usually end up being overall cheaper, as well as having a lower power draw... and being cooler, temperature wise.
Which are all legitimate reasons those kinds of setups are used in smaller form factor 'computing devices', because heat managment, airflow requirements... basically rule out using a traditional architecture.
...
Though, recently, MiniPCs are starting to take off... and I am actually considering doing a build based on the Minisforum BD795i SE... which could be quite a powerful workstation/gaming rig.
Aside about interesting non standard 'desktop' potential build
This is a Mobo with a high end integrated AMD mobile CPU (7945hx).. that all together, costs about $430.
And the CPU in this thing... has a PassMark score... of about the same as an AMD 9900X... which itself, the CPU alone, MSRPs for about $400.
So that is kind of bonkers, get a high end Mobo and CPU... for the price of a high end CPU.
Oh, I forgot to mention: This BD795iSE board?
Yeah it just has a standard PCI 16 slot. So... you can plug in any 2 slot width standard desktop GPU into it... and all of this either literally is, or basically is the ITX form factor.
So, you could make a whole build out of this that would be ITX form factor, and also absurdly powerful, or a budget version with a dinky GPU.
I was talking in another thread a few days ago, snd somekne said PC architecture may be headed toward... basically you have the entire PC, and the GPU, and thats the new paradigm, instead of the old school view of: you have a mobo, and you pick it based on its capability to support future cpus in the same socket type, future ram upgrades, etc...
And this intrigued me, I looked into it, and yeah, this concept does have cost per performance merit at this point.
So this uses a split between the GPU having its GDDR RAM and the... CPU using DDDR SODIMM (laptop form factor) RAM.
But its also designed such that you can actually fit huge standard PC style cooling fans... into quite a compact form factor.
From what I can vaguely tell as a non Chinese speaker.. it seems like there are many more people over in China who have been making high end, custom, desktop gaming rigs out of this laptop/mobile style architecture for a decent while now, and only recently has this concept even really entered into the English speaking world/market, that you can actually build your own rig this way.
Fascinating discourse here. Love it.
What about a Framework laptop motherboard in a mini PC case? Do they ship with AMD APUs equivalent to that?
Hrm uh... Framework laptops... seem to be configurable as having a mobile grade CPU with integrated graphics... and also an optional, additional mobile grade, dedicated GPU.
So, not really an APU... unless you really want to haggle over definitions and say 'technically, a CPU with pathetic integrated graphics still counts as a GPU and is thus an APU'.
Framework laptop boards don't have the PCI-E 16x slot for a traditional desktop GPU. As far as I am aware, Minisforum are the only people that do that, along with a high powered mobile CPU.
Note that the Minisforum Mobo model I am talking about, the AMD chip is not really an APU, its also a CPU with integrated graphics. Its a Radeon 610M, basically the bare minimum to be able to render and output very basic 2d graphics.
True APUs are ... things like what more modern consoles use, what a steam deck uses. They are still usually custom specs, proprietary to their vendor.
The Switch 2 will have a custom Nvidia APU, which is the first Nvidia APU of note to my knowledge, and it will be very interesting to learn more about it from teardowns and benchmarks.
...
Currently, the most powerful, non custom, generally publically available, compatible with standard PC mobos... arguably an APU, arguably not... is the AMD 8700G.
Its about $315 bucks, is a pretty decent CPU, but as a GPU... its less powerful than a standard desktop RX 6500 from AMD... which is the absolute lowest tier AMD GPU from now two generations back from current.
You... might be able to run ... basically games older than 5ish years, at 1080p, medium graphics, at 60fps. I guess it would maybe be a decent option if you... wanted to build a console emulator machine, roughly for consoles ... N64/PS1/Dreamcast, and older, as well as being able to play older PC games, or PC games at lower settings/no more than 1080p.
I am totally just spitballing with that though, trying to figure out all that exactly would be quite complicated.
...
But now, back to Framework.
Framework is soon to be releasing the Framework Desktop.
This is a small form factor PC... which uses an actual proper APU, either the AMD AI Max 385 or 395.
Its listed as MSRP of $1100, they say it can run Cyberpunk at 1440p on high settings at about 75 fps... thats with no ray tracing, no framegen... and I think also no frame upscaling being used.
