Because how much better matters to some people who might prefer playing a game at 95% of the detail level on a 46-inch TV as opposed to on a monitor.
And let's face it. Whether the PC version is better depends on how cutting edge your PC is. Let's say you own a PS4 but your gaming PC is four years old. Maybe the PS4 version looks better than your system would.
If you actually read the post, you'll discover that it praises Bioware for building a game that appears to run well on all three consoles and is intelligently tuned to deliver the best performance on the available hardware of all three platforms.
Yes, the PC outperforms the other two. However that's a valid question given that plenty of people own both a console and a PC and might be curious which version of the game is the best buy.
I believe that game developers should deliver the best experience possible on every platform. I believe that well-tuned games that take full advantage of underlying hardware will run best on high-end PCs due to the nature of the hardware. And I think comparing performance between PC and console versions of a title is an important way to help gamers decide where to spend their money.
Right. Apple previously didn't *enable* this function, but they didn't take security actions to make it impossible, either. Now, they have. So now, if you want to enable TRIM, you have to install a patch or take action manually that disables the *entire* driver signing mechanism.
That's bad design.
Now, you can argue that you don't make the system any less secure under OS X 10.10 than it was under OS X 10.9, since you're disabling a feature that wasn't previously available. Nonetheless, if the goal is to improve the security environment for all users, you need to offer security features that users don't need to disable to keep using their previously purchased hardware.
That's the real problem here. And while I absolutely agree that Apple didn't previously support this mode directly, they're now forcing users to pick between a less secure operating mode or buying new, Apple approved hardware at Apple-decided prices.
I can't tell who you are referring to, but I'm happy to walk you through my math.
1). HyperThreading typically gives Intel CPUs a 20% performance increase, tops.
2). A Core i7-4790K clocked at 4.4GHz runs 2.75x faster than 1.6GHz for Kabini. Kabini, of course, has 6-7 cores devoted to rendering as compared to Intel's 4+4.
3). Haswell's IPC is between 1.4 and 2x faster than Jaguar, clock for clock and core for core. This is partly because Jaguar's slow IMC and half-speed L2 cripples the processor's performance in L2 or memory-heavy code. Whether the consoles use different IMCs is unknown, but they *do* use the same half-speed L2 cache.
Let's run the numbers on that.
Intel has 4.8 cores (4C * 1.2x for HT) * 4.4GHz clock speed * 1.7x IPC = 35.9 Performance Fator.
Jaguar has 7 cores (one reserved for OS) * 1.6GHz clock speed * 1x IPC = 11.2x Performance Factor.
The Core i7-4790K should therefore be ~3.2x faster than the seven-core Jaguar.
Yes, that's just an estimate. But the CPU isn't the bottleneck in this game, at least not with significant levels of MSAA enabled.
I'm perfectly willing to say this is bullshit, and that the people dogpiling him are engaging in a lot of trolling that would quickly turn to whining if the same thing happened to them.
Society runs on norms and expected pricing. Selling someone 30MB of in-flight data for $30 is a terrible deal. Utterly terrible. In fact, as you say, it's so terrible as to be useless. Furthermore, using that single transaction as a justified reason to continue slamming his account in such fashion is utterly unacceptable.
It is unreasonable to conclude that when a person forks over $30 for a one-time transaction they are agreeing to pay a $1200 fee (silently assessed and without additional warning). This is the kind of predatory arrangement that's *designed* to screw people over.