The $500 Gaming PC

Miral

Random Lurker
Jun 6, 2008
435
0
0
I built my current gaming box about six years ago for ~$1000. I have not upgraded a single component since then (apart from adding an extra hard drive occasionally) and I can still play the latest games just fine. So PC hardware doesn't age anywhere near as much as some people seem to think. (Admittedly, it used to. But things have plateaued for quite a while.)
 

DJPirtu

New member
Nov 24, 2008
55
0
0
Kojiro ftt said:
$500 is cheating because you still need to buy the OS, so add another $100. Unless you are assuming you pirated the OS, or uninstalled XP from another machine in order to transfer the license, rendering the original PC useless.
I was going to ask if you've ever heard of this thing called "Linux".
But then I remembered that we were talking about gaming PCs.
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
Kojiro ftt said:
$500 is cheating because you still need to buy the OS, so add another $100. Unless you are assuming you pirated the OS, or uninstalled XP from another machine in order to transfer the license, rendering the original PC useless.
Seeing as you're posting on this forum, I assume you already have a computer, and an OS, and a monitor, and speakers, ect. Just upgrade, no need to build from scratch.

And why in the world would a card become useless? It won't magically lose strength over the years.

E.G. if you build a computer as strong a PS3, in 3 years, it will still be as strong as a PS3

Seriously, you only have to upgrade once a console generation to play games on nice settings (Or setting equal to the console)

There's also this wonderful thing called scalable graphics you also may have heard of.
 

Playbahnosh

New member
Dec 12, 2007
606
0
0
Interesting, that many of you consider buying only new parts and throwing the old to the trash.
It's the geeks' Fallout 3 out there! One man's trash is another man's treasure!

You don't even have to spend $500 on a rig, you can get used parts for far less money. I'm only talking about the money-saver point of view. Why buy brand new, cutting edge stuff, when you can buy formidable parts for half their original price? There are many MANY obsessing manchildren enthusiasts who, when a new GPU comes out, they run to the store to "stay on the bleeding edge of framerates and shaders" and they simply either throw out their old (i.e. one year old) card or pawn it/sell it. And used parts, especially used GPUs cost almost half price. You can build a formidable gaming rig from $300, using barely used stuff. Granted, warranty might be an issue, since used parts rarely come with one (maybe some left over time from the original purchase), but if you buy from reliable sources, you won't need it anyway. If you are not finicky about used parts, you'll love it and save a lot of money.


Also, you can do the same. Many people who despise PC gaming because "its for the rich people" forget that the parts you change won't go *poof* into thin air. Surprise! You can also sell the parts you don't need anymore, getting back some of the money you spent on the new stuff. It might not seem like a worthwhile thing to keep all your abandoned hardware around, but get this: I did keep the stuff I was not using and I couldn't sell right away, and in 2 years I had enough to build another computer from the spare parts, and sold it. The money I got went into buying a new PSU, 1 gig of RAM and a HDD. It was virtually free money.

So building your own PC can have it's advantages as well.
 

Soulreaverm

New member
Jan 15, 2009
123
0
0
This is basically the exact thing I did, for the same price... except a year ago, so with worse parts.

It plays Crysis just the same.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,749
6
43
Country
USA
Ok, one thing I'm surprised no one has directly come out and said is that even if that $500 can't run Crysis (it does), you still have 15-some odd years of games that are playable on current hardware with minimal issues. As if that wasn't enough, you get about 20 years of console games that can be emulated (legal gray area, notwithstanding).

THAT, is a gaming machine. It shouldn't matter how crisp your shadows are if you can play great games. Graphics are great, but great games are greater.
 

oMonarca

New member
Apr 23, 2009
14
0
0
Also, don't forget about game modding and the indie game scene. A competent PC opens up a world of possibilities that you simply can't find on consoles.

Just as an example, take a look at the Fallout 3 list of mods already available, completely free.

PC's are finicky and sometimes utterly frustrating. However, they justify that with a lot of versatility.