So, presumably, if you turned on upscaling and framegen, you'd be able to get similar fps at ultra and psycho settings, and/or some amount of raytracing.
There are also other companies that offer this kind of true APU, MiniPC style architecture, such as EvoTek, though it seems like most of them are considerably more expensive.
... And finally, looks like Minisforum is sticking with the laptop CPU + desktop GPU design, and is soon going to be offering even more powerful CPU+Mobo models.
So yeah, this is actually quite an interesting time of diversification away from ... what have basically been standard desktop mobo architectures... for ... 2, 3? decades...
...shame it all also coincides with Trump throwing a literally historically unprecedented senilic temper tantrum, and fucking up prices and logistics for... basically the whole world, though of course much, much more seriously for the US.
$850 is way more expensive than a PS5 though lol. Linux also means you can’t play the games that top the most played charts on the PS5 every single month of every single year.
https://www.metacritic.com/pictures/best-playstation-games-of-2024/
Works on Linux:
Prince of Persia, the Lost Crown
Silent Hill 2 (Remake)
Marvel vs Capcom: Arcade Classics
Shin Megamei Tensei (V)engeance
Persona 3 Reload
HiFi Rush
Animal Well
Castlevania Dominus Collection
Like A Dragon: Infinite Wealth
Tekken 8
The Last of Us Part II (Remaster)
Balatro
Dave the Diver
Slay the Princess: Pristine Cut
Metaphor Re Fantazio
Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree (and base game)
Does not work on Linux:
Unicorn Overlord (Console Exclusive, No PC Port Allowed by Publisher Vanillaware)
Destiny 2 (Kernel Level Anti Cheat)
FF VII Rebirth (PS Exclusive)
Astro Bot (PS Exclusive)
...
Damn, yeah, still consoles gotta hold on via exclusives, I guess?
And then there's the mismanaged shitshow that is Destiny 2...
...who can't figure out how to do AntiCheat without installing a rootkit on your PC, despite functional, working AntiCheats having worked on linux games for at least half a decade at this point, if not longer...
...nor can they figure out how to write a storyline that rises above 'everyone is always lore dumping instead of talking, and also they talk to you like a you're a 10 year while doing so.'
Last I heard, a whole bunch of hardcore D2 youtubers and streamers were basically all quitting out of frustration and feeling let down or betrayed by Bungie.
...
Maybe we should advocate for some freedom of platform porting/publishing for all games, eh FreedomAdvocate?
Highest rated != most played or most popular.
COD MP.
Warzone.
Fortnite.
GTA Online.
Not on Linux.
Most Call of Duty games work on linux, you're gonna have to be more specific as to which particular one of like 25 you mean by 'COD'.
The ones that don't, they don't work because the devs are too lazy or incompetent (or specifically told not to by their bosses) to make an AntiCheat that isn't a rootkit with full access to your entire PC.
I used to play GTA V Online (and RDR2, and FiveM, and RedM...) on linux all the time, literally for years... untill they just decided to ban all linux players.
IMO they owe me money for that, but oh well I guess.
...
Again, there are many AntiCheats that work on linux, and have worked on linux for years and years now.
Easy Anti Cheat and Battleeye even offer linux support to game devs. There are some games with these ACs that actually do support linux.
But many game devs/studios/publishers just don't use this support... because then there wouldn't be any reason to actually use Windows, and MSFT pays these studios a lot of money... or they just literally own them (Activision/Blizzard = MSFT).
Kernel Anti Cheat that only works on Windows?
Yep, that's just a complicated way to enforce Windows exclusivity in PC games.
Go look up how many hacks and trainers you can find for one of these games you mention.
You may notice that they are all designed for, and only work on... Windows.
The idea that all linux gamers are malicious hackers is a laughable, obviously false idea... but game company execs understand the power of rabid irrational fandoms.
...
You are right that you can't run games with rootkit anticheats on linux though, so if those heavily monetized and manipulative games with toxic playerbases are your addiction of choice, yep, sorry, linux ain't your hookup for those.
Again, this is another game platform freedom advocacy issue, and also a personal information security advocacy issue, not a 'something is wrong with linux' issue.
Game companies have gotten many working anticheat systems to work with linux. The most popular third party anticheat systems also support linux.
But the industry is clever at keeping people locked into their for profit, insecure OSs that spy on their entire system.
