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

[Aereldor]

39 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

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.

Nobody's going to stop and look at a fuckin doorframe Jesus. That's your argument for spending more on a gaming PC? The doorframe looks slightly different?

How much does the doorframe or the aliasing on the bow actually affect your enjoyment of the game? If the answer is anything besides 'not at all', that's a serious problem. 

[Aereldor]

Also, here's screenshots from Skyrim running at a locked 1080p 60fps with 200 mods - some of mine, some 3rd-party - on a Core i3 4160, a 2GB GTX 960, 8GB of RAM, and screen capture software. You don't need to settle for potato graphics on older hardware. Just look at what optimization and mods can do with The Witcher 3 - medium settings and Super Turbo Lighting Mod will blow Ultra out the fucking water.

https://imgur.com/a/pty1X

[Lord Vile]

5 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Nobody's going to stop and look at a fuckin doorframe Jesus. That's your argument for spending more on a gaming PC? The doorframe looks slightly different?

How much does the doorframe or the aliasing on the bow actually affect your enjoyment of the game? If the answer is anything besides 'not at all', that's a serious problem. 

Called pop in mate...

 

Based off that you'd just play everything at low because the games mechanics are in no way affected by the graphics, it's noticeably worse graphically which was the issue. 

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Also, here's screenshots from Skyrim running at a locked 1080p 60fps with 200 mods - some of mine, some 3rd-party - on a Core i3 4160, a 2GB GTX 960, 8GB of RAM, and screen capture software. You don't need to settle for potato graphics on older hardware. Just look at what optimization and mods can do with The Witcher 3 - medium settings and Super Turbo Lighting Mod will blow Ultra out the fucking water.

https://imgur.com/a/pty1X

Oh wow a 10 year old game and mods which aren't available for every game and needs a fairly sizeable modding community behind it, well done? 

[Trik'Stari]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

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

 

Stardew Valley Expanded is the most important one. Adds a lot to the game. Including a better farm layout all around.

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Oh wow a 10 year old game and mods, well done? 

Skyrim Special Edition was released at the end of 2016. Modded - Oldrim too for that matter - it looks better than 90% of games released today, and user-created content has far exceeded anything in the majority of modern AAA titles. The writing in The Forgotten City, 3DNPC, Helgen Reborn, blows all but the best games today out the fucking water.

The Witcher 3 was released in 2015 and is still considered graphically intensive today, despite obvious downgrades. I can't immediately tell the difference between medium and ultra, but it halves your framerate. I can't tell the difference at all if you leave textures and shadows on high and put everything else on low and use SSAO. I can immediately tell the difference with a mod like STLM, which doesn't eat that much performance (at least it didn't on my PCs).

Ultra settings don't mean what they used to anymore. Once again, linking this video. 

 

[Aereldor]

40 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

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)

This applies to the $400 PCs too. You can get a 4.2ghz quad core, an RX 570 (on par with more expensive 1650 super), a 250gb/500gb ssd, and even a quality PSU. $500 and change will get you a 75hz IPS freesync monitor and maybe even a mechanical keyboard.

The performance you get out of a $400 PC today far exceeds that of a $400 PC in 2014, even relative to the time. Think Pentium g3258 (even though that's my favourite chip of all time) and a 750 ti. 

[Sakkura]

9 hours ago, dizmo said:

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.

 

Yeah used parts changes the game, I was talking retail prices. 

[Lord Vile]

14 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Skyrim Special Edition was released at the end of 2016. Modded - Oldrim too for that matter - it looks better than 90% of games released today, and user-created content has far exceeded anything in the majority of modern AAA titles. The writing in The Forgotten City, 3DNPC, Helgen Reborn, blows all but the best games today out the fucking water.

The Witcher 3 was released in 2015 and is still considered graphically intensive today, despite obvious downgrades. I can't immediately tell the difference between medium and ultra, but it halves your framerate. I can't tell the difference at all if you leave textures and shadows on high and put everything else on low and use SSAO. I can immediately tell the difference with a mod like STLM, which doesn't eat that much performance (at least it didn't on my PCs).

Ultra settings don't mean what they used to anymore. Once again, linking this video. 

