Nvidia Say PC Super Awesome, Best By 2014

Take this with a pinch of salt, I think, but Techgage is reporting the findings of a recent Nvidia conference call in which the graphics company suggested that PC games revenue will pass that generated by consoles in 2014. THAT MEANS THE PC WILL BE BEST. That’s not format-war. That’s math. Or something.

The blame for this lies with the rapid growth in digital distribution, microtransactions, and the free-but-not sector (as I am now calling it). The report also features a PC performance vs consoles graph (above) which made me laugh with the blatantness of it. Yes, top end PC graphics actually are 900%+ more powerful than console hardware. Thanks, Nvidia.


  1. Joshua says:

    Nvidia should know as they made the GPU for the 360 apperently.

    • Rii says:

      Nvidia makes the PS3’s GPU and made the GPU for the original Xbox before that. AMD does the X360 and Wii/Wii U GPUs.

    • LionsPhil says:

      They very thoughtfully marked (almost) my own card there on the left. Armed with the knowledge that I could have three times the bungholiomarks, I shall get my credit card out and…

      …oh, wait. All my games run smoothly at high settings anyway. Thanks, XBox, for saving me another needless upgrade cycle!

    • Starky says:

      If all your games run smoothly on a 8800GT (or equiv), you must run at low-ish resolution (assuming you manage medium settings, but no fancy bollocks like 8xAA and Ambient occlusion) – mine started to chug years back at 1440*900, and after the upgrade to a 1920×1080 screen most new games needed to be dropped to low (fugly) settings (which quickly resulted in my getting a 5770 which I’ve had for like 18 months).

      I still use it in my HTPC, and it still beats Xbox 360 by a chunk though at 720p (1366×768 on a 32 inch TV).

      Best video card ever made that 8800GT, without a doubt no graphics card has come close to the life span it has had in the historsy of PCs.

    • P4p3Rc1iP says:

      Edit: It seems I replied to the wrong topic, this was meant for the one below this lol.

    • Muzman says:

      “Best video card ever made that 8800GT, without a doubt no graphics card has come close to the life span it has had in the historsy of PCs.”

      It’s up there, but you’re forgetting the Radeon 9700pro (or one of those). People got a hell of a lot of service out of those.

    • LionsPhil says:

      GTX, pedantically. And I don’t consider 1280×1024 a “low” resolution; I just have a sane(ish) aspect ratio. On my CRT.

      Get off my lawn.

    • Askeladd says:

      Oh sorry, you are right. *walks away* – Better not mess with those CRT guys, phew.

    • Wisq says:

      I went from a 19″ 1280×960 CRT to a 27″ 2560×1440 IPS LED display at the beginning of this year, and I have to say … to all CRT owners: Your technology is dead and buried, and it’s high time to give up and move on. Flexible resolution selection and 4:3 aspect ratios cannot possibly make up for what you’re missing.

      Best video card ever made that 8800GT, without a doubt no graphics card has come close to the life span it has had in the historsy of PCs.

      My 8800 GTS lasted for a bit … and then it cooked itself. Fortunately, the lifetime warranty meant I had a 9800 sent to me. Much saner temperatures, and easier to power as well. (Honestly, the GTS should have had dual power inputs like the GTX; it was a pain trying to find a PSU that could deliver enough on a single rail.)

      So yes, if you count the 9800, my days in the 8800 family lasted a surprisingly long time. Right up until my CRT to LCD upgrade (above) gave me 3x the pixels and made me want to turn on VSync etc.

      Interestingly, the 8800’s fan didn’t even kick up into high gear until it was practically on the brink of melting itself. nVidia has a very strange idea of what constitutes a reasonable temperature for a video card — which probably explains why their hardware craps out so much (in my experience).

      If nVidia and ATI were ever to merge (with ATI doing hardware and nVidia doing drivers), I suspect the sheer perfection would create a paradox and destroy the universe. So it’s probably a good thing they’re bitter rivals.

    • dadioflex says:

      Nothing to add really except the upgrade from my 8800GT was also long-delayed and with much regret. Great card.

    • pepper says:

      @wisq, 1280×1024 doesnt have to be CRT. It’s a 19″ resolution commonly used in TFT/LCD’s. I got 2 19″ displays and im going to hold onto them until the end of times. I hate the fact that display builders take away my vertical space and add it to the sides. It has no advantage at all. Although, having a 4:3 or 5:4 ratio gives you a bigger FOV in games build on the UT3 engine if I can believe the UDK doc’s.

    • Resurgam says:

      Yes 8800 GT probably best ever price/performance, however I AM STILL rolling with my 8800 GTS 512 and i bought that thing practically the week it was released, plus i run games at 1920*1080 but i still manage med/high graphics on a lot of these “new” games. TBH graphics havn’t moved forward much since crysis, so i’ve stopping looking at them since most games are now same ‘ol same ‘ol. No need to upgrade until new consoles are released, its not as if graphics are going to stray far from console quality until some developer grows some balls and goes highendPCONLYomgwtfZOMGgrahpicsARMAGEDDON64xAAwinofPOWER

      4 years, no upgrades, still playin everything like a boss, 8800 GTS 512 4ever

      I may have gone off at a tangent there.

    • Jerricho says:

      I bought an 8800GTX in late 2006 and upgraded in March this year after it finally bricked itself. I was sad to see it go but then I paid less for my shiny new 580 GTX than for the 8800, now with three times the bungholiomarks. I think that works out to about £80 per year on high-end graphics cards with a 6 year old motherboard. I’m living the dream.

    • mejoff says:

      Yeah, odd that. I only just moved on from my 8800 after what, 4-5 years I think?
      It outlived a house, a case, 2 sound cards, a PSU, a motherboard, 2jobs, a CPU and a monitor and still went on to a good home when I upgraded!

  2. Rii says:

    GTX 580: USD $450
    Playstation 3: USD $250

    • Eightball says:

      Or get a reasonable (but still able to play everything with much higher quality than consoles) GPU for like $150 (USD).

      link to tomshardware.com

    • Rii says:

      Pretty sure a $150 GPU isn’t going to be doing much of anything by itself.

    • MrXswift says:

      In 4-5 month:
      GTX 580: USD $250 – still great performance
      Playstation 3: USD $250 – even more outdated
      In 1-2 years:
      GTX 580: just update the graphics card for 250$
      Playstation 3: useless new console 700-900$

      Consoles are an atavism of computer development.
      They stall game development because its not possible to upgrade the hardware for a cheap price.
      Hardware development goes so fast, its ridiculous how much garbage consoles produce, i whish
      Sony, Mocrosoft and Nintendo would make their consoles upgradable.

    • Bfox says:

      Which one are you suggesting is better?

    • Rii says:

      @mrxswift: “They stall game development because its not possible to upgrade the hardware”

      To the benefit of PC gamers – as opposed to PC tech fetishists – everywhere. Course we still need (and aren’t likely to get) a few more years on hold to drill the hardware down to smartphone-size. Ah well.

      @bfox: Well I would diffidently suggest that the item able to actually play games might hold something of an advantage here.

    • Eightball says:

      Rii – nearly every single console owner also owns a PC. If they desire to play games on it, a GPU upgrade may enable them to do so, at an incredibly reasonable price.

      Your post comparing a PS3 to a high-level enthusiast GPU seems to be trying to perpetuate the myth that PC gaming is significantly more expensive than console gaming. I am pointing out that your comparison between the two is flawed (on several levels).

    • Pathetic Phallacy says:

      PS3 = 250$
      N64 = 40$

      Check it out everyone, I’m using a price comparison as an argument!

    • Rii says:


      I am performing a straight comparison between the items that are the subject of this ridiculous comparison. Direct your scorn appropriately.

    • Dawngreeter says:

      I bought my PC about four years ago, I think. Perhaps a bit more. My 8800GT was fine all the way, but when I ran Human Revolution two weeks ago and got a very poor performance, I realized the time to upgrade is here. I spent about 160 euros on GTX560 and it runs everything perfectly. It probably won’t last as long as 8800GT did, but it will certainly do for at least two years. 160 euros. I also bought 4GB of RAM for about 35 euros. My processor is still fine, my motherboard is still fine. Everything’s fine. That’s all the upgrade I needed to run anything you can throw at me at max settings. I had effectively skipped 5 whole generations of graphics cards, by the way.

      But let’s assume I had an even older machine. At the same time as my purchase, a friend of mine decided to upgrade his 6 years old rig. Motherboard, CPU, cooler, graphics, RAM. I think it was about 500 euros, perhaps a tad more.

    • PoulWrist says:

      So you’re saying that something that’s 10 times better than something else should be ashamed for costing 80% more?

    • Rii says:


      Actually the cost of RSX to Sony is likely one-tenth or less the retail price of GTX 580.

      Alternatively the Playstation 3 can be considered infinitely more capable than a GTX 580. The former needs only electricity and a television or monitor to provide a wealth of entertainment, the latter requires substantially more investment if it is to function as anything other than an expensive and unaerodynamic frisbee.

    • battles_atlas says:

      Much as I enjoy your droll sarcasm Rii, your argument is a pile of wank. A PC graphics card is a fairer straight comparison with a console than an entire PC is. A console plays games and gives you a clunky, limited form of internet access. A PC does everything that can be done virtually. Given that most of us would require a PC regardless of gaming, the only premium is the graphics card, hence the comparison eightball made is solid.

    • LionsPhil says:

      In this thread: PC gamers desperately try to justify to themselves spending too much money on unnecessarily “powerful” hardware by pretending that a graphics card is a whole computer.

    • -Spooky- says:

      Oh wait ..

      Console: 95 % games with 720p, only DX9, no modding, no tuning, no .cfg .. so what? WHO cares about 720p in these days? *shrug*

    • neems says:

      Most pc gamers spend more money on hardware than console gamers. It’s not necessarily a horrifying amount, and I don’t really understand why everybody seems to sit around claiming that their uber leet gaming rigs only cost £6.50.

      You get what you pay for.

    • Jesus H Christ says:

      Dont forget your $1000+ HDTV not to mention costly surround sound system.

      So $250 console + $1000 TV + $300 sound system compared to

      A $600 PC + $150 24″ monitor + $80 5.1 sound system

      SO which one cost more for the best experience?

      Sure you could hook your console upto your 30″ brick analogue TV but then whats the point?

      God Bless

    • battles_atlas says:

      @ LionsPhil

      Having won this argument I presume you’ll be off to do some photo editing on you xbox, write an email or two, copy some music, pirate some films

    • Rii says:


      Alas for a high-end card it’s not nearly that simple. You have to ensure that your PSU is up to scratch on the 12V rail, that your motherboard has a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot, that the card will fit in the case and that it will have adequate cooling (granted per the Xbox 360 buying a console is not an ironclad way of avoiding this issue) and that your CPU and other subsystems are sufficiently up to scratch that they’re not bottlenecking your shiny new graphics card. It’s something you have to plan for.

      And after all that you get to render World of Warcraft at 350fps. Clearly these were monies well spent.

      Look, I’m a PC gamer, and someone who maintains a keen interest in technology and its applications. I look forward to playing games like BF3 at resolutions and settings that the consoles can’t touch. I read Anandtech and Beyond3D and listen to Carmack’s keynotes*. I’m very pro-PC. I’m also a console gamer, and as such don’t appreciate seeing bullshit like this chart slung around as clickbait for the mouthbreathing PC-supremacist masses. Like another commentator said, this is Daily Fail-class material, and as Daniel Dennett once said: there’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view I hold dear.

      * including the bits where he talks about struggling to get Rage on PC up to console performance standards because the software stack is so kludgy and inefficient.

    • Eightball says:

      @Neems – you are correct in general, but I’m not sure if it’s so clear cut.

      Console gamer pays (lets say) $400 for budget PC+ $250 for console + $300 for nice (but not fantastic) TV. They get Z performance from their console playing games.

      PC gamer pays (lets say) $700 for midrange PC + $200 for nice (but not fantastic) monitor. They get several times Z performance from their PC playing games.

      I’m mostly making up numbers for the monitors and and TV, since I’m not really familiar with them (though I need a new monitor, lol). But the idea that PC gaming has to be a hobby that costs several times console gaming is simply not true, yet I keep seeing it crop up in everything topic comparing the two (very similar) hobbies.

