MSI GeForce GTX 950 Gaming 2G Mining Hashrate and Power

Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.

I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong.
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.

“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."

Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.

“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”

PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
  • 2 free PS4 games, every month
  • 2 free PS3 games, every month
  • 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
  • Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
  • access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
  • Xbox and PS2: $299
  • Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
  • Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.

“PC is leading the VR—“

Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.

“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”

This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
GTA V
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
Just Cause 3
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Fallout 4
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
Overwatch
  • CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Witcher 3
  • Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
iRacing
  • CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
Subnautica
  • CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
  • Memory: 4GB
  • GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
Rust
  • CPU: 2 ghz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
Low-end PCs.
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:

“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…

“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”

The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
  • 1.8 TFLOP
  • 1.35 GHz base clock
  • 2 GB VRAM
  • $110
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
  • 2.1 TFLOP
  • 1.29 GHz base clock
  • 4 GB VRAM
  • $140 retail
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
  • 3.0 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 3 GB VRAM
  • $200 retail
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
  • 3.9 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 6 GB VRAM
  • $250 retail
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
  • 9.0 TFLOP
  • 1.6 GHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $500 retail
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
  • 1.84 TFLOP
  • 800 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $300 retail
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
  • 4.2 TFLOP
  • 911 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $400 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.

“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”

Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.

“There are more PC gamers.”

The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.

"Modding is only on PC."

Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.

What’s the Point?

This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’tanti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Cheers.
submitted by WhyyyCantWeBeFriends to unpopularopinion [link] [comments]

NVidia GPU suck for mining, is there anyway around this?

What makes them so bad? Is it the drivers or how the card is built?
submitted by Throwing_Hard to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Nvidia GK104 GPU Specifications Presumably Revealed

submitted by WelshGhandi to hardware [link] [comments]

A quick note to anyone building a computer with any intention of video editing.

If you use Adobe programs, namely Premiere, please for the love of god buy an nVidia card. I'm by no means an expert but I've seen several people list gaming builds but they also mention that they do some sort of video editing. Photoshop and After Effects utilize AMD cards but if you edit in Premiere you're going to want a CUDA enabled nVidia card to take advantage of GPU acceleration.
If anyone with a broader understanding wants to add to this please do. I just wanted to throw this out there.
EDIT (Information from smarter people than me):
(by foragerr) nVidia has CUDA, ATI/AMD has FireStream/OpenCL. [note nVidia does support OpenCL as well] Though they both aim to achieve the same end goal in similar ways, CUDA launched a much better strategy right from the beginning (See ATI's failed/discontinued CTM initiative). Consequently CUDA gained better mainstream application support and library availability.
(by xNEM3S1Sx)V-Ray RT only more recently added support for ATI cards as well, and as for real-time ray-tracing as a whole, Nvidia seems to be leading the pack. OpenCL hasn't seen as wide-spread of adoption as CUDA, because of late adoption of the standard on ATI's part. Another note, as a former ATI user, their cards are far more efficient per flop. (check out the bitcoin hardware charts, Mhash/w) As well, in terms of computing power, ATI cards are far ahead, but Nvidia's WIMTBP program makes up for then nearly 2:1 computing power of the ATI cards. When OpenCL finally overruns CUDA, ATI cards will be a better option, but if you're video editing, their is only one choice right now.
submitted by Essem91 to buildapc [link] [comments]

Anyone using linux to mine bitcoin?

My setup is an AMD PhenomII 965 black edition with 12gb DDR3 1333 and an Nvidia GTX460 1gb graphics card. I run Ubuntu 12.04
My roommate's setup is an AMD PhenomII 945 Black edition with 4gb DDR2 800 and an Nvidia GTX 460 1gb graphics card. He runs Windows 7
Using DiabloMiner on my Ubuntu 12.04 setup, I get around 50 Mhash and my computer becomes unusable during this time.
When my roommate uses GUIminer on his Windows 7 setup, he gets around 70 Mhash and can still browse the web and do other non-graphics intensive tasks.
Is this simply a limitation of Nvidia drivers on Linux, or is there something I'm missing? Any advice from other Linux using bitcoin miners out there would be of great help.
EDIT:

I am aware that AMD is better than Nvidia for mining BTC. My question was whether or not my setup was being limited by some combination of my OS/Drivers/Mining Tool. I am also welcoming any advice that isn't buy an AMD card, for improving my current setup.

submitted by lbaile200 to linux [link] [comments]

Any bitcoin miners using linux?