Also, MMOG's and RTS's. :)
 

Liverandbacon

New member
Nov 27, 2008
507
0
0
Cousin_IT said:
buy a console = 5-10year without needing an upgrade (not including replacement for breakages)
gaming pc = bi-annual upgrades of at least one component minimum depending on how much of a nerd u are

When it comes to costs specific to gaming, console beats PC imo.
This is completely false. If you're upgrading your pc twice a year, you're doing things wrong. You won't be playing games on highest settings, but neither are consoles, they just don't have any higher settings options because their hardware is all the same.

Also, cost wise, monitors are generally cheaper than hdtvs of a similar size, and pc games start out at least $10 cheaper, and decrease in price sooner. $60? I pay $45 or less for new releases. Oh yeah, and multiplayer with all the features is free on pcs. If you factor in the cost of a $50 xbox live gold membership (necessary to get the same features as pc) every year for those 5 years, and the minimum extra cost of say, 5 games a year for those 5 years, you've spent $500 more than a pc gamer. Even if I upgraded fairly often during those 5 years, if I did my research and bought the best components for the money, I'd be hard pressed to make it cost that much, especially if I sold my old parts afterward.

Also, PCs let you get mods and indie games, which you can't get on consoles (except for PS3 UT3, but that's one game, the idea hasn't caught on, most modders don't want to bother to port their mods, and total conversions don't work with it). You also have complete backwards compatability, and the ability to play many old console games as well.
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
Cousin_IT said:
buy a console = 5-10year without needing an upgrade (not including replacement for breakages)
gaming pc = 5-10year without needing an upgrade (not including replacement for breakages)
Why can't you get it through your head that the only difference between a console and a PC is the shape of the box it's in? PC parts don't magically deteriorate, if you build a computer as strong as a PS3, it will stay as strong as a PS3 forever until someone breaks it.
 

Anton P. Nym

New member
Sep 18, 2007
2,611
0
0
Liverandbacon said:
Cousin_IT said:
gaming pc = bi-annual upgrades of at least one component minimum depending on how much of a nerd u are
This is completely false. If you're upgrading your pc twice a year, you're doing things wrong.
Bi-annual means every two years. (Semi-annual would mean twice a year.)

vivaldiscool said:
Why can't you get it through your head that the only difference between a console and a PC is the shape of the box it's in? PC parts don't magically deteriorate, if you build a computer as strong as a PS3, it will stay as strong as a PS3 forever until someone breaks it.
Hardware-wise, you're correct. On the software side, though, what "breaks" PC gaming periodically is the escallating system requirements that has designers spiralling up the demands games make of the horsepower.

A PS3 can play any PS3 game at full design-specification throughout its entire lifetime, however long that may be; a PC, though, has its relative power diminished over time by the greater demands of games made after the rig is built.

-- Steve
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
i was looking to buy a new pc for gaming a while back. i was looking at a decent pc for about £500. people say its really expensive, but it isnt really, and then when you consider that pc games are cheaper than their console counter parts
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
That's only running it in DX9 mode. I built a computer about five months ago but I spent extra making it as quiet as possible. I easily get these results but I won't need to upgrade as soon and I know I have quality components.

As for PC upgrades, the most I will have to do is upgrade the graphics card and I won't need to do that for another 2 years of so. About the average time an Xbox 360 lasts.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
razer17 said:
i was looking to buy a new pc for gaming a while back. i was looking at a decent pc for about £500. people say its really expensive, but it isnt really, and then when you consider that pc games are cheaper than their console counter parts
Much cheaper and much less stubborn when it comes to price drops. Left 4 Dead is still £40 most places, I got it for £13 from Valve.

Then there's the massive benefits, you need a computer for the internet anyway, you get mods and can even play with making your own content.
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
Anton P. Nym said:
Liverandbacon said:
Cousin_IT said:
gaming pc = bi-annual upgrades of at least one component minimum depending on how much of a nerd u are
This is completely false. If you're upgrading your pc twice a year, you're doing things wrong.
Bi-annual means every two years. (Semi-annual would mean twice a year.)

vivaldiscool said:
Why can't you get it through your head that the only difference between a console and a PC is the shape of the box it's in? PC parts don't magically deteriorate, if you build a computer as strong as a PS3, it will stay as strong as a PS3 forever until someone breaks it.
Hardware-wise, you're correct. On the software side, though, what "breaks" PC gaming periodically is the escallating system requirements that has designers spiralling up the demands games make of the horsepower.