    • Muzman says:

      Yes. While not the point of the initial comparison, the accusation of high costs and upgrade whorism is still supposed to be solely a PC problem in these debates. This cannot be the case any more if we’re looking at it honestly. Consolers always want/need a bigger and bigger TV and whatever else too.

      It’d be interesting to see how much people of each system spend on games and then how many games they actually get at the end of the day for this amount. Seems like that’s where the PC is going to flog everything in the next few years. And yes, I mean legitimate games.

    • Rii says:

      @Jesus H Christ: “Dont forget your $1000+ HDTV not to mention costly surround sound system.”

      That’s funny, my PS3 is hooked up to the same monitor and speakers as my PC.

    • battles_atlas says:

      @ Rii

      The difference between a bottom of the line branded PSU (ie one that wont blow up immediately) and say a 650w for a good gfx card is about £20. Same goes for the difference between a bargin basement mobo and one with 16x PCI. A decent processor is useful no matter what you’re doing on the PC.

      I’m not even sure what the argument is supposed to be, regarding whatever shit Nvidia have put out. The PC is more expensive, but does a lot more with games, offers a lot more choice in games, and does much else besides. Also the games are half the price, which adds up.

      Now I’m going to bed. Its a budget bed, hasn’t been upgraded in years, but the standardised human form has protected it from becoming obsolete. It will still support pretty much any homo sapiens on the market today.

    • skinlo says:

      You are in the minority then Rii.

    • Muzman says:

      I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about here anymore Rii, but anyway…. 1) what’s that got to do with anything? 2) Yeah, I wouldn’t rule it out, but I can’t say how much either. Graphics card pricing in terms of where the top-of-the-line-latest is placed and the more average products is about the same as it was 10 years ago: $500 for the A grade. Half that for the slightly older standard. You could make a case that the gap between them has narrowed a lot. Is it really consoles that are responsible for that or the eye wateringly brutal competition that exists in the computer industry anyway? As I say, it’s a factor, sure. But where standards have really gone through the roof and prices plummeted is in nearly every other component except graphics cards. Frankly I think putting that at the feet of consoles is a really long row to hoe. I’d rank the internet itself a whole lot higher.

      But this is somewhat OT
      Oh the post went away. Oh well.

    • grundus says:

      This is a long string of replies so it’s no doubt moved on from what I’m going back to, which is the PC vs. Console price debate. I have, since the PS3 came out, spent about a new PC’s worth in PS3 games, but a new PS3’s worth in PC games. My ‘PC’ is a Mac Pro, which cost me £2,100, and I’ve had to buy two PS3’s because my first died quite spectacularly and I couldn’t be bothered to fix it. That, combined with the fact that I’ve spent over £10 on PC games precisely three times in the last two years (in fact, ever) and under £30 on PS3 games about twice, ever (excluding PSN titles), means PC gaming certainly looks far cheaper for me.

      When the PS4 comes out, though, I’ll definitely be going straight out to buy… An AMD 8990. At least I presume that’s what they’ll be on by then.

      Edit: Oh yeah, if I spent what my TV and surround sound system cost on my PC instead, I could have an Eyefinity setup. As it is, I spent half of what the TV alone cost and have two monitors and a 5.1 system for my desk.

    • vodkarn says:

      “GTX 580: USD $450
      Playstation 3: USD $250”

      link to tomshardware.com

      Or, you know, make a reasonable system.

      And hey, if you buy ~20 games this year, not including steam sales, you’ll be running even in cost.

    • DrSlek says:

      What a delightfully ill-concieved argument.

      As others have pointed out, the vast majority of gamers already own a PC, and so upgrading the GPU to a mid-range card in order to play the games of today is a much more financially efficient option than buying a console.
      But also, the option of buying the GPU unlocks more gaming options, at a cheaper price than consoles. The PC has cheaper games with a greater range of genres available, including RTS, TBS, 4X, P&C adventures, . A superior control scheme, which can also be customised to suit the player. True HD graphics. and a colossal modding community.

      So even if someone decides to buy an expensive high end GPU, they still get a much, MUCH higher value for money.

    • Alexnader says:

      @ Rii 8800 GT. Three times the performance of the 360 (GPU?) and I can get it for like $80.

      Also keep in mind the relationship between the price and performance of PC components is not linear but could be better matched to an exponential curve. For $160 I could get a HD 6850 that’s rated to have approximately 2/3 the performance of a 580 which would make it 6 times better than a 360 for only 1/3 the cost of a 580. If the relationship was linear it’d be 1/3 the performance of a 580 for 1/3 the cost.

      I’m not arguing that PC gaming is cheap and easy, it’s not. I’m just saying it’s not as bad as you make it out to be Rii. I’ll admit consoles have done my wallet a favour by hamstringing the progress of gaming performance but on the other hand games aren’t looking as good as they could be.

      Also one last thing, actual video game costs for consoles are much more expensive. There are far more discounts for the PC and often console games cost twice as much as PC games at the discount stores! Thanks to places like Ozgameshop.com every time you buy PC when you could’ve bought console you’re saving yourself $30-$40.

      *GPU price/performance numbers are quick and approximate and sourced from here:
      link to videocardbenchmark.net

    • P4p3Rc1iP says:

      The vast majority of PC gamers also own a TV.

      The vast majority of games released on PC are also available on console.

      The vast majority of games that are also available on console are console ports with the same graphics, controls, and -shit- “please don’t turn off your system” checkpoints.

      All arguments are invalid because we all play the same fucking games no matter the system. Only in the past half year or so have PC versions actually had (slightly) better graphics then console versions. Still, the games are the same.

      Sure, digital distribution has helped the PC front, yet somehow console sales are still high.

      I for one am glad that there has been no new console in 5 years, at least my 1 year old laptop can now run console ports smoothly!

      Oh, and this is coming from someone who has never had a console. Also, I am slightly drunk…

    • LionsPhil says:

      Having won this argument I presume you’ll be off to do some photo editing on you xbox, write an email or two, copy some music, pirate some films

      Actually, I’ll be doing none of those things. For starters, I’m not pirate scum.

