What is the best value tier to build a gaming PC at, taking into account deprecation and longevity?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
What is the best value tier to build a gaming PC at, taking into account deprecation and longevity?
What is the best value tier to build a gaming PC at, taking into account deprecation and longevity?
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
buy an i5 2500k and 560 ti they'll last you until 2030
>buy an i5 2500k and 560 ti they'll last you until 2030
560 will fry eventually, rest is still alive, Omnissiah bless
8600k overclocked has served me incredibly well. I bought it for about $100 used 6 years ago, its gotta be insanely cheap now. needing it to cost less than that I would think you;d have to accept a console at that point
theres no definitive answer to this, it entirely depends on your use-case
if you only play minesweeper a chromebook is enough
~$1000, slowly creeping up to $1200.
Future proofed for ~ at least 5 years, at the current pace of the tech industry.
Obviously that depends on what you intend to use it for. Have an idea of what you'd like to do, then set about building the computer. Most questions you might have will answer themselves
ryzen 5 5600 with an aliexpress RX 6600M shoves into it costs around the same as a brand new console.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Zq1HNtSdiRY
oh i was thinking the same thing, have a look at this and tell me what you guys think
looked up the prices and all, about $700 USD in my country
>troonyfrog
Dogshit thread
Gankerfrog*
discordfrog**
Pepe/Apu was stolen from us by normalscum. We should bring back peepeepoopoo-posting.
7800X3D with x670e mobo
you need at least 7k and you need to abandon it in about 4 years for another 7k pc cause steamy forgot how to make their own launchers. OPS!!!
People could argue that, because an expensive 7800X3D/7900XTX system will still be fast after 5 years, it's therefore a good value, because it improves your QoL right now and for that whole 5 years, and you'll keep it for like 7-8 years, like the 1080 Ti people, and the value in the end is superior to settling for the midrange 7600/7800XT setup today and upgrading in 5 years. You get more time out of the higher cost components. The question is: is a 7800X3D/7900XTX going to be faster than the midrange in 5 years?
This is generally the right answer, the best you can afford unless your rich at that point you can start wasting money. I've always built my PCs when I could afford near top end hardware at least because all the reasons you described.
but you could also argue that doing anything other than the low end is dumb, because low end parts always have the best performance/$ and depreciate so slowly that you barely lose money even years later, especially if you bought used.
You need to provide more details OP.
What resolution? 1080p? 1440p? 4K?
What refresh rate? 60hz? 144hz?
What video games are you playing? Are low settings okay or do you want ultra high with ray tracing?
What's your budget?
what's with all the questions?
Okay I'll go frick off if you don't want my advice
Answer them or be lost forever. Also
That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what of those tiers is the best value, taking into account longevity and depreciation of the parts over years of ownership.
If you don't even know what you want then don't ask such vague questions
It's impossible to answer this question without knowing what you play and what your target is performance wise. You shouldn't have to ask if 4k is more expensive than 1080p. You shouldn't have to ask if playing AW2 at max settings is more demanding than playing Fortnite or Indies. Of course they are. There is no blanket "best value" without knowing what your target/goal is.
the question is whether it's worth it
Right now, if you just want to play PC games, the entry-level Steam Deck is extremely hard to beat from a value perspective.
The next tier up for doing the same at 1080p, is likely a bare-bones SFF machine with the new AMD laptop SoC with a 16CU RDNA3 GPU.
The value on either of those even if they have a more limited lifespan is hard to beat if you aren't after a particular resolution/framerate in a AAA game.
Building a PC today I would say doesn't make sense until you are after a fairly high-end experience, and the value proposition of that is probably never going to make sense, but it also isn't unreasonable as long as you are running AMD GPUs on GNU/Linux based OSes.
>Right now, if you just want to play PC games, the entry-level Steam Deck is extremely hard to beat from a value perspective.
how could anybody say this with a straight face
You are welcome to present a better entry-level system for $399 USD, and keep in mind that for a user new to PC gaming Valve presents an easy to understand compatibility guide and the Deck is seeing a lot of developer and community support.
It is really hard to beat the price / performance of RDNA2 on GNU/Linux based systems right now because of the Deck.
Hard to recommend anything else unless you want the extra AI or Ray Tracing performance of RDNA3.
$400? you can buy a 5700G desktop with 16GB RAM for like $350 easily. Is this Deck as fast as that?
I just searched myself and no, it's not even remotely as fast
https://openbenchmarking.org/vs/Processor/AMD+Custom+APU+0405,AMD+Ryzen+7+5700G
If you are lucky enough to find a lightly used system, or a deeply discounted system being cleared out, and you're experienced enough as a PC gamer to make it work then sure. I did say that the next tier up from the Deck is a higher-powered AMD SOC system.
I just think for an entry-level user the ease of use and community support the Deck gets and the fact it is ready to go out of the box has a lot of value.
Most pre-built systems you might find with the 5700G are going to need to be re-worked a bit to function well for gaming which will add to their cost, and that is a barrier to entry for new users.
Or just get a good laptop. Don’t get a goddamn deck as your primary machine.
There you run into the problem that a lot of laptops include overpriced Nvidia hardware, and Windows which is absolute shit which makes the price for a similar quality gaming experience easily double.
Plus once again, you lose out on the value the Deck gives new users as the best possible out-of-the-box PC gaming experience.
Deck users seem to fall into two main groups. People like me, who have one as a convenient way to get away from the main PC to play PC games on the couch, and people coming in who don't own another PC, and have no interest in a Windows desktop system the Zoomer "What's a computer?" crowd who only have a phone.
Refurbished 5700g desktops sell for under $400 on ebay 24/7
Still there you're buying a possibly heavily used system from Ebay, and those systems are almost certainly going to require work by the user to get them into shape for PC gaming.
The vast majority of users are never going to open a system up, they're never going to install their own OS to get the best performance or gaming experience.
They want a ready made solution they can buy ready to go from a reputable store.
sure, I agree. For anyone who knows how to do these things though, the deck doesn't make sense.
Sure, but then you're not really talking about entry-level, and I disagree since the Deck is a really good handheld experience. There's games I prefer to play on it.
Though I should say I rarely play the demanding high-end games the kids play these days.
Grey-market barebones machines with the laptop chips were already out weren't they? I know I saw some getting sent out to reviewers.
>Grey-market barebones machines with the laptop chips were already out weren't they? I know I saw some getting sent out to reviewers.
Well, those mobile chips like the 7840HS are already in mini-PCs. I assume they're claiming the desktop chips, like an 8700G, are coming in January.
>5700G
Amazing APU but the next generation is coming out in about two months.
Are they, though?
1080p, 30hz
ALWAYS go mid range
best value? well considering how absolutely obliterating its performance is and how it makes Ganker seethe and stomp their small fat feet i d say get a 4090 which is great value if you can get one for 1600. waiting another year or so for the 5090 might be a sound strategy when look8ng to upgrade but be prepared to pay 3.000 which is almost double the 4090 and isnt as good in terms of bang for buck so only youtubers will get them to impress 12yo for ad revenue
at the low end, the performance sort of sucks but the parts depreciate very slowly (if you're buying used). you're losing so little if you choose it that you should always be at least here. that's simple.
at the mid end, while the rate of depreciation increase somewhat, the performance improves significantly to where you're satisfied for longer and it's actually worth it because your QoL is higher that entire time.
at the high end, depreciation is *insane*, because there is a "bleeding edge" premium. for video games, a 7900XTX isn't worth $900. a 4090 isn't worth $1,600, not even remotely. Adjusting for their actual performance offered at 4K, a 4090 should cost about $800-$900. Also, people buying the top end are typically always chasing the top end, so these people aren't "getting extra years" out of their 4090. The're upgrading to the 5090 as soon as it's out.
top end of the previous generation
>why
- used examples are all over the place at that point from normal people upgrading
- top end hardware depreciates massively once it's superceded by the new stuff
- no beta testing (drivers are mature, random issues are ID'd and ironed out)
- no weird corner cutting like "only 12gb VRAM teehee" nonsense. you're buying the Premium™ part with the maximum VRAM offered
- you get features that were only availabe on the top end parts
Built a comfy 5600x + 1660 super build for just 500 bucks last week. Upgrading to a 3070 or whatever for like $150 in a year or so. It can be pretty cheap if you don't game on stupid resolutions.
Unironically jump between entry or mid level hardware whenever you feel like you need an upgrade.
Flagship stuff is a scam and more of an status symbol than actually useful, only buy it if you do have the money.
In terms of nvidia gpu's anything over an xx60 is a waste of money as you start getting less frames per dollar (on average).
>price performance
13600k or 14600k
12700KF or 13700k if you need 8 P cores
>most FPS
7800X3D however not all games benefit from the extra cache and you have potential for AMD jank.
13700k or 14700k overclocked with tuned RAM can match or be better in some instances, however at a draw back of 50-100% more power / heat depending on the game or workload.
>GPU
That's a tough one. 4070TI and 4080 are a good sweet spot but the 7800XT is a good price, but potential for AMD jank.
anons, i bought a 5 5600x + 3070 and am getting shit fps in games on 2k res. is it over?
>AMD
Yeah
>3070
3070 is slow
?si=JZqJb6p3j-lCb3wT
This
i can run blocklords and gta iv with 8 gb ddr3 of ram, an i5 7th gen and a 1650.
less than 1000 gets you a damn good 1080p machine, basically all you can need as fake frames get more advanced.
a Dell Optiplex with a 7th or maybe 8th gen i7 and a 1050 Ti runs maybe 400 or less altogether and you'll be playing games forever
guy on craigslist is only asking 400 for this ps5
You better ask to meet in the police station parking lot
how many times are you gonna post this homosexual
until i find a good PS5 what are the deals like where youre at
yea I think I’ll buy a 4090
$500 in a B450m + AMD 4600G + 16 ram + ssd 512gb + monitor, mouse and keyboard. Whoever tells you to expend more than this is a consumist homosexual or a cryptominer
You, like nearly everybody here, are thinking about this the wrong way. There are more top tier games that will run on any shitty laptop than there are hours left in your life to play them. Wasting money building or buying a special computer to play games is always a waste of time and energy unless your hobby is building and buying computers instead of actually playing video games.
you can do anything unideally, but if you spend any amount of time on an image board for video games, you'd be the type to benefit from having a computer that can play things above 30 fps
higher resolution and refresh rates are objectively better