[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]What it if I don't want to build a game system, I just want to play games?Kez1984
Buy these
For single player
Thanks for the lemonade in my nose and on my keyboard because of that post. lol :P
The $600 PC is Real Guys!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="hopesfall2own"]Anyone see the irony in the TC's name and the thread title? ;)VoodooGamer
Voodoo comes from the song "Voodoo Chile" by Jimmy Hendrix, gamer comes from..well c'mon, it's obvious. ;)
Oh, i thought the name was something related to the 3dfx days :(
[QUOTE="supermechakirby"]sound card will pull more performance, thats just releaving stress from the CPU and Ram for sound processing
now, if you want to keep this thread Alive Id go take some screenshots and show us how well this rig can run these POWERFUL eye popping graphically advanced games that you hermits claim are so great
VoodooGamer
The only "hard PC game" to run is Crysis. ;) As for everything else, well the 8800GT owns.
But my 4870 HD owns your 8800 GT MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
If i was you i'did get a HD4850 instead of a 8800GT.MojondeVACA
qft, better and cheaper.
[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"][QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]I paid almost that for my Sega Saturn on release day and your rig is way better :roll:
SgtWhiskeyjack
The obvious is obvious sometimes.
Though you still felt compelled to make a thread about it.
Um, no I didn't? Really, where did I mention the Sega Saturn? Also, if you're saying that it's ridiculous to compare a new PC to a console made in 2005, than you didn't read the thread sir. That's not what this thread is about.
Fair one, but who are these people who say you can't? The one you've built isn't anywhere near cutting edge and I doubt a PC gamer who want power and lots of it, wouldn't really be content with it.
The normal way to go about building a PC is to buy the best, most powerful components thats available for as cheap as you can get it - not to compremise.
How rediculous! You can spend up to $5000 if you want the 'best' of what is out there. My brother is doing a very similar build to the one TC is doing at it wipes the floor with anything consoles can do. The point is, if you want the best visuals around then this is all you need to spend.
To the person mentioning the price of a lcd, he can just hook it up to a TV!
[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="hopesfall2own"]Anyone see the irony in the TC's name and the thread title? ;)hopesfall2own
Voodoo comes from the song "Voodoo Chile" by Jimmy Hendrix, gamer comes from..well c'mon, it's obvious. ;)
ya but you know voodoo the pc makers and how expensive they are right? :Pbut voodoo was also the legendary GPU builder. I still remember my first graphics card on my first computer, a Voodoo 3 it even had 3dfx!
hmm read it up now, looks like 3dfx was the manuactuer, I always tought it is a thing similar to directx....
The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
Yeah, $600 PC has always been reality. In fact atm even a "budget PC" like that has ridiculous amount of power so it's a good time to build one imo. I'd prolly go for Intel CPU tho, you can always squeeze some extra from them since they're good overclockers.
Oh, and don't be cheap with PSU, many people overlook it but it's the heart of a good PC. With other parts you can often get away bying low quality, but most of the cheapest PSU's are just plain horrible.
[QUOTE="lowe0"]I'm extremely disappointed with my 8800 GT.
Kez1984
8800 gt is a great card. The last card I bought before it was a X1950 pro, now that was a disappointing card, no more ATI for me.
Really? I'm still on x1950pro and I'm very happy with it.
The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
Thompsonwhore
GPU updates might be coming thick and fast, but the software to use it, is not. Therefore, there is no 'need' to be updating hardware just becasue a new GPU comes out. Games do not suddenly become unplayable after a year. :lol:
[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
spacedog1973
GPU updates might be coming thick and fast, but the software to use it, is not. Therefore, there is no 'need' to be updating hardware just becasue a new GPU comes out. Games do not suddenly become unplayable after a year. :lol:
oh yes they do become unplayable. when crysis was released, the 8800gtx could run it on high without a problem. these days the gtx cant even play it on low ![QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
spacedog1973
GPU updates might be coming thick and fast, but the software to use it, is not. Therefore, there is no 'need' to be updating hardware just becasue a new GPU comes out. Games do not suddenly become unplayable after a year. :lol:
No, of course they don't become unplayable after a year. But new games in a year will be.
Hardware will always be behind the software.
[QUOTE="spacedog1973"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
Thompsonwhore
GPU updates might be coming thick and fast, but the software to use it, is not. Therefore, there is no 'need' to be updating hardware just becasue a new GPU comes out. Games do not suddenly become unplayable after a year. :lol:
No, of course they don't become unplayable after a year. But new games in a year will be.
Hardware will always be behind the software.
Thats making an assumption (reading a crystal ball you don't have). What we do know is that becasue of the proliferation of multiplat games, the demand on GPUs is far less than it once was. Crysis (the current graphicalwill only probably be superceeded by its own sequel.
A GTX, GT, 9600 and the ATI eqiuivalents still will perform well for the forseeable future unless you know of a game which is due out next year which will render all current GPU hardware obselete? :)
[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"][QUOTE="spacedog1973"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
spacedog1973
GPU updates might be coming thick and fast, but the software to use it, is not. Therefore, there is no 'need' to be updating hardware just becasue a new GPU comes out. Games do not suddenly become unplayable after a year. :lol:
No, of course they don't become unplayable after a year. But new games in a year will be.
Hardware will always be behind the software.
Thats making an assumption (reading a crystal ball you don't have). What we do know is that becasue of the proliferation of multiplat games, the demand on GPUs is far less than it once was. Crysis (the current graphicalwill only probably be superceeded by its own sequel.
A GTX, GT, 9600 and the ATI eqiuivalents still will perform well for the forseeable future unless you know of a game which is due out next year which will render all current GPU hardware obselete? :)
No, I don't know of a game off-hand. I don't invest any time into tracking these things down. But just because I can't think of a title that would make current cards chug, doesn't mean none of them will.
I would have to say you're making the much more naive assumption to say that there won't be any software that will tax current hardware within a year.
[QUOTE="spacedog1973"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
Thompsonwhore
GPU updates might be coming thick and fast, but the software to use it, is not. Therefore, there is no 'need' to be updating hardware just becasue a new GPU comes out. Games do not suddenly become unplayable after a year. :lol:
No, of course they don't become unplayable after a year. But new games in a year will be.
Hardware will always be behind the software.
Ahh, no Game released this year will require higher specs then Crysis, not even Crysis Warhead. I fail to see the reason to upgrade so quickly.[QUOTE="spacedog1973"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]The 600USD PC may be real, but it lasts about one year in terms of software.
Face the reality of owning a PC: it is expensive and has nearly no resale value.
I love the PC and hold the opinion that it trumps console gaming in all areas, but it comes at a price.
Only back in March did I build my new PC and already the GPU has been surpassed by two generations. Now I'm buying another 300USD GPU. In another year, I'm going to have to replace it again, as well as the CPU and motherboard. A year after that, everything but the case will have to go.
Thompsonwhore
GPU updates might be coming thick and fast, but the software to use it, is not. Therefore, there is no 'need' to be updating hardware just becasue a new GPU comes out. Games do not suddenly become unplayable after a year. :lol:
No, of course they don't become unplayable after a year. But new games in a year will be.
Hardware will always be behind the software.
You think games being released a year from now won't be playable on an 8800GT? :lol:
No really it is! How do I know this? Because I'm building it. I'd just like to start off by saying this isn't a thread about "You can get a PC for the same amount as a console, negating any reason to get a console", I don't believe that for obvious reasons. ;)
This thread is to those who say "You can't build a $500-600 gaming PC"
I could go all out and build another $1000 rig, in fact I could just upgrade the old one and still play newer games but I'm not going to do that for a couple reasons:
- I want more "computer building experience" (I've only built two PCs and I haven't run into any problems, I WANT PROBLEMS)
- I'm really short for money and if I can get away with a decent gaming rig for cheap, I'M GOING TO DO IT!