My setup is an AMD PhenomII 965 black edition with 12gb DDR3 1333 and an Nvidia GTX460 1gb graphics card. I run Ubuntu 12.04
My roommate's setup is an AMD PhenomII 945 Black edition with 4gb DDR2 800 and an Nvidia GTX 460 1gb graphics card. He runs Windows 7
Using DiabloMiner on my Ubuntu 12.04 setup, I get around 50 Mhash and my computer becomes unusable during this time.
When my roommate uses GUIminer on his Windows 7 setup, he gets around 70 Mhash and can still browse the web and do other non-graphics intensive tasks.
Is this simply a limitation of Nvidia drivers on Linux, or is there something I'm missing? Any advice from other Linux using bitcoin miners out there would be of great help.
EDIT:

I am aware that AMD is better than Nvidia for mining BTC. My question was whether or not my setup was being limited by some combination of my OS/Drivers/Mining Tool. I am also welcoming any advice that isn't buy an AMD card, for improving my current setup.

submitted by lbaile200 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Build Ready] Budget workstation / gaming / folding rig [AU Pricing]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
Type Item Price
CPU 'Intel Confidential' Core i7 Extreme i7-3960X 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor (Engineering Sample) $445 @ Misc
CPU Cooler Corsair H100 92.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler $149.95 @ Mwave Australia
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X79-UD3 ATX LGA2011 Motherboard $239.00 @ Scorptec
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $109.95 @ Mwave Australia
Hard Drive Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $0 (Carry-over)
Hard Drive Sandisk Extreme 240GB 2.5" Solid State Disk $239.99 @ Mwave Australia
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 3GB Video Card (CrossFire) $498 @ CPL
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 3GB Video Card (CrossFire) $498 @ CPL
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 3GB Video Card (CrossFire) $498 @ CPL
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 3GB Video Card (CrossFire) $498 @ CPL
Case Corsair 650D ATX Mid Tower Case $199.99 @ Mwave Australia
Power Supply Corsair 1200W ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply $269 @ Amazon (Shipped)
Other LG CH12LS28 12X BD-R Blu-ray DVD Combo Drive $55 @ PCCaseGear
Total
Prices include shipping and discounts when available. $3698.89
Edit: Forgot to add the optional mesh side panel with 4x 120mm fans
I already have the motherboard, processor, storage and power supply.
Remembering that these are Australian prices, how does this build look for a general purpose workstation / folding / gaming rig? It's main goal is for 120FPS on 120Hz monitors in eyefinity (Once you've gone 120Hz you can never go back), and compute (fold/mine) like a mofo, but I also work on it. (Autodesk suite, Premiere, 3DSM, SolidWorks, Inventor and more)
I would have liked to have gone a little further here and there, but I have to draw the line somewhere. To be specific where I would have liked to not cut corners:
The quadfire dilemma I had not originally planned to go for quad 7970s, the aim was just trifire to push me near that 120FPS for eyefinity, well beyond in the most intensive games for a single monitor and reduce microstuttering. I did not like the idea of the cards trying to peel hot air off the PCB on its sibling card like they were suffocating and suffering from asthma, so I planned on using an Asus Rampage IV Extreme, using slots one, four and seven to allow a one expansion slot gap between each card, in a Raven RV02 (non evo). Then my buddy (who also does Bitcoin mining) pointed out that if I kept the gigabyte board I would only spending an additional $0~ to $200~ (depending if I sold the Gigabyte board) by NOT purchasing the much more expensive Asus board and getting a fourth 7970 instead. We worked out the math and the extra card's Mhash/s would pay for itself in two months. Noise and heat aren't a huge issue as it's only temporary until I sort out the water loop. I'll also be getting a bit more gaming performance (when it works) and my general workstation tasks like rendering (V-Ray RT, SW etc.) will also be happy with the extra GPU compute power.
Displays
I have a HighGrade triple 24" stand and had to return the monitor I just bought, and am still yet to decide 100% on which displays but I am leaning towards three BenQ XL2420T 24" 120Hz 1080P monitors. Unlike the 120Hz Samsungs, they have VESA mounts and unlike the 120Hz Asus monitors, I'm not paying a premium for Nvidia 3D Vision that I'm not going to use. Really looking for suggestions/recommendations here!
The case The 650D can fit a thin 280 rad in the top & 120 on the rear. With the HDD cage removed, 200 in the front or 240 on the floor, perhaps a combination of both with some modification (though unlikely, I enjoy a challenge). I could make it nice and neat, but I think I still prefer a chiller under my house with lines routed through the floor. Thinking of using a quality 1/4HP or 1/10HP Aquarium chiller for the job (only a couple hundred more than a good radiator setup). I'm still not 100% set on the 650D and open to other case suggestions. I appreciate the functionality of the Switch 810 but I do not like its aesthetics or size at all. Caselabs are too expensive once optioned and shipped to Australia. Very open to suggestions here also.
Thanks!
submitted by Jer_Bear to buildapc [link] [comments]

Why do more expensive GPUs have worse MH/s rates than less expensive GPUs and graphics cards?

For example, on this page of mining hardware from the sidebar, the NVidia Tesla K20 gets 134.8 Mhash/s and costs over $3,000.00, while an ATI 7970 gets 825 Mhash/s and costs about $380.00.
Presumably the NVidia has a higher flop rating than the ATI, so why doesn't the more powerful NVidia have a higher mining rate? Is it that the NVidia simply isn't made for the kind of computing involved in bitcoin mining?
EDIT: The ATI card has the following specs
3.79 TFLOPS Single Precision compute power 947 GFLOPS Double Precision compute power 2048 Stream Processors 
The NVidia Card has the following specs:
CUDA cores 2496 Peak double precision floating point performance 1.17 Tflops Peak single precision floating point performance 3.52 Tflops 
So the Flops are comparable overall, and the NVidia card has more cores. I don't understand how the ATI gets over 6 times the Mhash/s than the Nvidia does.
submitted by throwaway08342 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Had a spare video card, and decided to put it to work. But I'm a bit scared now. (Newbie to much of this)

Hello /BitcoinMining, nice to meet ya.
So I upgraded my video card recently, and I had an HD 5770 just lying around, not doing anything. Saw the BTC exchange rates going up again, so I figured why not put it back to work.
Problem is, the other video card is an NVidia, and it doesn't seem like they are playing as nicely together in my one machine as I'd like them too.
Also, when running GUIMiner for a while, the 5770 core temp is topping out at 107c, and I'm afraid of melting my machine.
And to top it off, I'm seeing low MHash/s (around 33 average) through GUIMiner's estimation, but I read threads left and right about 5770s reaching up to 200 MHash/s.
Am I doing something wrong, or is this because the hashes have become more difficult?
Or am I misunderstanding a lot?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: Heh, well I'm glad I decided to play with the hardware further. When I noticed that the GPU was resting at ~75c, I thought something might be wrong. So with the intent of changing out the thermal paste on the card, I discovered that during storage time my 3 year old son must have dropped a screw into the cooling system. It was keeping the fan from turning... So now I rest at a nice 30-40c. Now I just need to get a good driver set that works best for mining and I am solid.
submitted by JHStarner to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Just started and I have a few questions. Please help.

Hello everyone! First off I was just wondering what would be, in your opinion, the best GPU I could get for mining in the 200-300 dollar range. Also where you guys would recommend selling and buying my bitcoins. Thank you for any input! I am currently mining with my Nvidia Geforce 750 TI and have learned from experience and reading forums that it is not at all adequate. I only get 47 mhash :(
submitted by Orrison to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Questions about mining

Hello everyone. I have been doing a bit of research on hardware that does well with this type of thing and I came across this site when reading through forums on configs and hardware setups: https://products.butterflylabs.com/
To my understanding most of the GPU setups are in kHash which is (1 mHash / .1 gHash). Am I correct on this or off on my reading? Also, are those ASIC's set up specifically for Bitcoin mining ONLY and not Litecoin mining (as of right now)? Just seems like those will make any GPU setup completely obsolete. I was looking at some hardware setups to build some towers that would get about 500 kHash a piece (assuming I set them up right) according to this site: https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/wiki/Mining-hardware-comparison#wiki-Nvidia_GPUs
So first off I will be testing this out with my normal PC to see if I can get it working and then if it goes smoothly look into getting some dedicated rigs. So my question is, where should I put my money in terms of hardware? Will GPU mining be the most efficient for the time being with Litecoin mining or will holding out to get one of the ASIC setups?
Sorry if I have a lot of noobie questions, just trying to make sure I understand this correctly before making any decisions.
Thanks!
submitted by VR4Gazm to litecoinmining [link] [comments]

[Build Help] Adapting an existing NVidia system for bitcoins ...and more?

So I hwipped up what amounts to approximately my current build. I'm running on an ASRock 890FX Deluxe3, they don't sell those anymore so I couldn't include it in the markup.
Part list permalink / Part price breakdown by merchant
Type Item Price
CPU AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor $134.99 @ Newegg
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1333 Memory $54.99 @ Newegg
Hard Drive Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.99 @ Newegg
Video Card EVGA GeForce GTX 460 1GB Video Card $167.13 @ Mac Connection
Case Antec Nine Hundred Two V3 ATX Mid Tower Case $107.73 @ Mac Connection
Power Supply SeaSonic 620W ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply $104.99 @ Amazon
Total
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.) $629.82
So I've been looking into bitcoins lately, and my wonderful 460 that plays bfbc2 max settings over 100 fps so smoothly gets a sad, sad 65 Mhash.
This rig is great for gaming, I have no issues with getting high framerates. The cooling situation isn't awesome, but plenty safe.
Anyway, the meat of the question here I'm interested in getting an AMD card... maybe two. The board can do crossfire! I was originally planning to SLI but the board won't do that.
Looking primarily at 20 popular mining cards, I'm interested in going with a 5850 (especially since it seems on par with the 460) and expanding to more down the road, but I haven't been able to find one for the price listed! I've seen a few up near $300, not worth it. Clearly, lots of miners have been buying these in bulk so the demand is high making the price go up. Lame.
I know the 6950 is "the card" right now as far as buildapc references go, but what would be good for hashing ~$150/card? I thought the 6770 would be good as it's ~$100 (and there are lots of options at newegg, but I'm told it is last gen and not worth getting. I'm a bit worried as the Anandtech benches don't even list the 6770. While the 6970 isn't listed on Anandtech either, it is a similar price for the same amount of stream processors but at a faster 256 memory interface.
Going up to the 6850 seems like 20% more processors for 50% more money. I'm teetering on the thought of just going up to a very pretty looking 6870, which feels like 50% more processors for 60% more money... better idea? Then I'm just inclined to go with one of the heavily rebated 6950s which is about double the processors for double the money.
Now the weird part Can I run the new card and old together? Is it possible to have drivers for an NVidia card running the screens, and drivers for the AMD card just to hash?
Thanks for taking a look! I'm interested to hear your opinions.
submitted by Azurphax to buildapc [link] [comments]

New to BitCoin Mining, some questions.

I have decided to try bitcoin mining today, it's pretty cool, but I have some questions:
  1. In the pool I am working in, I am looking at my account stats on the pools site ( mining.bitcoin.bz ) and it says "Current Shares: 57", is this good?
  2. What are Shares?
  3. I am getting 146-150 Mhash/s in my miner (Intel 2500k, NVidia GTX 580 3GB x2) , is this good?
submitted by bob7up to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Mining for Bitcoins with ATI 5770 (Current: 200 MHash/s @ 960 Core Temp 54c) BITCOIN BOOST MINING on Nvidia card gtx1080 gtx980ti hashrate nicehash boost Mining gtx 650 - Bitcoin mining on a home PC Bitcoin Mining on Windows 10 Nvidia GeForce 920M GPU Mining i7 Method $1K and 15 Mhash Worth of Bitcoin Mining Rigs - IS GPU MINING STILL PROFITABLE? - Mining Adventure3

Is the Nvidia Geforce GTX 1650 worth it for mining? This graphics card or GPU was released in 2019, and is utilizing the old GDDR5 technology along with only 4gb of memory on the GPU which is low Some of the most popular graphics chips currently used in rigs are Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti (15−16 Mhash/s, 190 Sol/s, $180−$210), GTX 1060 6GB (20−22 Mhash/s, 310 Sol/s, $350−$400), GTX 1070 Last week Nvidia has announced a new mid-range GPU, namely the GTX 950 that is being positioned between the GTX 750 Ti and the GTX 960. Interestingly enough the GTX 950 has 128 CUDA cores more than 750 Ti and a TDP of 90W with a price point that is a bit higher than the 750 Ti, so the big question is if the GTX 950 can be the new affordable and low-power usage alternative for mining suceeding Find out what your expected return is depending on your hash rate and electricity cost. Find out if it's profitable to mine Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, DASH or Monero. Do you think you've got what it takes to join the tough world of cryptocurrency mining? However, telling you that an Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB has a hashrate of 24 MHash/s won’t make much sense to you, especially if you’re a beginner. Furthermore, different coins have different mining difficulty, so mining with same GPU will yield different amounts of different coins over the same time.

[index] [18242] [11318] [15455] [8656] [13854] [9299] [22928] [4850] [8539] [14767]

Mining for Bitcoins with ATI 5770 (Current: 200 MHash/s @ 960 Core Temp 54c)

max speed 50 Mhash/s on the gtx 550 ti video card. ... NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 1GB Reference Card Unboxing & First Look Linus ... bitcoin mining CPU AMD A8-5600 max mining speed 4 Mhash ... Bitcoin Mining Windows 7,8,10 Nvidia GPU Core i7 MethodIntromusic: www.bensound.com, www.panzoid.com Bitcoin Mining Windows 7,8,10 Nvidia GPU Core i7 Method nvidia miner monero xmrig nvidia xmr ... website penghasil bitcoin dll http://1ink.cc/dHce http://1ink.cc/UwAv http://1ink.cc/vwYz BUKTI WITHDRAW http://1ink.cc/OKaD http://1ink.cc/fsNi VIDEO INI BE... Sapphire Block Erupter - USB Bitcoin Miner 330 Mhash @ 2,5 W - Duration: 2:25. SwiftDK 48,347 views. 2:25. For the Love of Physics - Walter Lewin - May 16, 2011 - Duration: 1:01:26. BOOST MINING on Nvidia card gtx1080 gtx980ti hashrate boost quick video to show how i get rid of 60% gpu usage on nicehash and crank that to 100 or 120 gpu usage work from home bitcoin mining rig ...

Flag Counter