PC Prices Are Staggering

[ZOMBIECRUNCH]

It does not even seem to be worth it to build a new pc. For the price of building a new PC I can have a custom made guitar with change left over to buy a bunch more cool after market parts for the rest of the guitars I have. And maybe a new amp and cab. If I am gonna spend 3,000$ to 5,000$. It sure as hell is not going to be on a computer.

[RealEgg]

Get a PS5.

[Dutchgamer1982]

gaming is quite a normal price.
you must convert it to cost per month.. not as lumb sum.

low end :
buy a 1200 euro pc once every 4 years
= 25 euro a month

mid end :
Year 0 : buy a 2400 euro pc
Year 2 : upgrade it for 600 euro (new gpu, bit more ram)
Year 4 : buy a new system, for 1600 euro, keep the monitor and keyboard
Year 6 : upgrade it for 600 euro (new gpu, bit more ram)
Year 8 : start over at year 0
= 55 euro a month

High end :
Year 0 : buy a 4000 euro pc
Year 1.5 : upgrade it for 1000 euro (new gpu, bit more ram)
Year 3 : buy a new system, for 4000 euro
= 140 euro a month.


thats hardware, yes on top of that you be buying games.. and those be costing money too.

But now that Guitar.
-> you be spending on lessons.. those likely will cost a lot too
-> you be spending on strings, repairs etc if electic also on ampifliers and such
-> you be spending on sheat music

you should for both calculate it down to cost per month and than decide which gives you more enjoyment.
what good is owning that guitar if you in practice only play it twice than never use it againn.. same with that pc.

when buying things you must not look at the upfront price but at the price per month to maintain that lifestyle.
-> the moment you start saving for a new device is the day you just got a brand new one..

to many idiots start only preparting for replacing stuff once what they got start to break..

[Fernando Alonso]

Dutchgamer1982님이 먼저 게시:

gaming is quite a normal price.
you must convert it to cost per month.. not as lumb sum.

low end :
buy a 1200 euro pc once every 4 years
= 25 euro a month

mid end :
Year 0 : buy a 2400 euro pc
Year 2 : upgrade it for 600 euro (new gpu, bit more ram)
Year 4 : buy a new system, for 1600 euro, keep the monitor and keyboard
Year 6 : upgrade it for 600 euro (new gpu, bit more ram)
Year 8 : start over at year 0
= 55 euro a month

High end :
Year 0 : buy a 4000 euro pc
Year 1.5 : upgrade it for 1000 euro (new gpu, bit more ram)
Year 3 : buy a new system, for 4000 euro
= 140 euro a month.


thats hardware, yes on top of that you be buying games.. and those be costing money too.

But now that Guitar.
-> you be spending on lessons.. those likely will cost a lot too
-> you be spending on strings, repairs etc if electic also on ampifliers and such
-> you be spending on sheat music

you should for both calculate it down to cost per month and than decide which gives you more enjoyment.
what good is owning that guitar if you in practice only play it twice than never use it againn.. same with that pc.
you got down talked the entire time in hardware forum for speaking sh!t when you barely know anything
when buying things you must not look at the upfront price but at the price per month to maintain that lifestyle.
-> the moment you start saving for a new device is the day you just got a brand new one..

to many idiots start only preparting for replacing stuff once what they got start to break..

this is the same user btw who said a i7-6950X is comparable to a 5600x in FPS in gaming
legit clown

[pasa]

ZOMBIECRUNCH님이 먼저 게시:

It does not even seem to be worth it to build a new pc. For the price of building a new PC I can have a custom made guitar with change left over to buy a bunch more cool after market parts for the rest of the guitars I have. And maybe a new amp and cab. If I am gonna spend 3,000$ to 5,000$. It sure as hell is not going to be on a computer.

The what? You can build a fair pc for $700 and a decent one for 1440p play for $1200. Anything above the latter is luxury spending. I just build one myself and have unlimited budget only look for what is at least somewhat reasonable and topped off at $1800. What will probably work for 8-10 years spending just 2-300 more on plus ram and storage.

3000 is pure burning money made only by spoiled kids using grandma's handouts.

[Dracoco OwO]

MarketBag177님이 먼저 게시:

Get a PS5.

Literally don't unless you want to play the games on it. Few exclusives that doesn't sound worth it tbh.

[MinionJoe]

death enjoyer님이 먼저 게시:

this is the same user btw who said a i7-6950X is comparable to a 5600x in FPS in gaming
legit clown

It's fairly easy to verify:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600X/3604vs4084

And it really illustrates how little performance per dollar you get from Intel these days.

[Knee]

AdahnGorion님이 먼저 게시:

death enjoyer님이 먼저 게시:

if you cant notice 80 vs 120 then there is something wrong with your eyes definitely
i sit glose enough to the screen where i can notice everything
i dont even need a fps meter to tell me if my game has below 100 fps because i can notice it
some people are simply not true players

The eyes can´t even see 60 fps.
It is not our eyes, but our brain that translate the fluidity and there are many things depending on how you calculate and output this.

