GUIMiner - Download - CHIP

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]

4 Shares, no bitcoins?

So I'm new to this whole bitcoin thing. Last night, I left it on all night to mine. When I woke up, I had 4 shares, but no money. I'm not eve nsure if I used the right address. Is the address you're supposed to use under the "receive coins" tab in your wallet? I'm pretty fucking confused.
Thanks for the help bros.
submitted by Downvote_Galore to mtred [link] [comments]

[BUILDING] Cheap Motherboard for 2x HD 5770?

EDIT: Got things mixed up, I was reading the components for a BTC mining rig! Now my question would be: What would be decent, but cheap components for a mining rig, built around 2x HD 5770? Stupid idea? Share your wisdom!
Hey guys, nice job on the subreddit! I've been thinking about building a rig for a while now, but started actually doing some research just today. Now I'm wondering what a decent but cheap motherboard would be for:
For all the other components I looked here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_rig#Three_ATI_5770s.2C_Approximately_630_Mhash.2Fs which are all pretty cheap components, except for the motherboard. Now in this example there are three cards used, which wont be neccesary for my setup.
All suggestions are welcome, I'm exited to start building/mining!
Edit: I should say I'm quite unfamiliar with computer parts in general, so if you have any tips on replacing other components in that list for cheapeother ones, or know a complete different, better rig, please say so.
submitted by justforBTC to litecoinmining [link] [comments]

New to BitCoin Mining.

Right now my dad has a computer with the following stats:
*Intel i7 3930K Hex Core CPU
*64GB DDR3 System Memory
*ZX5 Dual ATi Eyefinity 7970 GPUs
*240GB Intel 520 Series SSD System Drive + Dual 2TB Automatic Backup Data Drives in RAID 1
I was thinking of investing in a 25 GH/s Bitcoin Miner
So my question is what else would I need for bitcoin mining? How much should I expect power usage to be? and I assume I'd be putting out 25,000 MHash/s...?
I'm real new at this but I'm figuring since I already have a solid CPU rig it wouldn't be too much more of an investment to start earning with bitcoin mining? or am I completely off-base with that?
submitted by thefaith1029 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Brand new, need some help

I heard about bitcoin mining a couple days ago and wanted to get into it. I downloaded GUIMiner and it has been running at 40-45 Mhash/s and never went above or below.. I went to a calculator and it said it would take 42 years for it to outweigh my power bill. I have an Nivida GeForce GTX 550 Ti and an Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @2.4GHz. Is there anything I can do to boost my hash/s other than spending a ton of money on some new hardware?
submitted by Havikz to BitcoinMining [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]

How long until bitcoins aren't accessable to the average user?

This is a general discussion on the bitcoin market itself, but also has to do with mining. If a mod determines that it needs to be moved to a different sub-reddit such as the mining reddit, please notify me and I will do so.
I'm not much of a genius when it comes to bitcoins, but I do know about the market and a good bit about how people think, since I'm a human myself.
When I first looked into bitcoins, people still made profit CPU mining. This is possible today, but anyone in bitcoinmining can tell you that it probably isn't worth your power bill, or even the internet bandwidth you used to download the miner. Then there was a paradigm shift where everyone started buying GPUs to mine off of, which is what most people have been doing recently, as far as I know. With some of the newest tech, you can get hundreds of Mhash on consumer level (ok, maybe a bit higher) GPUs. But that's not enough. With new development in ASIC cards, mining is a lot faster. In BTC Guild, the ASICMiner account reaches over 7kGhash, which calculates to around 400BTC per day (not necessarily as profit, however).
Anyways, back to non-mining spec talk. Because of these new cards being released, they will become the new standard for mining, the way that GPU overthrew CPU. This is natural, but could case obvious problems. As consumer level CPUs become obsolete in the mining world, and GPUs aren't seen as the standard because of development in ASIC technology, and with Moore's law providing the basis for cards like ASIC miners improving over time, will regular people lose interest in bitcoin?
I've been seeing many threads in bitcoinmining titled "Just bought a new gaming computer, can I use it to mine?" followed by specs that aren't too shabby; multiple GPUs, 4.0GHz+ processors, very nice (yet expensive) computers. Your average Joe wouldn't buy this, and it's not even seen as very good for mining. This is just the start. When an ASIC is seen as "required" to start mining, people with high end PCs won't even try. Therefore, the only way that the average computer user will acquire bitcoins is through buying them, which brings up the issue of discovery. Sure, more and more businesses are accepting bitcoins every day. But will the acceptance of bitcoins by smaller stores move people to try it out? If someone is going to buy a product on Amazon, for example, and they have a credit card linked up with their account, how will a "Pay with Bitcoin" link motivate them to invest in what the media usually portrays as a "made up currency"?
My overall thesis is that it seems as if the direction bitcoin is going in will cut off the entry of average users and restrict it to computer aficionados. This will have obvious effects on the market, which you can speculate on your own.
But tell me, reddit, what are your thoughts on the issue? How can we reform this economy to be suited to entering, average users when currently it's aimed at people with very strong PCs? Do you think it should stay this way? Do you have an innovative way to prevent this new paradigm from occurring and reducing new potential bitcoin circulators? I'm open to all thoughts and conversation, for this topic really intrigues me. Who knows, tomorrow an ASIC for residential use could be released and soccer moms would mine their own currency.
submitted by Stealtheh to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

