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

[Statik]

Just now, Giganthrax said:

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. 

You can't compare specs of consoles to PCs. My PS4 ran RDR2 and Metro Exodus, where I probably wouldn't even attempt that on a $400 PC, as they're considered some of  the most intensive games out to date. They're optimized completely differently, and I think it's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

There's no way we can predict what hardware is like in 7-8 years. If it worked off of console releases, then the entire PC industry would revolve around that. That would be like saying the Nvidia 3000 series, and all the subsequent releases after will be absolute garbage, because the PS5 set the standard for almost the next decade.. That's not how it works at all. The big computer companies compete with each other, and the gaming industry basically follows.

[Lord Vile]

16 minutes ago, Giganthrax said:

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. 

Lets look at the 1000 series GPU's for 1000 you're looking at a GTX 1060 with a 6600K, 8GB of RAM because it was expensive those days, a 128GB SSD and a 1TB HDD. That will not run all AAA games now at 1080p high/ultra. Just won't.

[Norwegiantweaker]

140hz 1440 has entered the chat.. 400$ is what you need just on the GPU to have a good time but keep believing lilone :3 

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, Aereldor said:

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. 

People who only have a $400 budget are likely to be in college/uni or such, and there will be plenty of people around them to have direct access to used parts or even full builds locally along with friends to help without having to resort to classifieds/forums/ebay.

 

My first PCs were all build from friends' discarded parts, most even coming for free.

[AlwaysFSX]

Well this is a fun read so why not chime in.

 

Your opinion is skewed because of how much you want to spend on a computer and the performance you're complacent with. As a few others have stated already, to varying degrees of depth, there is a quite large difference in what kind of experience you can have with a gaming computer. Putting a total build together and spending $400-450 on it will not net you a good experience from the first power on to when you finally scrap it. It's just not there. It's a machine to jump in to the world of gaming but all of it will be replaced (ideally sooner rather than later) because the performance isn't up to snuff. It's going to be slow or bottlenecked in one way, shape, or form. You can't upgrade the graphics card because the CPU will hold it back. There's no point in upgrading the CPU because the GPU is too slow and you won't get much better performance for the money. You've created a bad cycle for yourself. AAA games will run poorly now, and don't even bother trying to play AAA games that come out a few years from now.

 

You talk about how people won't notice a significant difference going from 100 to 144Hz yet your minimum performance level is 1080p 30fps?

 

There's the problem with these builds, you should strive for at least one thing when you price out a system:

-It must run the games you want, at your native resolution, and be able to maintain 60 fps.

 

Having to lower your resolution to maintain frame rate, or lower your frame rate to maintain resolution, is unacceptable.

 

Anything less than that will not be an enjoyable experience and all you're advocating for is people spending even more money down the road upgrading their system because they'll be unhappy with the experience they have. It would have been cheaper to spend more up front.

 

I say this as someone who has used what is essentially an office pc that you're describing (i3 + 950 (and a couple gpus before that too) for years, has bought a new build (r5 2600 + 1070 Ti for $550, for price perspective, MSRP for my system would probably be north of $800 if nothing was bought on sale), and over the course of 7.5 years on this forum alone put together probably a couple thousand builds of all price ranges for people. Post count on the left.

 

And you can back up a lot of user experience with data too. Steam hardware survey shows the most popular GPU right now is a GTX 1060 ($250), and a 4 core Intel CPU (~$340). $590 on those two parts alone says people don't enjoy a lesser experience with pc gaming.

 

Sums it up nicely:

1 hour ago, Statik said:

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.

 

[dizmo]

I get that it's your opinion, but who are you to say how other people spend their money? Which make no mistake, is exactly what you're doing.
You're not that entitled.

 

I get that you find it acceptable to play at low resolutions, and low frame rates. That's your choice, and if you can enjoy that, all the power to you. Other people can't stand that, and need something that looks better. And that's fine too. Don't force your views on others.

You're not that entitled.

 

I actually don't see that many builds in the $2,000 price range. They're actually pretty rare. Most are in the $800 - $1,200 range. That goes hand in hand with a majority of the users here being young. So will you see $2,000 builds from time to time? Absolutely. From those that can afford it, or those that are lucky enough to have well off parents. What's the problem with that? They want the experience they're going to get from the extra money that's spent. A friend of mine recently went out and bought a 2080Ti to replace his 1080Ti, because he wasn't maxing out his 144hz monitor. Sure, the card was $2,000. But when you're making $250k a year, it's a drop in the pot, on something he uses for hours every day.

 

I bet you don't get 60fps, and I'm betting you're not playing on even High settings though, are you? To some, that's below they level they'd like to play.

I can watch a movie at 240p that someone shot on a HandiCam for free, but I'd much rather pay the $15 to go watch it in a theater.

Different people accept different level of quality as their baseline. And that's fine. And that's none of your business.

 

Really, even at $1,500, PC gaming is an incredibly affordable hobby if you look at other hobbies, especially since that machine will last you 4 - 5 years.

Hockey? Incredibly expensive.

Anything to do with motorcycles? Incredibly expensive.

WarHammer? Don't even get me started.

 

I used to mountain bike. Apart from the cost of the bike (of which I owned a few), I'd go through $500 a season on tires alone.

That doesn't include brake pads, maintenance, repairs, the occasional lift pass, etc.

 

I really hope you stick to PCs. I don't think you could handle the cost associated with a lot of other hobbies.

 

13 hours ago, Sakkura said:

A $400 PC is kinda crap. I could understand if you were talking $800 or $1000. But the difference compared to a $400 system will be extremely obvious.

Hey now, it doesn't have to be I only paid $350 for my set up....and that's not just tower, it's everything.

Does it take leg work and patience? Absolutely. But it's doable, and frankly, if you have a really tight budget, it's what you should be doing; used parts at the very least.

11 hours ago, Marbo said:

I'd argue that cyclists are worse than gamers. 

You shut your filthy mouth

11 hours ago, Aereldor said:

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.

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.

Just like you don't get to be triggered by the fact you post something you know is going to be unpopular, and then freak out on everyone that takes issue with it.
Where's your head at?

 

I don't understand why you're arguing price to performance here. It's very basic knowledge that as performance increases, the price to performance drops.

It's the same with virtually everything.

 

Yes, but you come to an enthusiast website, what do you expect? Enthusiast opinions. Shocker.

11 hours ago, Aereldor said:

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.

This just seems like you're trying to attack people.

PC enthusiasts are not all rich kids. As someone who sells used gear on a regular basis, I can assure you a lot of them are far from it.

11 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

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 

So much of this.

People really undervalue computer games. For the amount of enjoyment you get out of them, the cost to enjoyment ratio is extremely small.

PCs are probably one of the least expensive hobbies to have.

Hell, even running can get pretty expensive over time.

4 hours ago, Aereldor said:

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.

And I joined in 2013, and have 27,000 posts. What's your point? Those numbers mean absolutely nothing.

You can't bash someone for saying something like that and then do the exact same thing. That's awfully hypocritical.

3 hours ago, NineEyeRon said:

And golfers are worse than cyclists...

Mmmm. I don't think so.

Knowing golfers, they don't spend anywhere near what I spent mountain biking.

3 hours ago, Statik said:

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.

So. Much. Truth.

I think most people that have a 3950x and 2080Ti as a first rig probably come from other, more expensive hobbies, and when they look at the cost they think "oh, wow, only $4k for a full set up? Not bad!" That's the mentality I'd probably have had, if I got into PC gaming before mountain biking, where a bike would cost me $4 - $5k.

3 hours ago, Aereldor said:

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.

You don't need a ton of knowledge to click "buy now" on an eBay auction, and throwing a card into a machine that doesn't even need a PSU cable plugged into it isn't exactly a hard ask either.

2 hours ago, Statik said:

You can't compare specs of consoles to PCs. My PS4 ran RDR2 and Metro Exodus, where I probably wouldn't even attempt that on a $400 PC, as they're considered some of  the most intensive games out to date. They're optimized completely differently, and I think it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Not only would a $400 PC have trouble, to be an accurate comparison, it'd have to be a $400 (assuming this is what the PS cost) PC from when it was launched.

Good. Fucking. Luck.

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Lets look at the 1000 series GPU's for 1000 you're looking at a GTX 1060 with a 6600K, 8GB of RAM because it was expensive those days, a 128GB SSD and a 1TB HDD. That will not run all AAA games now at 1080p high/ultra. Just won't.

That machine absolutely would run AAA games at high. I have a pretty similar system to that, and it runs most AAA titles perfectly fine.