      Second, I don’t own a console. But thanks for demonstrating the stupid us-vs-them mentality that if I’m against spending fifty squillion pounds on a graphics card that makes more noise and burns more energy than a hotrod car every week it must be because I love consoles and think they should completely replace PCs. (PCs which, for the tasks you list, don’t even need dedicated gaming graphics cards.)

      Third, you can’t do any of those things with just a graphics card. Oh look, the comparison which I said was stupid was stupid. Amazing!

    • Pathetic Phallacy says:

      If you buy games, console gaming can be a fucking nightmare.

      PC games come out at a price point that is sometimes twenty dollars cheaper. Don’t even get me started on online sales. I just picked up the new Duke for 10 bucks.

      If you buy a lot of games, the PC is your best bet for saving money. The amount you’ll save on software will make up for the fact that you paid a bit extra to have a machine that runs any console into the ground.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Dude, why even come on a PC gaming forum to post pure flamebait? There’s plenty of console specific places on the internet.

      I can play games cheaply on my $500 PC. Consoles are subsidized hardware that hide their costs better. They make it up by adding a 15% tax on the price of games. I like a growing number of PC gamers stopped caring about graphics a while ago. If PC gaming isn’t your thing that’s cool, but don’t go to a place specifically for PC gamers just to mess it up.

    • Wisq says:

      To everyone saying that the majority of gamers have a PC and they could just pop in a new video card … Aren’t we forgetting something? Like how many people use laptops as their primary PC?

      Personally, I don’t know many people these days who will pick up a desktop PC — carving out a whole desk space to house it and chaining themselves to it — rather than get a laptop that they can use at their desk, on the couch, or anywhere else. Maybe I’m not getting a good sample set, but laptops seem to be the standard ’round these parts.

      Sure, a lot of PC gamers are going to have a desktop PC, but that just turns this argument into, “if you’ve already purchased an old gaming rig, it doesn’t cost much to turn it into a new gaming rig!” I.e. rather pointless for those who just have a console for games and a laptop for the web.

    • Rii says:

      Lots of good points made here that I cbf responding to. Hugs everyone!!!

      @InternetBatman: “Dude, why even come on a PC gaming forum to post pure flamebait? There’s plenty of console specific places on the internet.”

      Or maybe I could oppose anti-PC foolishness when I encounter it elsewhere and anti-console foolishness when I encounter it here, eh?

      As for the observation being ‘pure flamebait’, it’s no different than the chart headlining this article. I was merely contributing some editorial balance.

    • battles_atlas says:

      @ LionsPhil

      I’m confused, you quote my post as if arguing with it, then precede to make the same point I was. Which was that comparing a PC with a console was stupid because a PC can do many things besides games. The more sensible comparison was between a graphics card and a console, as those are the gaming-specific elements.

      Instead of getting all angry and whatnot, making up an argument about uber-expensive gfx I never made (I’ve never paid more than £200 for a card), you could have just said ‘agreed’.

      @ P4p3Rc1iP
      Take your point on visuals, but how can you claim that ‘the vast majority of PC games are available on consoles as well’ on a website like RPS?

  3. TillEulenspiegel says:

    I like how the Y axis is just “Relative Performance”. And it’s from a Lab.

    Hardware-wise, though, I’m sure it’s true. You’re comparing middle-of-the-road GPUs from 2005-6 with stuff that is from now. That’s forever in computer years. The manufacturing process innovations alone mean that you can pack something like 4x the number of transistors into the same space.

    • bglamb says:

      I don’t think graphs like that are from the lab. I think they’re from the PR department.

    • Barnaby says:

      No idea why but I laughed really hard at Eclipse’s comment.

    • bglamb says:

      Upon reading the post again, it gets better. What was the source of this discovery?

      “.Techgage is reporting the findings of a recent Nvidia conference call in which…”

    • Dozer says:

      It’s a big lab. They had to use a conference call so enough SCIENCEtists could participate.

  4. Brumisator says:

    What the hell is “relative performance” anyway.

    • Jekev says:

      It is relative to the performance of a man drawing Crysis frame by frame.

    • LionsPhil says:


    • Xocrates says:

      Given that in the graph the “relative performance” of a console is 1, it just means the performance compared to that of a console. So a value of, say, 5 means it performs 5 times better than a console.

      How they measure the performance is another question altogether however.

    • Rii says:

      It’s entirely meaningless. For a start they’re comparing an engine with a fully functional car. And the engine costs more than the car does. And the engine’s performance drops precipitously when coupled to the only transmission available. And the destination is just around the corner and nobody’s in any rush anyway. And the engine is as likely to spray oil all over you as anything else.

      … I think I’ve about reached the limit of this analogy.

    • Unaco says:

      Or… It could be PC GPU performance against the Console GPU performance.

    • Rii says:

      @Unaco: If they meant that they would’ve said that. But if you’re right then you can delete … the first sentence of my analogy. Theoretical GPU performance does not take into account the comparative inefficiency of the PC platform, nor does it account for the limited software applications for GPU horsepower above a certain level, nor does it account for the fact that one of them costs ten times as much (and consumes nearly that in power with commensurate levels of noise/heat output) as the other.

    • Dervish says:

      If the PC is 9 and the console is 1, isn’t that only 9x as powerful, anyway? In other words, 900% of the power of a console, or an 800% increase above the power of the console.

    • Monkey says:


    • Dozer says:

      If I had an ageing sports car with a troublesome worn-out engine, I can either replace the engine with a shiny new one, or leave the car in the garage and get a 2005-model 800cc Daewoo Matiz.

      (Unfortunately my car has the engine connected to the wheels with a twisted elastic band instead of mechanical gearbox and transmission. To replace the engine I’d need to replace the entire chassis and I can’t afford that any time soon. Damn you, AGP interface…)

    • Rii says:

      LOL, nice extension of the analogy Dozer.

    • psyk says:

      Console have more bottlenecks than a well built pc and they can’t be upgraded away.

    • LostViking says:

      The big bottle neck in the PC is the API’s (OpenGl, DirectX). On a console you can program ‘direct to metal’, interfacing directly to the GPU and CPU.

      This means you get better performance on a console than similar hardware would give you on a PC.
      This is one of the reasons you still get pretty good looking games on console (Crysis 2 for instance). That they use sub-HD resolution and upscale is another ;)

  5. jellydonut says:

    ..the PS3. 360 is ATI.