So here's the rig as seen on Neweggs Checkout page:
- CASE: Coolermaster Centurion 5 $49.99 (I've seen people who spent $1000 and above with this as their chassis)
- MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte GA-M7700 $78.99
- GPU: EVGA 8800GT 512 $134.99
- PSU: Rosewill RP550V $59.99 (My friend used this on his PC, he says it's great)
- CPU: AMD Athlon X2 ~2.3 GHZ $49.99
- RAM: Corsair 2GB DDR2 800 $57.00
- Storage: Western Digital Caviar 250GB $59.99
- Sound Device: Turtle Beach RIVIERA $23.99 (Probably wont increase FPS or anything but the sound quality is good)
- OS: Windows Vista Basic 32 BIT: $89.99
The CPU got good reviews on Newegg and a few people I've seen are running it with the same card I bought. Also, I'm only using Vista to really get a "feel" for what it is. My bro has it, and I can't say it's that much different from XP other than from an aesthetic viewpoint but again I've spent little time with it. If I don't like it, it's coming out. ;)
I'm reusing my Monitor and keyboard and mouse. For those of you who say, "Well you have to count the price of the monitor too" well you'd have to count your TV too. ;)
So discuss. :)
VoodooGamer
it's so funny that no one seem to added those numbers and figured out that it's over $600 :)
voodoo just hae proven "You can't build a $500-600 gaming PC" is true :D
You think games being released a year from now won't be playable on an 8800GT? :lol:DAZZER7
Of course all games will be playable. You'll probably be able to enable high or maybe max settings on most of them. But there will also be plenty that have much higher demands than most, and with those titles, you'll be running at low or medium.
Ahh, no Game released this year will require higher specs then Crysis, not even Crysis Warhead. I fail to see the reason to upgrade so quickly.DAZZER7
No, maybe not in 2008. But this time in 2009, there will more than likely be a game, or games, that do.
[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]You think games being released a year from now won't be playable on an 8800GT? :lol:Thompsonwhore
Of course all games will be playable. You'll probably be able to enable high or maybe max settings on most of them. But there will also be plenty that have much higher demands than most, and with those titles, you'll be running at low or medium.
Ahh, no Game released this year will require higher specs then Crysis, not even Crysis Warhead. I fail to see the reason to upgrade so quickly.DAZZER7
No, maybe not in 2008. But this time in 2009, there will more than likely be a game, or games, that do.
Late 2009, sure, that's when I was planning to upgrade myself anyway. But I only plan to upgrade the GPU. No need to buy a whole new rig until, at least, 2011. You don't need to upgrade your GPU every 5 months and get a new rig every 18 months like you're claiming.No, I don't know of a game off-hand. I don't invest any time into tracking these things down. But just because I can't think of a title that would make current cards chug, doesn't mean none of them will.
I would have to say you're making the much more naive assumption to say that there won't be any software that will tax current hardware within a year.
I think you need to read back upon what you have stated and take owership of your own words. Of course there will be games that 'tax current hardware' - I've never stated that there wouldn't. HOWEVER, I have and still do state that current hardware will be perfectly usuable next year and the following for gaming and that there will be 'NO NEED' to upgrade year on year as you have stated.
Late 2009, sure, that's when I was planning to upgrade myself anyway. But I only plan to upgrade the GPU. No need to buy a whole new rig until, at least, 2011. You don't need to upgrade your GPU every 5 months and get a new rig every 18 months like you're claiming.Luigi_Vincetana
No, of course you don't have to. But to play new titles at their highest settings, you do.
And if you think you can keep your current processor and play future releases until 2011, you're pretty naive.
I think you need to read back upon what you have stated and take owership of your own words. Of course there will be games that 'tax current hardware' - I've never stated that there wouldn't. HOWEVER, I have and still do state that current hardware will be perfectly usuable next year and the following for gaming and that there will be 'NO NEED' to upgrade year on year as you have stated.spacedog1973
You're only reiterating what I have already said. You don't need to upgrade to play future games. But you do if you intend to play them at high settings.
And it's not just high settings, but a solid 60+ FPS as well.
[QUOTE="Luigi_Vincetana"]Late 2009, sure, that's when I was planning to upgrade myself anyway. But I only plan to upgrade the GPU. No need to buy a whole new rig until, at least, 2011. You don't need to upgrade your GPU every 5 months and get a new rig every 18 months like you're claiming.Thompsonwhore
No, of course you don't have to. But to play new titles at their highest settings, you do.
And if you think you can keep your current processor and play future releases until 2011, you're pretty naive.
I think you need to read back upon what you have stated and take owership of your own words. Of course there will be games that 'tax current hardware' - I've never stated that there wouldn't. HOWEVER, I have and still do state that current hardware will be perfectly usuable next year and the following for gaming and that there will be 'NO NEED' to upgrade year on year as you have stated.spacedog1973
You're only reiterating what I have already said. You don't need to upgrade to play future games. But you do if you intend to play them at high settings.
And it's not just high settings, but a solid 60+ FPS as well.
The processor will be 'running' games just fine. My old pentium 4 3.0GHz has lasted just fine and that came out at a time when software was pretty much outpacing hardware. Software is moving a lot slower now. Trust me it will be still running games in 2011 atleast at 'low' settings if past trends are anything to go by.
Also you dont need to play at 60+ fps aswell. If 30 fps is good enough for consolites then its good enough for hermits to work with lol. Earlier you said the pc would only last a year, now you've moved it back to 2011, just admit you're wrong lol.
[QUOTE="Luigi_Vincetana"]Late 2009, sure, that's when I was planning to upgrade myself anyway. But I only plan to upgrade the GPU. No need to buy a whole new rig until, at least, 2011. You don't need to upgrade your GPU every 5 months and get a new rig every 18 months like you're claiming.Thompsonwhore
No, of course you don't have to. But to play new titles at their highest settings, you do.
And if you think you can keep your current processor and play future releases until 2011, you're pretty naive.
I think you need to read back upon what you have stated and take owership of your own words. Of course there will be games that 'tax current hardware' - I've never stated that there wouldn't. HOWEVER, I have and still do state that current hardware will be perfectly usuable next year and the following for gaming and that there will be 'NO NEED' to upgrade year on year as you have stated.spacedog1973
You're only reiterating what I have already said. You don't need to upgrade to play future games. But you do if you intend to play them at high settings.
And it's not just high settings, but a solid 60+ FPS as well.
Sorry, I thought you were someone who might at least acknowledge when you are wrong or perhaps have some knowledge of what you are talking about. You clearly are not either.
There is one positive thing here though, you probably are a good source of perfectly fine and still relevant PC parts at presumably knock down prices.
MY peice of advice to those who don't like to through good money away; upgrade only when you find a game you want to play and your hardware cannot play it. Then balance this with all the games your hardware can play perfectly well. Is this worth upgrading for? If so, then upgrade, rather than 'every year' or whatever timeframe you predict it time to upgrade:lol:
The processor will be 'running' games just fine. My old pentium 4 3.0GHz has lasted just fine and that came out at a time when software was pretty much outpacing hardware. Software is moving a lot slower now. Trust me it will be still running games in 2011 atleast at 'low' settings if past trends are anything to go by.Also you dont need to play at 60+ fps aswell. If 30 fps is good enough for consolites then its good enough for hermits to work with lol. Earlier you said the pc would only last a year, now you've moved it back to 2011, just admit you're wrong lol.
DAZZER7
A P4 lasting just fine? Well that says a lot about your standards.
And did you just say the P4 will be running games just fine into 2011? It can't even run any games now except at sub-30FPS.
No, 30FPS is not good enough for PC shooters. Or at least, it's not good enough for me. 30FPS in Counter-Strike Source or Unreal Tournament looks like a slideshow.
Clearly, this is a difference of preferance and tolerance, but the fact remains that to play games either at high settings or high FPS, frequent upgrades are required. To fight me on this is just to be ignorant.
You can argue that it will "get by" with future releases; and of course it will, but that's not what my position is.