High isn't that demanding compared to Ultra, a setting which generally isn't meant for $1,000 systems anyway.

1 hour ago, Kilrah said:

People who only have a $400 budget are likely to be in college/uni or such, and there will be plenty of people around them to have direct access to used parts or even full builds locally along with friends to help without having to resort to classifieds/forums/ebay.

 

My first PCs were all build from friends' discarded parts, most even coming for free.

That's not accurate. There's lots of people who simply wouldn't want to spend more than that on a machine that they use infrequently, but they might still have friends who play on PC that they want to play with. Cross platform is going to be an excellent addition to help this, as that person will be able to join them on a console. I'm really glad we're starting to see more and more of that.

[Mihle]

In quite a bit of newer games you will be CPU bottle necked if you go for 3300x and 5700 xt. Especially if you are going for 144 Hz. With a 5700xt, a 6 core is what fits.

[Lord Vile]

@dizmo

 

Like to see you run BL3 or Assassins creed at high with that. 

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

@dizmo

 

Like to see you run BL3 or Assassins creed at high with that. 

Any specific game can be proven to not work well, even on a top end system. It runs other AAA games just fine.

[Statik]

9 minutes ago, Mihle said:

In quite a bit of newer games you will be CPU bottle necked if you go for 3300x and 5700 xt. Especially if you are going for 144 Hz. With a 5700xt, a 6 core is what fits.

If you really want to get technical, when it comes down to it a 3300x and 3600 perform pretty much identical it games, so unless you're doing workstation tasks you're not going to be bottlenecked. 

[Trik'Stari]

I built a $2,000+ gaming rig.

 

I spend most of my free time on it. Usually watching videos on Youtube and shitposting here and on reddit. The games I enjoy most often take a small percentage of the power of my 1080ti. (Stardew Valley, etc.).

 

No regerts.

[dizmo]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I built a $2,000+ gaming rig.

 

I spend most of my free time on it. Usually watching videos on Youtube and shitposting here and on reddit. The games I enjoy most often take a small percentage of the power of my 1080ti. (Stardew Valley, etc.).

 

No regerts.

Haha, so true, considering Stardew runs fine on 3rd gen Intel mobile integrated graphics. so many days of life I'll never get back

I always get the K SKU processor. But I never overclock. *shrugs*

[Trik'Stari]

13 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Haha, so true, considering Stardew runs fine on 3rd gen Intel mobile integrated graphics. so many days of life I'll never get back

I always get the K SKU processor. But I never overclock. *shrugs*

To be fair, I have like 35 mods installed to it. If I bring it up on my work laptop, that thing tanks HARD. It does NOT like it at all.

 

And yet it's still not enough.

[Zodiark1593]

Still running a Haswell and a GTX 960 here. I don’t really play a lot of games nowadays. The most demanding thing I put to it in the past few months was probably running the CRT-Royale shader while playing a PS1 game (Digimon World). Even at 4K, my PC handles it flawlessly.  
 

Would also really love to get Final Fantasy XII Zodiac Age (this is my favorite game), abd it should run quite nicely, but with no home internet, there’s no way I’m buying any PC game that isn’t on GoG.

 

[dizmo]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

To be fair, I have like 35 mods installed to it. If I bring it up on my work laptop, that thing tanks HARD. It does NOT like it at all.

 

And yet it's still not enough.

Oh God I haven't even looked at the mods...

 

[Lord Vile]

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

Any specific game can be proven to not work well, even on a top end system. It runs other AAA games just fine.

You mean older AAA games. With a 9900K the 1060 only gets 40FPS high on Red Dead, 54 on AC and 60 on metro, all of these will take a significant hit when paired with a 6600K. 

[Aereldor]

9 hours ago, Kilrah said:

People who only have a $400 budget are likely to be in college/uni or such, and there will be plenty of people around them to have direct access to used parts or even full builds locally along with friends to help without having to resort to classifieds/forums/ebay.

 

My first PCs were all build from friends' discarded parts, most even coming for free.

That is immensely stupid. Just because their budget is $400, they're in college? They could be in school working off an allowance, not earning a lot, be generally frugal, or - and I can't stress this enough - just looking to try out PC gaming and don't want to make a huge investment.

[Aereldor]

7 hours ago, dizmo said:

You're not that entitled.