 

They jus don't though, the engine is still old and honestly I'd put Arkham knight over Modded Skyrim mainly due to engine features like enhanced rain. Plus with mods you have the issue of them actually working, loading them in the right order and none of the clashing. You're relying on modders who aren't paid and don't always maintain their stuff, mods not clashing and then possibly spending significant time fault finding. Oh and some mods tank performance.

 

Turn hairworks off...

 

I literally sent a scrrenshot of why that video is BS. Unless the featured weapon of the game being surrounded in a cloud of pixels isn't noticeable? So what is it, do graphics matter or not? Or are you just going to flip flop to what's best for each point? 

[Trik'Stari]

32 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

They jus don't though, the engine is still old and honestly I'd put Arkham knight over Modded Skyrim mainly due to engine features like enhanced rain. Plus with mods you have the issue of them actually working, loading them in the right order and none of the clashing. You're relying on modders who aren't paid and don't always maintain their stuff, mods not clashing and then possibly spending significant time fault finding. Oh and some mods tank performance.

 

Turn hairworks off...

 

I literally sent a scrrenshot of why that video is BS. Unless the featured weapon of the game being surrounded in a cloud of pixels isn't noticeable? So what is it, do graphics matter or not? Or are you just going to flip flop to what's best for each point? 

To be fair, when it comes to any Bethesda game, the mods get better support and updates than the game actually does because Bethesda.

[Lord Vile]

28 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

To be fair, when it comes to any Bethesda game, the mods get better support and updates than the game actually does because Bethesda.

True the modders normally fix all the game breaking bugs bethesda doesn't bother with. 

[Statik]

6 hours ago, Mihle said:

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)

If you only play games and nothing else, the 3300x and 3600 preform essentially identical. The 3600 does not beat the 3300x in games. So how is a bottleneck present if they both do literally the same thing? 

[FakeNSA]

I think you are surrounding yourself with enthusiasts here.

I agree that you don't need to spend thousands to have fun with a PC, unless you are @Den-Fi.

 

However, I am a bit confused by the $400 system line.
This parts list is as close as I got to that number, and it is $450. Am I missing something?

 

Anyway, I agree that there is a bit of a culture of overspending on your first gaming computer, but I don't know if $400 is the entry price I would recommend either.

I have seen more longevity, personally, out of buying slightly more expensive components. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bartholomew]

7 hours ago, Aereldor said:

Nobody's going to stop and look at a fuckin doorframe Jesus. That's your argument for spending more on a gaming PC? The doorframe looks slightly different?

How much does the doorframe or the aliasing on the bow actually affect your enjoyment of the game? If the answer is anything besides 'not at all', that's a serious problem. 

So. Someone tells you they look at the doorframe (logical thing to do if someone claims quality settings do nothing).

Next thing heir existance is denied because "nobody is going to stop and look at the doorframe".

 

Not only that, there seemingly not allowed to enjoy that (didnt know the law against that). To top it off, there not allowed to answer anything else but agreement on you opinions otherwise "they have a serious problem". Which raises the question, is that a threat, or are you a licensed doctor, or are you law enforcement and there is actually a law against it?

 

If you wonder if there's people who do get enjoyment from level of detail and aliasing specifically, and do notice when its not up to par, i recommemd this thread (spoiler alert:  it has over 140 pages, enjoy )

 

 

Theres people who enjoy games purely for gameplay, thats true, regardless of eye candy, framerate. No argument there, and that can be enjoyed for like $400 bucks (but also for $4000 if the pockets are deep enough).

 

Theres also people who care little about gameplay and just want to look at pretty graphics, or get their enjoyment  from reaching that 1 fps more due to tweaking that soo manyeth setting. Others are just bored and have a ton of money to spend, or just use gaming as an excuse to get hypnotized by 14 rgb fans.

 

Now here's the thing, that last group can, will, and is allowed to do that, wheter you say/think "not at all, and if they do, they have a serious problem" or not.

 

[SpookyCitrus]

22 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.

I didn't take that angle with this at all, I saw that you have been a member for years. I just added my experience on the forum for context. I wasn't going for what you think even in the slightest. Sorry if you thought I meant it that way.