A PS3 can play any PS3 game at full design-specification throughout its entire lifetime, however long that may be; a PC, though, has its relative power diminished over time by the greater demands of games made after the rig is built.

-- Steve
Point, but

a) PC games have scalable graphics, no it won't look like crap, it will look as good as your PC can make it, which was apparently good enough when you bought it.

b) PC games aren't that much ahead of the curve as people make them out to be, yes there's the occasional power hog like crysis or supcom, but games released cross platform won't be any harder than their console counterparts. (Plus, alot of that is for graphics potential, you canmod oblivion to have x16 sized textures, but if you don't it will still look as good as the 360 or PS3.)
 

Anton P. Nym

New member
Sep 18, 2007
2,611
0
0
vivaldiscool said:
Anton P. Nym said:
A PS3 can play any PS3 game at full design-specification throughout its entire lifetime, however long that may be; a PC, though, has its relative power diminished over time by the greater demands of games made after the rig is built.
Point, but

a) PC games have scalable graphics, no it won't look like crap, it will look as good as your PC can make it, which was apparently good enough when you bought it.

b) PC games aren't that much ahead of the curve as people make them out to be, yes there's the occasional power hog like crysis or supcom, but games released cross platform won't be any harder than their console counterparts. (Plus, alot of that is for graphics potential, you canmod oblivion to have x16 sized textures, but if you don't it will still look as good as the 360 or PS3.)
My current desktop is 5 years old. It can handle my (admittedly only 2 megapixel) camera's graphics with blazing speed, I can use it to mix audio, it'll edit standard-definition video without a hiccup, and the routine work of web/mail/word-pro/etc. won't ever make it break a sweat. Yet I didn't even bother to look up Dawn of War 2 because my system just wouldn't handle it.

Scalable graphics are important to PC titles, as you never quite know what the end user is going to be able to render, but the problem is that the minimum expectation keeps creeping up. My Sapphire GPU just isn't up to snuff these days, and my P4 CPU (even overclocked to 3.1GHz) can only handle so much; switching off shadows and particles and reflectance and all the other eye-candy not only makes the game look less thrilling than as designed, but it also affects gameplay by making the visuals less distinct and slower to refresh (and thus harder to react to) in many games. This is very title-dependant, but as video hardware gets more obsolete, more and more titles become less and less playable.

Also remember that you can get an entire netbook for what a mid-line graphics card costs these days, and a netbook can handle everything the vast majority of non-gamers will want from a computer. The "utilty" argument for PC gaming doesn't stand anymore; the upgrade cost from a utility computer to a gaming engine is now about the same as buying a console, so the "we can use it for email too" Trojan horse won't get past the gates anymore.

I don't think that PC gaming is going to die out... but I do agree that the "faster, stronger, higher-res" thinking of the A-list PC studios needs to be rethought.

-- Steve
 

johnman

New member
Oct 14, 2008
2,915
0
0
thenumberthirteen said:
Still. $500 is PS3 money. Not to mention the main reason I gave up following PC gaming; after a year or so you'll have to upgrade at least 1 part of it to play the latest game.
Wrong. There is no game that is in development that comes anywhere near Crysis levels of detail
 

Horticulture

New member
Feb 27, 2009
1,050
0
0
Anton P. Nym said:
I didn't even bother to look up Dawn of War 2 because my system just wouldn't handle it...[a]lso remember that you can get an entire netbook for what a mid-line graphics card costs these days...
You can get a card that'll run DOW2 maxed out for $70 [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127420], if you want to play it.
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
Anton P. Nym said:
Well, 5 years I'd guess would be about the average length of a console generation, about that time you could expect to start having problems with games made "for the next generation".