Is This A Good Deal?

[z123killer]

I found a PC on Craigslist for $350 and here are the specs:

I7 2600

8gb Ram

R9 380 2gb

500gb or 1TB Hard drive (He said he is not sure lol, but the hard drive won't be a problem) 

 

I will be using it to play latest AAA titles at 1080p, 60+fps, as high as the settings will go while staying close to 60fps. Is it a good deal and will it be sufficient for my needs?

[PeachyUwUSenpai]

because it only has 2 gigs of vram it will have trouble in a lot of the newer games though you should be able to play at low settings

[PatrickK]

5 minutes ago, Alaradia said:

because it only has 2 gigs of vram it will have trouble in a lot of the newer games though you should be able to play at low settings

It wont be able to play the newest games on low either. Not if you want 60fps.

[donaldtrump]

lol I play games at high-ultra with my i3 3240 rx 470 at around 45-55 fps and titles like ow and doom at 80 but Vram is neccessery for playing AAA titles on high settings.

[Jurrunio]

See if you can get the system cheaper by omitting the graphics card. You will need a GTX 1060 6GB to meet your requirements. What's the PSU?

[z123killer]

9 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

See if you can get the system cheaper by omitting the graphics card. You will need a GTX 1060 6GB to meet your requirements. What's the PSU?

He never stated. Also, if he agrees on omitting the gpu what should the new price be?

[Sanctorum]

The amount of people who don't understand GPUs at all is so hilarious. The fact that it has 2GB VRAM doesn't limit it to low settings.

1 hour ago, PatrickK said:

It wont be able to play the newest games on low either. Not if you want 60fps.

What are you talking about? How would it not be able to play games at low settings? Is it just going to refuse to launch games because 2GB VRAM apparently isn't satisfactory?

34 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

You will need a GTX 1060 6GB to meet your requirements. 

No he won't. 

 

OP - Yes, that's a killer deal. $350 for a still decent i7 and a last gen mid ranged GPU. You'll easily be able to play the majority of games at med-high settings at 1080p, with close to and/or beyond 60FPS.

[Jurrunio]

24 minutes ago, z123killer said:

He never stated. Also, if he agrees on omitting the gpu what should the new price be?

Try ask for $270. You can back a little to $300

[Jurrunio]

Just now, Sanctorum said:

No he won't. 

He said he wants:

1 hour ago, z123killer said:

I will be using it to play latest AAA titles at 1080p, 60+fps, as high as the settings will go while staying close to 60fps.

R9 380 2G won't get the textures high in some AAA titles. He didn't specify any particular game, so I'd use Watch Dogs 2, a not very well optimized game, as reference. My RX 470 gets some 50FPS with vram topping at 3.8GB, high preset 1080p. That's why I recommend a 1060 6GB.

[PatrickK]

10 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

The amount of people who don't understand GPUs at all is so hilarious. The fact that it has 2GB VRAM doesn't limit it to low settings.

What are you talking about? How would it not be able to play games at low settings? Is it just going to refuse to launch games because 2GB VRAM apparently isn't satisfactory?

No he won't. 

 

OP - Yes, that's a killer deal. $350 for a still decent i7 and a last gen mid ranged GPU. You'll easily be able to play the majority of games at med-high settings at 1080p, with close to and/or beyond 60FPS.

Yea....

I would love to see that GPU meet 60fps on Battlefield, The witcher 3, Battlefront 2 coming up etc etc. It's not going to happen. 

It's a killer deal for sure. It's a great PC. But it will not reach 60fps on the newest triple A games, and ones coming up.

[Sanctorum]

25 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

He said he wants:

He said he wanted to play AAA titles at 60FPS at 1080p. He said he wanted the highest settings he could achieve with the system, not ultra settings. Sandy Bridge i7 and an R9 380 are perfectly capable of playing at 1080p comfortably.

26 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

R9 380 2G won't get the textures high in some AAA titles. He didn't specify any particular game, so I'd use Watch Dogs 2, a not very well optimized game, as reference. 

Alright, well WD2 is a CPU whore, the i7 will help out significantly there. As you can see here;

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2700-watch-dogs-2-gpu-benchmark-11-video-cards

The 1050Ti gets 30FPS at ultra settings, or about 40FPS at V High settings. We know the GTX 1050Ti performs about on par with a GTX 960, and the R9 380 beats the GTX 960/1050Ti for the most part, so WD2 as a poorly optimised example, with High(ish) settings, OP should be able to achieve 60FPS.

22 minutes ago, PatrickK said:

Yea....

I would love to see that GPU meet 60fps on Battlefield, The witcher 3, Battlefront 2 coming up etc etc. It's not going to happen. 

It's a killer deal for sure. It's a great PC. But it will not reach 60fps on the newest triple A games, and ones coming up.

Okay, here you go then;

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2658-gtx-1050-ti-and-1050-review-benchmarks-vs-460-more/page-4

GTX 1050Ti and GTX 960 right around 60FPS at 1080/Ultra on BF1. As I said, R9 380 performs better than, or similar to GTX 960/1050Ti so OP could easily achieve 60FPS on BF1 even at ultra settings.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_380_gaming_2g_review,12.html

The Witcher 3, 40FPS at ultra settings 1920x1200. Drop the settings to high(ish) and he'll be able to achieve 60FPS at 1080p.

[PatrickK]

13 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

He said he wanted to play AAA titles at 60FPS at 1080p. He said he wanted the highest settings he could achieve with the system, not ultra settings. Sandy Bridge i7 and an R9 380 are perfectly capable of playing at 1080p comfortably.

Alright, well WD2 is a CPU whore, the i7 will help out significantly there. As you can see here;

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2700-watch-dogs-2-gpu-benchmark-11-video-cards

The 1050Ti gets 30FPS at ultra settings, or about 40FPS at V High settings. We know the GTX 1050Ti performs about on par with a GTX 960, and the R9 380 beats the GTX 960/1050Ti for the most part, so WD2 as a poorly optimised example, with High(ish) settings, OP should be able to achieve 60FPS.

Okay, here you go then;

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2658-gtx-1050-ti-and-1050-review-benchmarks-vs-460-more/page-4

GTX 1050Ti and GTX 960 right around 60FPS at 1080/Ultra on BF1. As I said, R9 380 performs better than, or similar to GTX 960/1050Ti so OP could easily achieve 60FPS on BF1 even at ultra settings.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_380_gaming_2g_review,12.html

The Witcher 3, 40FPS at ultra settings 1920x1200. Drop the settings to high(ish) and he'll be able to achieve 60FPS at 1080p.

His GPU reaches 60% of recommended specs. So it's around minimum. In combination with 8GB Ram, which i noticed on my old RIG is not enough for Battlefield 1, he will not achieve 60fps on ultra. Again it's a great deal and he will be able to run newer games on it, but he wont be able to keep running newer ones on 60fps, 1080p. Our discussion set aside, even if he is able to run everything now on 1080p, 60fps. This thing will need a upgrade soon.

[Sanctorum]

Just now, PatrickK said:

His GPU reaches 60% of recommended specs. So it's around minimum. In combination with 8GB Ram, which i noticed on my old RIG is not enough for Battlefield 1, he will not achieve 60fps on ultra.

That 'source' is laughable. I've shown proof that an R9 380 is capable of playing BF1 at Ultra/1080. You can't argue that. It's just a fact. Here you go, here's some more proof of that;

http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,6.html

 

As for the RAM, irrelevant. Your argument was that the GPU is not capable of playing 1080p comfortably. It is. Regardless, 8GB RAM isn't going to cause OP to have to play at low settings instead of ultra. I have 16GB RAM, and I can say for sure that 8GB will be fine for BF1. Obviously 16GB is better, but it's by no means necessary.

[PatrickK]

7 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

That 'source' is laughable. I've shown proof that an R9 380 is capable of playing BF1 at Ultra/1080. You can't argue that. It's just a fact. Here you go, here's some more proof of that;

http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,6.html

 

As for the RAM, irrelevant. Your argument was that the GPU is not capable of playing 1080p comfortably. It is. Regardless, 8GB RAM isn't going to cause OP to have to play at low settings instead of ultra. I have 16GB RAM, and I can say for sure that 8GB will be fine for BF1. Obviously 16GB is better, but it's by no means necessary.

Whatever you want. This discussion is pointless. Op can decide what he wants.

[Jurrunio]

55 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

He said he wanted to play AAA titles at 60FPS at 1080p. He said he wanted the highest settings he could achieve with the system, not ultra settings. Sandy Bridge i7 and an R9 380 are perfectly capable of playing at 1080p comfortably.

Alright, well WD2 is a CPU whore, the i7 will help out significantly there. As you can see here;

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2700-watch-dogs-2-gpu-benchmark-11-video-cards

The 1050Ti gets 30FPS at ultra settings, or about 40FPS at V High settings. We know the GTX 1050Ti performs about on par with a GTX 960, and the R9 380 beats the GTX 960/1050Ti for the most part, so WD2 as a poorly optimised example, with High(ish) settings, OP should be able to achieve 60FPS.

Okay, here you go then;

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2658-gtx-1050-ti-and-1050-review-benchmarks-vs-460-more/page-4

GTX 1050Ti and GTX 960 right around 60FPS at 1080/Ultra on BF1. As I said, R9 380 performs better than, or similar to GTX 960/1050Ti so OP could easily achieve 60FPS on BF1 even at ultra settings.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_380_gaming_2g_review,12.html

The Witcher 3, 40FPS at ultra settings 1920x1200. Drop the settings to high(ish) and he'll be able to achieve 60FPS at 1080p.

R9 380 is managing 60fps now, but not so much in the future, with vram requirements going up.

[Sanctorum]

53 minutes ago, PatrickK said:

Whatever you want. This discussion is pointless. Op can decide what he wants.

It's not at all pointless. You're spreading misinformation which could wrongly affect OP's decision.

19 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

R9 380 is managing 60fps now, but not so much in the future, with vram requirements going up.

Except that you were claiming the R9 380 wasn't capable of comfortably playing 1080p now, which was wrong. It was good for 1080p when it released. and it's still a perfectly good card for 1080p. For $350, OP won't get anything better. Nice strawman with "future requirements" though.

[PatrickK]

31 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

It's not at all pointless. You're spreading misinformation which could wrongly affect OP's decision.

Except that you were claiming the R9 380 wasn't capable of comfortably playing 1080p now, which was wrong. It was good for 1080p when it released. and it's still a perfectly good card for 1080p. For $350, OP won't get anything better. Nice strawman with "future requirements" though.

Well no. I'm behind my point. I never said it was a bad card, i said it wasnt good enough to reach 60fps on all newer triple A games + future games. Whats wrong with thinking about future games? Is that not something you keep in mind when buying a PC? Also, why bring up the fact the owner can't get anything better for $350,- ofc he can't. i never claimed he could. I said it was a great deal 3 times. 

[Jurrunio]

35 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Except that you were claiming the R9 380 wasn't capable of comfortably playing 1080p now, which was wrong. It was good for 1080p when it released. and it's still a perfectly good card for 1080p. For $350, OP won't get anything better. Nice strawman with "future requirements" though.

I didn't. OP says "as high as the settings will go" for "all latest AAA titles", so it's "maximum quality". a 380 can run some AAA titles at max settings, like those you gave examples, but not all of them. That's why I claim that the 380 doesn't meet his requirements. In the future, there will only be more games the 380 2G cannot handle. I thought thinking about the future is common sense, so I omit that to keep my words short.

[Sanctorum]

Just now, PatrickK said:

Well no. I'm behind my point. I never said it was a bad card, i said it wasnt good enough to reach 60fps on all newer triple A games + future games. Whats wrong with thinking about future games? Is that not something you keep in mind when buying a PC? 

Let me quote your initial post for you;

3 hours ago, PatrickK said:

It wont be able to play the newest games on low either. Not if you want 60fps.

You said he'd be unable to even achieve 60FPS at low settings on current AAA titles. That is factually incorrect and is the misinformation you are spreading. I have proven you wrong and now you try to change your argument, that's not how it works. "Future games" are irrelevant.

[Sanctorum]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

I didn't. OP says "as high as the settings will go" for "all latest AAA titles", so it's "maximum quality". a 380 can run some AAA titles at max settings, like those you gave examples, but not all of them. That's why I claim that the 380 doesn't meet his requirements. In the future, there will only be more games the 380 2G cannot handle.

He said

"as high as the settings will go while staying close to 60fps"

which is not "maximum quality". That means he'll be turning the settings up as much as he can on the 380 while still achieving around 60FPS. Which in BF1, IS ultra quality anyway. He never once said he wanted to play everything at ultra/1080. Regardless, you claimed

"You will need a GTX 1060 6GB to meet your requirements."

which is absolutely incorrect.

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, Sanctorum said:

He said

"as high as the settings will go while staying close to 60fps"

which is not "maximum quality". That means he'll be turning the settings up as much as he can on the 380 while still achieving around 60FPS. Which in BF1, IS ultra quality anyway. He never once said he wanted to play everything at ultra/1080. Regardless, you claimed

"You will need a GTX 1060 6GB to meet your requirements."

which is absolutely incorrect.

Now I get it. OP meant that even 1080p minimum preset is fine, as long as he gets 60fps. I missed the second half of his sentence.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

@z123killerI think it is good but wondering if the card can be changed with 390X