Sorry, I thought you were someone who might at least acknowledge when you are wrong or perhaps have some knowledge of what you are talking about. You clearly are not either.There is one positive thing here though, you probably are a good source of perfectly fine and still relevant PC parts at presumably knock down prices.
MY peice of advice to those who don't like to through good money away; upgrade only when you find a game you want to play and your hardware cannot play it. Then balance this with all the games your hardware can play perfectly well. Is this worth upgrading for? If so, then upgrade, rather than 'every year' or whatever timeframe you predict it time to upgrade:lol:
spacedog1973
You know a person has lost an argument when they resort to sarcasm and insults.
sound card will pull more performance, thats just releaving stress from the CPU and Ram for sound processing
now, if you want to keep this thread Alive Id go take some screenshots and show us how well this rig can run these POWERFUL eye popping graphically advanced games that you hermits claim are so great
supermechakirby
SOund is really important, if i had enough i'd have 5.1 speakers over a little performance any day.
[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]The processor will be 'running' games just fine. My old pentium 4 3.0GHz has lasted just fine and that came out at a time when software was pretty much outpacing hardware. Software is moving a lot slower now. Trust me it will be still running games in 2011 atleast at 'low' settings if past trends are anything to go by.Also you dont need to play at 60+ fps aswell. If 30 fps is good enough for consolites then its good enough for hermits to work with lol. Earlier you said the pc would only last a year, now you've moved it back to 2011, just admit you're wrong lol.
Thompsonwhore
A P4 lasting just fine? Well that says a lot about your standards.
And did you just say the P4 will be running games just fine into 2011? It can't even run any games now except at sub-30FPS.
No, 30FPS is not good enough for PC shooters. Or at least, it's not good enough for me. 30FPS in Counter-Strike Source or Unreal Tournament looks like a slideshow.
Clearly, this is a difference of preferance and tolerance, but the fact remains that to play games either at high settings or high FPS, frequent upgrades are required. To fight me on this is just to be ignorant.
You can argue that it will "get by" with future releases; and of course it will, but that's not what my position is.
I was using the P4 as an example of processors running games. No I did not mean that it will be running games in 2011.
My standards? We're not talking about my standards, we're talking about current hardware and whther it will play games out next year, the year after that and the year after that. My point is that the processor the TC mentioned will at least be running games, his system as a whole will be meeeting the minimum specs a few years from now at least.
To fight you on this? lol stop being so ignorant yourself and respect toher peoples opinions who know a lot about pc gaming. I've been a hermit on these forums for 4 years now. 30 fps is NOT a slide show. Ask any of the hermits around here. Sure 30 fps is certainly preferable but it does not equate a slide show. I've had my current rig for 18months now. By your logic I shouldn't be maxing games out and should be struggling to run them, right lol. Well apart from Crysis, I'm doing fine on just about any game out.
The fact is that to be a 'PC-gamer' you absolutely do not need to buy new hardware every year. You can but sufficiently good hardware that can last typical console cycles. This is typically what I do. By the end of the cycle I may not be running game-x on maximum settings, probably even minimum settings, but its still better than what the console will be running it at.
The only people who need to upgrade every year are the 'enthusiasts', people who have enough money to do that. We're talkign about pc gamers as a whole group. Sorry mate, for you to argue with that would be...ignorant!
[QUOTE="Luigi_Vincetana"]Late 2009, sure, that's when I was planning to upgrade myself anyway. But I only plan to upgrade the GPU. No need to buy a whole new rig until, at least, 2011. You don't need to upgrade your GPU every 5 months and get a new rig every 18 months like you're claiming.Thompsonwhore
No, of course you don't have to. But to play new titles at their highest settings, you do.
And if you think you can keep your current processor and play future releases until 2011, you're pretty naive.
I think you need to read back upon what you have stated and take owership of your own words. Of course there will be games that 'tax current hardware' - I've never stated that there wouldn't. HOWEVER, I have and still do state that current hardware will be perfectly usuable next year and the following for gaming and that there will be 'NO NEED' to upgrade year on year as you have stated.spacedog1973
You're only reiterating what I have already said. You don't need to upgrade to play future games. But you do if you intend to play them at high settings.