  6. DrGonzo says:

    That’s Maths Jim, Maths.

  7. CaLe says:

    Console games still look great to me. The only issue is the resolution they run at.

    • MisterT says:

      Personally , I’d add textures, framerate and linearity to my gripes with consoles.

    • skinlo says:

      You are lucky. They look shit to me.

    • grundus says:

      Don’t forget screen tearing and anti aliasing.

    • Srethron says:

      Load times, no option for keyboard nor mouse, general lack of mod support, heat, and limitations on user control and customizability, lack of quality control and need for aftermarket patches are the biggest issues for me with the current consoles. Interestingly they are all fixable (plunk in some SSDs, relax standards, relax standards, improve heat dissipation, relax standards, raise different standards and go back to don’t ship it ’till it’s done), but will they be?

    • psyk says:

      “no option for keyboard nor mouse”

      Fail, when was the last time you looked at the selection of consoles and what they offer?

    • Pointless Puppies says:

      Low-resolution, lack of anti-aliasing, and a complete disregard for proper framerate display (you’ll be lucky to have a constant 30 FPS. Some games’ framerate is so bad they literally give me headaches) are my biggest gripes about console gaming.

    • Srethron says:

      @psyk: I have access to all the current-gen consoles, which are hooked up to my PC’s monitor at my desk, so quite recently? Keyboard+mouse quote-unquote support is one thing, games actually supporting it is another. In many cases, it’s outright forbidden by Sony / Microsoft / Nintendo. Or if you’re going to suggest I can play my copy of Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii with a mouse+keyboard or [insert most any title for the other two actually hardcore systems here] I’m going to laugh at you. Because I’ve tried it with the the PS3 and 360 games I own, and I overwhelmingly can’t.

      Also, why the cherry picking one thing from my list, the leaping to conclusions, and the hostility? (Rhetorical questions, btw. I know why. Please be nicer next time.)

  8. thatcity says:

    What i’m missing?pc beat console in 2014? i hope,but think not.
    as gabe Newell told in an interview the pc gaming has a perception problem,and has revenue from mmo subscription,digital delivery and free to play games that are not counted in the usually sales charts from,saying,NPD. BUT to say that pc will beat consoles in a couple of years is a bit too optimistic for me,hope to fall in error however

    • Tams80 says:

      Ummm, if things continue as they have so far, top end PC graphics will always perform better than console graphics. It’s just not economically viable to sell a console with a top end graphics card, as with a console your selling the whole thing. With a PC, most people already have at least some of what is needed.

  9. Surgeon says:

    That graph is awesome.

    They should have drawn in a trend line, just to hammer the point home even further.

  10. Arglebargle says:

    By 2014, the next iteration of the consoles may be out already, skewing the Chart Madness!

    And, as we all know, the handcuffs for game design by the big boys will stay on til then.

    • Unaco says:

      Except, if you read the linked article, it says…

      “After all, while Nintendo announced its next console, the Wii U, it’s not impressive performance-wise, and neither Microsoft nor Sony have given the vibe that either are close to an announcement for their own upcoming consoles.”

      Also, something about them being different. It also says that, when the XBox360 was released, the performance of PC GPUs was already 40% greater than the GPU in the consoles.

    • Arglebargle says:

      Well, Sony and Microsoft know that if they announce too far ahead of time, it will effect their present day sales. Not to mention Sony”s difficulty getting the PS3 out the door in a timely fashion. You can be sure that they are in the midst of working on them though.

      The hang time on development is such that they will never have the ‘up to the minute’ hardware. My impression is that the present day consoles are being kept in the traces longer than usual, to recoup costs from their troublesome releases. The facts are that the consoles are not hugely profitable. The game licenses provide most of the money (unless you are Nintendo). The new Nintendo will be better, in most ways, than the current Xbox/PS. Hopefully this will help kickstart new versions of those other antiquated boxes.

      Though that will still require some crossed fingers for luck: As the RROD showed once again, Microsoft is not a great hardware company.

    • psyk says:

      Ms had a 4 – 6 (?) year plan, we have gone past the end of that.
      Sony has an 11 year plan (Instead of beating them to markert again MS thought it would be a good idea to copy sony even though the 360 wasn’t made to last so long and really needs a replacment.)

    • LostViking says:

      Ah, you are one of the “the PS3 has so much unused potential” people?

      Performance wise they are very close. The PS3 has a better CPU, while the Xbox has a better GPU.
      I have yet to see a multi platform title look noticably better on any of the consoles.

  11. lowprices says:

    The whole nVidia report reads like the pc-centric equivalent of a Daily Mail story: “Graph shows that EU will force Britain to house three hundred million illegal-immigrant paedophiles by 2014”. “Facts” spun vaguely enough to pander to the predjudices of the target audience. The “relative performance” graph seems like something from the Day Today.

    Come on, RPS. You’ve forced me to use my years quota of sarcastic quotation marks in one comment.

  12. tomemozok says:

    THIS! :D
    And if you look at John Carmack and his speech on Qakecon 2011, maybe,just maybe the developers will reallise that the PC isn’t for porting junk games from the consoles,But it should be the other way around….

  13. Misnomer says:

    This is a bit misleading with that image and that story. You talk about revenue, but show a graph with a barely readable (without enlarging) Y axis label….which says that the graph measures performance. Clearly performance comparisons are non-issues.

    I would suggest a non-data oriented image if you have one for this story if you are just so adverse to using the one you refer to…

    link to techgage.com Game Trends

    EDIT: Not sure if the mention in the original story was there and I missed it or if it was added, but I still think you picked the wrong graph for this story.

    • jezcentral says:


      The reason for the graph is in the second sentence of the second paragraph. :)

    • Danny252 says:

      Barely Readable? I suspect you need glasses.

  14. Jimbo says:

    And about 100% of the PC revenue is from games which will run on GPUs from the stone age. Nvidia must be stoked.

    • Timthos says:

      I bet their profit margin is higher on low end cards

    • RF says:

      Not really, Timthos. Most CPUs use exactly the same chip architecture and you just unlock different things. It’s cheaper to have a single factory making a single CPU that you then lock different stuff on than it is to have three factories producing different chips.

