Building a PC on par with console performance really isn't that hard

[Iggy Wolf]

I've seen articles and assumptions made that a person would spend twice the amount or 3 times the cost of a console to build a comparable PC. It's obviously bull, cause I feel like the main thing that everyone always ignores is that most PC gamers aren't building PCs from the ground up. I imagine the average PC gamer, even when upgrading, will only change out the GPU, CPU, PSU, RAM, or mobo, but rarely ALL at the same time. Yes, a GPU these days could run you for more than $500 for a decent midrange, but it's also meant to last for 5 years.

Usually roughly half a console's life cycle. Most people already probably have the PC case they're satisfied with, as well as a monitor and keyboard/mouse setup. Every individual piece only gets upgraded as necessary, if it's even necessary to upgrade at all. The modularity of a PC means you're not really "building a PC" so much as simply changing out parts (like in a car). Hence, I don't know why many articles seem to run on the assumption that someone "building a PC" must necessarily start from scratch.

Or that they even need to necessarily shell out for the best parts. Hell, the fact that some people would probably spend more on phones these days indicates that money is less of an issue than flexibility. How much can a typical console gamer adapt to a PC that they don't really notice a difference. As someone who actively plays with both an Xbox One controller and my keyboard/mouse, I feel like it might only seem different or unusual if you're too used to a much larger TV Screen than a monitor. Even then, you could technically connect your PC to a TV. I feel like some articles are simply mean to sell parts rather than give a person a realistic value and cost of a typical PC build. Even NON-GAMERS probably have a desktop PC at home, if they aren't using a laptop. Or have both. What do you guys think?

[Supafly]

Those articles don't assume everyone already has a PC they can upgrade because that may not be the case and when you buy a console you buy a complete product that includes things like the case, PSU and peripherals everything else.

[emoticorpse]

What pc did you build? What console you comparing it to?

[Iggy Wolf]

引用自 emoticorpse：

What pc did you build? What console you comparing it to?

I didn't build any particular PC, but that's also my point. Be it a pre-built or not, you're investing in a product for the future. Only a GPU these days goes for more than a whole console. Maybe some CPUs too. Both PS5 and Xbox One Series X cost $500. They're already sold at a loss, and I feel like THAT part of the equation gets ignored.

Namely, that console gamers are NOT paying the MSRP price of the total actual cost of all the parts in the console. We know when we buy PC parts like CPUs, GPUs or RAM, we really are paying the actual cost (I won't get into how much the actual workers who make the parts get paid though). But you know that at minimum, both Nvidia AND AMD are NOT selling GPUs at a loss.

[Illusion of Progress]

I think you're using a selective thought process, unless I'm misunderstanding you?

You seem to be relying on the assumption that because some people have desktop PCs already (desktop PCs are a minority as people have moved to either laptops or mobiles, by the way), or because some people stagger upgrades, that suddenly the total cost doesn't count?

You can't just ignore that other stuff. You state that a graphics card alone can cost as much as a console (give or take) while the latter lasts twice as long. I'm not even sure if I agree with that, but it seems strange to declare that but then say cost favors the PC.

Sure, if have a ship of Theseus PC, you can stagger upgrades (I do this so I'm well aware of how beneficial it is), but you still need to get to that point, and you're still likely to spend more in total. Eventually, all of those parts will need replaced too so it's not like some parts are a one and done thing where you only upgrade the graphics card after that.

This is before touching the obvious question that needs asked about how you compare hardware? You can't just do it 1:1 on specifications because while that sometimes works, others it doesn't. Consoles don't work exactly like PCs and vice versa. Consoles don't have to deal with shader compilation, for example, whereas PCs do no matter what level of hardware you throw at them. So at what point do you reach "at least parity" with a console to say it's equivalent? This is a tough question.

These things, I think, are true...

PCs don't have to be expensive.

You can drop a graphics card (to a point) in a basic OEM PC.

You can stagger upgrades.

This, I think, is also true however...

A console is typically a better performance for price return. I don't see how you're matching that at ~$400 to $420.

PCs have their benefits so they don't have to match a value of a console though. But every so often people like to pretend consoles don't have a value edge. There are times in the cycle (usually later in a console life cycle) when you can come close to matching it, but even then I don't think you will (not these days anyway with the cost of hardware now, maybe in the past you would).

[Iggy Wolf]

引用自 Illusion of Progress：

I think you're using a selective thought process, unless I'm misunderstanding you?

You seem to be relying on the assumption that because some people have desktop PCs already (desktop PCs are a minority as people have moved to either laptops or mobiles, by the way), or because some people stagger upgrades, that suddenly the total cost doesn't count?

You can't just ignore that other stuff. You state that a graphics card alone can cost as much as a console (give or take) while the latter lasts twice as long. I'm not even sure if I agree with that, but it seems strange to declare that but then say cost favors the PC.

Sure, if have a ship of Theseus PC, you can stagger upgrades (I do this so I'm well aware of how beneficial it is), but you still need to get to that point, and you're still likely to spend more in total. Eventually, all of those parts will need replaced too so it's not like some parts are a one and done thing where you only upgrade the graphics card after that.

This is before touching the obvious question that needs asked about how you compare hardware? You can't just do it 1:1 on specifications because while that sometimes works, others it doesn't. Consoles don't work exactly like PCs and vice versa. Consoles don't have to deal with shader compilation, for example, whereas PCs do no matter what level of hardware you throw at them. So at what point do you reach "at least parity" with a console to say it's equivalent? This is a tough question.

These things, I think, are true...

PCs don't have to be expensive.

You can drop a graphics card (to a point) in a basic OEM PC.

You can stagger upgrades.

This, I think, is also true however...

A console is typically a better performance for price return. I don't see how you're matching that at ~$400 to $420.

PCs have their benefits so they don't have to match a value of a console though. But every so often people like to pretend consoles don't have a value edge. There are times in the cycle (usually later in a console life cycle) when you can come close to matching it, but even then I don't think you will (not these days anyway with the cost of hardware now, maybe in the past you would).

I won't say that consoles don't have their pros. I own an Xbox One S myself. But I do feel like it's more down to flexibility vs ease of use. A console is more or less plug and play. So someone who simply wants to turn on a console and immediately get to playing would certainly benefit more from it than caring about software compatibility or maximizing performance. But that's why my argument was more purely from a hardware perspective than what purpose a person is seeking from a console vs a PC.

[Illusion of Progress]

Right, PCs absolutely have their advantages. I haven't used a console since the PlayStation 2 for some of those reasons myself. But cost and price/performance is one that often favors consoles.

[Tonepoet]

No.

The average P.C. gamer probably buys a prebuilt computer instead of building their own because they don't realize just how stupidly easy it is to assemble the parts yourself and install a copy of Kubuntu for free. So not only are they paying for the full product, but they are also spending a 15% premium on the components and paying whatever the heck Microsoft charges their O.E.M. partners. That's how big corporate system builders like Dell get by. Nobody here would even consider buying an Alienware, and even well regarded brands like NZXT aren't all that economical.

Also, that's a fine state of affairs. We live in a society of specialized roles. Not everybody needs to know how to do every little thing. Let the baker bake bread from cheaper flour and yeast, the constructor construct houses from cheap lumber, plaster, tiling, paint and pipes, and the P.C. builder build P.Cs. from C.PUs., G.P.Us. motherboards, R.A.M., S.S.Ds. and cases.

Also, it depends on how far into the console's lifespan we are. There was no gosh darned way to build a computer anywhere near the spec. of a Playstation 5 Digital Edition for just $400 at launch, even if I assume you already have a P.S.U. and case. Big corporations know they need to offer a huge price to performance advantage in order to tempt customers into their loss-leader platforms.

Plus, even if you have a P.C., we don't know how upgradeable it is. The motherboard socket may be a dead platform with absolutely ancient components. It might be a laptop or N.U.C. where the only upgradeable components are R.A.M. and drive space, if even that. It might be completely dead and blown out. And what if you're buying a second system as a parent so your children can play their computer games while you do your work on the household computer?

That's on top of the possibility that it may just be your first system ever. That's why you price out all of the components.

Plus, using the Playstation 5 as our basis of comparison, we're looking at a system which probably needs at least a Ryzen 5500 and a 6600 XT.

The Ryzen 5500 is the cheapest processor that's comparable to the 3700x in terms of performance[technical.city] (trading off cores for better single threaded performance, which is probably better for P.C. gaming). The 6600 xt has 10.6 teraflops of G.P.U. processing power, which is as close as you get to 10.3, plus they're both Zen 2 based G.P.Us.

We'll bump it up to the 6650 XT 'cause the 6600 XT is technically discontinued, and the 6650 ends up being a little cheaper and I've seen disputes that the 6600 xt isn't strong enough on grounds the rX 6650 XT doesn't even resolve. Those $219[www.newegg.com], and the C.P.U. costs you $100 more on top of that. You've already eaten up $320, leaving you with just $130 more before you hit your budget cap.

The cheapest AM4 motherboard? Well, that's $72[www.amazon.com], so if you need that because you're upgrading from some 4th or 6th gen intel system, then our savings is down from 130 to $58. Need a second stick of R.A.M to upgrade from 8 to 16? Well, there goes another $14[www.amazon.com], and now we're down to 44. Oops, you have some stupid proprietary H.P. Pavilion power supply that can't be used with a standard motherboard without splicing up some wires and falls 190 watts under A.M.D's. recommended minimum spec.

If we don't want to splice, now we're looking at buying a 500 watt P.S.U. to stay within A.M.D's. recommended spec. for the RX 6550 XT[www.amd.com], so I guess we're grabbing this thermaltake smart 500 watt 80+ white certified P.S.U. for $40.[www.amazon.com] It's not fair to get one that's not at least 80+ certified in some capacity, because the Playstation 5 runs at a lean and efficient 340 watts.

So now we've only saved $4. We haven't chosen a case yet, and oops... guesss what? Your P.C. has a proprietary motherboard also has a proprietary mounting setup, so now we're spending $32 on the case[www.newegg.com], and you've broken your $450 budget by $28.

Oh wait, did I say $32? Make it more like $55[www.newegg.com] to make the build as small as possible because you have to fit it into the bedroom or home entertainment system, and a Playstation 5 is 10 liters at the biggest, so we've really broken the $450 budget by $51[www.businessinsider.com]. Also, let's not even get started on operating systems. I'll grant that Linux is free and leave it at that.

Similarly, if we're talking about upgrading, you don't need a mouse, keyboard or gamepad, since you probably already have whatever you want of those anyway.

Also, what if your old 8 gigabyte rig had a couple of 4 gigabyte sticks instead of a single 8 gigabyte stick? Well, thankfully this motherboard has 4 R.A.M. slots, so you don't have to throw the old R.A.M. away, but to bring you up to 16 gigabytes, you're looking at $20 worth of R.A.M.[www.amazon.com] rather than just $14, so now we're going from $51 to $57 over budget, which is only $3 shy of the $60 M.S.R.P. for Street Fighter 6.[www.digitaltrends.com]

Edit: Oops, I forgot to factor in an S.S.D., and most people upgrading aren't going to have a 1tb gen 4 M.2.[www.newegg.com] with heatsink[www.amazon.com], so tack on another $60. I was wondering why the total was so much lower than last time I did this thought experiment.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Cheapest I would go with PC:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6yDNwg

[Iggy Wolf]

引用自 Tonepoet：

snippit

I mean, if we're talking about 1:1 ratio of trying to make a PC in terms of specs equal to a console and still keep it in the same budget, then yeah. But I feel like anyone doing that might as well buy the console at that point. You're just NOT going to be able to spend the same amount with how much GPUs cost these days, even if we did use the 6650 XT to lower the total price. And yeah, maybe the average PC gamer does buy a prebuilt.

The only reason I bought one (mine was an ABS Master Gaming PC) was because it was during the pandemic and it was impossible to get a 30xx series card otherwise, and I needed a new rig anyway. I HAD a PC Part Picker list lined up with what parts I wanted. Too bad there was no 3060 Ti in stock for a reasonable price. And in the end, even PC gamers don't want to spend more than necessary on a reasonable rig. Which is why I pointed out that the idea of starting from scratch and spending on the best parts doesn't make sense unless you literally never had a PC before. Or need to start all over because your current parts are ancient and outdated. I honestly wonder sometimes how much of it has to do with people caring about specs and graphics quality.

Up until Microsoft and Sony decided to start pushing 1080P/60 FPS and then 4K/120 FPS, I imagine most console gamers didn't care for those things or the specs of their consoles. All the consoles before Xbox One S and PS4 were truly, for all intents and purposes, plug and play. No installation necessary. No graphics settings to fiddle with or worry that the console won't be able to meet the necessary performance metrics.

It's Microsoft and Sony themselves that chose to make the new consoles more like PCs. So of course people are now going to compare and wonder which one is really a better deal for someone. I doubt many people even knew then that their 360 or PS3 wasn't actually outputting 1080P or i out of the box with a game, much less whether the hardware or game supported that resolution in a particular game. And all games were more or less only running at max 30 FPS. Either this stuff matters to people, or it doesn't. The marketing shouldn't be deciding the baseline.

[A&A]

In Amazon PS5 costs 450$

A new PC build for 450$
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/j2BHTY

Interestingly, this processor and the one in the PS5 use the same Zen 2 Renoir. There might be 2 fewer cores, but here's hoping the CPU clock will make the system perform similarly and better in some cases. For comparison Ryzen 4700S which is faster with 0.5GHz (Damn, this CPU has no chill, they are so cheap that they even removed the low power state mechanisms!?)

B450, because it always was a cheap way to a budget system

Standart 16GB RAM

Standart 1TB SSD

The RX6600 might be a bit slower than the PS5. I don't know if it will be overclocked to what extent they will match.

Case, it should be a cheap office case.

PSU, brozne 550W or 650W at best.

[C1REX]

Are we talking about the same theoretical performance or the same real life performance measured in FPS in games?
Are we talking about a PC that can run the Last of Us at 1440p60fps or 4K30fps? Or a PC that can run Alan Wake 2 at 60fps upscaled to 4K like on PS5?

Such PC doesn't cost $449.99

[_I_]

pick a board with 4 dimm slots, and heatsinks on all mosfets around the cpu

aim for something more like this
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HrhrQP

but consoles are sold at a loss, and make up their prices with subscription and their store game sales

[ZeroMNY]

I'm running a compact setup for a huge card, the MSI 3090. In order to get the most FPS in a game, you want to check up your stats for potential build. You want to avoid bottle necking any one type of component. For example a 3090 with a low budget CPU (bottle necking about 20%) will reduce your FPS to almost half of what your card is capable of. I'm running a I9-14700k with a 3090 and its getting peak performance. Don't cheap out on cpu, ram or gpu. Then download speeds are determined by the speed of your hard drive if you have fast internet. Now you dont want to get a power supply that's over the amount of watts your system is going to use or youll get random shutdowns. Good luck!

[A&A]

引用自 C1REX：

Are we talking about the same theoretical performance or the same real life performance measured in FPS in games?
Are we talking about a PC that can run the Last of Us at 1440p60fps or 4K30fps? Or a PC that can run Alan Wake 2 at 60fps upscaled to 4K like on PS5?

Such PC doesn't cost $449.99

Theoretical. Because real-life performance is affected by different software. Everything can matter: upscalers, frame generation, operating systems, APIs, and everything else you can think of.

[_I_]

引用自 A&A：

引用自 C1REX：

Are we talking about the same theoretical performance or the same real life performance measured in FPS in games?
Are we talking about a PC that can run the Last of Us at 1440p60fps or 4K30fps? Or a PC that can run Alan Wake 2 at 60fps upscaled to 4K like on PS5?

Such PC doesn't cost $449.99

Theoretical. Because real-life performance is affected by different software. Everything can matter: upscalers, frame generation, operating systems, APIs, and everything else you can think of.

^ thie
there is no way to directly compare pc and console performance
consoles do so many cheats, on the fly res scaling, shred system/igpu ram, so cpu can write directly to vram, and all console hardware is identical so they can program for the same hardware