The Cost - PC vs Console Gaming?

Antar Bolaeisk

spooky donkey wrote: »

I agree consoles are more relaxed. Try play an online game like COD of BF on PC and you get a string of rules thrown at you and can get kicked for using certian weapons/gadgets.
Console is just more stress free do what you like and dont worry about rules made up by some 10 year old kid.....
Ive moved away from PC gaming over the years and more play consoles now, Im just not arsed upgrading PCs any more they devalue (part) now so quickly, its just not worth it for me.

The variation in servers, or at least when games allow for dedicated servers, is one of the things which makes online play on PC a much better experience than on consoles in my opinion. Sure you get dross and power hungry admins but they're countered by the great community servers.

hightower1

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You can hook a pc upto a TV just like a console so it doesn't lose out there. As for the different platforms, I mainly use steam and have boat loads of games. Only reason I have origin is because there was a glitch that let you get a load of games free on it. Plus having two platforms installed isn't a major inconvenience.

The pc has its drawbacks but you're clutching with these two especially the first one.

In fact I did address this....

hightower1 wrote: »

to actually see any real effect from all those graphical enhancements you need to be running a pc monitor for 1920x1080 (which even a large monitor in pc terms is still only 27inches - hardly sofa territory there.)

Most standard TVs DONT have 1920x1080 so if you hook a PC into a normal tv all the resolution you pay for simply wont show up....but again,my post wasnt selectively quoted you would have seen that.

Also I can t see how being 100% more expensive that the nearest console is clutching at straws!? Thats a helluva big straw.

ScumLord

hightower1 wrote: »

You selectivly decided to not quote my whole post on that? :rolleyes:

No I did cover the points but I'll go back over it ag
... let me....

So like I said, being the best performance driver doesnt mean your the best. Also; as I mentioned, the best platform will balance specs against ease of use, cost, convenience etc.

I think you get the best balance with a PC. You seem to be comparing PCs from the last decade and ignoring the fact windows 7 is very media friendly. It's designed to work in a sitting room setting as well as the computer desk. It comes with media centre built it and is completely remote control friendly.

by being the least user friendly platform (with having to use multiple different gaming platforms like steam, uplay etc.)

That just makes no sense to me, it's like freaking out at a shopping centre because it's got Tescos, Pennys and Dunnes stores all under the one roof. Your saying competition and choice is a bad thing? I also don't see how its any more complicated than using multiple websites either.

It also looses out on convenience considering that to actually see any real effect from all those graphical enhancements you need to be running a pc monitor for 1920x1080 (which even a large monitor in pc terms is still only 27inches - hardly sofa territory there.)

You can hook your PC up to a TV! It's been said over and over in this thread. I have mine hooked up to a projector. This has been a common feature for 10 years or more now. My friend has PC in one room and TV in anther and can still use them together.

so too does a f1 car, excellent performance but no convenience, no comparative ease of use and no comparative ease of entry for new comers.

Again this just doesn't make sense to me. A PC is like an F1 estate with a trailer hitch. PCs can do anything you want, it doesn't take long to set things up any more. The only way you could think PCs are too complicated is if your purposely trying to be obtuse because you just don't want to accept everything a PC can do.

Cienciano

I have only read the first couple of pages of the thread so not sure if it's been mentioned, but you have to take into account console failures. YLOD or RROD is all to common on consoles
PC's are far easier to pull out the broken bit and replace it. And far less likely to get hardware failure from my experience.

K.O.Kiki

Cienciano wrote: »

I have only read the first couple of pages of the thread so not sure if it's been mentioned, but you have to take into account console failures. YLOD or RROD is all to common on consoles
PC's are far easier to pull out the broken bit and replace it. And far less likely to get hardware failure from my experience.

Your experience is null & void, since you are just one person.

All high-end parts will experience failure after a time.

Consoles just get the short end of the stick because the entire unit has to be sent in for repair, and (anecdotally) they are placed in badly ventilated situations which increase failure rates.

Retr0gamer

hightower1 wrote: »

Also I can t see how being 100% more expensive that the nearest console is clutching at straws!? Thats a helluva big straw.

As has been proven in this thread if you bothered to read most of it it's 100% unsubstantiated BS.

AlmightyCushion

hightower1 wrote: »

In fact I did address this....



