At the risk of beating a dead horse, no. Consoles are optimized in entirely different ways than pc's. The same specs you see in a console do not line up with a pc tower containing the same hardware. There is architecture in those boxes that really is next-gen technology despite the hardware being average. So you're likely looking at a mid-high range equivalent.Eacaraxe said:The important metric here is how PC's and consoles stack up against one another, now how well PC's and their games scale. That "mid-range" desktop PC nowadays will put you on rough parity with the next-generation consoles' graphical capability -- take a look at how little RAM these next-generation consoles have, for example, and tell me they're going to be a serious competitor.Lightknight said:I will say that while you can build a gaming machine for relatively cheap, you'd be talking about a machine that would quickly become outdated after a few years as well as one that would not typically allow for peak settings in today's game. But, it could absolutely play today's games as well as tomorrows games for a few years on lower settings.
If you care about graphics, load times, and responsiveness.
That being said, is there much of a difference between mid and mid-high? Not really. All that matters is that the consoles are finally back in the race graphically and that'll mean that us PC gamers can start using our hardware for more than bragging rights.
Once we see the price we'll also know the relative cost between one machine and another. All I know is I took extra time and waited for the right sales and now all I have to do is slap in another video card to bridge to my first one when the graphics go up. After that, I can bridge a third.