Jump to content

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

soundlogic

I dunno, everyone has their own needs for their own hardware. I've spent south of a grand on my PC and I do desire more, but I'm happy enough with it. But if someone's got the money to spring for something nicer, why shouldn't they spring for it? It's their money. I don't give a shit about what happens there. Same with someone who's only got $400 for a full setup; stretch it out as much as you can to get the best your cash can offer. 

 

Price to performance isn't the only driving factor in building a PC, nor should it be an end-all-be-all. The predominant reason for me getting what I have was that it was the best for what I needed (video encoding) in a specific price bracket, but if I had the money to piss on whatever, I'd definitely have a Threadripper of some sort. 

Check out my guide on how to scan cover art here!

Local asshole and 6th generation console enthusiast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I don't really consider p2w games true games.   I consider it a fool's tax if anything and it's worse than the lottery because you probably don't have a chance at a cash prize.

im sort of fine with it in that game since you can get everything without paying as long as you put in the time and as i said its ridiculously expensive to p2w and because of the rng system ive seen people pay 25,000 dollars and get absolutely nothing. actually they got less than nothing since failing enhances lowers the durability of the gear LUL so if they want to try to p2w and help fund the servers then be my guest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I don't really consider p2w games true games.   I consider it a fool's tax if anything and it's worse than the lottery because you probably don't have a chance at a cash prize.

Exactly, you can have the best money can buy and someone will still beat you using a potato. 

 

Intel don't give LTT the best cpu to review because they think it will sell that cpu to the viewers. They just want you to buy Intel full stop. But there are a lot of viewers who see this and think they must have it. These are not true consumer reviews, they are showcasing the best. There lower end chip market is far more valuable. If you asked me if I'd like the profits from the 10900k or the 10100 s I'd go with the i3 any day. 

 

I have done a lot of kids football coaching and the pressure on parents to buy the best most expensive boots is unreal. Having the same boots a Lionel Messi won't improve your game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the number of hours people use their pc's for so many other uses than just gaming, the amount spent divided by the life span of the item is very very minimal, as a hobby PC gaming is incredibly cheap.  The differences in things like high end monitors and cheap one is non trivial once you use them, and that difference only grows the more hours you have into such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can somewhat agree with your opinion depending on the particular case.

I mean I can see not recommending to a first time gamer to spend more then the cost of a just get by system or a console.

Not knowing for sure what is going to please them the most for their money.

 

Then on the flip side people are different individuals and to some people the look is very important to them.

When I first started gaming I was more excited about the visual look then the competitive enjoyment.

I played a lot of single player stuff back then and your right things are at a higher level now.

 

The thing is though for me the details, the look is at least 50% or more of the enjoyment for me.

If it's a rocking goods game, I'm laughing and enjoying myself. If it looks crisp and beautiful to me while all that is happening.

Then I'm on next level enjoyment.😆

Like for example I love the Green team look but hate the Red team look.

I have had two consoles and hated what to me was the blobby graphics look.

 

A particular crisp graphics look gives me pleasure in gaming.

I can't say why exactly but it just does something for me.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny. I spent ~$700 getting a GTX 960, new mobo, and FX 8350. I have no idea how you managed to get that for $450. I can't play modern games from the same freaking generation now above a stuttery twenty something at 1080. Ubi games in particular use way too much Vram. Ghost Recon Wildlands, Steep, and the Crew all run 30 fps max at 1080 and minimum quality. Steep is literally an empty mountain, and along with GR Wildlands, the low textures look worse than PS2 yet it still takes 3gb of Vram. It's actually fascinating how shit and poorly optimized it is. My brother has a slightly newer laptop with more Vram and it doesn't run a whole lot better.

 

Yet meanwhile I can run GTAV on medium at 80-90 FPS. Though in defense of my PC, none of those Ubi titles run well on the console they're designed for either. Optimization is basically just a thing that doesn't exist this gen

#Muricaparrotgang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Funny. I spent ~$700 getting a GTX 960, new mobo, and FX 8350. I have no idea how you managed to get that for $450. I can't play modern games from the same freaking generation now above a stuttery twenty something at 1080. Ubi games in particular use way too much Vram. Ghost Recon Wildlands, Steep, and the Crew all run 30 fps max at 1080 and minimum quality. Steep is literally an empty mountain, and along with GR Wildlands, the low textures look worse than PS2 yet it still takes 3gb of Vram. It's actually fascinating how shit and poorly optimized it is. My brother has a slightly newer laptop with more Vram and it doesn't run a whole lot better.