Most standard TVs DONT have 1920x1080 so if you hook a PC into a normal tv all the resolution you pay for simply wont show up....but again,my post wasnt selectively quoted you would have seen that.

Also I can t see how being 100% more expensive that the nearest console is clutching at straws!? Thats a helluva big straw.

Start up price definitely is a minus for the pc. It's offset some what by the cheaper games and that it's a more versatile machine but It's definitely a barrier. That start up cost is worse for your Joe. They won't know you can build a gaming pc for quite cheap and just see the prebuilt gaming pc for a lot more. Saying that, I never argued this point.

Most TVs sold for the past while are 1080p and most of the TVs my friends/family would have are 1080p (obviously that might not be true for the whole market but I imagine it is for the people more likely to game).
Even still resolution isn't everything. A gaming pc will (usually) be able to crank up the detail making it look better at the same resolution.

Magill

Have to wonder.... what exactly hightower is posting on boards using... hmmm ?? Im still seeing a lot of people skip past the fact that most people that game on console, also own a laptop or home PC. I don't know anyone that hasn't got a computer in some form.

You really have to take into consideration what uses people get out of their PC... i didn't pay £800 for my PC just to game on... i paid £800 so i could do uni work on(Which was infact the main reason), watch films on, browse the internet, play games on etc. Comparing it to an f1 car is ridiculous, since an f1 car is designed for one thing... racing. It would be more realistic to compare a console to a 50 cc go-kart... and a PC to an s-class.

Cienciano

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Your experience is null & void, since you are just one person.

On no, you're one of these guys :rolleyes:
Xbox and PS3 failures aren't exactly a secret.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

All high-end parts will experience failure after a time.

Will they
My snes I bought in 1993 is still running strong.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Consoles just get the short end of the stick because the entire unit has to be sent in for repair, and (anecdotally) they are placed in badly ventilated situations which increase failure rates.

Wrong again. Xbox failure rates were far, far higher than PS3's. It's almost unusual not to experience failure on them. That's not normal, and as for badly ventilated areas, unless you're xbox was in a fan freezer, it was probably likely to fail. And of course they get the short end of the stick because they have to be sent for repair, this is about cost. Consoles cost more to repair.
For the record, I have a ps3, I wouldn't get a pc for gaming. I prefer the convenience of a console. And I know newer xbox's are a lot better.

ScumLord

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

All high-end parts will experience failure after a time.

Electronics shouldn't suffer failures to often, it's usually a manufacturing fault that leads to problems. Electronics have no moving parts and can go on for decades if they have ideal operating environments.

PC parts that fail are hard drives because they have moving parts, SSDs won't be as prone to failure. I've had problems with cyborg hardware, both the keyboard and mouse I bought off them failed and I think it's purely down to them being bad at making things.

The only other major failure I had was my last motherboard but that was a manufacturing fault and I ended up getting a better board out of the failure.

I used my 10 year old PC while my motherboard was being replaced and it was as good as when I got it. It suffered no reduced performance.

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah computers are generally good, not as much a victim of planned obsolescence or style obsolescence as some other things like phones.
But I think they are to a lesser extent.

Retr0gamer

The only things that can really go in a PCare hard disks, capacitors (although I've not heard of capacitor leaks in a long time, as in Game Gear and Amiga 500 long time) and overheating chips desoldering themselves which is down to bad design usually, unusually due to poor ventilation. The current consoles are just badly designed which you can avoid with a decent build.

Duggy747

Hard disks are usually the most common things to go, anything else would be more than likely down to cooling (be it poor ventilation from dirt / etc, overclocking and not having appropriate cooling) or just bad luck with a component dying. A motherboard packing it in due to an onboard fuse or capacitor would be an issue that's very few and far between.

Maintaining your machine is also something many people overlook. Regularly doing check-ups like having a can of compressed air to clear out dust from the fans and around the inside of the case. Takes 2 minutes to do but ensures your machine keeps healthy and cool.

hightower1

ScumLord wrote: »

No I did cover the points but I'll go back over it ag
... let me....



I think you get the best balance with a PC. You seem to be comparing PCs from the last decade and ignoring the fact windows 7 is very media friendly. It's designed to work in a sitting room setting as well as the computer desk. It comes with media centre built it and is completely remote control friendly.