      Of course, in the long run that can mean people can buy CPUs and then unlock all the functions themselves, but even with that loss of income it’s considerably better.

    • skinlo says:

      Profits are higher on the high end cards, quite considerably.

  15. Daave says:


  16. chesh says:

    “Thanks, Nvidia.” ThNvidia.

  17. Tei says:

    I just love that this article is posted after the Minecraft one.

  18. stahlwerk says:

    We need more frames to satisfy our demand for more frames. Personally, I wish for larger chips, but on a shrunk die. The revolution will be rasterized.

    • stahlwerk says:

      On a more serious note, does this mean we could have consoles as powerful as a 360/PS3 drawing one-tenth of power?
      A 20 Watts 360 would be an instant buy from me.

    • Rii says:

      The first PS3 models drew ~200W when playing 3D-intensive games. The first “Slim” models drew less than half that, and power consumption has continued to drop for the latest models. At some point I expect they will launch a third iteration of the console … Christmas next year perhaps?

    • Daiv says:

      Is that like “the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy”?

      *Edit: Reply fail. Reply Gods, why have you forsaken me?

    • Nick says:

      The revolution will NOT be rasterized.

    • Arglebargle says:

      “The revolution will NOT be rasterized.”

      I saw what you did!

  19. Mike says:

    Isn’t this misleadingly including things like – as you say – casual gaming, free-to-play, stuff that we might not really consider relevant to the ‘console market versus PC market’ debat?

    • Eightball says:

      I’m going to leave Casual games alone but I don’t see how free-to-play games don’t matter. There are the several major arena battling games (League of Legends and what have you), as well as World of Tanks and of course Team Fortress 2.

  20. stahlwerk says:

    Projecting the “Games Software Revenue” graphs (look them up on the linked report) beyond 2011 in the way NV is doing is nonsensical. Aside from the fact that both Console and PC revenue have been rising over the last years, no one knows how much money people will spend on games for PCs this time next year. Let alone 3 years from now, what with lots of new, mostly mobile tech in the pipeline, the decline of adobe flash for most devices, app stores, Windows 8 on tablets…

    what’s a “PC” in three years, anyway?

  21. Gothnak says:

    Anyone want a cheap GTX 470 or two linked up? I bought 6 at an auction recently and am slowly selling on ebay. But if you want a cheap deal, gimme a bell :)

  22. Wulf says:

    I do still enjoy a game or two on the PS3, to be honest I’d hope for less war between the formats and more standardisation. That way we’d see more titles like Journey, flOwer, and Ratchet & Clank on the PC.

    Oh for a perfect world. Ah well, c’est la vie.

    • Unaco says:

      But… with standardisation, we could lose some of the uniqueness of the platforms. Yes, we might see more traditionally ‘console only’ games on PC, but we might also see some traditionally ‘PC only’ games being developed for consoles as well, and perhaps suffering for that. I don’t mean the dread ‘consolisation’ or ‘consolification’ or whatever else it gets called, but making a ‘standard’ game for PC/Consoles, that doesn’t take advantage of the unique features of a given platform.

  23. db1331 says:

    Hogwash. Everyone knows that console games and PC games look virtually indistinguishable, and anyone who claims otherwise is a PC elitist.

    • Pathetic Phallacy says:

      Please tell me you’re being factious.

    • enobayram says:

      If you have a serious vision impairment, you’d have a lower maximum perceivable resolution and the blurring would provide a natural anti-aliasing. Under these conditions, you might be right.

  24. Pathetic Phallacy says:

    Damn consoles!

  25. Squishpoke says:

    Actually, the graph is more like this:

    link to dl.dropbox.com

    The consoles may have inferior specs, but the fact is that developers really, really like the console graph because it is stable, and easy to get money off of.

    PC gaming is great, but we cannot deny the advantages that “standardization” that consoles provide. Personally, I am impressed when I can just throw a disc into my PS3 and it’ll be guaranteed to play.

    For my PC, I almost always have to do some tweaks to the game, whether it be widescreen, control niggles, installation problems, user error, patching, DRM, and whatnot. However, before the hivemind swarms upon me, I will say that AFTER the tweaks, PC games are almost always better than their console counterparts.

    So, it’s really a matter of opinion: do you prefer maximum control that the PC brings (along with the complex problems that may occur as a result), or would you like a simpler (yet somewhat inferior) experience with the console?

    Also, I must express disappointment over how “powerful” my computer is supposed to be over my PS3, and yet the graphical differences don’t seem ten times better on my PC. This can be blamed on developers developing for the “console” line on the graph. Or, maybe some kind of technical wizardry that surpasses my understanding. (For example, I do know that 60fps is way better than the consoles’ 30fps, but I don’t know how much more powerful a console needs to be to double the frame rate.)

    • D says:

      According to my very own graph, I’d estimate about twice as powerful. Actually I just wanted to say thanks for showing me this neat dropbox feature.

    • Squishpoke says:

      Ha! That made me snort my drink.

    • Muzman says:

      That’s actually a different sort of ad, not a graph isn’t it?
      “Troublesome bumps in your plot? Try Anti-aliasing! Guaranteed smooth progress every time.”

    • jwoozy says:

      “Personally, I am impressed when I can just throw a disc into my PS3 and it’ll be guaranteed to play.”

      Tell us more about your red rings, contard.

      Let’s make a graph charting the number of times PSN has gone down compared to how many the times the internet has suffered a global collapse.

    • vodkarn says:

      Just wanted to say thatjwoozy does not speak for the PC hivemind.

    • LionsPhil says:

      It’s like I’m really reading /v/.

      And it’s horrible.

    • psyk says:

      “Just wanted to say thatjwoozy does not speak for the PC hivemind.”

      What the fuck is a pc hivemind and why do you decide who talks for it?

  26. Moni says:

    All graphics charts are nonsense unless they use the term “Megaflopxels”.

  27. Demiath says:

    The console apologist position (or missionary, if you will) is surprisingly strong in this thread. My GTX 580 tells me that a unified front against the kiddie boxes is of utmost importance to ever-lasting victory and justice in our Holy War on the vast global [insert suitable ethnic classification here] conspiracy against computers which can run Witcher 2 with ubersampling on. Mother boards unite!

    • Squishpoke says:

      For the Motherboard!

    • LostViking says:

      Hehe, funny you should say it. I am sure Ubersampling in W2 is the only option that really allows the GTX580 to stretch its legs ;)

      I am using an ancient GTX470 on 1920×1200, and that is the only option so far I have had to turn off.
      W2 still looks bl00dy fantastic though!

  28. Carra says:

    So if my 8800 GT is 3x faster than a console, why is the minimum requirement for BF3?

    • vodkarn says:

      PC has 64 players to the consoles 4 or whatever. Basically, because there’s a wider range, they picked the middle. an 8800 (and thus 9800) are very common on, say, steam users, but are dying off in favour of newer cards. So it’s an excellent choice as a base.

  29. RotBot says:

    Practically, this means sloppy PC ports can be made to run 10x less efficiently than the console versions and still pass QA.

  30. MythArcana says:

    So, basically…revenue dictates quality now?? Wow…no wonder the game industry is taking a severe nosedive. This is what happens when you put corporate monkeys in charge of QA detail…it’s almost as bad as the Obama administration.

  31. jwoozy says:

    The only real problem with PC gaming is that we can’t a fucking FoV slider anymore because all the games are shitty console ports.

  32. timmyvos says:

    I doubt they just used the current trend to extrapolate those number but this is relevant still:
    link to xkcd.com

  33. Squishpoke says:


    Hahaha, yeah, I figured that out after staring at his post in appalling disbelief.

  34. mseifullah says:

    Here’s the deal:

    No matter how you slice it, as PC gamers, we spend more on hardware than console players and we often upgrade more frequently. But we do this knowingly. We’re fully aware that when we put only that new GPU in our online shopping cart, we could be buying an Xbox360 or a PS3 instead. We know that we could be putting a game disc in a console and it would run without needing tweaks.

    The truth is that we don’t care. If we were only looking for the easy and cheap experience, we’d just buy consoles. As PC gamers, we’re about achieving higher visual fidelity. We’re about playing unique indie experiences and insane Steam sales. We’re about genres that can’t exist on consoles. We’re about customization, modding, and creating new content. We’re about dedicated servers, niche communities, and cross-media connections.

    Installations, patches, DRM, and upgrades are an entry price that we’re willing to put up with because we want the versatility that’s only achievable on a PC. Sure, the hardware costs more, and there can be setup headaches, but we all believe that we’re get a lot more out of PC gaming at the end of it. This is why we we’re dedicated to the platform.

    • Chris D says:

      Actually no. Seeing how I needed a PC anyway it was cheaper for me to bung in a cheap graphics card than it was to buy a console. You can also upgrade a PC by installments rather than as a one-off purchase which helps while you’re on a budget. With PC games generally being cheaper than their console equivalents I’m a PC gamer for economic reasons as much as anything else.

      Sure you can spend a lot of money on upgrades but you really don’t have to.

      Edit: @mseifullah I should also mention that, while I disagree about needing to spend a lot, the rest of what you said was good stuff.

    • eclipse mattaru says:

      @Chris D: I was gonna say pretty much the same. I probably spent about 400 US dollars in my PC in the last 3 or 4 years, and I can play everything that has come out so far with everything maxed up and at beautifully smooth framerates.

      The fact that I can keep up to date by spending less than 100 bucks a year is precisely why I stick with the PC. It’s not about buying whatever Nvidia or Tom’s Hardware or whatever tells you that you need, it’s about being smart when spending money. I love swapping parts and tweaking the software, mind, but I do care very very much about my budget.

    • InternetBatman says:

      That’s not true at all. At least not for me. I hate spending money on hardware that I could be spending on games. I don’t get how some gamers are so gleeful about spending money or how some computer gamers are proud of having to fix broken products. I just play computer games because the control structure is the best, it’s the cheapest in the long run, and the games you get are better.

    • Pointless Puppies says:

      We know that we could be putting a game disc in a console and it would run without needing tweaks.

      Same thing happens with my PC actually. I have absolutely no clue why people keep perpetuating the myth that you can’t get a smooth, pain free experience on the PC. Literally the only thing I do these days is download the game and click play.

      Also, believe me when I say plenty of console games definitely need “tweaks”. The difference here is that you’re stuck with shitty console hardware and don’t even get to make these tweaks. I guess you could call it “simpler” by eviscerating options for optimization, though one can’t deny it makes the experience of lower overall quality when you’re running a game with crappy framerate on consoles (which happens QUITE a lot) and can’t do anything about it.

    • mseifullah says:

      Guys, guys — I probably didn’t get my ideas across as well as I should have. I’m sorry for that. A little clarification:

      From start to finish, a decent gaming PC with all its components probably costs more than an off-the-shelf console (especially considering their recent price drops). And if you’ve invested in any hardware upgrades, for the the life of your particular PC, it’s definitely more than that stand-alone console is.

      Even the most budget conscious among us will eventually want to upgrade components to extend the life of their machine. And that’s part of the beauty of this platform: those that can resist and hold out just a little longer get great performance for ridiculously low prices. When I say that we spend more on hardware than console players, I’m talking about over the life of the PC, not necessarily the cost to build the PC upfront. And “more” could be anywhere from 100 USD up to 3k USD. Yes, we spend more, and we get more in return.

      When I mentioned setup headaches and tweaking, I’m specifically referring to those rare cases where you start things up and they don’t work the first time around. But these are the rare cases. Rare enough, that we deal with them because of everything else that we’re capable of doing with PC gaming.

      Some may call us elitist. I say we’re just looking at the bigger picture.

  35. Shooop says:

    But everyone already knew this. There was never any doubt PCs outclassed console hardware in every way possible. The problem is they’re not as popular as consoles.

    And I’m sorry to say but that’s probably never going to change. It’s far easier to just buy a box, hook it to a TV and let the kids have at it for a few hours. And unless you’re an indie developer who’s not looking for profit above all else, you go where the biggest crowd is. That’s business.

  36. SoggySilicon says:

    Heh… this makes me laugh… got more tied up in my custom water cooling loop for my SLi setup and quad core than most console kiddies have in their well… console, tv, and bs sound system… Not that there is shite all to play… sigh

  37. elnalter says:

    PCs cost more than consoles, but it’s worth it because I hate the console online community. All they do is scream obscenities and racially charged words with their high-pitched voices. The PC community contributes quite a lot to mods and content development and I can choose who I game with. It’s the difference between children and adults. I never heard anyone claim their PC costed 5$, 400$ yes, it’s possible as a bundle. But all I hear console kiddies say these days is you have to spend 2-5 grand on a PC.

  38. Davie says:

    Cute. My ATI card has been doing mindblowingly for the past couple of months, so I’ll stick to the cards that I know work, rather than assume Nvidia’s latest nonsense actually has the processing power of an entire neighborhood’s worth of Xbox 360s.

  39. maverik315 says:

    I dont understand why everyone assumes that gaming computer rigs are so expensive, I built my own gaming computer for $600 and I can run almost any game at full settings.

  40. WJonathan says:

    Deep in my heart I’ve always known green to be ten times better than blue. Now science backs up my belief system.

  41. ashereize says:

    I love my pc to bits. It cost me £600 in 2009 and it’s played everything I’ve thrown at it since, max settings, or (shock horror) just below. However I own an xbox 360 and dundunduhh, I often buy 3rd person beat-em-up/brawler games on there or hack and slash because of the split screen AKA couch co op. I really wish PC game developers would let us have that too, I’m not an idiot; I do know how to hook my pc up to my hdtv so why not give me split screen coop? The stats above clearly state the computer can handle two people playing the same game at the same time. Resident Evil 5 for example: Either get it on xbox and you and your younger brother can play it. Or you need 2 PCs, and even then, IMO it’s better to plug in the xbox controller to play. Not fair *mumbles*

  42. cmc5788 says:

    Few of you might be forgetting that developers can get significantly more performance out of standardized hardware. Consoles may be old, but they’re a standard, and software is insanely well-optimized for them. All the raw power in the world doesn’t do you any good if you’re crashing or chugging or glitching all to hell because your card is just one of a hundred the devs are trying to juggle in practically limitless combinations if you factor in CPU, Motherboard, and SLI/Crossfire, etc…

  43. Grape Flavor says:

    Would like to put in my 2c that computing power means nothing compared to what you do with it. All the hardware speed in the world can’t fix poor visual design. And good visual design doesn’t necessarily need power.

    I just finished Golden Sun Dark Dawn (yeah yeah cutesy linear JRPG cry more) and was consistently impressed by the visuals even though they were running on the technically anemic DS. Games with good pixel art would be another example.

    But take Gears of War running on a much more powerful unit and I just laugh at the terrible character designs and shit-brown color palette. It’s boring and ugly.

    Kind of off topic but I just wanted to remind everyone that good graphics don’t necessarily correlate with hardware peen.

  44. SoggySilicon says:

    @LionsPhil Yeap, a hobby like anything… normally happens once one gets into overclocking, one finds that one wants to run OC’d all the time… 4.2ghz or better, same on my video cards which I run at 1.036ghz… you know your there once you get into lapping processors. Just a hobby, like owning motorcycles, sports cars, and sailboats… like a lot of people mentioned here, a console (to me) is like someone talking about how fantastic their Toyota camry is… kind of a sad little joke. Although I did do a hack job on an old halo green’ x-box once upon a time to run “modified”. That was pretty clever.

    Consoles do what they do well, and socio-economically allow for a universal experience at a starbucks entry level price point… but it’s a toy, a rather cheap toy, built cheap, to do a job. Nothing more. Old’en days if ya had a neo geo… maybe that would of been something… but today… nothing exclusive, all generic mtv pop video game aaa crap reboots.

  45. jimbonbon says:

    Whether independently sourced or NVIDIA PR led, I think it is great to see such figures for PC gaming – both in terms of relative performance and sales quantities. ‘Relative performance’ is a very fluffy term, but the point being made is clear. The figures shouldn’t be too much of a surprise though – no matter which way you look at it, PCs are always going to out-perform consoles, and the reason for this is clear in both design and intended use.

    Having said that, I don’t necessarily think that makes one platform better than the other, because it depends on your gaming habits and preferences. I personally prefer the very high-end graphics I can achieve with a PC, and this year there have and will be many games actually capable of using the high-end hardware I have paid for. I still own a console though, and if I want to invite some friends round for a casual game of Geometry Wars then that’s what I’ll use.

    But take a look at a game like Crysis 2 running on a PC with all settings to Ultra and DX11 enabled, then compare it directly to a console running it on an expensive HDTV. I choose the PC version.

    Of course building a PC in comparison to buying a console comes with a potentially very significant difference in price, but I think the capabilities of the PC outweigh the console by a great enough extent for this to be justified.

    [flame] Plus who would play an FPS with a controller?! [/bait]

  46. Iokanaan says:


  47. Snegletiss says:

    I haven’t been reading the comments, because I’m in school and teacher is walking about, but:
    Why do they showoff that PC’s are better than consoles?
    Consoles are a great load of fun, and they’re very practical (PS3’s dvd and blu-ray per example). And also split-screen etc, etc. Why on earth show how PC’s dominate consoles. STUUUPID!

  48. Pundabaya says:

    Personally, I think good graphics have little to do with how much grunt you’ve got under the hood, and are more to do with art direction, the style of the graphics, and their functionality. I despise Team Fortress 2, but graphics-wise? Those are some of the best graphics I’ve ever seen. World of Warcraft has some of the most memorable visuals around. Gears of War 3 has some moments of stunning beauty, believe it or not.

    Who cares how many wotsit shaders and volumetric thingamabobs you can leverage, if the end result is not beautiful in some way?

    The death knell of gaming will be when everything is ‘photorealistic’, because that’s not a style.

    And anyway, the best game in the world ever is 3D Deathchase. And that had like 4 colours and 8 frames of animation in the whole game.

    • eclipse mattaru says:

      I was nodding along until you mentioned Gears of War. Sigh.

      Also, you’re missing Beyond Good & Evil and Psychonauts. Now that is the kind of visuals that stand the test of time forever.

      But yeah, I completely agree with your general sentiment.

  49. drewski says:

    Console wars? On *my* RPS?

  50. The Sombrero Kid says:

    Top end PC GPUs are easily 900% more powerful than Console GPUs