 

Yet meanwhile I can run GTAV on medium at 80-90 FPS. Though in defense of my PC, none of those Ubi titles run well on the console they're designed for either. Optimization is basically just a thing that doesn't exist this gen

Let's see if I remember correctly

I3 4160 - $100ish. I only got this cause it was down from $115 and the G3258 had inflated to about $80
B85M board - $60ish
2x4gb DDR3 - $30-40
GTX 960 - $170 IIRC. I bought literally the cheapest 2gb 960 I could find, it was $50 more than a 750 Ti at the time

1TB HDD - $40

Case - $30. Cooler Master N300. I paid $60 for it but they sent the version without the window, so I just asked for half off.

PSU - $30 - actually managed to get an international version of the Seasonic S12ii 430 for just $30, it still runs flawlessly

AC Odyssey is the only Ubisoft game I've run on it, and it ran fine, but I didn't like the game. It ran at 1080p medium 30fps, generally quite stable.

I'm upgrading to a 9100F soon, so I can donate the old system. Keeping the 960 though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aereldor First off I just want to point out that your main response to people in the comments has been that your post is regarding first time PC buyers building a gaming PC, I've read the OP three times and nowhere do you say this is referring to first time buyers. Second, your whole argument is how people don't need all this fancy jazz and spending more than $400 is a waste of money(yet your 9400f/ RX570 recommended PC build is $550+ for new parts). Plus you add that your i3 4160 build from 2015 is still perfectly fine for you and you don't need anything more. Yet in your signature and on your profile page you list that you have a 7700HQ/GTX 1060 build with a 1440p OLED monitor. So I'm just a little confused. Is the rig in your signature and on your profile a sham? Or are you just trying to argue with people about something? I may not be understanding your intentions or how this whole thing is made out but I'm just a guy who thinks that people can spend their money on whatever they want, and if they want a nice gaming PC so they can play games at maximum settings at 2k or 4k at 100fps or more then that's their decision. I have been a part of this community for about 2 years now and have helped a lot of people with a lot of things, probably 60% have been build list requests or help, there are some that are first timers that have a $400 to $600 budget or even less, however, a majority are users who want to spend a decent amount of money and get something good that will allow them to play at higher settings, resolutions, and refresh rates for many years. I personally try to recommend the best computer someone can get for their specific budget and needs, without going unnecessarily over or cutting performance to go under.  Just because you are fine with playing games at low-medium settings 1080p 30fps doesn't mean everyone is. And at the end of the day it's none of your business or others if someone spends their money on something they want. To me your OP just seems like a stab at people who have nice things, and comes off as a little jealous. Like "How dare someone spend more money than I would to get something they want.". 

Main Desktop: CPU - i9-14900k | Mobo - Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite AX DDR4 | GPU - ASUS TUF Gaming OC RTX 4090 RAM - Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB 64GB 3600mhz | AIO - H150i Pro XT | PSU - Corsair RM1000X | Case - Phanteks P500A Digital - White | Storage - Samsung 970 Pro M.2 NVME SSD 512GB / Sabrent Rocket 1TB Nvme / Samsung 860 Evo Pro 500GB / Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2tb Nvme / Samsung 870 QVO 4TB  |

 

TV Streaming PC: Intel Nuc CPU - i7 8th Gen | RAM - 16GB DDR4 2666mhz | Storage - 256GB WD Black M.2 NVME SSD |

 

Phone: Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 4 - Phantom Black 512GB |

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

your 400-600$ PC is worst value than a 700-1300$ build. after you step above a 5700 and a 3600x your getting into lots of money for little gain but that doesn't mean there isn't a point. for many its a hobby or how we help make money. as a hobby I don't care about setting aside 400-500 every other year for upgrades. yeah my first buy in was almost 2k but most will be reused for the next 10 years+

 

Good luck, Have fun, Build PC, and have a last gen console for use once a year. I should answer most of the time between 9 to 3 PST

NightHawk 3.0: R7 5700x @, B550A vision D, H105, 2x32gb Oloy 3600, Sapphire RX 6700XT  Nitro+, Corsair RM750X, 500 gb 850 evo, 2tb rocket and 5tb Toshiba x300, 2x 6TB WD Black W10 all in a 750D airflow.
GF PC: (nighthawk 2.0): R7 2700x, B450m vision D, 4x8gb Geli 2933, Strix GTX970, CX650M RGB, Obsidian 350D

Skunkworks: R5 3500U, 16gb, 500gb Adata XPG 6000 lite, Vega 8. HP probook G455R G6 Ubuntu 20. LTS

Condor (MC server): 6600K, z170m plus, 16gb corsair vengeance LPX, samsung 750 evo, EVGA BR 450.

