Why do people pay to be at the bleeding edge for a non-esports gaming computer?

[beavo451]

15 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

You erected a strawman. I tore it down. I never mentioned money. This wasn't about money, it's about why people feel the need to always be at the bleeding edge even though the thing they have will work almost just as well as the thing they're getting. 

You really are that dense aren't you?

28 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

 

Why do people pay to be at the bleeding edge for a non-esports gaming computer?

 

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

You can run all of those on something like a 2600k or 2700k just fine lmao

sure you can run them, but the minimums will be eons better on a i7... which both the 2600k and 2700k is...

[flibberdipper]

21 minutes ago, Prysin said:

sure you can run them, but the minimums will be eons better on a i7... which both the 2600k and 2700k is...

You said that those games "required these new processors." Not "it runs better on i7's" or whatever. You tried to wiggle your way out, but it didn't work.

 

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

You said that those games "required these new processors." Not "it runs better on i7's" or whatever. You tried to wiggle your way out, but it didn't work.

 

well who the fuck is so dumb that they go buy a old ass gen processor?

 

Also, you know there is a quote function, and that no matter how much i edit my post, the quote do not get affected?

[flibberdipper]

2 hours ago, Prysin said:

well who the fuck is so dumb that they go buy a old ass gen processor?

 

Also, you know there is a quote function, and that no matter how much i edit my post, the quote do not get affected?

They're still good deals, and there's those odd people that bought them when they were new and still use them. At least try thinking at a 3rd grade level, please.

[Lays]

3 hours ago, WereCat said:

If you play e-sport you don't need this because e-sport games are made so that they will run on potato.

You need this if you want 144Hz + in newest AAA games. 

I also bet that a lot of people are upgrading from a way older HW and waited for 7xxx release. Its not like people are upgrading from 6xxx or 4xxx.

@wrathoftheturkey

 

I probably will after I sell my 6700k, I want that daily 5+ ghz OC :]

[XenosTech]

6 minutes ago, Lays said:

@wrathoftheturkey

 

I probably will after I sell my 6700k, I want that daily 5+ ghz OC :]

Send that 6700k my way lul... I'll build another system with my i5 with a cheaper board and give it away

[The_Baguettes]

4 hours ago, corrado33 said:

I don't get it. Intel launches their new 7### series and this site is FLOODED with "Where can I buy i7-7###k" or "i7-7### vs i5-7###" or "7### vs 6###".

 

Not more than a week ago all of those 7s were replaced with 6s. Why pay the premium for a GAMING machine? Is your gaming significantly hindered by those 2-3 fps less? Is the game more "fun" with those 2-3 fps more?

 

Now, if you play competitive e-sports, I could see some sort of justification, but the vast majority of people don't. It doesn't make sense. 

 

I mean, everyone is pumped for AMDs new products, but is the performance increase (if there is one) worth it? A properly built gaming rig could easily last you at least 3 years, still playing at max or close to max settings on most new games. Much more if you upgrade the GPU down the line somewhere. 

 

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I just can't understand. 

Some people just like to build and CPUs aren't the best example people go crazy over GPUs. 

[Mooshi]

The same reason people splurge on Platinum meme ram or grab a $100 aio for an i5--because reasons. 

[glunday]

4 hours ago, tmcclelland455 said:

You can run all of those on something like a 2600k or 2700k just fine lmao

theres a difference in just running the game and running it with i textures and high fps well

[ARikozuM]

I honestly can't remember the last time I didn't buy a X70 and X80 at time of launch...

 

I think the 1080 is one of the biggest improvements in a long time.

[Noyu]

4 hours ago, shadowbyte said:

because why the fuck not

^this

(although I'm not one of the guys OP described,)

 

[Lays]

1 hour ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

In that case, you are the person OP seems to have beef with

I invite op to fight me irl ???

[mad dudy]

I don't know maybe people with older rigs are looking for an upgrade. It's like ask why would anyone buy the samsung S8 if they have the S7 or itrash 8 when they have the itrash 7.

[SteveGrabowski0]

6 hours ago, corrado33 said:

You erected a strawman. I tore it down. I never mentioned money. This wasn't about money, it's about why people feel the need to always be at the bleeding edge even though the thing they have will work almost just as well as the thing they're getting. 

How many people here have you seen saying they're upgrading their 6700k to a 7700k?

[Tacos4all]

6 hours ago, SageOfSpice said:

Some people just like technology, building computers, and seeing in action how technical specifications and theory function in reality. Other people simply don't want to be held back from anything they enjoy. Others yet further participate in e-sports.

 

There are a lot of people in this world with a lot of reasons to do the things they do. Perhaps we don't always agree with these reasons or see the logic behind this rationale, but it exists nonetheless.

 

If you really sit back and contemplate anything you see on a daily basis, does any of it honestly make sense?

We just... Can. 

This guy pretty much nailed it. For me, when I built my PC in 2012, I got what would be considered a mid-High end PC. i5-3570k, 8GB RAM, 2TB HDD, ASRock z77 Extreme3, GTX 770 2GB VRAM (GIGABYTE).

It was terrific, and still is quite good. I used to be able to run most games at high or ultra settings at 1080p 60fps. It was enough. Now, 4 years later, the times have advanced, games have gotten prettier, tech has gotten faster. Now I have to run BF4 at high settings, medium sometimes on the bigger game modes. I probably wouldn't get past medium on BF1 simply because of my CPU. I'm not one to upgrade every year though. But after 4 years, I am looking to do so. So I guess I wouldn't fit into the category of people that have to have the best stuff every year. But this year, after 4 of the same rig, I am looking for the best. Though from all accounts, the 6### series Sky Lake chips are barely a step down from Kaby Lake. I would be content with getting a Sky Lake chip and appropriate MOBO so I can take advantage of DDR4, USB 3.1 and Type-C, Thunderbolt if necessary, as well as M.2 SATA. All of these things, back when I built my PC, were nonexistant, or not mainstream.

So while this doesn't apply to me, some people do get caught up in the hype and feel the need to upgrade every year. If they have the funds to do so, then so be it. Let them. If you are not affected by 200 more MHz per core, then stick with your current CPU or maybe just upgrade to a generation down. One thing to consider though, Intel chips don't really lose value over time. A brand new Kaby Lake i7-7700k is going for about $350 MSRP, and a Haswell i7-4790k is $320-340. So when you look at the numbers, $20 more gets you the latest in tech, USB 3.1, Thunderbolt, M.2 SATA, and a futureproof of at least 4 years in top-notch performance in all your favorite games.

[App4that]

I tried cocaine once, wasn't bad. Not the same rush though. But it was cheaper. 

[Me1z]

For the types of games I play, the bleeding edge of technology is basically a prerequisite. A personal favorite of mine, Space Engineers, has a heavy emphasis on physics, which is a largely single-threaded process and can't be fixed by throwing more cores at it. Is the game 'playable' on a potato? To a degree, but there's a certain point where you simply can't build any larger or explore any further because your system can't physically keep up. Endless pursuit of raw computational power to play the average AAA First-Person Shooter doesn't make much sense, but the hardware it would take to run these physics bound games without any bottlenecks simply doesn't exist yet. For me it's not a matter of a few FPS, I'm talking about calculations on a scale where its not unrealistic for a game engine to lockup for a couple minutes while it sorts through what's happening. I desperately need average single-threaded CPU performance to increase by about 400% yesterday, and yet we're stuck with these garbage improvements in increments of 10-15%

[ionbasa]

Not all of us play games. Some of us use our PCs for work too you know!

 

The faster I can run a simulation, a render, or compile and build fuzzy logic, the better. 

Here's a few examples:

 

A HVAC system:

 

Plant/system/utilities:

 

A Boeing 747 jet engine:

 

And even hydrology simulations:

 

You'd be surprised. Some of us need actually need to upgrade often. 

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

Not all of us play games. Some of us use our PCs for work too you know!

 

The faster I can run a simulation, a render, or compile and build fuzzy logic, the better. 

Here's a few examples:

 

You'd be surprised. Some of us need actually need to upgrade often. 

I bet you get 60fps in Cities Skylines with any population. 

[ionbasa]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

I bet you get 60fps in Cities Skylines with any population. 

Maybe? I actually don't have that game (yet). If i'm honest, I only play video games maybe 2 hours a week .

[Paradine Sage]

14 minutes ago, Me1z said:

For the types of games I play, the bleeding edge of technology is basically a prerequisite. A personal favorite of mine, Space Engineers, has a heavy emphasis on physics, which is a largely single-threaded process and can't be fixed by throwing more cores at it. Is the game 'playable' on a potato? To a degree, but there's a certain point where you simply can't build any larger or explore any further because your system can't physically keep up. Endless pursuit of raw computational power to play the average AAA First-Person Shooter doesn't make much sense, but the hardware it would take to run these physics bound games without any bottlenecks simply doesn't exist yet. For me it's not a matter of a few FPS, I'm talking about calculations on a scale where its not unrealistic for a game engine to lockup for a couple minutes while it sorts through what's happening. I desperately need average single-threaded CPU performance to increase by about 400% yesterday, and yet we're stuck with these garbage improvements in increments of 10-15%

Blame the idiots who can't (or are unwilling to) code properly.

 

Good code written in this day and age damn well should take full advantage of however many cores are present. But people are willing to blame intel for their FPS lacking when they should be blaming the game maker.

 

There is near zero acceptable excuse for a 6 core not outperforming a 4 core at the same clock speed.

 

---

And you can multi-thread physics calculations in a number of ways, it just requires more effort in programming and most developers are quite lazy.

 

If you want evidence of that second point just look at how few implement Vulcan or Dx12 at anywhere near their capabilities.

[Wolther]

9 minutes ago, Paradine Sage said:

Blame the idiots who can't (or are unwilling to) code properly.

 

Good code written in this day and age damn well should take full advantage of however many cores are present. But people are willing to blame intel for their FPS lacking when they should be blaming the game maker.

 

There is near zero acceptable excuse for a 6 core not outperforming a 4 core at the same clock speed.

 

---

And you can multi-thread physics calculations in a number of ways, it just requires more effort in programming and most developers are quite lazy.

 

If you want evidence of that second point just look at how few implement Vulcan or Dx12 at anywhere near their capabilities.

How does that take away from buying newest gen CPU then? What you said basically proves his/her point even more.. That he/she needs better single threaded performance because devs suck. Dev sucking is remedied by better cpu

[Paradine Sage]

2 minutes ago, Wolther said:

How does that take away from buying newest gen CPU then? What you said basically proves his/her point even more.. That he/she needs better single threaded performance because devs suck. Dev sucking is remedied by better cpu

"I desperately need ave"age single-threaded CPU performance to increase by about 400% yesterday, and yet we're stuck with these garbage improvements in increments of 10-15% "

 

He's bitching that performance on intel's end has only ~10% in eighteen months. His reason for bitching is that he can't get the performance that he wants out of some applications and yet instead of bitching at those coding those applications he is bitching at the people who have had hardware on the market for years that can do what he wants.

 

So long as consumers keep blaming the hardware manufactures for performance issues the application producers have very little reason to take the time and effort to code their applications correctly, and I am very sad to say that it is far harder to keep improving hardware than it is to keep improving software.

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, corrado33 said:

I don't get it. Intel launches their new 7### series and this site is FLOODED with "Where can I buy i7-7###k" or "i7-7### vs i5-7###" or "7### vs 6###".

 

Not more than a week ago all of those 7s were replaced with 6s. Why pay the premium for a GAMING machine? Is your gaming significantly hindered by those 2-3 fps less? Is the game more "fun" with those 2-3 fps more?

 

Now, if you play competitive e-sports, I could see some sort of justification, but the vast majority of people don't. It doesn't make sense. 

 

I mean, everyone is pumped for AMDs new products, but is the performance increase (if there is one) worth it? A properly built gaming rig could easily last you at least 3 years, still playing at max or close to max settings on most new games. Much more if you upgrade the GPU down the line somewhere. 

 

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I just can't understand. 

Because some people have more money than brains. Im still running an Ivy Bridge chip. I have no reason to upgrade as A) I cant afford to right now. B) My machine does what I need it to do.