Dilemma: To buy or to build?

[Saint_Zvlkx]

No offense, guys, but using ATI and AMD components, I built a 900$ computer that runs Crysis like a charm, so you haven't even considered using anything other than Intel, which is a criminally stupid mistake.
Take a look at what AMD has to offer, because their products aren't marked up quite so much because of brand name. I spent 340$ and bought a high-end motherboard and an ultra-high end processor.

 

[Zacharine]

Spoiler: Snipity

So what does 'toned down' mean? Anything less than max everything?

Because going that route, you need to be buying 500-1000$ worth of hardware every year, to gain the absolute latest graphics gimmick that your average gamer can't even distiguish.

Yeah sure, you could go for that. Meanwhile, back in the real world where people have budgets...

Gaming computer =/= runs absolutely everything to be released two years down the line at max resolutions. Gaming computer means that you can run any games currently out there, plus expected games for the next year or two, at sufficiently good graphics level. What that level is, depends heavily on the gamer. For me, 1680x1050 resolution with some AA capability on the 'heavy-hitters' is way beyond that line. Seriously, my hardware is capable of putting out more detail than what my display AND my tv combined could theoretically display. Is that good enough for me? Heck yes. Did you know most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p from a distance of a meter or two away? Of what use then is it to buy a system that can play a hypothetical future game at that 1080p res, if the user is perfectly happy with 720p or perhaps even 480p?

Your position is like saying you can't get a good stereo system for listening to music, unless it's a 10-speaker system with 4 bass-speakers, a 1200 dollar mixer board and acoustically modified room walls. It's like saying the car you have isn't good enough to drive, unless it's compareable to a 4.7 liter V8 Mazzerati Quattroporte GTS.

I expect my comp to last 5-6 years with only small to moderate upgrading a few years down the line.

For starters, if you think that comp will last upwards of 2, 3 at the most as far as gaming is concerned without requiring some heavy upgrading you are defiantly smoking some trippy stuff.

I don't know about other people here, but when I replace my now aged and starting-to-suffer PC, I intend to get one that will be perfectly fine for well over 5 years without even the thought of upgrading. I know I am going for overkill, but that would be my choice.

Now, the problem with your analogy is thus:
Any system can play music, it is primarily dictated my speakers anyway unless you are using a $5 walkman or something. Hell, my 10 year old cheapo mp3 player plays perfectly given a decent par of speakers.
Any car can run fine for 10s of years, old or new, just gotta keep them serviced.

Which is why I used my unupgraded (well, I did buy 500Mb more RAM four years ago, I got it dirt cheap) 8 years old comp to run Crysis, right? Sure, I got at most 20-25 FPS, with min graphics settings at 800x600, but I completed Crysis on that comp. Just like a car will run, a comp will play games for ten years. However, not at max resolutions naturally.

You don't seem to understand that a game doesn't have to be run at max settings, in order for it to run. Just like a car doesn't have to do 200km/h, in order for you to drive comfortably on a freeway.

Computers however, if you have any real interest in gaming, will require upgrading for several reasons.

And what qualifies as "real interest in gaming"? I'll have you know that I built my current comp during last winter. The comp previously was bought during 2002. Original CPU and GPU stayd until the end.

Last fall I was playing Dawn Of War online with no problems. No stuttering, no lag.

I played Company Of Heroes online, with no problems. I had a comfortable frame-rate of 30+

I tried Wow for a while, but disliked the grinding. NO graphical problems as far as I could infer.

I wasted hundreds of hours to Civ IV on that comp, without problems. Sure, on later stages it took a few minutes to pass the turn, but frame-rate was okay.

I watched HD-level movies from the hard-drive, albeit with some tinkering required on the Windows.

I made 3D animations and rendered pictures with it.

Tell, how exactly is that a fantasy, as your position seems to suggest I couldn't have possibly done so? Or are you by any chance going to suggest that I 'don't have a real interest in gaming'? Or that perhaps I'm not a 'real' gamer?(sarcams) After all, no true gamer can play at anything less than 1600x900 with 8xAnti-Aliasing, now can they ?(/sarcams)

-Older parts are harder to replace/service if and when something happens to them.

Which is why when you buy quality, you can reasonably expect the component to last 6-8 years. And replacing a hard-drive, the most common component to break in use, doesn't really cost that much, for when you use the space with any kind of planning 120Gb is more than enough for an OS, basic program suite and a dozen or so games. Movies can be stored on a USB-drive.

-Newer parts 'tend' to be more stable.

Depends heavily on the part, the manufacturer and the inherent architecture. Just look at PSUs...

-Older Motherboards in particular are incompatible with today's CPUs and RAM.

Which, once you decide not to upgrage, becomes a non-issue.

-While running games on lower setting won't kill people, low FPS, choppyness and instability will certainly irritate them, even small amounts are VERY noticeable.

But hardly unplayable, and crancking that screen res down from 1280xSomething a notch or two to 1024xSomething will restore framerate. Not to mention at 800x600 even Crysis is playable on a 8 year old comp with unupgraded CPU and GPU. Sure, it doesn't make love to your eyes, but since when have games needed that in order to be playable, or even good? On the whole, if a game loses its attractivness to gamers once you pull down the graphics settings, then it wasn't that good a game in the first place now was it? After all, gameplay, story, interesting characters, unique or interesting locales and new gaming mechanics are not dependant on your screen res.

I could keep going, but I have a feeling I have another post to reply to. =(

Indeed.

 

[Azure Sky]

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: Snipity

So what does 'toned down' mean? Anything less than max everything?

Because going that route, you need to be buying 500-1000$ worth of hardware every year, to gain the absolute latest graphics gimmick that your average gamer can't even distiguish.

Yeah sure, you could go for that. Meanwhile, back in the real world where people have budgets...

Gaming computer =/= runs absolutely everything to be released two years down the line at max resolutions. Gaming computer means that you can run any games currently out there, plus expected games for the next year or two, at sufficiently good graphics level. What that level is, depends heavily on the gamer. For me, 1680x1050 resolution with some AA capability on the 'heavy-hitters' is way beyond that line. Seriously, my hardware is capable of putting out more detail than what my display AND my tv combined could theoretically display. Is that good enough for me? Heck yes. Did you know most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p from a distance of a meter or two away? Of what use then is it to buy a system that can play a hypothetical future game at that 1080p res, if the user is perfectly happy with 720p or perhaps even 480p?

Your position is like saying you can't get a good stereo system for listening to music, unless it's a 10-speaker system with 4 bass-speakers, a 1200 dollar mixer board and acoustically modified room walls. It's like saying the car you have isn't good enough to drive, unless it's compareable to a 4.7 liter V8 Mazzerati Quattroporte GTS.

I expect my comp to last 5-6 years with only small to moderate upgrading a few years down the line.

For starters, if you think that comp will last upwards of 2, 3 at the most as far as gaming is concerned without requiring some heavy upgrading you are defiantly smoking some trippy stuff.

I don't know about other people here, but when I replace my now aged and starting-to-suffer PC, I intend to get one that will be perfectly fine for well over 5 years without even the thought of upgrading. I know I am going for overkill, but that would be my choice.

Now, the problem with your analogy is thus:
Any system can play music, it is primarily dictated my speakers anyway unless you are using a $5 walkman or something. Hell, my 10 year old cheapo mp3 player plays perfectly given a decent par of speakers.
Any car can run fine for 10s of years, old or new, just gotta keep them serviced.

Which is why I used my unupgraded (well, I did buy 500Mb more RAM four years ago, I got it dirt cheap) 8 years old comp to run Crysis, right? Sure, I got at most 20-25 FPS, with min graphics settings at 800x600, but I completed Crysis on that comp. Just like a car will run, a comp will play games for ten years. However, not at max resolutions naturally.

You don't seem to understand that a game doesn't have to be run at max settings, in order for it to run. Just like a car doesn't have to do 200km/h, in order for you to drive comfortably on a freeway.

Computers however, if you have any real interest in gaming, will require upgrading for several reasons.

And what qualifies as "real interest in gaming"? I'll have you know that I built my current comp during last winter. The comp previously was bought during 2002. Original CPU and GPU stayd until the end.

Last fall I was playing Dawn Of War online with no problems. No stuttering, no lag.

I played Company Of Heroes online, with no problems. I had a comfortable frame-rate of 30+

I tried Wow for a while, but disliked the grinding. NO graphical problems as far as I could infer.

I wasted hundreds of hours to Civ IV on that comp, without problems. Sure, on later stages it took a few minutes to pass the turn, but frame-rate was okay.

I watched HD-level movies from the hard-drive, albeit with some tinkering required on the Windows.

I made 3D animations and rendered pictures with it.

Tell, how exactly is that a fantasy, as your position seems to suggest I couldn't have possibly done so? Or are you by any chance going to suggest that I 'don't have a real interest in gaming'? Or that perhaps I'm not a 'real' gamer?(sarcams) After all, no true gamer can play at anything less than 1600x900 with 8xAnti-Aliasing, now can they ?(/sarcams)

-Older parts are harder to replace/service if and when something happens to them.

Which is why when you buy quality, you can reasonably expect the component to last 6-8 years. And replacing a hard-drive, the most common component to break in use, doesn't really cost that much, for when you use the space with any kind of planning 120Gb is more than enough for an OS, basic program suite and a dozen or so games. Movies can be stored on a USB-drive.

-Newer parts 'tend' to be more stable.

Depends heavily on the part, the manufacturer and the inherent architecture. Just look at PSUs...

-Older Motherboards in particular are incompatible with today's CPUs and RAM.

Which, once you decide not to upgrage, becomes a non-issue.

-While running games on lower setting won't kill people, low FPS, choppyness and instability will certainly irritate them, even small amounts are VERY noticeable.

But hardly unplayable, and crancking that screen res down from 1280xSomething a notch or two to 1024xSomething will restore framerate. Not to mention at 800x600 even Crysis is playable on a 8 year old comp with unupgraded CPU and GPU. Sure, it doesn't make love to your eyes, but since when have games needed that in order to be playable, or even good? On the whole, if a game loses its attractivness to gamers once you pull down the graphics settings, then it wasn't that good a game in the first place now was it? After all, gameplay, story, interesting characters, unique or interesting locales and new gaming mechanics are not dependant on your screen res.

I could keep going, but I have a feeling I have another post to reply to. =(

Indeed.

Here we go again..
..But before I get into it, let me return a favor. (I could use sarcasm, but I'm lazy and it's not worth my time, I can be nasty too)
[nastyjab]I don't believe that this is the place for you to have your own personal ego crusade of self-justification.[/nastyjab]

-When I say 'real gaming interest' I imply that the persons in question buy and play various games upon release. (going into details on Titles is futile and pointless)
-The last game I played on a res that small was starcraft 1, a game that is now 10 years old. I don't know how your mind works, and frankly I wouldn't care to learn, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most people would rather not have to resort to such drastic measures to play a game. A game is there for enjoyment, and I, as I suspect many others would like to enjoy them in the glory the creators designed them for.

I really can't be bothered with an argument tonight.
Can't be arsed with a flamewar, which I see this becoming.

You have given me an idea though.

 

[Azure Sky]

Spoiler: Snipity again

Well, I personally think my 480 says otherwise, pity my comp is so crap it isn't being used to its capability's, but to each his own I suppose.

If that is your reaction to the 650w, you would have a heart attack at what mine is...
Ah well, I been saving for my new comp for quite some time, I think I can justify the splurge, seeing as I never really splash out for anything, its a 1 off treat! =3

I still say that if you want to watch bluray, use a TV. =/

Well being blunt the Fermi GF100 chip runs very hot, and is very power hungry whilst giving very little, if any, advantage over Radeon cards when you factor in the price.
Unless you are running SLI, you wasted your cash on getting more than 650W. For some reason people think throwing a high wattage PSU in a PC is a good idea - unless you have plans for a bigger build in the future, it's sadly a complete waste of money.