CGMiner belly up? Or is my PC a kat?

Hello shibes! I was looking to get into mining doge, yet I can't get my CGMiner to work, while my PC is not the best of all shibes (A8-3670K, HD 6670), it should be able to do something.
cgminer version 3.11.0 - Started: [2014-01-28 19:47:50] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5s):0.000 (avg):0.000h/s | A:0 R:0 HW:0 WU:0.0/m ST: 2 SS: 0 NB: 5 LW: 24 GF: 0 RF: 0 Connected to us-west.multipool.us diff 32 with stratum as user xxfay6.scrypt1 Block: 6d949675... Diff:1.27K Started: [19:54:25] Best share: 0 
It is also common for the miner to display only these messages after connecting:
[2014-01-28 19:54:25] Stratum from pool 1 detected new block 
My cgminer.conf file is layed out like this:
{ "pools" : [ { "url" : "stratum+tcp://fast-pool.com:3336", "user" : "xxfay6.APU", "pass" : "[REDACTED]" }, { "url" : "stratum+tcp://us-west.multipool.us:3352", "user" : "xxfay6.scrypt1", "pass" : "[REDACTED]" }, { "url" : "stratum+tcp://fast-pool.com:3336", "user" : "xxfay6.GPU", "pass" : "[REDACTED]" }, { "url" : "stratum+tcp://us-west.multipool.us:7777", "user" : "xxfay6.scrypt2", "pass" : "[REDACTED]" } ], "scrypt" : true, "failover-only" : true, "auto-fan" : true, "gpu-threads" : "1", "intensity" : "20", "thread-concurrency" : "3200", "worksize" : "256" } 
My system has 3 OpenCL devices, 0 is APU/Graphics, 1 is the 6670, and 2 is APU/CPU, when mining Bitcoin in poclbm trying to use device 2 slowed everything to a crawl (device0 gets ~60 Mhash/s, device1 gets ~100), but running CGMiner without device specified does not have any impact on my system's lagginess. Any help is appreciated.
submitted by xxfay6 to dogemining [link] [comments]

Just installed Bitcoin-qt and GUIMiner. Got them both running but I need someone to clarify what the exact uses for both.

Ok so... I have a bitcoin address wallet setup, an account with BTC guild pool because MTred seems to be down. I have GUIMiner running on worker ID at around 35Mhash/s. My questions are as follows, Why doesn't GUIMiner show me anything other than the Mhash speed. Do I literally just leave it running when I have my PC on and can turn the PC back off whenever?
My other question is, Bitcoin-qt is downloading the blockchain, What is the use in this program once it has downloaded the blockchain? does it mine for me or is it simply a wallet management system of some kind? I'm new to mining so any help will be GREATLY received thanks!
EDIT: On GUIMiner I have chosen to use my GPU as the device as it is the only option. Does CPU affinity matter aswell? Will it mine using my CPU & GPU?
submitted by deanguk to Bitcoin [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]

[Build Help] Desperately Need Your Critical Opinions!

I am building a Bitcoin mining rig. If you do not know what bitcoin is then please learn more here. I would really like some critical opinoins from fellow miners because /BitcoinMining wasn't of too much help. Thank you in advance and if you don't have any experience in mining upvote so others can help!
Type Item Price
CPU AMD Sempron 130 Sargas 2.6GHz AM3 Single-Core Processor $29.99 @ Newegg
CPU Cooler Cooler Master AM3 CPU Cooler $9.99 @ Newegg
Motherboard Msi 890FX-GD70 ATX AM3 Motherboard $145.00 @ Amazon
Memory Mushkin Enhanced Silverline 2GB 1 x 2GB DDR3-1333 Memory $14.99 @ Newegg
Video Card XFX Radeon HD 5850 1GB Video Card $129.99 @ Amazon
Video Card ASUS DirectCU Radeon HD 5850 1GB Video Card $169.99 @ Amazon
Case Antec Three Hundred ATX Mid Tower Case $59.99 @ Newegg
Power Supply Rosewill Xtreme Series750W 80Plus Power Supply $89.99 @ Newegg
Molex To 8-Pin Adapter Athena Power 2x Molex to 2x Pci-E 8-Pin (x2) $10.54 @ Newegg
Shipping/Taxes
Newegg Shipping/Taxes $71.22 :(
Amazon Shipping $18.79
Total
Price Including Shipping/Taxes $750.48 Shipped
Already have 160GB 2.5" 7200RPM laptop hard drive.
This will get me minimum W/O OCing 692.32 MHash/s and will take me approx. 1 year and 128 days to break even on my hardware. Once I pay off my hardware I will earn $600-$400 a year with it. P.S. will probably overclock the cards to to get better MHash/s. I plan on eventually getting another two 5850's. Used Bitcoinx.com to calculate the profits.
submitted by ibot900 to buildapc [link] [comments]

I caused the price of Bitcoins to go from £6.50 to £15. At least I got a free PC upgrade out of it.

Thursday morning, I had 44.15945876 up for sale with Britcoin at £7 each. The best bid was for £6.50 and had been around that price for some time. I intended to sell at £6.50 and was just holding out to see if I could get £7, but it didn't look like it was going to happen. The next best sale prices were £7, £8 and £10.
So, I sold my bitcoins at £6.50, but they didn't sell for £6.50, they sold for £6.77 making me £300. I was a very happy bunny.
Then, I looked at the order and the market info and noticed that the £7 bitcoins had been bought up as well. A minute later, the £8 bitcoins were sold and a lot of new offers to sell started to appear from £8 to £20.
An hour later the price was at £15 and there was me sitting at my desk, banging my head against it.
"Fuck!, fuck!, fuck!, MOTHER FUCKER!"
Anyway, my brother just told me that the £300 has been deposited in his bank (on a Saturday no less) and now I'm happy again.
Now, I plan on upgrading my computer to something newish, 4 GB DDR3 1600 RAM, Athlon II X3 450, AM3+ motherboard and a Radeon HD 6870 (I hope my PSU can handle it). The plan is to mine whenever I'm not gaming and hopefully by the time Bulldozer or the 7000 series GPUs come out, I'll have enough bitcoins to purchase one.
The funny thing is, I got those 50 bitcoins back in December by mining for 1 day on a CPU that does 2 Mhashes/s. I had a look at what I could buy with 50 bitcoins, and the answer was absolutely nothing. I was going to donate those bitcoins to an indie games dev but then I completely forgot all about bitcoin until a post was on the front page of reddit a couple of weeks ago.
submitted by GoldenBoar to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I need help getting started mining using GUIminer with Slush's pool.

My first attempt to mine some bitcoins. I got GUIminer and signed up with Slush's pool. I just want to run it on my CPU for now and see my Mhash/s rate. I have a quadcore processor. I selected Slush's pool from the server list and I set the CPU Affinity checkmark on 3 and hit start... but I don't know if its doing anything. How long does it take to connect and get something to work on? Or am I totally doing it wrong? please help. Thanks I need detail instructions how to get this thing up and running. All it says is "connecting" but doesn't seem to connect. How long should connecting take?
It says connection problems in the speed section of the summary tab.
submitted by idontgetitbutimtryin to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Room 2 of 2 Legit Free Bitcoin Mining CPU+gpu  Free Bitcoin Miner ... $1K and 15 Mhash Worth of Bitcoin Mining Rigs - IS GPU MINING STILL PROFITABLE? - Mining Adventure3 CPU MINING 2020 - Who's #1? - YouTube Nice hash Bitcoin mining on CPU (max 80h/s)

Bitcoin-Mining ist der Prozess, der sicherstellt, dass Bitcoin wie geplant funktioniert, und es ist der einzige Weg, um neues Angebot auf den Markt zu bringen. Miner sind Individuen oder Unternehmen, die Rechenleistung beitragen, um bei der Aufrechterhaltung und dem Betrieb des Blockchain-Netzwerks zu helfen, das Bitcoin als digitaler Währung zugrunde liegt. Diese Rechner sind dafür ... The Bitcoin.com mining pool has the lowest share reject rate (0.15%) we've ever seen. Other pools have over 0.30% rejected shares. Furthermore, the Bitcoin.com pool has a super responsive and reliable support team. Bitcoin Mining ist das neue Goldschürfen: Als Miner, also Schürfer, verdienen Sie virtuelles Geld dafür, dass Sie Ihre Rechnerleistung zur Verfügung stellen. Allerdings ist hierfür so einiges ... Bitcoin Mining verbraucht viel Strom. Bei hohen Stromkosten lohnt sich das Mining oftmals nicht. Um Bitcoin Mining zu betreiben, müssen Sie einem Miningpool beitreten, was zusätzliche Kosten verursacht. Für das Mining benötigen Sie entsprechende Hardware. Auch hier kommen Kosten auf Sie zu. Je nachdem, wie leistungsfähig Ihr Bitcoin Miner sein soll, zahlen Sie bis zu 2.000 Euro. Es ist ... Bitcoin-Mining ist ein Geschäft mit einer sehr grossen Konkurrenz. Mining macht nur Sinn, wenn Sie es aus Spass machen und es Ihnen nicht so wichtig ist, ob Sie Profit daraus schlagen. Es ist aber auch möglich, dass Sie es sehr effektiv betreiben und davon profitieren. Aktuelle Bitcoin Nachrichten. Wenn Sie Bitcoins basierend auf einer bestimmten Hashrate erhalten möchten, sollten Sie sich ...

[index] [35653] [8278] [27761] [50204] [27886] [20434] [4160] [38785] [33013] [31132]

Bitcoin Mining Room 2 of 2

My Asics 2682 MHash Bitcoin Mining Rig (Digital Currency) ... Pt 2 Bitcoin Mining, BFL ASIC vs FPGA vs GPU vs CPU - Duration: 28:50. mjlorton 63,467 views. 28:50. USB ASIC miner unboxing and ... https://bit.ly/2uehZf3 https://bit.ly/2BjoUa7 https://bit.ly/2P1tNsD https://bit.ly/2UaAmMb bitcoin sell or buy contact us https://t.me/onlinetrust https://f... Mining Bitcoin with GTX 660 and I7 4790 - Duration: 0:59. EdeRVisS 6,904 views. 0:59 . GTX 550 ti Makes 0 a Day Mining Cudominer - Duration: 4:41. Snedz1967 Gaming Benchmarks 114 views. 4:41. How ... nicehash nice hash bitcoin mining in i5 6th gen. CryptoMining on a Laptop makes more money than a desktop? Best GPU Mining Ethereum and ZCash - Duration: 6:51. Tally Ho Tech 57,479 views mining, bitcoin, crypto, bitcoin cash, nvidia, amd, server, graphics cards, gpus, ethereum, nicehash, dash, bitmain, asic, currency, altcoin, cryptocurrency.

#