Most Call of Duty games work on linux, you’re gonna have to be more specific as to which particular one of like 25 you mean by ‘COD’.
I was more specific - I said COD MP as in multiplayer, as in the current COD Multiplayer that people play, which all have anti-cheat that doesn't work on Linux. Warzone, again, doesn't work on Linux.
The ones that don’t, they don’t work because the devs are too lazy or incompetent (or specifically told not to by their bosses) to make an AntiCheat that isn’t a rootkit with full access to your entire PC.
Because without full access to your PC, anti-cheat is essentially useless and easily bypassed by cheaters.
I used to play GTA V Online (and RDR2, and FiveM, and RedM…) on linux all the time, literally for years… untill they just decided to ban all linux players.
Because of cheaters.
Kernel Anti Cheat that only works on Windows?
Yep, that’s just a complicated way to enforce Windows exclusivity in PC games.
It's also one of the only ways to try to stop cheaters.
The idea that all linux gamers are malicious hackers is a laughable, obviously false idea
That's not an idea that anyone is saying though, other than you right now. The idea is that without that kernel level protection you can't even hope to stop a high percentage of cheats.
You are right that you can’t run games with rootkit anticheats on linux though, so if those heavily monetized and manipulative games with toxic playerbases are your addiction of choice, yep, sorry, linux ain’t your hookup for those.
So like I said, the most popular, most played games on every platform (apart from linux) every year.
Again, this is another game platform freedom advocacy issue, and also a personal information security advocacy issue, not a ‘something is wrong with linux’ issue.
It is a "something is wrong with linux" issue if Linux doesn't allow/provide for something that game developers - and game players - want, which is anti-cheat that does the absolute best it can to stop cheaters.
Because without full access to your PC, anti-cheat is essentially useless and easily bypassed by cheaters.
This is false.
Many functional AntiCheats work well without Kernel Level access... and many Kernel Level AntiCheats... are routinely bypassed by common, easily purchaseable hacks... which, again, only work on Windows.
I used to play GTA V Online (and RDR2, and FiveM, and RedM…) on linux all the time, literally for years… untill they just decided to ban all linux players.
Because of cheaters.
That's not an idea that anyone is saying though, other than you right now.
Uh... you are also basically saying this, with that combination of statements.
So... please refrain from obviously contradictory, gas lighting arguements, thanks!
Anyway: GTAV uses BattleEye.
BattleEye works on Linux.
Rockstar just ... chose not to use that Linux support.
It's also one of the only ways to try to stop cheaters.
There are many other ways to stop cheaters that are quite effective, namely, actually designing your game more competently and more cleverly, with less client side authority and more server side authority, less intrusive system client side AC that is more reliant on randomized realtime logging and verifications of game files, server side hereustics that pick up 'impossible' player input patterns, etc.
You know, all the other methods that have been used for decades, and still work.
No AntiCheat method will ever be 100% effective.
As I already mentioned, Kernel Level AntiCheats are defeated all the time, and you can easily find and purchase such cheats/hacks... which only work on Windows... after maybe 30 minutes of web searching or jumping around discord communities.
Beyond that, its not that hard or expensive to setup your own, or just purchase a tiny microcomputer that plugs into your PC, then you plug your mouse/keyboard into that, and then the microPC middleman performs aim hacks and otherwise impossible movement macros like stuttersteps and such.
Kernel ACs are routinely defeated by competent executions of this concept.
You can never stop all hackers.
It is always a trade off of exactly how much you inconvenience and degrade the system integrity/stability/security of the user, versus how many hackers you believe you are likely to stop.
...
Kernel Level AntiCheat is basically going to 99.99% effective from previous methods being 99.9% effective... and the cost is literally you are now installing a rootkit on your own system that could very well be reading all your web history and saved logins and passwords.
The code is black box, and tech companies lie all the time about how much data they gather from you... and then sell to every data broker they can.
The only actual numbers and statistics anyone has to work with, when justifying or arguing against effectiveness levels of different kinds of AC... are the claims put out by AC companies.
And even then, most people, such as yourself, aren't even aware of or refuse to acknowledge that AntiCheats have worked on linux for years.
It is a "something is wrong with linux" issue if Linux doesn't allow/provide for something that game developers - and game players - want, which is anti-cheat that does the absolute best it can to stop cheaters.
I see how you just completely did not address how I stated that EAC and BattleEye both support linux, other ACs have and still do as well.... certain game publishers just don't use these features that have existed for years.
Valve Anti Cheat, for example?
You can find more info if you look, but I'm guessing you won't.
You just have an idea, of 'the idea'.
Have you ever written a hack?
Written game netcode, and other client/server game code?
... I have! ... back when I still used Windows, ironically.
Best way to test your own design is to try to defeat it.
...
Installing a rootkit onto your personal computer... to protect you from hackers in a game... is like trying to fight a stomach flu you got from Taco Bell by intentionally infecting yourself with Covid.
Oh and uh, after the whole... CrowdStrike fiasco, where Windows just allowed CrowdStike to write and update kernel level code without actually doing their own testing or validation... and then they pushed a bad update... and that took out basically 1/4 of the world's enterprise Windows machines for a week or two?
Yeah... Windows is now removing direct kernel level access from third party software.
They're making everything move up a level or two, kind of inventing a new interface layer/paradigm...
Becauase it is in fact, empirically, objectively, way, way, waaaay too dangerous to just let every 'verified' third party partner fuck with the kernel.
So... your idea of 'the idea' of Kernel Level AC is no longer valid, as it is no longer able to run at such a low layer, and will thus be more vulnerable to... the kinds of hacks Kernel Level AC is supposed to be necessarry for dealing with.
You don't need a graphics card. You can get mini PCs with decent gaming performance for cheap these days.
The ones with capable GPUs cost as much as a PS5 Pro.
There are CPUs with quite capable iGPU, fitting in a mini-PC. All in all maybe $500.
And yeah, sure, the article mentioned that consoles are subsidized by game prices.
Go on then. Which ones.
I have a Ryzen 7 5700G in my DeskMini X300, but that one is a genrration (?) ago. Still, can play almost all games in 3440x1440 at medium settings.
In case you have seen my "string and tape" case mod to fit the cooler, that was done to support Turbo for video recoding. Noctua NH-L9a-AM4 fits nicely.
Knowing the usefulness that we’ve gotten at our house out of having them, I would probably say if I didn’t have the PS5 I would get a steam deck at this point. A refurbished one from valve when they’re on sale would be my pick. Plus, it works on my 20 year catalog of games.
Can confirm. I wouldn't recommend it unless you mostly play indie games, though.
By decent you meant significantly worse than console gaming performance though.
Consoles are still the king for values in gaming, even with their increasing prices.
That sounds kind of like a console, no?
Edit: I mean, if the intent is gaming and only gaming, it feels like there's a lot of overlap. Only the PC would have less support for more freedom.
Interesting point. Then you understand why Apple is making moves to try to be a real player in gaming.
All three of us see how gaming performance is plateauing across various hardware types to the point that a modern game can run on a wide range of hardware. With settings changes to scale across the hardware, of course.
Or are you going to be a bummer and claim it’s only mini pcs that get this benefit. Not consoles, not VR headsets, not macs, not Linux laptops.
There really is a situation going on where there is a large body of hardware in a similar place on the performance curve in a way that wasn’t always true in the past. Historically, major performance gains were made every few years. And various platforms were on very different and less interoperable hardware architectures, etc.
The Steam Deck’s success proves my point, and your point alone.
The thing is, people don’t wanna hear it. They wanna focus on the very high end. Or super high refresh rates. Or they wanna complain about library sizes.
I mean, for the price of a mid range graphics card I can still buy a whole console. GPU prices are ridiculous. Never mind everything else on top of that.
Yeah but remember to factor in that you probably already need a normal computer for non-game purposes so if you also use that for games you only have to buy one device not two
I just built a PC after not having a computer for about 5+ years.
Built it for games, did not feel like I was missing out on anything in particular except games by not having a computer. There's a lot of things I'd rather use a computer for but these days most of what I used to do on a computer can be done just fine from a phone or tablet.
During those 5 or so years, I maybe needed to use a computer about a dozen times, and if my wife didn't have a computer I could have just swung by a library for a bit to take care of it.
To me tablets feel like the most useless devices ever invented. Too large to carry around with you but just as stupidly limited as a phone compared to a real computer where you can actually automate some of your tasks and type on a decent keyboard and have a decent sized screen that doesn't ruin your wrists with the weight of holding it up.
You can build a pretty capable PC for about $600. And you won't have to pay for multiplayer.
If I'm building a PC for gaming, I wouldn't limit myself to $600. Would you? I've never not had PCs or laptops since I first had one in the 90s. I'm building again now to go Linux. 7800xt and 2 Tb SSD cost as much as a PS5 Pro in my part of the world. I only started getting into consoles because I can afford it now, and for physical games. I don't really get why today it's PC vs. consoles. I was into PCs but never judged consoles as inferior, just different.
"Pretty capable" will get you dunked on in the PC gaming world. For what I've seen PC gamers actually recommend I could buy 2-3 modern consoles.
That's just nonsense. Maybe some 13 year olds with rich parents think like that.
Along with paying for multiplayer I get access to a large catalog of games as well as additional games every month. Yes they’re inaccessible if I stop paying, but that’s not really a big deal. Even all that aside, I pretty much play single player games anyway.
Also, when a game comes out I know it’ll work. No driver bugs, no messing with settings, no checking minimum and recommended specs, it just works. And it works the same for everyone on the platform. I don’t have any desire to spend a bunch of time tweaking settings to get things just right, only to have the game crash for some esoteric reason or another.
Yeah, GPU prices are kinda ridiculous, but a 7600 is probably good enough to match console quality (essentially the same as the 6650XT, so get whatever is cheaper), and I see those going for $330. It should be more like $250, so maybe you can find it closer to that amount when there's a sale. Add $500-600 for mobo, CPU, PSU, RAM storage, and a crappy case, and you have a decent gaming rig. Maybe I'm short by $100 or so, but that should be somewhere in the ballpark.
So $900-1000 for a PC. That's about double a console, extra if you need keyboard, monitor, etc. Let's say that's $500. So now we're 3x a console.
Entry cost is certainly higher, so what do you get in return?
- deeper catalogue
- large discounts on older games (anything older than a year or so)
- emulation and other PC tasks
- can upgrade piecemeal - next console gen, just need a new CPU + GPU, and if you go AMD, you can probably skip a gen on your mobo + RAM
- can repurpose old PC once you rebuild it (my old PC is my NAS)
- generally no need to pay a sub for multiplayer
Depending on how many and what types of games you play, it may or may not be cheaper. I play a ton of indies and rarely play AAA new releases, so a console would be a lot more expensive for me. I also have hundreds of games, and probably play 40 or so in a given year (last year was 50 IIRC). If I save just $10 per game, it would be the same price as a console after 2 years, but I save far more since I wait for sales. Also, I'll have a PC anyway, so technically I should only count the extra stuff I buy for playing games, as in my GPU.
You do make some decent points, but the console has one major aspect that PC simply does not have: convenience. I install a game and I’m playing it. No settings to tweak, no need to make sure my drivers are up to date, no need to make sure other programs I’m running are interfering with the game, none of that. If I get a game for my console I know it absolutely will work, with the exception of a simply shitty game which happens on PC too.
The other thing I wanted to touch on was the cheap games. That’s just as relevant on console nowadays. For example, I’ve been slowly buying the Yakuza games for $10-$15 each. That’s the exact same discounts I’ve seen on Steam.
For backwards compatibility, it depends on your console. Xbox is quite impressive - if you have an Xbox Series X you can play any game ever released for any Xbox all the way back to the original. Just stick in the disc. With PlayStation, it’s just PS4 games that the PS5 is backwards compatible with. Sony needs to do better. And with Nintendo… lol.
Yeah, with a PC you can do other things than gaming. For most of that you can get a cheap laptop. There are definitely edge cases where a powerful PC is needed such as development, CAD, AI, etc. But on average a gaming-spec PC is not necessary. I’m saying that as a developer and systems administrator for the past 14 years.
No settings to tweak, no need to make sure my drivers are up to date, no need to make sure other programs I’m running are interfering with the game, none of that.
I also do almost none of that on my PC. I do install updates, but that's pretty much in the background. Then again, I use Linux, so maybe it's different on Windows these days? I doubt it.
Most people tweak settings and whatnot because they want to, not because they need to in order to get a decent experience. I use my PC and Steam Deck largely as a console: install games then then play. That's it.
I’ve been slowly buying the Yakuza games for $10-$15 each
Steam isn't the only store for buying games on PC, so the chance that you can buy a given game on sale on a given day is quite a bit higher vs console, where there's only one store. I've picked games up on Steam, Fanatical, or Humble Bundle, and there are several others if you're interested in looking.
For example, here's Yakuza 0 price history on PC, it has been $10 somewhere for almost a year. On PlayStation, it looks like it's been $20 most of the year. I actually got it for a little under $5 about 5 years ago, and I only paid >$10 for one Yakuza game (most were $7-8).
Tons of games show up in bundles as well. I have picked up tons of games for $2-5 each (sometimes less) as part of a bundle, and that's just not really a thing on consoles.
if you have an Xbox Series X you can play any game ever released for any Xbox all the way back to the original
Interesting, that's pretty cool!
gaming-spec PC
Honestly, the difference between a "gaming spec" PC and one targeting only typical tasks is pretty minimal outside the GPU, assuming you're targeting console quality. You really don't need a high end CPU, RAM, or mobo to play games, you can match CPU perf w/ something mid-range, so $150-ish for the CPU. Likewise for the GPU, you can get comparable quality for something in the $300-400 range, probably less now since the PS5 and XBox Series consoles are kind of old.
But that's assuming you need console quality. You can get by with something a bit older if you turn the settings down a bit.
If you want to save cash, you have a lot more options on PC vs consoles. If you want to go all out, you have a lot more options on PC vs consoles for maxing out performance. PC gaming is as expensive as you make it. I used the same PC for playing games for something like 10 years before getting an upgrade (upgraded the GPU once), because it played all the games I wanted it to. If I have a console, chances are the newer games will stop supporting my older console a year or so after the new one launches, so I don't have any options once the console goes out of support outside of buying a new one.
That said, there are a ton of caveats:
- don't buy laptops for gaming, they are way too expensive and can't really be upgraded (Framework exists, sure, and I think eGPUs still do, but that's going to be expensive)
- don't buy a pre-built PC if you want to save money - if you DIY your PC, you can save a bit of cash, but more importantly, you're more likely to upgrade it vs replace it later on
- you can spend a ton on PC gaming, if you follow whatever the influencer trends are (everyone needs a top-end GPU for $2k or whatever, plus a monitor > 200 hz)
- consoles have a much better couch co-op experience
I have a Switch for the couch co-op experience, as well as ease of use for my kids to just put in a game and play, and a PC for most of my personal gaming time (I also have a Steam Deck so I can play in bed or on vacation). I have something like 20 Switch games and hundreds of PC games.
GPU prices are ridiculous, but those GPUs are also ridiculously more powerful than anything in any console.
The rough equivalent to a PS5Pro's GPU component is a ... not current gen, not last gen, but the gen before that... find AMD's weakest GPU model in the 6 series, the RX 6600, and that is roughly the same performance as the GPU performance of a PS5Pro.
The Switch 2 may have an interesting, custom mobile grade Nvidia APU, but at this point, its not out yet, no benchmarks, etc.
Oh right also: If GPU prices for PCs remain elevated... well, any future consoles will also have elevated prices. Perhaps not to the same degree, but again, that will be because a console will be basically fairly low tier if you compared it to the range of PC hardware... and console mfgs can subsidize console costs with game sales... and they get discounts on ordering the components that go into their consoles by ordering in huge bulk volumes.
Tbh the only consoles I’ve been really interested in lately are the switch and steam deck, simply because they’re also mobile devices.
The Steam Deck is the only decent console because it's not locked down.
That's because it's not a console.
The Steam Deck is basically a PC. You can get mini PCs with APUs of a similar performance for very low prices these days. That won't perform like a current gen console but it's a cheap gaming machine with a huge selection of low cost games and you won't have to pay for multiplayer.
And those mini PC's are mobile with built-in screens and controls?
That would be handhelds. Mini PCs are desktop devices. They often use the same processors as handhelds and laptops, though.
Oh man you're so close
I mean after Valve released the Steam Deck, Asus, Lenovo, MSI--to name just a few--followed suit with at least an iteration. Asus has the Ally and Ally X, Lenovo now have 3 models, and MSI only has 1.
I can't recall if there are any other big brands handheld PCs, but there's definitely Chinese ones.
they can be portable computers built for gaming