 

22 hours ago, Aereldor said:

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

My bad, I accidentally read it as a 9400f instead of 9100f, but the point still stands, you're looking at $450ish with a 240GB SSD and $480ish with a 500GB. Which for a budget system I'll grant you is not bad, but comparing a $450 budget gaming computer to one that is $1000 plus and essentially calling people who buy the $1000 plus system dumb for going with it is ridiculous. If someone has the money for something they want, they should be able to get what they want without being judged, and again like I said most people that build gaming PCs want the best performance they can get for their budget. Most people know that they can't play AAA games at higher graphical settings over 60fps with a $450 system or even a $500 system and even if they could it will only be for a year or two the way graphical advancements are going, hence why most set their budget above that. 

 

22 hours ago, Aereldor said:

  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.

Regardless if someone is a first time builder or not, what gives you the right to judge someone over what they spend their money on? If someone wants to get into the hobby and spend $450 on a budget gaming computer to get them started they can, and same goes for the person who wants to spend thousands of dollars on a gaming computer, they can. It's their money. Your whole argument is based on how YOU think it's not worth it. Most people that have a $1000 budget for a computer are going to use that whole budget to build their computer and get the best performance they possibly can for their money. They aren't going to just say "Hey, why spend the $1000 I have on a computer that will not only last me longer but also play any game I want over what I want to play at? When I can just get a $450 entry level PC and use that for two years until I have to upgrade it to maintain my performance." I just don't see how you can actually think just because someone is new or hasn't built a computer before they shouldn't be able to get a computer for over $450, that's absurd. 

[JoeCoke]

At 400$ you're skimping on your storage and power supply and just generally cutting corners. 500$ is the absolute lowest I'd go for on a new parts system. As for the used route, 400$ is a great price point if you're using an existing sandy bridge dell or something like that as a starting point. a 40$ sandy bridge Xeon still has a lot of fight left in it!

[Tristerin]

Everyone is allowed an opinion - just remember what you call "too much" isn't shit to some people.  I buy used when I can and never own top of the line, personally, because it doesn't mesh well with my values, needs and beliefs/goals - but your statement is quite generic imho and really not a lot of thought went into it.  

 

I really have one question:

 

Have you actually viewed in RL an actual high end monitor at 144 FPS?  

 

Because once you do, you realize that things are NOT equal, not even close. 

[Bartholomew]

16 hours ago, Caroline said:

prices are just inflated

True in some areas, due to the human malware and in/export wars /embargoes and stuff.

However, 20 years ago every household had a pc, there was much larger volume and thus relative production cost was lower. Now its a nkche market (office pc market is much larfer than gaming, but these use purpose build custom mobos etc so dont comtribute to the manufacfuring volume of enthausiast private builders part much).

 

Hence, its actually a bit of a miracle that prices havent blown up more (likely thanks to improved manufacturing automation partially compensating).

 

Additionally, in the 286,386,486 and early pentium era and alike era's, it was like "double the speed" was stilll quite slow compared to today and the jumps in power and frequencies had fewer impact om other stuff in the designs like pcb layout trackng and vrm capabilities. By now, weve reached more difficult barriers, and returns on invested effort and compoments are declining, making smaller jumps more expensive. Yet again, im amazed its still "affordable" and not even higher priced than currentlly is actually.

 

16 hours ago, Caroline said:

you could build a $1000 computer and spend another $1000 ON THE GRAPHICS CARD ALONE just because it has a meme Ray Tracer function no games use or

You bring important key-info to the table here: "could". Dont have to, so whats the issue. If you would, you at least enjoy the power. Imagine the people you see driving lamborgini, they spend a million on a fast car and are stuck at the same speed limit and spend time in the same traffic jams. No problem, since you dont "have" to, but you "could", again, whats the issue your trying to portray? Yes its expensive, so what. Back i n the day the first pentium cost about the same as a 2nd hand car when it came out, no problem for me, since i didmt "have" to buy it. Why is a component today any different?

 

16 hours ago, Caroline said:

They don't care to innovate or improve performance anymore,

But if they add dlss, or rtx, or low latency, or tensor, like, the new stuff, that doesnt count as innovation just because you dont like it? Lets take rtx,I agree completely in playing atm its hardly noticable to the end user "now".

 

However, it conceptuallt simplifies the rendering pipeline and effort for developers while (even if now only noticable in a few effects and objects) at the same time making more realistic renderingd possible. A dev team now needs hundreds of shaders, each to be programmed with a ton of math knowledge needed. Once performance becomes better, in a few years that will no lomger be neccesary et-all anymore. Granted we are not there yet, but to get there steps are needed for one, common api (dxr), two at least some hw acceleration (rtx), three, the funds to do so (thus, those who do want it now, pay a premium).

 

When voodoo was released (look it up) it was flat blocky textures with hardly any filtering, low fillrates, small buffers and thus rudimentary shapes etc. It was however enjoyed, even if it wasnt 4k, with tesselation, twenty filtering and aliassing options, or 144hz. That didnt make it "crap" or useless, it where steps up to where we are now.

 

And they dont care to improve performance? Or are they becomming more limited by physics and power limits etc? Are this generations cards slower than previous gen? Or is there a improvement? (Yeah, the days that every year or so performamce doubled are over,  wed all like to see more, but its becomming progressively harder).

 

On a positive note, lets say that performance will stall for 10 years, if that would be true then a 2080ti isnt that expensive (imagine spending $400 dollars each year for 10 years because performance doubled, because that was the name of the game in the early days when performance did skyrocket).

 

17 hours ago, Caroline said:

d edgy plastics and heatsinks to the motherboard or more layers to an SSD chip

Agree on the plastics, but they cost a dime so who cares. If you want to learn that a heatsink actually serves a purpuse look up buildzoids videos. Or do a experiment on a cheap 4 phase heatsinkless vrm with a 3950x. (Thats not to say there arent useless heatsinks though, because there are some).

 

Youd rather pay lets say $300 dollars for a slc ssd than $100 dollars for a equally fast and capacity ssd? (Bacause thats the difference between 1 or 3 layers on a ssd chip from a consumer perspective).

 

17 hours ago, Caroline said:

if you go for the edgy teen look with backlit keyboards and weird mouses with 14.000 DPI just because "the aim feels better" (it's actually the same as in a $5 mouse but hey, it's all in the mind after all) or a 200 Hz monitor because moo speed bettah you end up with a $3000 build

Why teen? Cant a adult enjoy his or hers rgb in peace

 

So, what. Doesnt every teen or toddler want this or that toy, or brand clothes or shoes to feel better? That costs money as well. But if its a pc parts suddenly they are jnder the doom of satan?

 

What exactly is the problem if people have some money and can buy the things they want (not need), and they enjoy that?

 

How do you respond if you see someone driving a supercar? (Shout at hem "Moo speed bettah"? to "call them out"?), gonna post a rant about how cars are overpriced, controls are now plasticky, and oh my darn these cars even have rgb lights in the footwell and other places, so teenie ?? These cars cost $500k plus, and over the last generations the speed didnt even improve that much, yet their owners seem to love them, must be frustrating to see...

 

(or the other option: be happy for them and leave them be, Id rather see them enjoying that than crying and frustrated over other things, like "what other people like or have").

 

 

 

[Underi]

Definitely an unpopular opinion. I've a ~800€ rig from 2018 and I'm still looking to upgrade. Back then I only had a 1TB hard drive and a 120gb ssd, now I have a 500GB NVME SSD and just upgraded from 3TB to 6TB worth of mass storage since it was running out. Also my GPU is barely running Red Dead Redemption 2 at 60fps on LOW. For 400€ you're getting a very basic rig that will run games from 2015 or before on 1080p. Good luck trying anything relatively modern like Battlefield V, Control or RDR2.

[WkdPaul]

* thread locked ... as usual, people can't seem to be able to deal with the opinion of others ... *

 

Right ... true, not everyone need $2000 PCs, and some of you might be fine with a $400 build, but that doesn't mean this applies to EVERYONE. When people ask for help with a build ; work with their needs and budget, not yours ( whether it's looking at new parts, used part, or if it's a $300 build or a $4000 one !!! )

 

As per the Community Standards ;

Quote

Remember your audience; both present and future.