NM has been a marketing gimmick since Intel launched their long-standing 14nm node. Actual transistor density depending on which fab you compare to is shambles.

It's now a title / name of a process and not representative of how small the transistors are.

I've not paid for a CPU upgrade since 2020, and before that I was using a 22nm CPU from 2014. The market isn't exciting (to me anymore), I don't even want to talk about the GPUs.

Back in the late 90s or early 2000s upgrades felt substantial and exciting, now it's all same-same with some minor power efficiency gains.

2060 super for 300, and then another 200 for a decent processor puts you ahead of a ps5 and for a comparable price. Games are cheaper on PC too, as well as a broader selection. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/zYGmJn here is a mid tier build for 850, you could cut the procesor down, install linux for free, and im sure youve got a computer monitor laying around somwhere... the only thing stopping you is inertia.

You don't need a top end card to match console specs, something like a 6650XT or 6700XT is probably enough. Your initial PC build will be more than a console by about 2X if you're matching specs (maybe 3X if you need a monitor, keyboard, etc), but you'll make it up with access to cheaper games and being able to upgrade the PC without replacing it, not to mention the added utiliy a PC provides.

So yeah, think of PC vs console as an investment into a platform.

If you only want to play 1-2 games, console may be a better option. But if you're interested in older or indie games, a PC is essential.

You don't need a graphics card. You can get mini PCs with decent gaming performance for cheap these days.

I can get ps5 graphics with a $280 video card, games are often way cheaper, I can hook the pc up to my TV, and still play with a ps5 or Xbox controller, or mouse and keyboard.

I suspect next gen there will be a ps6 and Xbox will make a cheap cloud gaming box and just go subscription only.

Yeah but remember to factor in that you probably already need a normal computer for non-game purposes so if you also use that for games you only have to buy one device not two

GPU prices are ridiculous, but those GPUs are also ridiculously more powerful than anything in any console.

The rough equivalent to a PS5Pro's GPU component is a ... not current gen, not last gen, but the gen before that... find AMD's weakest GPU model in the 6 series, the RX 6600, and that is roughly the same performance as the GPU performance of a PS5Pro.

The Switch 2 may have an interesting, custom mobile grade Nvidia APU, but at this point, its not out yet, no benchmarks, etc.

Oh right also: If GPU prices for PCs remain elevated... well, any future consoles will also have elevated prices. Perhaps not to the same degree, but again, that will be because a console will be basically fairly low tier if you compared it to the range of PC hardware... and console mfgs can subsidize console costs with game sales... and they get discounts on ordering the components that go into their consoles by ordering in huge bulk volumes.

Yeah, GPU prices are kinda ridiculous, but a 7600 is probably good enough to match console quality (essentially the same as the 6650XT, so get whatever is cheaper), and I see those going for $330. It should be more like $250, so maybe you can find it closer to that amount when there's a sale. Add $500-600 for mobo, CPU, PSU, RAM storage, and a crappy case, and you have a decent gaming rig. Maybe I'm short by $100 or so, but that should be somewhere in the ballpark.

So $900-1000 for a PC. That's about double a console, extra if you need keyboard, monitor, etc. Let's say that's $500. So now we're 3x a console.

Entry cost is certainly higher, so what do you get in return?

• deeper catalogue
• large discounts on older games (anything older than a year or so)
• emulation and other PC tasks
• can upgrade piecemeal - next console gen, just need a new CPU + GPU, and if you go AMD, you can probably skip a gen on your mobo + RAM
• can repurpose old PC once you rebuild it (my old PC is my NAS)
• generally no need to pay a sub for multiplayer

Depending on how many and what types of games you play, it may or may not be cheaper. I play a ton of indies and rarely play AAA new releases, so a console would be a lot more expensive for me. I also have hundreds of games, and probably play 40 or so in a given year (last year was 50 IIRC). If I save just $10 per game, it would be the same price as a console after 2 years, but I save far more since I wait for sales. Also, I'll have a PC anyway, so technically I should only count the extra stuff I buy for playing games, as in my GPU.

The Steam Deck is the only decent console because it's not locked down.

Damn. I hate how it hurts to know that's what will happen

I don't agree. It is capitalism, but not in a bad way. Simply put it is economy logic. Chip market has shifted from consumer market to the enterprise market.

So because the supply is limited, the demand has gone way up, and enteprise market has a lot, a mean a lot of money to spare buying, because it is an investment for them and not entertainment.

Also some bad capitalist tacticts in other areas, hard drives for example, that the big players reduced production to keep prices from falling. They cotribute to the problem, but they are not the major factor.

While blaming anything and everything on "capitalism" is disingenuous, it really does have to do with a lack of competition in the space. None of the incumbents have any incentive to really put much effort into improving the performance of gaming GPUs. PC CPUs face a similar issue. They're good enough for the vast majority of users. There is no sizable market that would justify spending huge amounts of money on developing new products. High end gaming PCs and media production workstations are niche products. The real money is made in data centre products.

Very interesting! I was aware of the 5nm advancements and the limitations of chip sizes approaching the physical limitations of the material but I had been assuming since we worked around the single core issue a similar innovation would appear for this bottleneck. It seems like the focus instead was turned towards integrating AI into the gpu architecture and cranking up the power consumption for marginal gains in performance instead of working towards a paradigm shift. Thanks for the in depth explanation though, I always appreciate an opportunity to learn more about this type of stuff!

Battlefield 1 still beats 99% of games releasing now