Reply With Quote
I threw in the cheapest high end video card (since that's what really matters) and then the cheapest CPU that won't bottleneck it.
Dude, that system is crap. I'd rather have a PS4.
I threw in the cheapest high end video card (since that's what really matters) and then the cheapest CPU that won't bottleneck it.
The 270 is more powerful than a PS4.
Right now, the next gen consoles can't even run games @ 1080p with 60fps. Some games can't even run 60fps with 720p. That's the definition of crap.
The R9 270 is nice, but the Pentium can't even launch Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition. No games are written for dual cores anymore. Still, LOL consoles running ACU at 900p and not making a steady 30fps. An i3 is the minimum CPU one should use.The 270 is more powerful than a PS4.
Right now, the next gen consoles can't even run games @ 1080p with 60fps. Some games can't even run 60fps with 720p. That's the definition of crap.
Still, Nono is right to be talking i5. Anything less and you're probably looking at rebuilding your system in 2-3 years when you want a better video card.
But that puts you in an entirely different league than consoles. You think consoles are gimped now? What are they going to do with PC games in 2-3 years? 720p @ 20 fps?
But that's the conundrum... in 2-3 years a GTX 970 is going to be $100, so that's going to be the low-end target for PC games then, which means my current $120 card is going to give me 5 fps, which is what I want to avoid. I already know a PS4 is not going to look like a PC+GTX 970 in 2-3 years, but games will still run at 30 fps and well enough because that's what console devs are going to have to target anyways.
That's why if I'm putting a PC together today I have to over-spec it a bit, which brings the price up, etc...
I was just at Costco and the price of UHD TVs is getting ridiculously low (40" sammy for like $800, 55" curved sammy for $1400), tbh... I might wait a little more until they work out the kinks on the refresh rate and just put together a nicer PC and one of those as monitor...
I'm never an early adopter, since the price always seems to drop pretty dramatically.
My 11 yr old son just put together his first PC. Nice little AMD system.
In 3 years a GTX 970 will still be a reasonable lower midrange 1080p GPU most likely. For instance, an HD 7870 was released about 3 years ago and is still a nice lower midrange GPU for playing games at 1080p on medium detail levels, and much more powerful than either console. You can't reasonably expect much out it another 3 years down the line though, considering it was released in early 2012 (HD 7870 is the same as the R9 270, probably the best low budget GPU out there right now). It's doubtful it will be $100. $100 is usually reserved for real low performing crap like the GTX 750 Ti after it has been out a year.
And on the Nvidia side the GTX 670 is still a reasonable lower midrange GPU 2.5 years later. , the 660 even is still (it's the recommended GPU for running the upcoming GTA V port). So it's not like 15 years ago when your hardware is utter crap after three years, assuming you bought initially on the higher side. , the midrange GTX 960 released this month is only like 10% faster than a GTX 760, which is slower than a GTX 670. A GTX 680 is 3 years old and is still a solid upper midrange GPU.
Last edited by baseline bum; 01-31-2015 at 09:03 PM.
Nice. Once you do it once you see how easy it is and you'll never get screwed buying a crap system from Best Buy again.
Yeah, but that means I gotta fork off $250+ now for the 970... if I would be replacing just the console, it doesn't add up, IMO. I'm gonna take a few months, look what's out there, and then see which way I go. The crappy thing now is that some games are only coming out on XB1/PS4/PC, so I'm gonna have to get it sorted out before year's end.
It'll be interesting to see if DirectX 12 lives up to the hype about reducing CPU bottlenecks. Being that it's developed by Microsoft I'm doubting it'll do much though.
Gonna upgrade to a 980 here in a few weeks, with my 680 to be used as a dedicated PhysX card.. I'm also gonna be buying a new monitor to take advantage of the increase in horsepower..I'm currently thinking about this one: (I went with the TS vid as I know how much ElNono likes his cutesy facial hair and makeup)
I am looking for a monitor preferably with G-Sync, it eliminates the stuttering and chugging you get with V-Sync.. anybody have an opinion on monitors?
^ sounds like a lot of dough for a TN panel... buyer-beware: check the amazon reviews for it, lots of people complaining about poor QA.
I would say buyer beware: 144hz also means you're going to have to have the horses to run your games at 144+ fps to take advantage of that refresh rate.
144 fps is insane, and as the games move forward you're going to need to have a monster system to keep up with it.
, even 980s in SLI cannot get Dying Light above 100fps. That's ing absurd. GPUs currently have the gumption necessary to maintain 144hz on most AAA games.
Yeah, IPS can't run at 1ms, so it's a trade off. The reviews I've read have all acknowledged the TN panel, but still consider it the best monitor out..^ sounds like a lot of dough for a TN panel... buyer-beware: check the amazon reviews for it, lots of people complaining about poor QA.
144hz, 1440p, G-sync, Nvidia 3D ready.. I'm tempted even though this is 8 bills..
And yeah..that beer is the same color as my piss after a night of dro and gaming
The main feature I want is the G-sync at 1440p..I don't expect the newest releases to run at 144hz/1440p without turning down some settings..the good thing is, at 1440p on a 27" screen, I can turn off AA and still have the games look sharp.
And Dying Light is all ed up performance wise, so I expect that until they fix the issue with the utilization of the CPU..
Hope all that G-sync stuff is worth it...
Looking at your monitor, I came across this:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-28-Inc...U28D590DS%2FZA
- 28"
- UHD (3840 x 2160)
- 1ms response
- $500
It is only 60Hz on the DisplayPort on UHD, but that's actually pretty good.
Just crazy how prices have fallen down on UHD TVs. Probably only gonna get cheaper too.
Meh @ 4k.. GPU's aren't ready for 4k on ultra, and even though I would never buy a tri-SLI setup, it generally sucks scaling wise anyway.
Plus, at 28" how worth it would it be to have that high of resolution, considering the issue with crap support at 4k and problems with text being unreadable.
4k @ 60hz is about equal to 1080p @ 120hz though, just sayin'.
Yeah, but the price point is interesting. It was more of a comment than a recommendation, tbh...
What do you mean it's equal? 4k at 60FPS ain't gonna be possible without at the least 2 980's, if that.4k @ 60hz is about equal to 1080p @ 120hz though, just sayin'.
Plus, a lot of the 4k crap that's out is only 30hz, hence the affordability.
4k is a bit more demanding, but overall it's just double the resolution of 1080p. 1080p @ 120fps is pretty damn demanding for AAA games like Metro Last Light and Crysis 3.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions