Unpopular opinion(?) - People spend too much on gaming PCs

[Aereldor]

6 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

That IS unplayable in my book. Would not consider anything lower than consistent 60fps comfortable.

 

  

Then it mostly doesn't apply to visitors of this forum

That sounds like a rich person problem... Consoles (xbox one and ps4) don't even run the thing at 1080p or 30fps constant.

Yeah, I know, but for the 3rd or 4th time now, it applies to someone building their first PC and is thinking of spending way more than this.

[Kilrah]

6 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Also, this is obviously intended for first-time builders who just want to game, and not enthusiasts. And yes, you'd prefer it. My argument is if you were young, not rich, and just wanted to put something together to play some games, $400 is actually a very good budget even buying new.

So your point is only "there are budget options". Everybody knows that. And I would still recommend going for more than the absolute minimum if any possible, to go closer to the "best bang for the buck" level.

 

Also you say this is only for people who are tight, so why do you even compare it to a $2K build?

[Marbo]

There is an element of "all the gear, no idea" 

 

People who chase the higher numbers, without any significant gain to playability. 

 

I'd argue that cyclists are worse than gamers. 

[Aereldor]

3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

So your point is only "there are budget options". Everybody knows that. And I would still recommend going for more than the absolute minimum if any possible, to go closer to the "best bang for the buck" level.

It's not the absolute minimum at all. It's a tier up from all the APU builds. The RX 570 competes well with much newer, more expensive cards, despite being almost four years old now? The 9100f is also around $70 nowadays, which is pretty great for a last-gen 4.2ghz quad core. If the Ryzen 1600af was actually $80 like it's supposed to be, that would make an even more compelling argument. 

I'm not sure what a 1200AF is going for but the i3 is faster. If it was $60 then honestly it just strengthens the argument that you can get a solid gaming experience for very cheap.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

11 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

That IS unplayable in my book. Would not consider anything lower than consistent 60fps comfortable.

And I am uncomfortable with anything under 72 FPS. It's distracting from the experience. So is seeing jagged edges in low resolutions or without enough anti-aliasing, and so is asset pop-in from too-low draw distance, etc.

6 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

So your point is only "there are budget options". Everybody knows that. And I would still recommend going for more than the absolute minimum if any possible, to go closer to the "best bang for the buck" level.

My first PC build in ~2008 was about $700 including peripherals. Was a great bang-for buck system with a Core 2 duo e7300 and a 9600 GT. Some of that hardware lasted into ~2013. I still have and recently have used the PC case I bought then. Spending a bit more to maximize bang-for-buck is always a good idea.

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, Marbo said:

There is an element of "all the gear, no idea" 

 

People who chase the higher numbers, without any significant gain to playability. 

 

I'd argue that cyclists are worse than gamers. 

Damn straight. Everyone forgets that Heinz Stucke went arount the world on this single speed delivery bike

[Aereldor]

3 minutes ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

Core 2 duo e7300 and a 9600 GT

The fucking nostalgia holy shit

[wall03]

10 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

It's not the absolute minimum at all. It's a tier up from all the APU builds. The RX 570 competes well with much newer, more expensive cards, despite being almost four years old now? The 9100f is also around $70 nowadays, which is pretty great for a last-gen 4.2ghz quad core. If the Ryzen 1600af was actually $80 like it's supposed to be, that would make an even more compelling argument. 

I'm not sure what a 1200AF is going for but the i3 is faster. If it was $60 then honestly it just strengthens the argument that you can get a solid gaming experience for very cheap.

I like how you are arguing for one spec. I am waiting for a mobo for my Ryzen 3600, RX 470 OC, 256GB SSD, and 16GB of RAM for... $600. I don't think that in the next 5 years I will encounter a game that i want to play (And I am into games like Cities: Skylines and Minecraft) that won't run. I bought the build purely so it will last long, and because my MacBook Air 2011 is crap.

 

I find that you could be arguing that people have different needs, and some people who have basic browsing needs, running Word and Excel, or something, would be fine with a $300 computer that will last them long enough.

 

Some other people, want to play games but mainly also want to edit photos sometimes and basic video editing, like me. I take photos, and want to touch them up. They would be fine with a $600 computer. Other people in this range don't know what they are doing and want a decent computer but don't know what specs they actually need.

 

Other people, edit photos, videos, etc and want a computer that can handle it. Or they are an enthusiast. Either way, they might spend $1500.

 

TL;DR: People have different needs

 

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Their point is that your argument doesn't really hold, and/or your title is outright clickbait to trigger people.   Which is true.   You're entitled to your opinion, but a budget build isn't even desired by those who just want to game.   The kids forced into it don't want to, but deal with it because they're forced too.   But, then comes the issue that they'll be stuck with those specs most likely as well when AAA titles won't run well in the future for them.  

No. The title is my honest opinion, and it doesn't change based on your perception of it. It literally says 'unpopular opinion' right there in the first two words of the goddamn title, you don't get to call it clickbait or triggerbait because you were offended by it.

I think, for a first PC, $400 is a perfectly serviceable budget for a first-time builder, because it provides a solid gaming experience for the money, and it lowers the barrier of entry to PC gaming by providing great performance at a very affordable price, because while APUs are great, the performance you get for a $250 APU build is exceedingy underwhelming. 

In terms of absolute performance (fps per dollar), I see diminishing returns starting at around $800, as I've said multiple times. However, in terms of the quality of experience, I see diminishing returns starting at $400.

With the RX 570, it competes with the GTX 1650 Super, which is usually around $175 against the 570's $125. It's 40% pricier but it sure as hell isn't 40% faster.

With the 9100F, well, it's faster than the Ryzen 3 1200 AF, which is damn near impossible to find for $75 anyway. The 3100 is faster, but it's not 40% faster. It is 40% more expensive.

My other problem is with enthusiasts being skeptical about someone's reluctance to spend more and trying to pressure people into spending way more money than they're comfortable with using enthusiast circlejerk talking points when it's not necessary to spend more than $400 to get a completely viable gaming experience, and not have to deal with the user-unfriendly approach of buying used parts.

[Aereldor]

2 minutes ago, wall03 said:

I like how you are arguing for one spec. I am waiting for a mobo for my Ryzen 3600, RX 470 OC, 256GB SSD, and 16GB of RAM for... $600. I don't think that in the next 5 years I will encounter a game that i want to play (And I am into games like Cities: Skylines and Minecraft) that won't run. I bought the build purely so it will last long, and because my MacBook Air 2011 is crap.

 

I find that you could be arguing that people have different needs, and some people who have basic browsing needs, running Word and Excel, or something, would be fine with a $300 computer that will last them long enough.

 

Some other people, want to play games but mainly also want to edit photos sometimes and basic video editing, like me. I take photos, and want to touch them up. They would be fine with a $600 computer. Other people in this range don't know what they are doing and want a decent computer but don't know what specs they actually need.

 

Other people, edit photos, videos, etc and want a computer that can handle it. Or they are an enthusiast. Either way, they might spend $1500.

 

TL;DR: People have different needs

 

Yeah but I LITERALLY SAID in the post that this only applies to people who are doing nothing besids gaming on their PCs. 

You don't need a $600 PC  just to game, especially if $600 is a stretch for you and you're hesitant about spending anything at all. $400 is a lower barrier for entry and provides perfectly acceptable performance.

[wall03]

Just now, Aereldor said:

Yeah but I LITERALLY SAID in the post that this only applies to people who are doing nothing besids gaming on their PCs. 

They are enthusiasts, they budgeted for it (I hope at least), it's their money. It's not our job to convince people to stop doing a hobby that makes them happy. I do find it weird that people want to spend > $2000 on something just for gaming, but that's their decision. They probably can afford to do so.

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, wall03 said:

They are enthusiasts, they budgeted for it (I hope at least), it's their money. It's not our job to convince people to stop doing a hobby that makes them happy. I do find it weird that people want to spend > $2000 on something just for gaming, but that's their decision. They probably can afford to do so.

I don't know why you're making this argument. I'm not telling enthusiasts to sell their PCs and buy i3s and 570s. I'm going to tear my hair out if someone who isn't following the posts in this thread accuses me of that again. I am talking about people who just want a PC to play games. 

'Hey, I'm building a PC for the first time, hoping to get into PC gaming. How much do I need to spend to have an enjoyable experience?'

The answer? $400. You could spend more, but $400 will get you plently and will run games just fine.

[wall03]

1 minute ago, Aereldor said:

The answer? $400. You could spend more, but $400 will get you plently and will run games just fine.

It depends on what game. Fallen Order is different from Cities: Skylines. It also depends what standard they have for FPS and their monitor

[Marbo]

26 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

   The kids forced into it don't want to, but deal with it because they're forced too.   .

All I can say to that is boo fekin hoo. 

 

I wish kids would drop this sense of entitlement. 

 

Hardware companies don't make their money from the enthusiast gamers. Pc gaming enthusiasts  are in a bubble of their own self importance. They really don't have a clue at how small their numbers are in comparison with the amount of computers built each year. 

 

Most kids couldn't be arsed about pc gaming. They want the instant gratification that consoles bring. No dicking about with setting up or spending hours tweaking to get clouds looking just right. 

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, wall03 said:

It depends on what game. Fallen Order is different from Cities: Skylines. It also depends what standard they have for FPS and their monitor

Oh please a 9100f will run Skylines without a strain.

Once again, 75hz. Already 3 times as fast as console (not enhanced versions) fps lol.

[wall03]

3 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Oh please a 9100f will run Skylines without a strain.

Once again, 75hz. Already 3 times as fast as console (not enhanced versions) fps lol.

How did you get that number?

[Aereldor]

4 minutes ago, Marbo said:

All I can say to that is boo fekin hoo. 

 

I wish kids would drop this sense of entitlement. 

 

Hardware companies don't make there money from the enthusiast gamers. Pc gaming enthusiasts  are in a bubble of their own self importance. They really don't have a clue at how small their numbers are in comparison with the amount of computers built each year. 

 

Most kids couldn't be arsed about pc gaming. They want the instant gratification that consoles bring. No dicking about with setting up or spending hours tweaking to get clouds looking just right. 

People might gravitate towards PC gaming because of exclusives (they exist), cheaper games... $400 as a bar for entry is way lower than what the aforementioned enthusiasts recommend, and won't discourage or turn off as many people. PC enthusiasts are definitely a rich kids club among people who play video games, although it's more of a community overlap than a subcommunity. But when someone asks 'hey, how much do I need to spend for a fun PC gaming experience?' and someone posts a $1500 PCPartPicker list with a fuckin' ultrawide monitor, 8-core CPU, and an RX 5700 xt, I get really mad.

[spartaman64]

i play an mmo called bdo and your skill animation speed is affected by the fps. when i had 60 fps i would drop combo all the time and certain mechanics like mouse move rushing wind wouldnt go off and I thought I was just bad but after I upgraded my cpu and can get 150+ fps ive havent had a problem with them. also I usually run a lot of stuff in the background like discord and chrome and im usually watching a video while I grind so the 6 cores is very useful so they don't cut into the game performance. and I got a lg ultra gear monitor and the colors are so much better than the cheap monitor i was using before. in fact i have a bit of a dilemma since I want to game on the lg monitor because its 144hz but i also want to watch videos on it since the colors are so much better. guess i buy a second one sometime down the line so i stop having to face that dilemma lol

 

it cost like 15 dollars to see a 3 hour movie so thats like 5 dollars per hour of entertainment

 

i played like 15,000 hours in bdo alone so not even counting my other games and my pc will cost about 1330 dollars to build today including everything though granted ive spent probably more like 1500 on it and ive spent like 400 dollars on bdo so thats like 12 cents per hour of entertainment 

[Aereldor]

3 minutes ago, wall03 said:

How did you get that number?

It was a joke. About the ps4 and xbox one targeting 30fps and falling short.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

3 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

'hey, how much do I need to spend for a fun PC gaming experience?' and someone posts a $1500 PCPartPicker list with a fuckin' ultrawide monitor, 8-core CPU, and an RX 5700 xt, I get really mad.

That literally never happens. People say what their budget is, and then people here post parts lists that stick to that budget, or at most like $50 more if it makes sense to spend the extra. Or at most like $50 less if it doesn't make sense to spend the extra...

[Kilrah]

6 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

But when someone asks 'hey, how much do I need to spend for a fun PC gaming experience?' and someone posts a $1500 PCPartPicker list with a fuckin' ultrawide monitor, 8-core CPU, and an RX 5700 xt, I get really mad.

Again, "fun gaming experience" has vastly differing definitions for different people. 

 

 

[Marbo]

13 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

 

it cost like 15 dollars to see a 3 hour movie so thats like 5 dollars per hour of entertainment

 

 

You are comparing apple with oranges there. The overheads of a cinema are enormous. 

 

 

What is the proportion of people who will see that movie at the cinema compared to the amount that will see it in total? 

 

Again its a minority. The majority will wait until they can get the download or DVD for $10. Then you can sort of make a comparison. What TV and sound system are you using to watch the movie? 

 

Is your enjoyment of the movie different to someone else's solely because of the equipment you have? 

[spartaman64]

Just now, Marbo said:

 

You are comparing apple with oranges there. The overheads of a cinema are enormous. 

 

 

What is the proportion of people who will see that movie at the cinema compared to the amount that will see it in total? 

 

Again its a minority. The majority will wait until they can get the download or DVD for $10. Then you can sort of make a comparison. What TV and sound system are you using to watch the movie? 

 

Is your enjoyment of the movie different to someone else's solely because of the equipment you have? 

i just talking from my perspective and what it cost me vs how much entertainment I get out of it. why should i care about how much overhead the cinema has. and sure i can rent it on youtube and pay 5 dollars for a 3 hour movie but its still 1.66 dollars per hour of entertainment and 12 cents is still much less than that

[Marbo]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i just talking from my perspective and what it cost me vs how much entertainment I get out of it. why should i care about how much overhead the cinema has. and sure i can rent it on youtube and pay 5 dollars for a 3 hour movie but its still 1.66 dollars per hour of entertainment and 12 cents is still much less than that

Again apples and oranges. 

 

You are not renting the game or the equipment to play it on. 

 

Only when you own a copy of the movie and have something to watch it on does the comparison get close. 

 

[jones177]

I just game but I like to do it at 4k 60 or 1440p 120 and my hardware reflects that. 

 

I was a 3D graphic artist for about 30 years and I started just to pay for my hardware.  Most of my hobbies have had to pay for themselves and this one ended up paying for everything. 

 

If I could not afford the hardware I like at this time in my life in the part of the world I live in I would consider myself a much poorer decision maker than I already do.