That just makes no sense to me, it's like freaking out at a shopping centre because it's got Tescos, Pennys and Dunnes stores all under the one roof. Your saying competition and choice is a bad thing? I also don't see how its any more complicated than using multiple websites either.

Do us a favor and look in at the far cry 3 thread yeah? Now notice the amount of people having to disable graphics cards (one of multiple) or updating drivers etc to get the game running correctly. We are discussing the fact that PCs as a gaming tool are not user friendly.

ScumLord wrote: »

You can hook your PC up to a TV! It's been said over and over in this thread. I have mine hooked up to a projector. This has been a common feature for 10 years or more now. My friend has PC in one room and TV in anther and can still use them together.

I think your missing the point here, I never once said you cant hook a pc up to a TV but what I have said twice now is that you buy a PC for resolution and graphical fidelity amongst other things YET hooking a PC up to your average LCD tv will not allow you display that graphical fidelity as (as I have already said) ... the average LCD tv found in homes WILL NOT DISPLAY 1920X1080.... where in that did I say that it wont display pictures? Fact: I didnt, if your buying a device which one of the main reasons is its resolution ability you by default will want this connected to a display that will show you the resolution PC games are made and hailed for.

ScumLord wrote: »

Again this just doesn't make sense to me. A PC is like an F1 estate with a trailer hitch. PCs can do anything you want, it doesn't take long to set things up any more. The only way you could think PCs are too complicated is if your purposely trying to be obtuse because you just don't want to accept everything a PC can do.

You seem to be reverting back to your point that PCs can run windows here which tbh I dont understand seeing as the point I was making was that as a gaming tool PCs are renowned for not being as user friendly as a console.

So AGAIN I will break it down for you...

PC gaming Pros

- Best performance platform
- Ideal for RTS games

Cons

- Notable increase in cost versus the console v console percentage differential
- Platform not ideally suited to armchair gaming
- Barrier for entry on new combers high
- Ease of use for gaming less than that of consoles due to range or parts, specs, manufacturers and software.

Retr0gamer

hightower1 wrote: »

Do us a favor and look in at the far cry 3 thread yeah? Now notice the amount of people having to disable graphics cards (one of multiple) or updating drivers etc to get the game running correctly. We are discussing the fact that PCs as a gaming tool are not user friendly.

Badly coded games aren't because the platform is crap, it's because the developers are crap at their job

hightower1 wrote: »

I think your missing the point here, I never once said you cant hook a pc up to a TV but what I have said twice now is that you buy a PC for resolution and graphical fidelity amongst other things YET hooking a PC up to your average LCD tv will not allow you display that graphical fidelity as (as I have already said) ... the average LCD tv found in homes WILL NOT DISPLAY 1920X1080.... where in that did I say that it wont display pictures? Fact: I didnt, if your buying a device which one of the main reasons is its resolution ability you by default will want this connected to a display that will show you the resolution PC games are made and hailed for.

What are you on about? Firstly Most TVs will display 1080p unless you cheap out on one. Secondly most PC monitors will run 1080p and have been doing so for a long time. That's not to mention the increases in texture resolution that some games have, extra effects like proper anti aliasing and other graphical improvements. Again it's not the platforms fault that you cheap out on a TV.

hightower1 wrote: »

- Barrier for entry on new combers high

Says more than I can put in words really.

You do know that most PC games support 360 gamepads as well, wireless ones at that. I know a lot of people that have their PC set up in the living room acting as a media centre, browser and games platform hooked up to a TV. You'd be surprised how nice it is to use with a wireless keyboard and mouse.

Corkfeen

hightower1 wrote: »

I think your missing the point here, I never once said you cant hook a pc up to a TV but what I have said twice now is that you buy a PC for resolution and graphical fidelity amongst other things YET hooking a PC up to your average LCD tv will not allow you display that graphical fidelity as (as I have already said) ... the average LCD tv found in homes WILL NOT DISPLAY 1920X1080.... where in that did I say that it wont display pictures? Fact: I didnt, if your buying a device which one of the main reasons is its resolution ability you by default will want this connected to a display that will show you the resolution PC games are made and hailed for.

But most tvs that are sold support 1080p.... I just glanced through Curry's website and it appears to be fairly unusual for 720p tvs to be sold anymore. Some of the earlier adopted tvs might be only 720p but most display run at 1920*1080.

