The REAL cost of building a Gaming PC/buying a high end GPU

[TheNelsonsVlog]

What is one of the main reasons why a person would choose a gaming PC over a gaming console? I mean besides the Massive amount of games you have access to online. For a PC gamer one of the main reasons they choose PC gaming over console is for better graphics! Right? I mean, this is why we spend $300 to $600 on one single part of the system. The GPU. Some even spend more then that if you are lucky enough buy multiple GPUs. 

 

As a PC Hobbiest who has built a few gaming PCs. In my experience i'm finding that there is a added cost to PC gaming that is NOT covered in the total cost of buying a gaming PC or in prebuilt gaming systems. (Example ibuypower pcs) Many don't even consider or take time to include this part in their total PC gaming budget. This one part they are forgetting is crucial in getting the "maximum" PC gaming experience in my opinion. That additional part and cost would be the gaming Monitor. 

 

Yes! This is the shiny thing that really is the most important component of your build. The display is the experience, right? That is if you want to separate your gaming experience on PC from home consoles. 

 

If you think about it, one of the main reasons you buy the newest and most popular PC game is for the graphics. Am I right!? For example - Star Wars Battlefront. Great game visually. Available on home consoles and PC. I've played it on both. In my experience there was absolutely no comparison that the graphics were WAY better on my PC then on console. It made for a much better gaming experience and it was sssooo much easier to pick out the snipers way in back or hidden in the high detailed bushes.

 

For those that want to know my test was done on a Xbox One and my personal gaming PC. I used the same 1080p Samsung 2ms response "non" gaming monitor for both.

 

Even with my non gaming monitor my overall gaming experience on PC was better but there were plenty of issues when I played. This has nothing to do with my gaming PC. I have a GTX 970 which is a beast GPU. Not the best but definitely a good Graphics card. My PC is able to max out settings for most games at 1080p and some at 1440p but while gaming I run a lot into what is called screen tearing or lag. It is extremely frustrating. This is because my monitor can't keep up with what my GPU is outputting. Now for many games you can turn on Vsync which dumbs down the GPU so your monitor can keep up. This is not what I am looking for when I game on my PC. Having experienced this I have looked into getting a new gaming monitor only to find that many cost almost as much or more then my PC itself!

 

This is where I have a problem. I watch a lot of YouTube. Mainly PC/Hardware reviews buy many famous and semi famous YouTubers including Linus Tech Tips, Jaystwocents, PaulsHardware, Austin Evens, Tek Syndicate and Awesomesauce Network just to name a few that I personally watch and are some of the more well known reviewers. I feel that a lot of build logs and reviews will say "You can build a console killer gaming PC for just $400, $500 or $800!" Or "check out this new GPU that cost $300 to $600 add it to your PC and get better graphics!" Whatever your budget is. Those that follow believe this is what they need to up their gaming experience and move to PC. So they save up some cash however long that takes and build their new PC or buy the new GPU. 

 

What is not generally considered is that the reviewer is testing the "gaming experience" on a high end monitor. I'm talking 4K IPS with GSync/Freesync running at least 144hz or more. Keep in mind this is not the reviewers fault at all. It makes sense for the reviewer to review this way because they are testing what that PC/GPU can do if you have the best equipment. Problem I'm seeing is that these reviews never cover what monitor the buyer should have or what they should consider buying when they build this PC or buy a 980ti GPU and include that in the cost. 

 

Side thought- Doesn't this also defeat the purpose of the FPS benchmarks if their monitor is not capable of keeping up with the GPU even at minimum 1080p? 

 

At least minimum specs would be nice so the viewer knows what they need that will support what the shiny new graphics card is outputting. As a tech savvy PC gamer I know what to look for but many times first time builders get so caught up in the build they forget about this most important part. Manufacturers don't make it easy either. The cheapest very low end 1080p gaming monitor I can find will run you around $200 but that is only bare minimum.  More decent monitors are going for about $400 -$500 and high end will burn $1000 or more in your pocket. Yikes! The main problem is not the graphics. At minimum nowadays most monitors are set up for 1080p but the monitors ability to accept the output of your rig to keep things smooth and non pixelated is not there.

 

So consider you are a first time builder and the video review you just watched for a PC you want to build is for a $500 console killer PC. If you do consider the monitor then the true cost is $700. For a $800 build, it's $1000 or more depending on the monitor you choose.

 

Makes buying a high end gaming laptop seem worth it. Considering they are portable, take up less space, come with a trackpad/keyboard and laptop monitors are built (usually) with the hardware in mind.

 

After watching so many build videos and GPU reviews I feel this is something that should be included more when doing a reviews. There are plenty of high end monitor reviews. Not so much for the lower end market and again, this is never covered in build logs or GPU reviews. I even think manufacturers should add something to the box so the buyer knows what they are in for. For many, paying $500 for a decent monitor isn't possible. Explaining your purchase decision to a non gaming spouse can also make you look a little insane!

 

If you have ever asked a non tech person who wants a gaming PC if their monitor can support what their GPU is outputting they generally have no clue. They usually hook it up to their outdated monitor they probably got from a friend or bought on the cheap. Or they hook it up to a regular TV which is not much better. The buyer is then force to deal with the low end viewing experience of their monitor after spending a small fortune on the PC. Something they can get for much less if they bought a console. The question is are they getting the full experience of the PC/GPU they just spent a bunch of money on? I think not!

 

Anyway, this is just my thoughts this subject. What do you think?

 

This is my first real forum post and I wanted to see what the community thought on this subject! Feel free to post your thoughts below or offer suggestions for what you think would be a good solution. Thank you -James

[Enderman]

 

3 minutes ago, TheNelsonsVlog said:

Anyway, this is just my thoughts this subject. What do you think?

i think you need to put a TLDR

[MEC-777]

TL;DR - Incorporate the cost of a good monitor as well, where/when applicable. 

[Enderman]

Just now, MEC-777 said:

TL;DR - Incorporate the cost of a good monitor as well, where/when applicable. 

well you dont incorporate the cost of a $4000 tv with a console, so....yeah

everyone uses whatever they want, a $10 tv or a $4000 tv

[Flowey]

8 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

i think you need to put a TLDR

HAHAHA Sure needs one

[Flowey]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

well you dont incorporate the cost of a $4000 tv with a console, so....yeah

everyone uses whatever they want, a $10 tv or a $4000 tv

Pretty good point right there sir. An obvious one, but I couldn't say it better myself

[TheNelsonsVlog]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

i think you need to put a TLDR

Haha! I guess your right. It's a bit long but it covers all my thoughts on the subject. I would add its a long read but I'm on my phone and can't edit the post 

[MEC-777]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

well you dont incorporate the cost of a $4000 tv with a console, so....yeah

everyone uses whatever they want, a $10 tv or a $4000 tv

That's why I said "where/when applicable".  

 

For someone getting into PC gaming for the first time and wants to use a monitor instead of their TV, but doesn't have one - they will have to incorporate that cost into their budget for the build.  

[OddsCrazyStuff]

Of course, it dont matter how high end you pc is, if your monitor is not up to par.

To put it into perspective, so would it be like gaming with a PS4 on an old CRT TV.

 

Which is why I went with the crazy/deluxe version and got 5 27" monitors, for a 7200x2560 (or 4320x2560 when I need 16:9) gaming experience.

[Prysin]

14 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

i think you need to put a TLDR

i think he needs more then just a TL;DR

 

Also, gotta love people who spend 2000 USD on their "budget console killer". just to be rocking a 23" 60Hz 1080p TN monitor. Talking about "da great graphics"....

[shadowbyte]

monitors aren't that expensive

v-sync doesn't "dumb down" your gpu, it simply limits your framerate, resulting in a smoother overall gaming experience.

If you're coming from a console, 60Hz will be a massive step up from the low framerates you are accustomed to.

I myself built a console-killer pc for 180 dollars.

I got the GPU for free, had a hard drive from an old laptop, and already owned the PSU. 

I use an old IBM thinkvision monitor, which I got for free.

It's only expensive if you want to max out every game at 1080p.

 

[Prysin]

@TheNelsonsVlog

FPS doesnt really matter. Frame Timing is what you want, as that is the only metric that can tell you if the image you see on the screen is stuttering/lagging.

 

FPS meter will just tell you if the GPU is supplying enough frames to keep the monitor fed.

[Djole123]

11 minutes ago, OddsCrazyStuff said:

To put it into perspective, so would it be like gaming with a PS4 on an old CRT TV.

That reminded me of this:

 

 

 

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Djole123 said:

That reminded me of this:

 

 

 

Can the Wii get 60FPS at 640x480?

[MEC-777]

9 minutes ago, Prysin said:

@TheNelsonsVlog

FPS doesnt really matter. Frame Timing is what you want, as that is the only metric that can tell you if the image you see on the screen is stuttering/lagging.

 

FPS meter will just tell you if the GPU is supplying enough frames to keep the monitor fed.

FPS does matter. Even with good frame timing, 60fps is still way better than 30. 

 

Frame timing consistency and consistent higher minimum fps is more important than average and max fps. 

[Djole123]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

Can the Wii get 60FPS at 640x480?

Yes.

 

And BTW that is certiandly not a 640x480 TV. My 4" phone has a resolution of 800x480, and it was good, so this TV is 144p at best

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

FPS does matter. Even with good frame timing, 60fps is still way better than 30. 

 

Frame timing consistency and consistent higher minimum fps is more important than average and max fps. 

FPS matters depending on application.

 

fucking 1990s sidescroller? 30 FPS is fine

most MMOs, 30FPS is fine

RPGs, 30 FPS is mostly fine

Racing games - 60 FPS is very helpful

FPS games - less then 60 FPS is just painful

[MEC-777]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

FPS matters depending on application.

 

fucking 1990s sidescroller? 30 FPS is fine

most MMOs, 30FPS is fine

RPGs, 30 FPS is mostly fine

Racing games - 60 FPS is very helpful

FPS games - less then 60 FPS is just painful

That's where it becomes subjective. Some people don't notice and don't care. Other people can't stand anything below 60. 

 

IMO any/every game benefits and looks better from running at 60+ vs 30 - unless the game's engine/physics is dependent on the frame rate (though, not a single game I've played is like that). 

 

So yeah, FPS matters depending on application and individual. 

[Djole123]

Just now, MEC-777 said:

That's where it becomes subjective. Some people don't notice and don't care. Other people can't stand anything below 60 or more. 

 

IMO any game benefits and looks better from running at 60+ vs 30 - unless the game's engine/physics is dependent on the frame rate (though, not a single game I've played is like that). 

 

So yeah, FPS matter, but it depends on the application and individual. 

 

 

I agree. In my case, 60FPS is good, but I can live even with 24.

[MEC-777]

5 minutes ago, Djole123 said:

 

 

I agree. In my case, 60FPS is good, but I can live even with 24.

Anything below about 50 looks like a slide show to me and I can't stand it. It's a matter of perception and preference.

[Flowey]

32 minutes ago, OddsCrazyStuff said:

Of course, it dont matter how high end you pc is, if your monitor is not up to par.

To put it into perspective, so would it be like gaming with a PS4 on an old CRT TV.

 

Which is why I went with the crazy/deluxe version and got 5 27" monitors, for a 7200x2560 (or 4320x2560 when I need 16:9) gaming experience.

WTF dude some people have so much money liek, how? I guess I'm only nineteen so my income ain't that great (still about 5-10 bucks over canadian minimal wage tho, fuck yeah!)

[SImoHayha]

it just depends. My PC was 800$. I use my TV and a old Sony monitor. I care about a balance of FPS and graphics. So while my TV is exactly a monitor it works just fine for me.

[juretrn]

There are some issues with your post that might illustrate a lack of experience or knowledge of PC hardware. You can of course just buy a Fresync/Gsync/Whateversync monitor for big bucks right now, and you are correct, they are very expensive ATM, However, as with everything tech related, with greater adoption and greater manufacturing numbers you can very much expect the prices to go down quite a bit - to reasonable levels. 

Of course, I would expect that higher framerate monitors would remain expensive for the foreseeable future, since they are such a niche product and 99.99% of PC users don't need such monitors. However, it still makes sense to test GPUs for their FPS performance, even if you are getting 100+ FPS on a 60 Hz monitor. Why? Higher the FPS, lesser the chance of annoying FPS drops. 

And consider this as well: monitors are still worlds better than (great majority of) TVs, which were never designed to handle fast-moving images like games (twitchy FPS games anyone?). 

If you are looking into a console-killer PC, it is quite safe to assume that while the monitor will not be amazing, it will still be better than any TV people with such budgets might have. IMO, 500 €+ "gaming" monitors aren't the top decision for anyone, not if they are on a budget, and rightly so. The added value is not quite there, compared to a better GPU. 

I hope I have managed to illustrate what I believe is the actual state of the monitor buyers' mindset.

[handymanshandle]

I do have to say that if you don't have peripherals (monitor, keyboard and mouse) they are pretty important to include.

Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse and Speakers can cost about $454, which sure you could get like an AmazonBasics combo and get a cheaper monitor and maybe skip the speakers or get cheaper ones. However, if you've just dumped like $1000 on your PC, give it some decent peripherals.

 

[Guest]

 

2 minutes ago, wcreek said:

I do have to say that if you don't have peripherals (monitor, keyboard and mouse) they are pretty important to include.

Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse and Speakers can cost about $688, which sure you could get like an AmazonBasics combo for a lot less than a Logitech K750 and MX Master.

 

$110 Monitor for a nice IPS 1080p

$100 Keyboard for a nice one 

$30 for a pretty good mouse

$50 Decent Speakers

$290 ---- 

Most people already own these things anyway.

The thing I see most people buy is a new mouse.