Spirt  (NAS) ASUS Z9PR-D12, 2x E5 2620V2, 8x4gb, 24 3tb HDD. F80 800gb cache, trueNAS, 2x12disk raid Z3 stripped

PSU Tier List      Motherboard Tier List     SSD Tier List     How to get PC parts cheap    HP probook 445R G6 review

 

"Stupidity is like trying to find a limit of a constant. You are never truly smart in something, just less stupid."

Camera Gear: X-S10, 16-80 F4, 60D, 24-105 F4, 50mm F1.4, Helios44-m, 2 Cos-11D lavs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

A hobby is a hobby, fishing and golf are the same! People spend £400 every other year for a new driver or rod...

 

Over the course of 5 years, if nothing but a GPU is upgraded then generally it comes out as good value. Games are cheap for the most part.
 

I am not buying new golf clubs this year but the changes to my bag I would like are way more than I can afford, my irons are from 2007, driver from 2013 and putter from 2010.

i5 8600 - RX580 - Fractal Nano S - 1080p 144Hz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

@Aereldor First off I just want to point out that your main response to people in the comments has been that your post is regarding first time PC buyers building a gaming PC, I've read the OP three times and nowhere do you say this is referring to first time buyers.

I'm not referring to enthusiasts, because what they do falls outside of gaming. I'm not referring to people who are building their 2nd or 3rd PC, I'd assume by this time they're enthusiasts. I figured it was implicit, since the argument is predicated on the fact that I don't think an $800 'best bang for  buck' PC is even necessarily twice as good an experience as the $400 cheapo PC.

 

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Second, your whole argument is how people don't need all this fancy jazz and spending more than $400 is a waste of money(yet your 9400f/ RX570 recommended PC build is $550+ for new parts). 

Wrong. I said 9100F, not 9400F. The 9100F is $70 and an H310 motherboard is $50. I'd say 8GB of RAM in a single stick with the option to upgrade later. Sure, $435 if you get a 500GB SSD, and I'd hope to find a better deal on a power supply. I've recommended this config with the i3 9100F, an H310 motherboard, and an RX 570, prices fluctuate between $375 and $450, currently at an upper limit, although sometimes I'd reluctantly recommend a 250gb SSD with the option to expand later, which I still think is enough for a few games.
 

Spoiler

 PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: Intel Core i3-9100F 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($74.48 @ Amazon) 
Motherboard: MSI H310M PRO-VDH PLUS Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($56.99 @ Walmart) 
Memory: ADATA 8 GB (1 x 8 GB) DDR4-2666 CL19 Memory  ($26.49 @ Amazon) 
Storage: Patriot Burst 480 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($45.99 @ Walmart) 
Video Card: MSI Radeon RX 570 8 GB GT OC Video Card  ($123.98 @ Newegg) 
Case: DIYPC Solo-T2-BK Black USB 3.0 ATX Mid Tower Case  ($37.96 @ Newegg) 
Power Supply: Corsair CX (2017) 450 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($69.93 @ Newegg) 
Total: $435.82
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-07-06 15:13 EDT-0400

 

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Plus you add that your i3 4160 build from 2015 is still perfectly fine for you and you don't need anything more. Yet in your signature and on your profile page you list that you have a 7700HQ/GTX 1060 build with a 1440p OLED monitor. So I'm just a little confused. Is the rig in your signature and on your profile a sham? Or are you just trying to argue with people about something?

That is not a build. You can't do a build with a 7700hq, it's a laptop CPU, and the build in my signature is a laptop - an Alienware 13R3 that I bought used in 2017 before I went to college. Like I said, I can't justify a purchase like that for gaming. For college, I was going to be doing a fair bit of video editing. My major is music performance, and for my major and professional promotion, I have to edit and render lots of videos. I also wanted something that was very solidly built, because I've been clumsy with my electronics before, and the 13R3 has a steel plate inside it. I also needed something with coverage of the Adobe RGB colour space, because I have side gigs as a photographer and I used to work with prints often, so a 100% sRGB display wouldn't have sufficed.

The Alienware 13R3 was bought primarily for that. The cheapest version I could find with a 7700HQ, OLED panel, and SSD, just happened to have a 1060 in it. To this day, I've only ever played Rocket League, Jedi Fallen Order, and the first hour of RDR2 on it.