And it's not just high settings, but a solid 60+ FPS as well.
If that really becomes a problem, I can always just switch up to a Core 2 Quad (Which should be cheap by that time and provide a decent enough performance boost to last me until my next PC). I don't mind playing on medium for a year or so before I switch.I was using the P4 as an example of processors running games. No I did not mean that it will be running games in 2011.My standards? We're not talking about my standards, we're talking about current hardware and whther it will play games out next year, the year after that and the year after that. My point is that the processor the TC mentioned will at least be running games, his system as a whole will be meeeting the minimum specs a few years from now at least.
To fight you on this? lol stop being so ignorant yourself and respect toher peoples opinions who know a lot about pc gaming. I've been a hermit on these forums for 4 years now. 30 fps is NOT a slide show. Ask any of the hermits around here. Sure 30 fps is certainly preferable but it does not equate a slide show. I've had my current rig for 18months now. By your logic I shouldn't be maxing games out and should be struggling to run them, right lol. Well apart from Crysis, I'm doing fine on just about any game out.
The fact is that to be a 'PC-gamer' you absolutely do not need to buy new hardware every year. You can but sufficiently good hardware that can last typical console cycles. This is typically what I do. By the end of the cycle I may not be running game-x on maximum settings, probably even minimum settings, but its still better than what the console will be running it at.
The only people who need to upgrade every year are the 'enthusiasts', people who have enough money to do that. We're talkign about pc gamers as a whole group. Sorry mate, for you to argue with that would be...ignorant!
DAZZER7
By your standards, I meant your tolerance for FPS.
Oh man, four years. We've got a master here. And 30FPS is a slide show for me, as I stated before. You talk about respecting other's opinions yet you take what was clearly a personal preference and try to disprove it as if it were fact.
30FPS is fine for RPGs and RTS. But not for FPS. Most, if not all, hardcore FPS players would agree with me on that.
As for my "logic" (used far too much on these forums), as I said it's likely that there will be games within a year that current hardware will not be able to run easily. That's not always the case, as the 8800GTX had a great lifespan and could run every game at max for a year and a half. Of course there were a handful of titles that it struggled with later.
I never suggested a criteria for what constitutes a PC gamer, so I don't know why you brought it up. Only prerequisite for that is to play games on a PC which doesn't include the ones that ships with Windows.
Look I'm not denying this and I don't think anybody else is denying that you can build a $600 gaming pc. The thing is, is that is still $300 more than a console, not only that, not saying what you are building is crappy, but I mean look if I'm going to build a pc its going to be a good one. Not a middle of pack that can run crysis at medium settings and will be pretty much useless come next year. Thats the issue that some hermits don't understand, but being a pc gamer myself, there is a reason why the best video card of 2 years ago is cheap now, thats because there is a one ten times better than that and the one from 2 years ago that you are putting in will be even crappier next year with the newer games that come out.
EDIT: Also I don't understand how people can go and spend $600-$700 on a pc that can only run crysis at medium settings! I mean come on that game is what it is because of its breath taking graphics. My whole point is besides Crysis, all the other pcs games that are out there might just be better than a console's graphics but not that much better to justify me personally to go spend $1000-$1500 on a gaming rig, because thats what you would spend for a good gaming rig not a half-assed one.
[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"][QUOTE="Luigi_Vincetana"]Late 2009, sure, that's when I was planning to upgrade myself anyway. But I only plan to upgrade the GPU. No need to buy a whole new rig until, at least, 2011. You don't need to upgrade your GPU every 5 months and get a new rig every 18 months like you're claiming.Luigi_Vincetana
No, of course you don't have to. But to play new titles at their highest settings, you do.
And if you think you can keep your current processor and play future releases until 2011, you're pretty naive.
I think you need to read back upon what you have stated and take owership of your own words. Of course there will be games that 'tax current hardware' - I've never stated that there wouldn't. HOWEVER, I have and still do state that current hardware will be perfectly usuable next year and the following for gaming and that there will be 'NO NEED' to upgrade year on year as you have stated.spacedog1973
You're only reiterating what I have already said. You don't need to upgrade to play future games. But you do if you intend to play them at high settings.
And it's not just high settings, but a solid 60+ FPS as well.
If that really becomes a problem, I can always just switch up to a Core 2 Quad (Which should be cheap by that time and provide a decent enough performance boost to last me until my next PC). I don't mind playing on medium for a year or so before I switch.No point in upgrading to a quad considering an E8400 can be bought for 160USD and runs current titles far faster than quads.
In 2010, it'll be worth it to buy a quad, but not now. The games that can take advantage of quads now are rare and the actual gains are negligible.
Look I'm not denying this and I don't think anybody else is denying that you can build a $600 gaming pc. The thing is, is that is still $300 more than a console, not only that, not saying what you are building is crappy, but I mean look if I'm going to build a pc its going to be a good one. Not a middle of pack that can run crysis at medium settings and will be pretty much useless come next year. Thats the issue that some hermits don't understand, but being a pc gamer myself, there is a reason why the best video card of 2 years ago is cheap now, thats because there is a one ten times better than that and the one from 2 years ago that you are putting in will be even crappier next year with the newer games that come out.xscrapzx
My 8800 GTS 640 is what .. 3 years old now? cost £220 at the time, yet again, 3 years later? other than Crysis? ( Which plays on Very High wil low shadows no aa at 30 FPS ) ( not the best i know, but more than playable).
Where are these games that make my 8800 redundant? where are these upcoming games that make it redundant within the next year? all I can see is STALKER and Empire Total War.....
In which case i will probabl max STALKER clear sky at 1680 x 1050 ... with frame dips now and then, which is acceptable for a single player game. Empire Total War would probably chug with the unit limit which is huge anyway.
consoles only hold their value against the pc for the first 2 years of their lifecycle max. this pc obliterates the ps3 and 360 in performance but building pcs isnt very mass market friendlymephisto_11
Ya but you know what in a consoles life span you don't get video games that come out and can't run on your console because they required higher specs. Unfotunately with a pc you have to deal with that every year!
[QUOTE="mephisto_11"]consoles only hold their value against the pc for the first 2 years of their lifecycle max. this pc obliterates the ps3 and 360 in performance but building pcs isnt very mass market friendlyxscrapzx
Ya but you know what in a consoles life span you don't get video games that come out and can't run on your console because they required higher specs. Unfotunately with a pc you have to deal with that every year!
i can play gears, oblivion, bioshock, ut3 on my 4 year old pc running a 7800gtx
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Look I'm not denying this and I don't think anybody else is denying that you can build a $600 gaming pc. The thing is, is that is still $300 more than a console, not only that, not saying what you are building is crappy, but I mean look if I'm going to build a pc its going to be a good one. Not a middle of pack that can run crysis at medium settings and will be pretty much useless come next year. Thats the issue that some hermits don't understand, but being a pc gamer myself, there is a reason why the best video card of 2 years ago is cheap now, thats because there is a one ten times better than that and the one from 2 years ago that you are putting in will be even crappier next year with the newer games that come out.PC360Wii
My 8800 GTS 640 is what .. 3 years old now? cost £220 at the time, yet again, 3 years later? other than Crysis? ( Which plays on Very High wil low shadows no aa at 30 FPS ) ( not the best i know, but more than playable).
Where are these games that make my 8800 redundant? where are these upcoming games that make it redundant within the next year? all I can see is STALKER and Empire Total War.....
In which case i will probabl max STALKER clear sky at 1680 x 1050 ... with frame dips now and then, which is acceptable for a single player game. Empire Total War would probably chug with the unit limit which is huge anyway.
