Why is it so expensive for a decent gaming computer?

[Gixanix]

I hate money, and life.

[Rove]

rad87gn님이 먼저 게시:

TenClub님이 먼저 게시:

How. Do consoles magically upgrade themselves? A high end PC from 5 years ago is faster than the 360 and PS3.

Next gen consoles are already outdated before they're even released. Doesn't matter if the games are coded to the metal it doesn't give enough of a performance boost to even match a GTX 580 (from two years ago) paired with a nice CPU. It won't take long for mid tier PC parts to be significantly faster than the Xbox One and PS4.

I'm not saying a gaming system is faster or better than a PC. What I'm saying is the product life cycle for a gaming system is much longer than a PC. The hardware with them doesn't change for like 7 years. So if you buy one today it will be the same thing years down the road. Meaning I can buy new games for it for many years and it will run fine. Not so much for a PC.

I'm a PC gamer myself with a large wallet but as a person with a small budget I'd go console. Rather spend the extra money on games and have something to play and not have to worry about buying updated hardware all the time.

See my point? And FYI I'm a computer engineer so I know what hardware they have.

The product lifecycle of PS3 and Xbox 360 is nearly over. It's a very bad time to buy a console. PS4 and Xbox One are right around the corner and you can get a $300 PC which rivals current console performance for everything except things like Crysis 3 which have stupidly bad optimization for PC by the posted requirements, they forgot to bring their console quality for PC gamers just in case anyone needed it I guess. There is lots of PC only titles though that more than make up for not playing Crysis 3. Doesn't sound like he has $60 to blow on it anyways.

[LoTekRabbit]

@Rove

That's not true about Crysis considering that the lowest absolute settings for Crysis 3 looks better than the console version. It does not have "stupidly bad" optimization. It's easily the best looking game out and nothing comes close to it, not even FC3 and Metro LL. That PC you put together and the one I did will run Crysis 3 better than the console version and look much better as well.

People need to stop calling high tech games poorly optimized.

[Rove]

Well PS3 does like 150 GFLOPS right? So Crysis 3 should run on a AMD A4-3300, A4-5300 APU or Intel HD 3000-4600 CPU+IGP without even needing discrete GPU right?

Maybe there is more too it than GFLOPS but I would assume all the hardware pieces I quoted have got whatever that is as well as the GFLOPS to back it up. After all they are MUCH MUCH MUCH newer. And don't knock the integrated graphics, the newer Xbox 360 versions (and maybe newer versions of the PS3) print their CPU+GPU on the same chip even though they started separate.

Can you run Crysis 3 on any of those? Not by any of the specs I saw for it on wikipedia...

My point was that the lowest absolute settings should look "as good" or maybe worse than console version (same detail, lower res @ 400*600 or so), after all they rendered console version for PS3 and Xbox 360 so why not include those detail settings for PC users who need to use them cause they have old/bad hardware? To me not including those settings IS poor optimization.

[[UFO] rad87gn]

TenClub님이 먼저 게시:

Uhhh...what does being a computer engineer have to do with knowing what hardware consoles have. Since you know...you can find the info with a simple google search or go to a gaming site. That was incredibly irrelevant.

You don't have to buy new hardware all the time to keep up with consoles considering that they don't upgrade themselves. So again you're not making any sense.

If you buy a good PC today you can still use it to play games 5 years down the road. How does this make it different than a console. If you bought a PC with a 8800GT in 2007 you can still run games like Metro Last Light and in fact get a higher framerate than the PS3 and 360 version is capable of. So again that's a 5 year old PC that can run games that the current consoles can run at better quality and framerate since Metro on low PC settings actually looks better than the console version.

Is it ideal? No, but then playing Metro Last Light on a 360 and PS3 isn't ideal either since it barely runs at its designated 30 FPS and looks like absolute crap. If you think that you need to upgrade your PC every of couple years to play the same games that a console can whose hardware hasn't changed during that time either then I question your claim of being a computer engineer. That's the type of stuff you hear from console gamers who like to claim that you need to be rich to PC game and upgrade every year or two.

Anyway, this is going off topic from the original post. So I'm moving on bud.

If you would like to enjoy seeing my resume, pay stubs, and references I'll be glad to send them to you.

If I was a 16 year old with a low budget I'd still go buy myself a console. Spend my extra money on games or invest it for college.

The fun of gaming on a PC is having hardware to run the latest games like Crysis 3 on maxed out ultra settings with minimum of 1080p at a high frame rate. My hardware can do it now but I bet sooner than 5 years I'll have had to upgrade again to maintain that ability with the games coming up. If I waited 5 years before an upgrade I'll be playing new games on lower settings.

[LoTekRabbit]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

My point was that the lowest absolute settings should look "as good" or maybe worse than console version (same detail, lower res @ 400*600 or so), after all they rendered console version for PS3 and Xbox 360 so why not include those detail settings for PC users who need to use them cause they have old/bad hardware? To me not including those settings IS poor optimization.

Console games are programmed to the metal. A similar PS3 spec'd PC will run games much worse than the PS3 solely for that reason.

The game isn't poorly optimized.

rad87gn님이 먼저 게시:

If I was a 16 year old with a low budget I'd still go buy myself a console. Spend my extra money on games or invest it for college.

The fun of gaming on a PC is having hardware to run the latest games like Crysis 3 on maxed out ultra settings with minimum of 1080p at a high frame rate.

So by your logic you'd rather play Crysis 3 on a console looking like absolute crap barely holding 30 frames than a PC that can only handle medium but look far better and run it 40-60 frames? Okay.......

Fact is he can build a PC with 700 pounds that will pump out far nicer visuals and higher framerates than current gen consoles.

rad87gn님이 먼저 게시:

If I waited 5 years before an upgrade I'll be playing new games on lower settings.

And what would PS4 and Xbox 3 games look like 5 years from now? Hmm? Sparkling visuals? No they'll look outdated and I'd bet that if you have as high end of a PC as you claim those 2017 games will look better on your PC than what they'll look like on a PS4.

Your logic is: If I can't play a game maxed out on my PC I'd rather play it on a console at far worse visuals than what my PC can do even if it's not max.

As of right now next gen consoles have to compromise between 720P and 60 frames or 1080P and 30 frames. BF4 on a console will be running at 1080P at only 30 frames. I'd bet you anything my GTX 680, i7 rig will be able to maintain 60 frames at much nicer visuals whatever setting it may be. Then you have PC's far more powerful than mine with Titans, SLI, and whatnot. Next gen is already severely outdated compared to high end PC's and 5 years from now current high end PC's will run those future games better than the upcoming consoles.

Here is Unreal Engine 4 on a GTX 680 vs next gen console. The console version is missing plenty of effects and isn't anywhere as clear as the PC version.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-unreal-engine-4-ps4-vs-pc

But according to you if it ain't max might as well go for the worst. This is a seriously pointless argument.

PS: If you think PC gaming is all about visuals you are way off base. It's about the amazing mods you can download and use, it's about the incredibly cheap games, the thriving indie scene, the unique games you'll never find on a console because they won't sell on those platforms, the open ended nature, etc. PC gaming is far, far more than just visuals.

[[UFO] rad87gn]

TenClub님이 먼저 게시:

Your logic is: If I can't play a game maxed out on my PC I'd rather play it on a console at far worse visuals than what my PC can do even if it's not max.

No, I'm saying if I was a 16 year old with a limited budget I would get a console and spend extra money saved on games or save it for college. Think I said that a bunch of times now.

Myself as an adult want my PC to be able to run games on ultra maxed out settings. And I won't be able to maintain that for 5 years without an upgrade.

[LoTekRabbit]

rad87gn님이 먼저 게시:

No, I'm saying if I was a 16 year old with a limited budget I would get a console and spend extra money saved on games or save it for college. Think I said that a bunch of times now.

He has 700 pounds. Plenty to build a better PC with not to mention the fact that PC games are far, far cheaper than console games. I can buy 3 new PC games for the price of 1 new console game. No other platform are you going to have a brand new just released game 50% off or more a month or two after launch.

I started to get heavily into PC gaming when I was 14. I didn't need the highest end rig and got by just fine.

If he literally had no money for a decent PC I'd agree with you. But he/she does.

rad87gn님이 먼저 게시:

Myself as an adult want my PC to be able to run games on ultra maxed out settings. And I won't be able to maintain that for 5 years without an upgrade.

Just as a console won't do "maxed out ultra settings" 5 years from now. Oh wait next gen consoles won't even do that on day one considering that Watch Dogs, BF4, and all the other games are lead PC platform and look/run better on PC. But hey if you can't max it out might as well go for the lowest end /sarcasm

@OP If you want a gaming PC do it. For 700 pounds you can build a nice rig and with how cheap you can get PC games for you will be spending less in the long run. Really, don't listen to this guy.

If you can find a monitor and other peripherals consider the PC I put together or something similar. It's a very nice PC for the price and will get you by just fine.

Learning to build, troubleshoot, and maintain your PC is also a very nice educational experience that will serve you well in the future.

[_I_]

if your on a low budget, sub $400, buy a console

$400-500, amd a10 build can do
$500-600, amd pii 965 /w 7770 will work
$600-700, intel i3 /w 7850
$700+ intel i5 /w 7850+

[LoTekRabbit]

His budget is 700 pounds and that's a i5 with a 660 easily if he can find a spare monitor, etc.

[Jiggybuff]

I built my gaming pc for $400. Just buy parts on Newegg and Amazon.

[Jiggybuff]

For CPU I suggest AMD APU technology like the A8 or A10 series. The integrated graphics on these chips is incredible compared to the intel integrated card.

[Velmarshal]

700 pounds equals to about 1100$, so yeah you can build a decent PC.

Get a secondhand LED 1080p monitor (they look way better than LCD), oprical drive, PC case and maybe RAM (just be sure you get the 1600Mhz one, 2x4Gb will do).
For the motherboard, it all deppends on your prefference AMD or Intel.

If you plan only to play games on that PC an i7 would be a waste of money, because no game can utilize Hyperthreading. So either 3570K or FX 8350. While lately I've been looking trough some benchmarks, even for someone who preffers Intel I would have to suggest 8350, becuase it gets you better performance for it's price, though CPUs are relatively identical in performance.

Though you would have to get a third party cooler, Cooler Master Evo 212 would do if you don't plan on overclocking, because stock coolers, both intel and amd are utter garbage, the 3570K goes up to 70C, dunno about 8350, though AMD cooler sounds like a heavy duty drill when it spins up to 5200 RPM. Evo is relatively silent, sools well and is about 20 ~ 30$

For the motherboard, hmm strange, there are no mATX mobos with 2 PCIE x16 with AMD socket, ah well, full ATX then.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130637
80$ - A fine mobo, pretty looking bios, SATA 3 for SSDs to add later, 2 PCI-E slots for crossfire or SLI if you want to add another card and USB 3.0.

CPU: FX 8350 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
200$ (3570K is 220$)

RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104387
Kingston Black 2x4Gb 1600Mhz, 70$ (Standard stuff)

HDD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339
WD Blue is a general purpose HDD, if you want a bit better, take WD Black, tohugh it is more expensive.
Blue is 65$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533
Black 95$ - same cappacity, same speed.

PC Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147153
50$ - Nothing fancy, though it supports 240mm liquid coolers.

PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817194086
110$ - 750W enough for SLI 660s or Crossfire 7850s or 7870s.

Monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009316
130$ - You could go for bigger but it will cost more, so I would suggest gettign a secondhand one.

So it comes down to 575$, but lets round that up to 650$ because I know that PC parts are more expensive outside US and lets count in the keyboard and the mouse into that.

So the remaining 450$ would go on a GPU and for 450$ you can get a really good one.
MSI TF 680: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127672
420$
The other "twosided sword" variant would be to get two 660s and put them in SLI, I call it "twosided sword" because on AAA games that scale well on SLI you'll get better performance than a single 680 but in games that don't scale that well you'll get lower fps (but then again games that dont use SLI that well arent that GPU requiring)
MSI TF 660:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127699
2x 215$

The thing is, if you go for an AMD build, you won't be able to use PCI-E 3.0 because none of their CPUs support that. PCI-E 3.0 doubled the bandwidth comparing to PCI-E 2.0, while on single card setups, the performance difference is 5%, in SLI it can go up 20% and I almost completely removed microstuttering (it still happens in fallout, though it's old so you can turn off SLI for fallout)

So it's up to you, single card with AMD or PCI-E 3.0 SLI with 3570K, either way you get what you pay for, just to note, this 1100$ will outperform mine. (because I have a single 660 and I never will spend more than 200e on a single card, mostly because everything above 660s is overpriced like hell here).

Another variant, would be to take a single 660 and an SSD. SSD will improve the loading times in some games, not all. And will improve the overall responsivness of your system.

Mr. H님이 먼저 게시:

For CPU I suggest AMD APU technology like the A8 or A10 series. The integrated graphics on these chips is incredible compared to the intel integrated card.

Whoever can afford Intel can afford a separate GPU.

[_I_]

op is in the uk

if he can afford the fx 8000, why not an i5, its not much more and double the per core preformance
(programs that use 4 or less cores will run about twice as good on i5, and programs that use 5-8 cores will run slightly better on the i5)

For the motherboard, hmm strange, there are no mATX mobos with 2 PCIE x16 with AMD socket, ah well, full ATX then.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130637
80$ - A fine mobo, pretty looking bios, SATA 3 for SSDs to add later, 2 PCI-E slots for crossfire or SLI if you want to add another card and USB 3.0.

i strongly disagree
msi am3+ boards are the worst, they use extremely weak vrms, and can start on fire with 95-125w cpus stock
look at the msi failboard list
http://www.overclock.net/a/database-of-motherboard-vrm-failure-incidents

[Velmarshal]

_I_님이 먼저 게시:

op is in the uk

if he can afford the fx 8000, why not an i5, its not much more and double the per core preformance
(programs that use 4 or less cores will run about twice as good on i5, and programs that use 5-8 cores will run slightly better on the i5)

Well yeah I only remembered the Intel advantages later in the post, my bad. xD

[Gixanix]

A decent monitor is expensive aswell, god its pathetic this is gonna cost me £800