 

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

I have been a part of this community for about 2 years now and have helped a lot of people with a lot of things, probably 60% have been build list requests or help

I don't know where you think you're going with this tribalistic 'don't mess with my community' angle. I joined this forum on July 3, 2015, just prior to building my PC (the one with the i3), and have been posting here for over 5 years, almost 6,000 posts mostly doing the same thing. So cut that out.
 

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

a majority are users who want to spend a decent amount of money and get something good that will allow them to play at higher settings, resolutions, and refresh rates for many years. I personally try to recommend the best computer someone can get for their specific budget and needs, without going unnecessarily over or cutting performance to go under. 

I have done the same, but I think the notion that you need to spend more than $400 to have a passable PC gaming experience is patently false. And yes, I'm going to stand by my argument. A 9100F + RX 570 will run 1080p 60fps medium settings on most modern titles, or close enough to feel like it. 

The difference between medium and ultra isn't immense anymore. It's subtle. Watch that 2KliksPhillip video in the original post. The difference between 20FPS and 30FPS? Undeniable. The difference between 30FPS and 60FPS? Obvious to everyone. The difference between 60FPS and 144FPS? More subtle to the untrained eye. Diminishing returns after 60, more people notice 60 to 75 than 75 to 100, say. But this is anecdotal.

 

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

 Just because you are fine with playing games at low-medium settings 1080p 30fps doesn't mean everyone is.  

This is what my GTX 960 and Core i3 4160 does. I'm fine with it, not saying everyone has to be, which is why I'm recommend a $400 9100F and RX 570 combo, and not an APU. I said my old PC can handle that just to make the point about longevity - I didn't buy top-end hardware like a 4790k and a 980, but it still runs shit 5 years later. Will it run stuff in 2024 the way a GTX 580 and an overclock 2600k can run shit today? Probably not, but I got 5 years out of the fucker.

Games don't run amazingly, but they're completely playable. Don't confuse one argument for another. That was a comment on the longevity of even a budget Haswell/Maxwell system from 5 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aereldor said:

Let's see if I remember correctly

I3 4160 - $100ish. I only got this cause it was down from $115 and the G3258 had inflated to about $80
B85M board - $60ish
2x4gb DDR3 - $30-40
GTX 960 - $170 IIRC. I bought literally the cheapest 2gb 960 I could find, it was $50 more than a 750 Ti at the time

1TB HDD - $40

Case - $30. Cooler Master N300. I paid $60 for it but they sent the version without the window, so I just asked for half off.

PSU - $30 - actually managed to get an international version of the Seasonic S12ii 430 for just $30, it still runs flawlessly

AC Odyssey is the only Ubisoft game I've run on it, and it ran fine, but I didn't like the game. It ran at 1080p medium 30fps, generally quite stable.

I'm upgrading to a 9100F soon, so I can donate the old system. Keeping the 960 though.

 

Again, that's not a $400 system. It's 460-470 plus Windows. And that's with a crappy case and PSU, and no SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours 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. 

And golfers are worse than cyclists...

i5 8600 - RX580 - Fractal Nano S - 1080p 144Hz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Again, that's not a $400 system. It's 460-470 plus Windows. And that's with a crappy case and PSU, and no SSD.

This was 2015, when SSDs were expensive, and I said $450. $460 is pretty damn close to $450. Of course, there was the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, which set me back another $120 or so. My original build was around $300-350, using a Pentium G3258, an R7 260x or GTX 750 Ti, and the literal cheapest H81 board - the MSI H81M P33, which was like $35 and had no front panel usb 3.0 headers, but could overclock the G3258. The only reason I upgraded to an i3 and the 960 was because the g3258 price was inflated at the time, and I found the 960 for cheap. 

I had to get the B85 board because I kept waiting for the cheap H81 board to be in stock and it never showed up, and this was the cheapest B85 board available at the time, cheaper than many H81 boards to be fair.

The Seasonic ECO-430 is NOT a crappy power supply. It's basically a rebranded S12ii and has worked reliably for 5 years. Or are you going to call me a scrub for not putting a Corsair AX Platinum in a $450 build from 2015? 

I got a windows key from a mate, every time Dell services a PC they'll leave an OEM key for installation, that can only be used once, but is not restricted to Dell PCs. I know cause when my alienware got serviced - like 5 times the first year, thank fuck for the warranty - they gave me a new key every time. I've given a few away to my friends to use for their custom PCs so they don't have to deal with the activate windows watermark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

A 9100F + RX 570 will run 1080p 60fps medium settings on most modern titles, or close enough to feel like it.

Today yes, tomorrow probably not. And when it's not anymore most of the low end components are worthless.

 

I've lost enough money on upgrades when I was at the point where I had tight budgets and had to slowly move up the ladder (not necessarily with PC gear) to recommend going too low end. Better save a few months more and get mid-end that'll last instead of buying low end and after about as many months as you'd have waited have to replace and ditch the gear as pure loss because nobody wants to buy it from you.

 

  

3 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

and I said $450.

Your OP says 400, so we're moving already.

 

  

10 hours ago, Aereldor said:

The difference in experience between a $400 PC and a $2,000 PC

 

10 hours ago, Aereldor said:

And I think the performance you can get today for $400

 

F@H
Desktop: i9-13900K, ASUS Z790-E, 64GB DDR5-6000 CL36, RTX3080, 2TB MP600 Pro XT, 2TB SX8200Pro, 2x16TB Ironwolf RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Antec Vortex 360 AIO, Thermaltake Versa H25 TG, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary, Mountain Everest Max

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB SX8200Pro RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Asus Zenbook UM325UA, Ryzen 7 5700u, 16GB, 1TB, OLED

 

GPD Win 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument that first time builders should buy $400 PCs is kind of a moot point. Sure it grinds my gears when someone makes a post saying "Hey a 3950x and 2080Ti a good combo? First pc!", and I think people try to level with them and bring them down a bit, but it's their money, so who cares?

 

Sure you hit a point where you get diminishing returns, but here's my 2c on it.

 

Until last fall I was rocking a FX-8320, and GTX 770, and always believed "all you need is 30fps 1080p". But after upgrading to a 3800x + 2080 Super with a 3440x1440p monitor, I realized how massive the difference it is. Sure you can get by with a cheapo rig, but the experience is (IMHO) unparalleled. I noticed the difference between 1080p and 1440p the second I loaded into windows. I'm not saying it's the biggest bang for your buck, but anyone who claims the difference between a $400 build and a $2000 is barely noticeable is foolish. I would say it's like comparing a used beater $1000 car, and a modern Lexus off the lot, they both get you point A to point B, but one does it a hell of a lot nicer.

 

I don't think there should even be a debate on how much first time buyers should spend. If you can afford it, and you want to buy it, then buy it. People understand they can pinch pennies and still get a PC, but they willingly spend more money for a better gaming experience.


Also there's the argument of longevity. I would much rather spend $2000 on a PC that destroys games for 5+ years (i.e. a 4790k + 980Ti combo still competes today), then spend $400 on a tin can, then 1-2 years later realize my 30fps machine is now a 25fps machine, and constantly throw money here and there to keep it swinging.

 

I.e. I would rather spend 2k at once for several years of 144hz gaming, then spend 2k over several years to slowly upgrade and maintain a 30fps machine.

Gaming Build:

CPU: Ryzen 7 3800x   |  GPU: Asus ROG STRIX 2080 SUPER Advanced (2115Mhz Core | 9251Mhz Memory) |  Motherboard: Asus X570 TUF GAMING-PLUS  |  RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4 3600MHz 16GB  |  PSU: Corsair RM850x  |  Storage: 1TB ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro, 250GB Samsung 840 Evo, 500GB Samsung 840 Evo  |  Cooler: Corsair H115i Pro XT  |  Case: Lian Li PC-O11

 

Peripherals:

Monitor: LG 34GK950F  |  Sound: Sennheiser HD 598  |  Mic: Blue Yeti  |  Keyboard: Corsair K95 RGB Platinum  |  Mouse: Logitech G502

 

Laptop:

Asus ROG Zephryus G15

Ryzen 7 4800HS, GTX1660Ti, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz, 512GB nVME, 144hz

 

NAS:

QNAP TS-451

6TB Ironwolf Pro

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Kilrah said:

Today yes, tomorrow probably not. And when it's not anymore most of the low end components are worthless.

 

I've lost enough money on upgrades when I was at the point where I had tight budgets and had to slowly move up the ladder (not necessarily with PC gear) to recommend going too low end. Better save a few months more and get mid-end that'll last instead of buying low end and after about as many months as you'd have waited have to replace and ditch the gear as pure loss because nobody wants to buy it from you.

People said this about the RX 470 in 2016 when it struggled to beat a 1050 ti. Look at it and the 570 now, competing with the 1650 super 4 years later. Not saying it'll live forever, but this card fucking lasted, thanks to AMD's incredible driver support.