In movies you would most likely never complain depiste it being 24 FPS, but that is because you have film grain etc (it takes away detail and such) when we play videogames we have a much cleaner image and sometimes the pace is faster, this means the low bar changes..

This is why I told you to try and do the UFO test or try to open a game, put on film grain and motion blur.. (this will make it seem more fluid, if you have lower fps)


Anyway.. there is basically no difference from 80 to 120 fps in most games, because of the diminishing returns.. The fact you think your eyes are the most important factor here and that they can see this much is enough to make me wanna just stop the debate here.

What does "basically" no difference mean? I thought the whole point of the above opinion was to demonstrate that there IS no difference?

[pasa]

The wisdom is still that the sweet spot is around 75hz, to that even minor differences are not hard to notice, above it takes more and more special person or situation. Probably even the noticed things not tied to the avg fps but a rare drop.

OTOH some individuals keep the claim that yeah, they see big diff 120 to 144 or 144 to 165 -- so "basically" is due to soften an absolute statement.

[Fernando Alonso]

MinionJoe님이 먼저 게시:

death enjoyer님이 먼저 게시:

this is the same user btw who said a i7-6950X is comparable to a 5600x in FPS in gaming
legit clown

It's fairly easy to verify:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600X/3604vs4084

And it really illustrates how little performance per dollar you get from Intel these days.

that site is bullsh
are you really trying to make yourself look like a fool on a public forum?
that site is very well known to be biased and fake
its not 10% but more like 35%

[Devsman]

Well, I hear you, but what isn't? Mrs. Devsman and I spent $30 at Taco the hell Bell last week.

EDIT: Taco Ball lol

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Nah OP you are wrong, you can build a decent PC these days for around 1000$.

And I am talking a 4k gaming PC.... maybe not including a good monitor in that equation though lol.

[MinionJoe]

death enjoyer님이 먼저 게시:

MinionJoe님이 먼저 게시:

It's fairly easy to verify:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600X/3604vs4084

And it really illustrates how little performance per dollar you get from Intel these days.

that site is bullsh
are you really trying to make yourself look like a fool on a public forum?
that site is very well known to be biased and fake
its not 10% but more like 35%

Then feel free to counter with a different source.

Assuming you're capable of doing so.

[Fernando Alonso]

MinionJoe님이 먼저 게시:

death enjoyer님이 먼저 게시:

that site is bullsh
are you really trying to make yourself look like a fool on a public forum?
that site is very well known to be biased and fake
its not 10% but more like 35%

Then feel free to counter with a different source.

Assuming you're capable of doing so.

i dont think you have been on the pc market for long enough to know that userbenchmark is a total biased and fake site
everyone that knows even a bit would laugh at you for suggesting that site
if there is no review of that cpu then there isnt
but pulling up the worst site possible? terrible mistake man
the 7700k was and still is better at gaming than that cpu
the 9900k is better than both
the 5600x is better than all of these
do i need to say more?

[Watermelon {JESUS IS LORD}]

Munithe EXT님이 먼저 게시:

You can build a cheaper one.

yep

i recently bought a used dell optiplex from ebay with an i53470 for $50 and put a gt730 in it for $50

full fledged gaming pc for $100 at budget price

[AdahnGorion]

Knee님이 먼저 게시:

AdahnGorion님이 먼저 게시:

The eyes can´t even see 60 fps.
It is not our eyes, but our brain that translate the fluidity and there are many things depending on how you calculate and output this.

In movies you would most likely never complain depiste it being 24 FPS, but that is because you have film grain etc (it takes away detail and such) when we play videogames we have a much cleaner image and sometimes the pace is faster, this means the low bar changes..

This is why I told you to try and do the UFO test or try to open a game, put on film grain and motion blur.. (this will make it seem more fluid, if you have lower fps)


Anyway.. there is basically no difference from 80 to 120 fps in most games, because of the diminishing returns.. The fact you think your eyes are the most important factor here and that they can see this much is enough to make me wanna just stop the debate here.

What does "basically" no difference mean? I thought the whole point of the above opinion was to demonstrate that there IS no difference?

It means that the avarage person wont see a difference in fluidity. Humans are however different, so some people might be more sensetive to fluidity, just as some have different colour blindness, light sensetivity, etc etc etc.

But your avarage human wont even see a difference from 80-120 FPS in a regular game.. I actually don´t even think the avarage person would see a difference from 60-80 in most genres.. There is a large amount of people that don´t even see a difference from 30 - 60


Again the frame drops are much more problematic, than actual fps heights... This is why so many people complain over ie. CS2, because now the avarage machine will get some larger frame drops, that means you will notice stutter or the game not being fluid.