Ok you just made my point. I just edited that previous post that you quoted me on and I added more to it. The gripe I have is that the PC games that are out now are beautiful no doubt, but they aren't these games that are so damn mind boggling beautiful than that of any console game. Besides Crysis being the game that pretty much takes video games to a whole another league, that really is the only game as of right now that you can sit back and say "Ya that blows away any console game". Thats it though, all the other games you can say well ya it beats out some console games maybe by a hair or is on par. Thats my point, the graphics out there now on pcs aren't distorying console games so much so that you are sitting here saying WOW its so damn obvious. So for me if I'm going to build a gaming rig its going to be something that runs Crysis pretty much to its full potential, not something that oh YAY I can run Crysis at medium settings! No to me that is a waste. Thats all I'm trying to say.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="mephisto_11"]consoles only hold their value against the pc for the first 2 years of their lifecycle max. this pc obliterates the ps3 and 360 in performance but building pcs isnt very mass market friendlymephisto_11
Ya but you know what in a consoles life span you don't get video games that come out and can't run on your console because they required higher specs. Unfotunately with a pc you have to deal with that every year!
i can play gears, oblivion, bioshock, ut3 on my 4 year old pc running a 7800gtx
I never said you can't play them, but to be able to play them at MAX settings with no noticeable ewwww on the screen.
EDIT: If you can't run those games at the settings that make them what they are, then what the hell is the point? Why play a game at half-assed settings? There is a very noticable difference from medium to max settings, I'm sorry but to me thats not enjoyable.
[QUOTE="mephisto_11"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="mephisto_11"]consoles only hold their value against the pc for the first 2 years of their lifecycle max. this pc obliterates the ps3 and 360 in performance but building pcs isnt very mass market friendlyxscrapzx
Ya but you know what in a consoles life span you don't get video games that come out and can't run on your console because they required higher specs. Unfotunately with a pc you have to deal with that every year!
i can play gears, oblivion, bioshock, ut3 on my 4 year old pc running a 7800gtx
I never said you can't play them, but to be able to play them at MAX settings with no noticeable ewwww on the screen.
EDIT: If you can't run those games at the settings that make them what they are, then what the hell is the point? Why play a game at half-assed settings? There is a very noticable difference from medium to max settings, I'm sorry but to me thats not enjoyable.
and how do you enjoy cod4 which is comparable to medium settings on pc at sub hd res with less than 4xAA. to me thats not enjoyable.[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Look I'm not denying this and I don't think anybody else is denying that you can build a $600 gaming pc. The thing is, is that is still $300 more than a console, not only that, not saying what you are building is crappy, but I mean look if I'm going to build a pc its going to be a good one. Not a middle of pack that can run crysis at medium settings and will be pretty much useless come next year. Thats the issue that some hermits don't understand, but being a pc gamer myself, there is a reason why the best video card of 2 years ago is cheap now, thats because there is a one ten times better than that and the one from 2 years ago that you are putting in will be even crappier next year with the newer games that come out.PC360Wii
My 8800 GTS 640 is what .. 3 years old now? cost £220 at the time, yet again, 3 years later? other than Crysis? ( Which plays on Very High wil low shadows no aa at 30 FPS ) ( not the best i know, but more than playable).
3 years old? It's not even 2 years old, bro.
[QUOTE="mephisto_11"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="mephisto_11"]consoles only hold their value against the pc for the first 2 years of their lifecycle max. this pc obliterates the ps3 and 360 in performance but building pcs isnt very mass market friendlyxscrapzx
Ya but you know what in a consoles life span you don't get video games that come out and can't run on your console because they required higher specs. Unfotunately with a pc you have to deal with that every year!
i can play gears, oblivion, bioshock, ut3 on my 4 year old pc running a 7800gtx
I never said you can't play them, but to be able to play them at MAX settings with no noticeable ewwww on the screen.
EDIT: If you can't run those games at the settings that make them what they are, then what the hell is the point? Why play a game at half-assed settings? There is a very noticable difference from medium to max settings, I'm sorry but to me thats not enjoyable.
the only game out of those i can't play on high settings is gears of war. everything else runs at 1280x768 on high
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment