Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
And I'm in the sub-1080 club too. I'm moving back and forth too much to be able to afford lugging around a full monitor. Currently on a Steam Machine coupled with a 1200x800 portable screen for my needs. That's high enough to suit me, and the colour reproduction is just beautiful :)
That's definitely still an enjoyable resolution. Especially if you're moving about a lot like you said. I'd rather have a tripple A quality monitor at 1280x1024 than a B quality monitor at 1800x1200.
I'm sure the E3 trailers where shot on quad SLI Titans at 4k.
But I'll tell you something. The amount of 4k users in PC Gaming is less than twenty five percent. I'm sure a 500 or 600 series GPU can handle Fallout 4 at medium to high settings at 1080.
You have to think, 1280x1024 is almost sixty percent less work than 1920x1080. I believe that older GPU's would be able to run the game very well. I'm really looking forward to it.
Whatever the XBone/PS4 have under the hood will be the middle-of-the-road requirements to run at 60FPS/1080p/med to med-high settings.
I'm not one of those butt-dudes who's like.. All in your face about PC's and Consoles.
If you play games, the medium you choose doesn't matter. I would have all of them if I could afford it. (There are some console exclusive games I want to play but I just can't afford both right now.) But I wrote this to give PC gamers an idea of what to shoot for.
Depends on the socket you're using. There are still some Core 2 Quad CPU's that perform just fine for intensive programs and games.
And what to shoot for is something that equals or exceeds the console hardware. People keep speculating on 'what's require' when there's no need to speculate. Its a port from console to PC - meet or beat the console hardware and you can meet or beat the console graphics.
I built my gaming PC for $140, mate. lol
Any quad core CPU on today's sockets will out perform the processors on consoles. They aren't built the same. A desktop Processor is designed for every day tasks while a video game console processor is only designed to play video games.
Anything from the i3 line will handle any game that's out right now and will come out in the next few years.
I suggest the 1366 socket with a Xeon W5590. A hyper threaded quad core at 3.34 Ghz. The CPU itself retails for about $45 on eBay.
Or the X5650, a hyper threaded six core that goes for about $75. (You'll need to pick up an old workstation with the 1366 socket. Such as the Dell Precision T3500 or the HP z400/600. )
You need to do more research, mate. My GTX 650 ti can handle any of my games on very high settings around 60 fps. Check out my videos. The 960 is great for a budget, but the 680 is better. And the 770 is even better than that.
The Pentium G3258 is a dual core CPU with no hyper threading, and it will handle Witcher 3.
I very strongly doubt that you will need an i7 and a 900 series GPU to play Fallout 4.
What kind of computer do you have? Components, I mean.
Nvidia GeForce GT 520
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Processors (x4)
4GB Ram