In terms of difficulty running games, I've faced none in years. It was an issue a couple of years back but not so much now. Far Cry 3 runs fine for me and in terms of the learning curve for installing new drivers for a graphics card, it's fairly effortless. Nvidia generally display an alert in the corner of the screen that there are new drivers available. Ease of installation will probably continue to improve.

monkeysnapper

Do you know what.... .? I'm a total banana, I see all these recent war games and think, god I'd love to have a x box to play that, but I'm not gona buy a console to play just 1 game. It honestly never entered my mind I could buy it for my pc which is a fast boy. Doh!!

ScumLord

hightower1 wrote: »

Do us a favor and look in at the far cry 3 thread yeah? Now notice the amount of people having to disable graphics cards (one of multiple) or updating drivers etc to get the game running correctly. We are discussing the fact that PCs as a gaming tool are not user friendly.

That's not the PCs fault but lazy coders only out to make the quick buck of the console users.

the average LCD tv found in homes WILL NOT DISPLAY 1920X1080....

Any TV sold in the last 5 years will. I would say the majority of LCDs are 1080, I've only seen non-HD TVs sold in the bargain basement and even now they're gone out of those. YOu would have to go out of your way to find a non HD display these days.

You seem to be reverting back to your point that PCs can run windows here which tbh I dont understand seeing as the point I was making was that as a gaming tool PCs are renowned for not being as user friendly as a console.

- Platform not ideally suited to armchair gaming

I will continue to refute that as nonsense. If you want to game in your armchair just put the PC near your armchair.

It's not as easy as consoles but it's not that hard either, your not comparing modern PCs to consoles you view of a PC seems to be from WinXP days.

gizmo

hightower1 wrote: »

Do us a favor and look in at the far cry 3 thread yeah? Now notice the amount of people having to disable graphics cards (one of multiple) or updating drivers etc to get the game running correctly. We are discussing the fact that PCs as a gaming tool are not user friendly.

Personally, I don't think problems arising from SLI compatibility should have anything to do in a debate regarding the user-friendliness of a platform. Also, the number of games which directly benefit from or require driver updates from graphics vendors are minuscule compared to those which don't.

hightower1 wrote: »

Cons

- Notable increase in cost versus the console v console percentage differential
- Barrier for entry on new combers high

I dealt with both of these points in posts earlier in the thread. While the initial barrier to entry is certainly higher earlier in the generation, as it goes on that difference is reduced drastically to the point where, when looking for console like performance at console-like quality levels now, there is no significant difference between the two.

Sarky

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of games you'd never be able to run on a console: anybody else played Planetside 2 yet?

Oh my goodness, yes. I'm logging on tonight with some friends to form our own Liberator gunship squadron, raining death down on anyone who thought footsoldiers and ground vehicles were the way to go. There are so many people on one map it's just wonderfully epic battle funtiems.

And free to boot, although I'm gonna send a few bob their way anyway as a thank you (and also because I want a guided missile launcher for my heavy assault).

Corkfeen

One other thing that I forgot to point out. Patching on Pc has become far more streamlined than consoles for the most part. The vast majority of games tend to be on steam and as a result, the games will update in the background whenever the update becomes available. On a console, you have to actually start the game to be told that you have to update. It's not a major issue but it can be highly irritating. It has nothing to do with the cost but since ease of use is in the equation.

Duggy747

hightower1 wrote: »

- Platform not ideally suited to armchair gaming

Tides are shifting on that, what with HDMI output on even the most basic of laptops being a more common feature than not. I sell HDMI cables by the bucket loads for this very reason where people hook them up and plug their Xbox controllers into it. You can pick up a wireless keyboard and mouse combo for €15 or less even (though battery life won't be as good unless you pay that little bit more)

Anyways, I'm sitting here on my couch typing this up with my wireless keyboard + mouse. This is my primary machine for all media, including gaming ranging from 30 years ago to the latest releases (which I'm playing FarCry3 on at the moment).

Magill

hightower1 wrote: »

I think your missing the point here, I never once said you cant hook a pc up to a TV but what I have said twice now is that you buy a PC for resolution and graphical fidelity amongst other things YET hooking a PC up to your average LCD tv will not allow you display that graphical fidelity as (as I have already said) ... the average LCD tv found in homes WILL NOT DISPLAY 1920X1080.... where in that did I say that it wont display pictures? Fact: I didnt, if your buying a device which one of the main reasons is its resolution ability you by default will want this connected to a display that will show you the resolution PC games are made and hailed for.

What the... *Checks calendar* *notices i haven't traveled back to 2005*

You seem to be reverting back to your point that PCs can run windows here which tbh I dont understand seeing as the point I was making was that as a gaming tool PCs are renowned for not being as user friendly as a console.

You know what... yes, i guess they are less user friendly than a console.. i know i found it pretty ****ing simple and have done since i was 12 years old... hell my 8 year old nephew knows how to use my PC for gaming.. honestly, i don't what users PC gaming would be too unfriendly for besides kids and old people... but whatever.. you can't have everything.

So AGAIN I will break it down for you...

PC gaming Pros

- Best performance platform
- Ideal for RTS games
- Also more ideal for shooters, sims, RPG's, MMO's aswel as being just as useful in every other genre thanks to the point below
- Far more control options
- Much cheaper games
- A huge range of F2P titles and a very strong exclusive base
- The ability to multi-task while your playing, be it playing music, reading articles, chatting on facebook etc
- No generation splits (I can still play games from the 90's on the same machine i play brand new titles)
- HUGE advantage in the multiplayer market.. dedicated servers for most games, high player limits (BF3 for example has the ability to host 64 man servers on PC, twice as many as on console), huge range of MP games that you can't get on console etc


Cons

- Notable increase in cost versus the console v console percentage differential
- Platform not ideally suited to armchair gaming Of course it is, controller
- Barrier for entry on new combers high If by high, you mean not very high then yes, your right.
- Ease of use for gaming less than that of consoles due to range or parts, specs, manufacturers and software. I donno, its pretty straight forward really, plus there are plenty of things that make PC gaming less stressful, no need for physical copies, which can be broken quite easily. Being able to pre-load new releases, having automatic updates on platforms like steam. higher quality, no user limit, voice chat servers... etc

I fixed that part of your post... i've actually experienced both console and pc gaming (As have most of the people arguing against your/andy's points), so im not really just stabbing in the dark like yourself.

Retr0gamer

PC gamings greatest contribution to our hobby:

Alt+Tabbing to gamefaqs.

Azza

The consoles have a few genres that they have a better selection of games in.

They have more racing games exclusives like PGR, Forza and Gran Turismo. I'm well aware PC as quite a few racing sims, but the game listed before are kinda hybrids of sim and arcade racer that have mass market appeal. Pure hardcore sims are a kind of niche.
You have more Japanese made games on them, you Final Fantasy's, Bayonetta's, Vanquish etc.
Has a wider selection of fighting games. Tekken, Soul Calibre, Mortal Kombat, Virtua Fighter, Marvel Vs Capcom and various wrestling games.
Has a wider selection of sports games outside of the soccer genre. Basketball, American Hockey/Football etc.

While the PC does many genres as well or better than console there is going be a few console exclusive games in those genres that would be great to have on PC like Uncharted, Metal Gear etc.

After that, console have lower entry level cost.
Fixed hardware means less issues getting games to run.
Better for big screen. Yes a PC will work but the UI/font size of most PC games is not really suited to the big screen as much as the consoles are. Kudo's to valves big picture mode.
Larger player base for online games.

Another factor in consoles popularity is marketing. They have companies advertising them where the PC as a platform does not.

Prefer the PC myself, but consoles have plenty of merits.

Overheal

Retr0gamer wrote: »

PC gamings greatest contribution to our hobby:

Alt+Tabbing to gamefaqs.

Shift+Tabbing, now

Overheal

Sarky wrote: »

Oh my goodness, yes. I'm logging on tonight with some friends to form our own Liberator gunship squadron, raining death down on anyone who thought footsoldiers and ground vehicles were the way to go. There are so many people on one map it's just wonderfully epic battle funtiems.

And free to boot, although I'm gonna send a few bob their way anyway as a thank you (and also because I want a guided missile launcher for my heavy assault).

I just think the weapon prices theyre asking for is silly. its $10 PER gun on the Galaxy. Meaning if you want to upgrade all 4 gun slots to the next tier up (2 AA, 2 AG), you're shelling out $40. I just cant justify it, I'd rather wait for the points to trickle in. Especially not since all the fun I have in the Galaxy is proximity chatting with whoever hops in and going point to point trying to get into just the right amount of trouble without dying horribly - my longest streak so far was 45 minutes before the server DCd me, and that included numerous enemy fighters (Braking in mid-air seems to be really fun, getting them into point-blank range), flak turrets, and one impulsive "What would happen if..." Barrel Roll, that I just so barely managed to get myself back out of before everyone died. I would put many a UNSC Pelican pilot to shame.

Varik

There's a lot more to armchair gaming than the ability hook a PC to a TV and a choice of controls as Azza was saying . It's something that need to be planned, or at very the least happened upon by luck.

Some PC games don't suit that set-up, whether due to UI or something as simple as legibility.

One aspect that I would like for games to change is to allow me to change control prompts when using a controller, you'll usually learn it after a while but I'd still like to be able to see X/A rather than "button 1".

Some games allow you to use a 360 controller which the game recognizes and this simplifies it further as I know the 360 controller but again I'd rather be able to enter the correct button for any generic controller.

Magill

Azza wrote: »

The consoles have a few genres that they have a better selection of games in.

They have more racing games exclusives like PGR, Forza and Gran Turismo. I'm well aware PC as quite a few racing sims, but the game listed before are kinda hybrids of sim and arcade racer that have mass market appeal. Pure hardcore sims are a kind of niche.
You have more Japanese made games on them, you Final Fantasy's, Bayonetta's, Vanquish etc.
Has a wider selection of fighting games. Tekken, Soul Calibre, Mortal Kombat, Virtua Fighter, Marvel Vs Capcom and various wrestling games.
Has a wider selection of sports games outside of the soccer genre. Basketball, American Hockey/Football etc.

While the PC does many genres as well or better than console there is going be a few console exclusive games in those genres that would be great to have on PC like Uncharted, Metal Gear etc.

After that, console have lower entry level cost.
Fixed hardware means less issues getting games to run.
Better for big screen. Yes a PC will work but the UI/font size of most PC games is not really suited to the big screen as much as the consoles are. Kudo's to valves big picture mode.
Larger player base for online games.

Another factor in consoles popularity is marketing. They have companies advertising them where the PC as a platform does not.

Prefer the PC myself, but consoles have plenty of merits.

These are fair points. The Japanese games is a pretty big reason to own a console imo, i've only briefly looked into it, but there doesn't seem to be any JRPG's available for PC. Then the platinum games etc.

The larger player base isn't really an advantage for the games it does have more players (CoD/BF and fifa) as those games all have very healthy numbers on the PC as well. So its not like you'll have problems finding games or anything. The much larger selection of shooters on PC means a more fragmented playerbase, but still active ones at that. Online players overall i'd imagine PC has a far greater player base than either of the consoles tho, thanks to the big MMO's / LoL etc.

K.O.Kiki

Cienciano wrote: »

On no, you're one of these guys :rolleyes:
Xbox and PS3 failures aren't exactly a secret.

Will they
My snes I bought in 1993 is still running strong.

Your SNES runs a lot slower & cooler, that's the whole point.

As electronics are made to run faster & hotter, they experience earlier failure rates.

Wrong again. Xbox failure rates were far, far higher than PS3's. It's almost unusual not to experience failure on them. That's not normal, and as for badly ventilated areas, unless you're xbox was in a fan freezer, it was probably likely to fail. And of course they get the short end of the stick because they have to be sent for repair, this is about cost. Consoles cost more to repair.
For the record, I have a ps3, I wouldn't get a pc for gaming. I prefer the convenience of a console. And I know newer xbox's are a lot better.

And Wii has lowest failure rate of all. Wait, where were we?

ScumLord wrote: »

Electronics shouldn't suffer failures to often, it's usually a manufacturing fault that leads to problems. Electronics have no moving parts and can go on for decades if they have ideal operating environments.

PC parts that fail are hard drives because they have moving parts, SSDs won't be as prone to failure. I've had problems with cyborg hardware, both the keyboard and mouse I bought off them failed and I think it's purely down to them being bad at making things.

The only other major failure I had was my last motherboard but that was a manufacturing fault and I ended up getting a better board out of the failure.

I used my 10 year old PC while my motherboard was being replaced and it was as good as when I got it. It suffered no reduced performance.

So it's NEVER anything BUT a manufacturing fault?
Riiiiiiight... :rolleyes: