sNeaksieGarrett on 18/11/2012 at 01:57
Still though, you have to admit that's a step up from the last wii if what you're telling me is the truth. All I'm saying is there's been tons of speculation thrown around without any sources. The official Nintendo site does not even give details that would suggest that it does (or does not) have dx11 capability. (At least, that's what I'm led to believe.)
Jason Moyer on 18/11/2012 at 02:29
Considering the Wii was a Gamecube with a motion controller, anything is a step up from the Wii.
Fafhrd on 18/11/2012 at 03:30
Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett
Still though, you have to admit that's a step up from the last wii if what you're telling me is the truth. All I'm saying is there's been tons of speculation thrown around without any sources. The official Nintendo site does not even give details that would suggest that it does (or does not) have dx11 capability. (At least, that's what I'm led to believe.)
For it to have DX11 capability it would have to be running some form of Windows. It is not running any form of Windows, thus it can not use DX11.
Volitions Advocate on 18/11/2012 at 04:43
Gordon Mah Ung (the Editor in Chief at Maximum PC magazine) had a little column in in last months issue that I think is poigniant on the debate. Especially so when you talk about AMD hardware and how inexpensive it is comparably speaking.
It's true, that if you were to buy a console the month it came out, you'd probably get a better experience than building a PC that same month with top specs. Why spend $1500 on a better than budget, but not exactly top of the line PC when you could spend 600 - 700 on a Console that works out of the box (eeehh.. maybe not exactly if we're going to be honest, but lets just gloss that over for the sake of argument) and works great with every game made for it. Great.. ok good argument. BUT!! fastforward as little as a year later, or even 2 or 3. THe PC hardware has leapfrogged past, and the argument that the console guys throw out about PC gaming being expensive and you having a constant need to upgrade etc etc... is now pretty much completely void.
Most console games today run only as high as 720p. You can build a PC is a media box, or a shuttle box or something. With a decent sized HD, a processor fast enough to play any modern game (including AMD's offerings) and a cheap budget videocard. and still get a better gaming experience (true 1080p) than on your console, because budget videocards today do way more than the hardware in the current gen consoles. And yet you can still hook it up to the TV, and still play with an Xbox controller. When it comes down to it. PC is a very competitive option these days when looking at the Xbox or the PS3.
Having said that I certainly agree with Eva on the top quality console exclusives.
Sulphur on 18/11/2012 at 07:54
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
It's true, that if you were to buy a console the month it came out, you'd probably get a better experience than building a PC that same month with top specs. Why spend $1500 on a better than budget, but not exactly top of the line PC when you could spend 600 - 700 on a Console that works out of the box (eeehh.. maybe not exactly if we're going to be honest, but lets just gloss that over for the sake of argument) and works great with every game made for it. Great.. ok good argument. BUT!! fastforward as little as a year later, or even 2 or 3. THe PC hardware has leapfrogged past, and the argument that the console guys throw out about PC gaming being expensive and you having a constant need to upgrade etc etc... is now pretty much completely void.
This has been the case since at least the time the original Playstation launched. If you're going to build a PC for gaming, it's always been best to do it
after the consoles come out, because they're mostly going to be the baseline for that generation of games. There's never been an exact 1:1 performance ratio on console hardware and PCs built to similar specs playing console ports, so you need to wait a bit for performance parity, but you'll eventually get hardware that's an order of magnitude faster and cheaper to boot.
Jason Moyer on 18/11/2012 at 12:10
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
Why spend $1500 on a better than budget, but not exactly top of the line PC
I'm assuming that's AUD or Canadian circa 1995? If you're spending 1500 USD on a top-of-the-line gaming PC you're doing something incredibly wrong.
bob_doe_nz on 18/11/2012 at 21:14
Quote Posted by Ladron De La Noche
I would hate to see AMD go, that would be bad for everyone.
Do you remember Cyrix? (before they were gobbled by VIA)
Ahh, those were the days.
icemann on 20/11/2012 at 02:56
Quote Posted by Sulphur
If you're going to build a PC for gaming, it's always been best to do it
after the consoles come out, because they're mostly going to be the baseline for that generation of games.
Though the PC has a HUGE ace up its sleeve. If you buy a console you get all current, upcoming and past games on that games, of say a few hundred games total. On PC you have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of games that spans all the way back to the 80s of nearly every genre that has been done in game form.
Course the later ones require alittle tinkering to get working, but still. And yes I know there's services like xbox live and PSN on the console end that enable you to download console games from other systems but that still only adds a few hundred more games to the list and you can get them in free emulated form on PC anyway.