Though talking of splurging, OP should totally get one of these:
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=bGf2f0s2zeWhT0w8&templete=2
Yeah - it comes in it's own briefcase ^^

Well, I was intending to watercool, so the heat is a non issue but it draws more power.

Agreed, I better let the OP have his thread back. ^^
*Quietens down*

 

[Zacharine]

-When I say 'real gaming interest' I imply that the persons in question buy and play various games upon release. (going into details on Titles is futile and pointless)

And yet I see myself as fitting of that definition.

-The last game I played on a res that small was starcraft 1, a game that is now 10 years old. I don't know how your mind works, and frankly I wouldn't care to learn, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most people would rather not have to resort to such drastic measures to play a game. A game is there for enjoyment, and I, as I suspect many others would like to enjoy them in the glory the creators designed them for.

As would I, and as I have. "I don't know how your mind works, and frankly I wouldn't care to learn, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most people would rather not have to resort to such drastic measures budgets and ridiculously overpowered hardware to play a game."

Fixed that a bit for you.

You see, I believe you are suffering from two things in this case.
a) An unconscious need for top of the line graphics and some kind of inability or unwillingness to play any game that isn't maxed out on every graphics slider.
b) An unrealized 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, in that you consider 'true' gamers only to be people with ridiculously expensive computers that are upgraded every few months or so.

Do you by any chance consider Wii gamers to be something else than gamers? I do not mean to be mean when I ask this, but so far you've acted like a PC-elitist. You simply do not bash consoles, but instead the price/perfomance ratio-conscious PC gamers who do not want to spend 1200+$ on a simple gaming computer.

 

[Spudz0r]

Rantings from a pov git who is happy living in 2001

Upgrade already, you obviously require some education on how gaming has changed in the last 10 years. What LCDs are, and how pixel scaling works.
Be my guest and play a game at 1200x800 on a screen designed to be used at 1920x1200.
Be my guest and play a game with bland graphics, I grew up in the days of 8 bit - We thought those graphics were amazing, however, there is a thing called technology.
The wonderful thing about technology is, that it improves over time. It gets faster, more efficient, and capable of doing some fantastic things.

now lets put things into perspective.

lets say, you play a game of good ol Wolfenstein. sure, it was fantastic in the day. We didnt care that it had low frame rate, we didnt care that it looked like the dog vomited on the cat.
This was because it was pushing the bounderies of what the technology of the day could achieve.

I wont use crysis as an example, as while it is a very pretty game, it is very poorly optimised and still struggles today.
I will however, use games like Bioshock, Borderlands, Unreal Tournament. These all have a similar concept to what was used in Wolfenstein, they all push the limits in their own way.
There will always be people who dont like them, and say "games were games back in my day" these people need to seriously get over themselves, each of these games are fantastic in what they set out to achieve.
Bioshock, sure, i didnt like it as much as System Shock. But it excelled at being the atmospheric shooter it was.
Borderlands, its mad max crossed with an fps/rpg.. its just win.
Unreal Tournament, no real story here.. but its great fun - you dont NEED a story to make a good game.

 

[Azure Sky]

Spoiler: Snip

-When I say 'real gaming interest' I imply that the persons in question buy and play various games upon release. (going into details on Titles is futile and pointless)

And yet I see myself as fitting of that definition.

-The last game I played on a res that small was starcraft 1, a game that is now 10 years old. I don't know how your mind works, and frankly I wouldn't care to learn, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most people would rather not have to resort to such drastic measures to play a game. A game is there for enjoyment, and I, as I suspect many others would like to enjoy them in the glory the creators designed them for.

As would I, and as I have. "I don't know how your mind works, and frankly I wouldn't care to learn, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most people would rather not have to resort to such drastic measures budgets and ridiculously overpowered hardware to play a game."

Fixed that a bit for you.

You see, I believe you are suffering from two things in this case.
a) An unconscious need for top of the line graphics and some kind of inability or unwillingness to play any game that isn't maxed out on every graphics slider.
b) An unrealized 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, in that you consider 'true' gamers only to be people with ridiculously expensive computers that are upgraded every few months or so.

Do you by any chance consider Wii gamers to be something else than gamers? I do not mean to be mean when I ask this, but so far you've acted like a PC-elitist. You simply do not bash consoles, but instead the price/perfomance ratio-conscious PC gamers who do not want to spend 1200+$ on a simple gaming computer.

And yet you continue... But i'll bite.
I have a Wii, and think it is awesomesause. =3

If you are so intent on continuing, take it here and lets give the poor OP his thread back.
[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.225709-Poll-Gaming-PCs-Cost-vs-Performance[/link]

 

[Zacharine]

Rantings from a pov git who is happy living in 2001

Upgrade already, you obviously require some education on how gaming has changed in the last 10 years. What LCDs are, and how pixel scaling works.
Snipped irrelevance.

No thanks. YOu do a marvelous job of misrepresenting my point.

That being thet you don't need absolute top-of-the-line computers to play modern games. Sure, it's nicer that way, but not required.

Also, I am happily living in 2010. Yes, there are some oldies I like (like Deus Ex or Planescape:Torment), mainly because they are good games despite their graphical outlook. They are, after all, horribly outdated on that front. But they still impress with their story and writing. I also happen to like many more modern games, such as Company Of Heroes and Dawn Of War II. But again, no because of graphics but rather because they are fairly good games.

I simply renounce graphics as the be-all-end-all facet of gaming. If graphics is all a game has, then it's a fairly poor game in my opinion. If it has good gameplay, interesting story AND good graphics, then I'm likely to go to the store and buy it. Having good graphics is nice, but hardly necessary for a good gaming experience.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Building your own machine is cheaper certainly, but if you are not comfortable with the idea of supporting every aspect of the machine yourself, making a purchase from any one of the major vendors is the better option.

 

[Subzerowings]

I'm thinking of having one built too.
I have a budget of about 5500 euros, so I hope I can get one that plays Fallout 3 and Oblivion on max settings.

You can buy about 4 good gaming computers with that budget, excluding monitors and stuff.

So yeah, I recommend building it yourself wholeheartedly. It's just that I don't trust myself with putting the motherboard and CPU in, or else I would've done it 100% myself too. Now I had to pay about 50 euros install costs.

Guess I'm lucky then, my retailer does it for free with shipping.
I'm having 2 ASUS EAH5970/g/2DIS/2GD5 2GB GDDR5 PCI Express's put in to beef up the graphics.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

Ok, so I'm just watching TV, "attack of the show" on G4, and they're reviewing a gaming PC by Alienware. I'm think "Wow, that is so cool"...until they unveiled the price tag. The one they had on the show was $2200, and even better, they said that was the starting price. Apparently it goes up to $3900 as well.

I also have Starcraft 2 (come on, who doesn't) and I have to play everything on it's lowest graphical settings in order for it to run. I've been planning on building my own PC, only for gaming, so I can crank the graphics all the way up. But I don't know the first thing about computers beyond just playing the game and surfing the web. I heard from friends who are into building computers, that building your own would only cost around $800 (no I don't know if that's one-hundred percent true or not).

So I'm asking you guys. Would it be better to stop pinching the penny and buy an Alienware PC, or to take the time and effort to build my own?

If you have your own peripherals (monitor, hard drive, case, power supply unit, etc) then definitely build your own. If not those thing would add another few hundred dollars more to the cost.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

-snip-

All the graphic designers working on games would probably want to kill you for that.

It's like saying you can drive cross country in a 1000 dollar clunker or a 1 million dollar sports car. Sure they'll both get your there but which would you enjoy more.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

Rantings from a pov git who is happy living in 2001

Upgrade already, you obviously require some education on how gaming has changed in the last 10 years. What LCDs are, and how pixel scaling works.
Be my guest and play a game at 1200x800 on a screen designed to be used at 1920x1200.
Be my guest and play a game with bland graphics, I grew up in the days of 8 bit - We thought those graphics were amazing, however, there is a thing called technology.
The wonderful thing about technology is, that it improves over time. It gets faster, more efficient, and capable of doing some fantastic things.

now lets put things into perspective.

lets say, you play a game of good ol Wolfenstein. sure, it was fantastic in the day. We didnt care that it had low frame rate, we didnt care that it looked like the dog vomited on the cat.
This was because it was pushing the bounderies of what the technology of the day could achieve.