 

You're not that entitled.

 

that's none of your business.

 

I really hope you stick to PCs. I don't think you could handle the cost associated with a lot of other hobbies.

Where's your head at?

 

So. Much. Truth.

 

Good. Fucking. Luck.

If you're really aching to insult me, take it to PMs.

 

[Aereldor]

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

You mean older AAA games. With a 9900K the 1060 only gets 40FPS high on Red Dead, 54 on AC and 60 on metro, all of these will take a significant hit when paired with a 6600K. 

At what settings, 'ultra' settings? Watch this video, seems like nobody has. 

The amount of performance sacrificed for basically indetectable visual improvements is astounding. Yeah, I said it, medium and ultra may as well be the same, and this is from someone who has made mods and textures for games.

[Lord Vile]

12 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

At what settings, 'ultra' settings? Watch this video, seems like nobody has. 

The amount of performance sacrificed for basically indetectable visual improvements is astounding. Yeah, I said it, medium and ultra may as well be the same, and this is from someone who has made mods and textures for games.

Those are at high. The post i replied to also said Ultra/High. 

 

There is a significant difference in medium and ultra in most settings.

 

Look at Crysis 3 at 3:35, the aliasing on the bow at medium in insane.

 

 

Plus on the BF1 screen shot on medium there's literally window frames missing and the door looks like it belongs on a PS2.

[dizmo]

13 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

If you're really aching to insult me, take it to PMs.

Funny. The last two weren't even directed at you, but nice try.

If you can't handle it, don't post your opinions where people will give there's in response.

 

[Mihle]

8 hours ago, Statik said:

If you really want to get technical, when it comes down to it a 3300x and 3600 perform pretty much identical it games, so unless you're doing workstation tasks you're not going to be bottlenecked. 

If you play games and your goal is 60hz and rather put graphics settings higher, then 3300x is fine, but if your goal is frame rates of 144++ Hz, then 3300x would be bottleneck of 3300x and 5700xt.

 

And my guess is that if you get a 3300x you will feel you need a upgrade for it faster.

 

(Talking if you only do games and nothing else)

[Mateyyy]

Spent around $1500-1600 on my current daily system (roughly converted to USD, and yes, tech prices in general here locally are abysmal), excluding the graphics card which I had purchased prior. Upgraded from a Z87 rig equipped with a 4670K, built either in late 2013 or very early 2014, I can't really recall.

 

If I had to say that I regret anything about it, it's probably that I didn't wait for Zen 2. PCs and tech in general are one of my biggest hobbies and I use this system on the daily, and considering I managed to get 5+ years of use out of my previous machine which at the time wasn't exactly high-end (if I had gone with a 4770K it more than likely would've still been good today), I'd expect to get at least that long out of this current rig (though obviously predicting how hardware's going to age is stupid). And even when I do end up upgrading in who knows how many years, it's not like these parts will be going to waste.

 

I definitely think that it's always worth spending a little extra now if it means it'll last longer (though saying it this way is a little too generalised since something costing more doesn't mean it's better). As it's been said previously in this thread, even today with a budget machine (let's say around $500), you'll very likely have to upgrade much sooner for it to keep up than say something like a $1000-1200 machine.

 

On that note, $1000 PCs have gotten so much better compared to what you could get say 5-6 years ago. Like today, for that money, you could probably put together a 3600 and 5700XT machine, which offers super solid performance now, both for gaming and general tasks and even light work, and a great base for upgrades to come (thanks, AM4), so I think the $1000 mark has become the sweet spot for PCs today. Enthusiasts will obviously spend more (or a lot more in some cases), but you'd be looking at a much, much smaller difference when you're comparing a $1000 PC and a $2000 PC, as opposed to when comparing a $500-600 PC to a $1000 PC.

 

Hopefully this all makes sense, proofreading on 3 hours of sleep is kind of tedious lol

[Mihle]

In games, medium and ultra definitely look different usually, medium and high too, but usually much less difference between high and ultra.

 

Also, at least to me it's easier to get s feel on how good a game looks or not when actually playing it yourself and not watching a YouTube video.

[Aereldor]

25 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Funny. The last two weren't even directed at you, but nice try.

If you can't handle it, don't post your opinions where people will give there's in response.\

I didn't get a message from you. Not gonna respond to personal insults on the forum.