I agree that technological advancement has increased greatly, the reason my 2015 rig held up was because of stagnant, iterative improvements (Haswell and Maxwell were 2014?) Ryzen/Polaris/Navi shook that up in a big way. 

Someone who knows the market and is looking at longevity, an upgrade path, the life of a platform, I would classify as an enthusiast. But someone who literally wants to know what's the minimum that needs to be spent to have a competent PC gaming experience with the user-friendly approach that retail hardware has over used, then this $400 combo is exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Statik said:

 it's their money, so who cares?

Hey man. Well, a lot of people seem to be defending the concept of human freedoms here. I'm not trying to control people and force them to buy cheaper/more expensive stuff. This was an expression of an opinion with my arguments to substantiate it, the first two words in the title are 'unpopular opinion', and given how the honourable computer enthusiasts have come out in force to strike me down, it was very unpopular indeed lol.
 

4 minutes ago, Statik said:

\Until last fall I was rocking a FX-8320, and GTX 770, and always believed "all you need is 30fps 1080p". But after upgrading to a 3800x + 2080 Super with a 3440x1440p monitor, I realized how massive the difference it is. Sure you can get by with a cheapo rig, but the experience is (IMHO) unparalleled. I noticed the difference between 1080p and 1440p the second I loaded into windows. I'm not saying it's the biggest bang for your buck, but anyone who claims the difference between a $400 build and a $2000 is barely noticeable is foolish. 

I didn't say it was barely noticeable. But is it 5 times better? I don't think so. It's not even twice as good, but it sure as hell is 5 times the price ($400 vs $2000 for the sake of argument). The more you spend - beyond a certain point - the more subtle the differences become. I think that point is $400 and not $800 in terms of experience, and $800 in terms of absolute numerical 'fps per dollar'

 

6 minutes ago, Statik said:

I don't think there should even be a debate on how much first time buyers should spend. If you can afford it, and you want to buy it, then buy it. People understand they can pinch pennies and still get a PC, but they willingly spend more money for a better gaming experience.

Well, I think there's a toxicity in this 'PC Master Race' culture that promulgates the false notion that a $400 PC is crap. It's not. Experience-wise, diminishing returns start there. Yes, people can spend more, people can do whatever the fuck they want, this is just my extremely unpopular opinion, that for gaming, diminishing returns for the experience begin a lot sooner than is purported. An $800 gaming PC is great. It's great value, I think the 3300x/3600 pair with a 5700/xt is probably the best value out there, I've recommended this to dozens of people. 

But I think if the bar for entry is that high - $800 - well, that's a problem that serves to drive newcomers away from PC gaming. $400 is about what you'd pay for a console.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aereldor said:

 I honestly don't understand it.
My opinion's probably pretty skewed

"Bingo" and "Bingo"

 

lets substitute gaming with driving.

 

A car only needs to go as fast as the speed limits allow, and only need the space for the stuff you need to transport.

Yet theres people with huge pickups that can do 200mph, with massage chairs, wooden and gold or diamond dashboard  inlays and other stuff thats never "needed" or "performance per dollar", and all they do is cruise 1 day a weak at the spead limit for 30 minutes on a sunny day to pick up 2 bags of groceries.

 

Why? Because they can afford it, like the sound of the engine, love the smell of leather chairs, or whatever floats their boat. They tend to get a lot of enjoyment from the "unnecesary frills for only minor returns" or something like that. You dont get to decide "the bulk of enjoyment comes from just moving from a to b" for them.

 

A simple small modern sedan 2nd hand of a few years old can do the same job, is better bang for buck, and is a marvel of technology compared to cars 20 years ago. As you say, such a deal  "makes a compelling argument". Unless.... you can easily afford a new car with everything you just like even if you dont need it; without the budget as an argument anymore, just get what the frick one likes :). And maybe you dont like to accelerate quickly, but others do, let them have their fun and their own requirements set for their enjoyment,

 

Further down the thread you go on about circle jerking on expensive parts. So what? Maybe the overkill car owner described above attends car shows (organized circle jerk for that). If you dont want to see that, just move on to other threads about less expensive stuff and or lower performance targets.

 

Dont waste your time to rub your view of budgets, "what to enjoy", whats good enough, what needs to be justified on others - as you said, its a opinion, not a fact for just everone to accept. Here in the forum ive seen a lot of respect for any budget, from $1 up to thousands. For any budget mentioned in new builds and planning i see a ton of helpfull responses with parts lists, bang for buck info etc.

 

Never seen a "hey my budget is $400" or "csgo at 50fps is good enough" request be met with any kind of response claiming "you should spend 1500 more".

 

If the really helpfull people here respond with hints, tips, comparisons of components etc to get the most out of $400 of parts, why is that not a circle jerk but if the same happens with a $2000 budget it suddenly is?

 

 

Your not even really portraying a opinion, just a perspective. A homeless kid in a 3rd world country playing a game with a wooden stick and stone would have the "unpopular opinion" that $400 bucks to enjoy a game is $400 bucks overkill and represents a year of food ->Thats not a opinion, just a perspective based on poverty ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

But I think if the bar for entry is that high - $800 - well, that's a problem that serves to drive newcomers away from PC gaming.

It's not that high in reality. It only is in your scenario because you're dismissing 2nd hand gear.

F@H
Desktop: i9-13900K, ASUS Z790-E, 64GB DDR5-6000 CL36, RTX3080, 2TB MP600 Pro XT, 2TB SX8200Pro, 2x16TB Ironwolf RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Antec Vortex 360 AIO, Thermaltake Versa H25 TG, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary, Mountain Everest Max

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB SX8200Pro RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Asus Zenbook UM325UA, Ryzen 7 5700u, 16GB, 1TB, OLED

 

GPD Win 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Kilrah said:

It's not that high. It only is in your scenario because you're dismissing 2nd hand gear.

I've build tons of PCs for around $100 with Dell optiplexes or Core 2 Quads from junkpiles. Building from used parts is extremely user unfriendly, and requires a significant amount of prior knowledge to get good deals on. Otherwise you have to keep asking on a forum to check if parts that become available around you are compatible, generally a pain in the ass. 

$400 will get you a very competent gaming PC, and save you that pain in the ass all at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

A $800-1000 gaming PC will easily be able to run modern AAA titles at 60+ fps 1080p for 5-6 years on high/ultra settings. I have a GTX 1070 and a Ryzen 5 1600x, and the only game I had to run on medium is RDR2. Everything else I can just crank up the graphics settings and rarely, if ever, see them dip below 60. 

 

Anything more expensive than that gives you only incremental gains, and only makes sense if you're really into competitive CS:GO and you need it to have a stable 144+ fps. 

 

A $400 PC would probably suck, but if you picked your components wisely you could make it easy to upgrade at a later date, or maybe not even have to upgrade if all you play is CS:GO, LoL, Valorant, etc. 

Ryzen 1600x @4GHz

Asus GTX 1070 8GB @1900MHz

16 GB HyperX DDR4 @3000MHz

Asus Prime X370 Pro

Samsung 860 EVO 500GB

Noctua NH-U14S

Seasonic M12II 620W

+ four different mechanical drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

I didn't say it was barely noticeable. But is it 5 times better? I don't think so. It's not even twice as good, but it sure as hell is 5 times the price ($400 vs $2000 for the sake of argument). The more you spend - beyond a certain point - the more subtle the differences become. I think that point is $400 and not $800 in terms of experience, and $800 in terms of absolute numerical 'fps per dollar'

PC's are never going to scale exactly like that. If a $500 PC gets you 30fps, a $1000 won't get you 60, etc. Like I said previously yes depending on how much you spend, and the components you choose you're going to get diminishing returns, but the point in which you get diminishing returns depends on plenty of factors (the games you play, the resolution you play at, the refresh rate you play at, etc.), so there's no one number in my opinion that is "the"  ideal price point. It's entirely subjective.

 

30 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Well, I think there's a toxicity in this 'PC Master Race' culture that promulgates the false notion that a $400 PC is crap. It's not. Experience-wise, diminishing returns start there. Yes, people can spend more, people can do whatever the fuck they want, this is just my extremely unpopular opinion, that for gaming, diminishing returns for the experience begin a lot sooner than is purported. An $800 gaming PC is great. It's great value, I think the 3300x/3600 pair with a 5700/xt is probably the best value out there, I've recommended this to dozens of people.

But I think if the bar for entry is that high - $800 - well, that's a problem that serves to drive newcomers away from PC gaming. $400 is about what you'd pay for a console.

I agree that the "PC Master Race" has toxic traits, but so does almost every community in every hobby. In my opinion, a $400 PC is crap. If you're trying to play Minecraft and WoW, or older/easy titles like such, then you're golden. My SO runs my old 8320 + 770 combo for Sims, Worms, etc and loves it. But if you're trying to play any modern title (RDR2, Tomb Raider, Metro, etc, etc, etc) a $400 rig just straight up isn't going to cut it. And if you can somehow squeak by, by the time the next years titles roll out, you're back at square 1.

 

I feel you can get by with an $800 PC, but you need to pinch pennies in certain aspects, especially if you need peripherals. 

 

I for one, and probably near this entire forum would agree with you that a 3600 + 5700XT is basically the best value build out there right now. There's almost no debating that. The issue is, a 3600 + a B450 board + 5700XT is running you damn near $800USD right there. By the time you throw in a PSU, RAM, Storage, and any other bits and bobs you may need, you're easily surpassing $1000. That's without peripherals.

 

Not to mention the way you've been handling other peoples opinions, and the way half the comments have gone has just turned this into a dick measuring contest. I feel a way more appropriate title would have been "What is the best value for first time builders", or "how much SHOULD people spend on gaming PCs" and discuss that. Instead of telling the majority of the community they're wrong, and getting into pissing contests when you disagree with eachother.

 

Gaming Build:

CPU: Ryzen 7 3800x   |  GPU: Asus ROG STRIX 2080 SUPER Advanced (2115Mhz Core | 9251Mhz Memory) |  Motherboard: Asus X570 TUF GAMING-PLUS  |  RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4 3600MHz 16GB  |  PSU: Corsair RM850x  |  Storage: 1TB ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro, 250GB Samsung 840 Evo, 500GB Samsung 840 Evo  |  Cooler: Corsair H115i Pro XT  |  Case: Lian Li PC-O11

 

Peripherals:

Monitor: LG 34GK950F  |  Sound: Sennheiser HD 598  |  Mic: Blue Yeti  |  Keyboard: Corsair K95 RGB Platinum  |  Mouse: Logitech G502

 

Laptop:

Asus ROG Zephryus G15

Ryzen 7 4800HS, GTX1660Ti, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz, 512GB nVME, 144hz

 

NAS:

QNAP TS-451

6TB Ironwolf Pro

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Giganthrax said:

A $800-1000 gaming PC will easily be able to run modern AAA titles at 60+ fps 1080p for 5-6 years on high/ultra settings.

This is completely untrue, and there's no way to verify that. We have zero idea where gaming, and technology will be in 2 years, nevermind 5-6. My first PC was perfectly fine and ran 60fps 1080p when I first bought it, yet 5 years later it was more of a 30-40fps machine.

 

While something like a 3300x + 2060 is a great, cheap 1080p machine now, it's quite unlikely that it will be as powerful in 6 years, not to mention we have no way to predict that

 

Gaming Build:

CPU: Ryzen 7 3800x   |  GPU: Asus ROG STRIX 2080 SUPER Advanced (2115Mhz Core | 9251Mhz Memory) |  Motherboard: Asus X570 TUF GAMING-PLUS  |  RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4 3600MHz 16GB  |  PSU: Corsair RM850x  |  Storage: 1TB ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro, 250GB Samsung 840 Evo, 500GB Samsung 840 Evo  |  Cooler: Corsair H115i Pro XT  |  Case: Lian Li PC-O11

 

Peripherals:

Monitor: LG 34GK950F  |  Sound: Sennheiser HD 598  |  Mic: Blue Yeti  |  Keyboard: Corsair K95 RGB Platinum  |  Mouse: Logitech G502

 

Laptop:

Asus ROG Zephryus G15

Ryzen 7 4800HS, GTX1660Ti, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz, 512GB nVME, 144hz

 

NAS:

QNAP TS-451

6TB Ironwolf Pro

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Statik said:

This is completely untrue, and there's no way to verify that. We have zero idea where gaming, and technology will be in 2 years, nevermind 5-6. My first PC was perfectly fine and ran 60fps 1080p when I first bought it, yet 5 years later it was more of a 30-40fps machine.

 

While something like a 3300x + 2060 is a great, cheap 1080p machine now, it's quite unlikely that it will be as powerful in 6 years, not to mention we have no way to predict that

 

I'm talking about a 800-1000$ computer with current components. Look at the specs of the upcoming consoles. Basically every AAA game in the next 7-8 years is going to be designed to run well on those specs, and you can totally get an equivalent or better PC now. 

Ryzen 1600x @4GHz

Asus GTX 1070 8GB @1900MHz

16 GB HyperX DDR4 @3000MHz

Asus Prime X370 Pro

Samsung 860 EVO 500GB

Noctua NH-U14S

Seasonic M12II 620W

+ four different mechanical drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×