Il have to bit on this part. We played wolfenstein because we thought it was a FUN game not because it was pushing technology bounderies. Counldnt care less if its pushing boundaries and is boring as shit to play. You seem to have a very different reason for playing games then everybody else that I know if your using that as a reason.

If a game isnt fun on low settings then its not a good game your just attracted to how it looks. Thats not a good thing thats very bad and makes you a rather shallow person.

If you still think that graphic is not an integral part of games in this day and age, then you have your head stuck so far up in your ass. Graphic is every bit as important as gameplay. Try having an emotional epiphany about an 8 bit character. Graphics establish the tone of the theme and the feel of the game long before you start playing it. It tells stories without words and builds emotion silently.

 

[SyphonX]

Look, start building your own. It isn't difficult by any stretch of the imagination, all you need is patience. You're going to do it eventually, all tech savvy people inevitably abandon PC dealers when they realize the big picture.

Dell, Alienware (Aren't they the same now?) are only in the business of ripping you off. They mark-up prices exorbitantly by praying on your tech fear. Sometimes, people just buy for the "warranty" because they're afraid of buying a PC that breaks and being out a couple grand. Well, guess what? If you buy from a trustworthy parts retailer, such as Newegg, then you don't have to worry about "warranties" because virtually everything you buy is backed up with a return policy. Each individual part. How else would they stay in business?

So you see, there is unlikely to be any reason why you should pay in for an expensive retailer PC, it's just not worth it. Even if you're rich. Why? Because you can get an insane amount of performance for your buck. I mean, insane. You would have to be dense to fork over four thousand for a PC when you can just build it yourself, and then some. If anyone has four grand to spend on a PC, then they should be building a Dual-Hexacore socket system, with Tri-SLI current-gen video cards. Yes, dual-hexacore, as in blazing fast ~4.5ghz 6 core processors x2, with three unbelievable 3D rendering behemoths to blow away everything. In other words, a nearly 10ghz PC.

Yeah, you can get that for ~$4,000. Roughly. It has to fit into a dual full tower custom chassis, and is powered by a 1200w power supply. It's crazy. Knowing this now.. you would have to be dense to buy a sub-par Alienware machine for the same price.

Ever played in a fully shaded 3D environment with 32x Anti-Aliasing? Yeah, it's nice. I have a stand up system, and I'm currently playing GTA IV and Assassin's Creed. In GTA IV, I'm rendering the game in double the resolution for a sort of mock super-sampling AA, because the game doesn't support anti-aliasing. It looks unbelievable at times, and the game isn't even a technical marvel.

And I'm playing Assassin's Creed with ambient occlusion, 16xQ AA, and more. It's mint compared to what I remember playing it on my PS3 when it came out.

I wish more gamers would spoil themselves sometimes. Then more people would understand what all us graphics junkies are getting at.. Graphics and performance does matter.

 

[Zacharine]

-snip-

All the graphic designers working on games would probably want to kill you for that.

It's like saying you can drive cross country in a 1000 dollar clunker or a 1 million dollar sports car. Sure they'll both get your there but which would you enjoy more.

1 million dollar car of course. But, would you rather have
that 1 million dollar car
OR a 20 000 dollar car, with a new apartment at or near a city of your choice, 2 week vacation at a location of your choice, new stereo system AND dinner with 20 of your friends cooked for you by Gordon Ramsay?

 

[Zacharine]

Try having an emotional epiphany about an 8 bit character.

You mean like this guy? The Nameless One?

Or perhaps you mean Chrono:

Yeah, still get that emotional epiphany. Because the story is that great.

Or do you mean to tell me, that you can't have a good book without pictures in it? Sure, graphics can be used to enhance or even tell parts of the story. But rarely is it actually used to do so, and even more rarely that story is incomprehensible or emotionally dead without that graphical component turned to max.