Poll: Gaming PCs Cost vs Performance?

[Azure Sky]

So, after having a little disagreement with another member in another thread, I decided to get this rolling. (No I didn't search, I'm lazy)

The question is, if you had to replace your own computer for whatever reason, what type of computer would you get. This is a real-life question, not an "If I had infinite money" question.

This covers both pre-built and custom-built PCs.
But preferably restricted to PCs which will be primarily used for gaming.

Please share your thoughts on the subject and feel free to elaborate on your choice. I left the options basic for this very reason.

Also, given the particular disagreement that spurred this thread, I would really love it if everyone could keep the Sarcasm/Flaming/other unplesentrys to themselves. Cheers! ^^

 

[Thedayrecker]

Top of the line if you can afford it. Then make the slight upgrade every now and then, and you'll be set.

Also build your own

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Pah, I just bought a standard PC from the shop. It can run any game I throw at it, and it wasn't a waste of money like a gaming PC.
Heh, it immediately sets graphics on any game I install to the best available. And this was meant to be a normal PC, not some rip-off 'Gaming' PC...
Why pay thousands for something that only costs hundreds? >.>

 

[Zacharine]

Pah, I just bought a standard PC from the shop. It can run any game I throw at it, and it wasn't a waste of money like a gaming PC.
Heh, it immediately sets graphics on any game I install to the best available. And this was meant to be a normal PC, not some rip-off 'Gaming' PC...
Why pay thousands for something that only costs hundreds? >.>

Indeed. As the forum goer that sparked this thread by disagreeing with the OP, my answer is the 'above average' PC. It does everything I want it to, it fit my budget and as I chose the parts myself I am quite confident in that it'll last me several years without any kind of upgrades without compromising performance.

Price/performance is the king as long as you have monetary constraints.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-274-OK&utm_source=newsletter20100811&utm_medium=email
I saw this the other day, and i am sorely tempted by it. When the time comes and i have the money to upgrade (at least another 3 months before i can afford it) i may just buy it.
And I don't see why you can't have a cost effective and somewhat high performance machine

 

[Azure Sky]

As the forum goer that sparked this thread by disagreeing with the OP

Indeed, but I do think it would be interesting to see everyone's opinions on the subject. ^^

Price/performance is the king as long as you have monetary constraints.

This is true, but everyone is different, in both budget and preferences.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

if you have the money. Good gpu + good cpu + decent mother board => ~300 + ~300 + ~200
re purpose your hard-drive, memory card (if they're still compatible if not they're like ~100) and all peripherals. You'll get yourself a gaming PC that will run game for next few years on high setting. Drop 100 on both gpu and cpu and you'll still get a decent pc for gaming.

 

[Darktau]

I can get a crysis playing computer for under £500, I am unsure what this price argument is about really.

 

[JayDub147]

I recently picked up one of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229181

Really good for the price, but the graphics card could be better. I never go for the top-of-the-line stuff, because it becomes so much cheaper with just a little degradation in performance. That's why I always go AMD over Intel. Sure it's not quite as good, but you can usually save at least $100.

 

[Enigmers]

Streetwise gamers don't buy gaming PCs, they just build them for a fraction of the price. I guess that means my choice is the "Above average."

 

[Zacharine]

Price/performance is the king as long as you have monetary constraints.

This is true, but everyone is different, in both budget and preferences.

Indeed. But according to very basic microtheory of economics, people use money to satisfy different needs and wants. These needs and wants have different weight. Having a top-of-the-line gaming computer is rarely among the top needs or wants ; people would rather use money to buy a car, a better apartment, go for a holiday etc. And that means, for those of us who aren't obscenely rich or among the very very top of the PC-gaming enthusiasts, we try to see if we are getting good price/performance for our computer. Because as we start improving the build, we are seeing less and less increase in performance for a steep rise in cost. ANd as long as the build does what we want it to, we can be quite unwilling to pay those almost exponentially increasing prices for the absolute newest stuff. Because components that are 6-12 months old are more than sufficient (from our point of view) but are simply incompareable in price/performance ratio.

And once we have the computer, many of us are unwilling to upgrade it within the year, or three or even six. After all, you don't buy a new TV every few years. In return, we are more than prepared to accept that we aren't having the top-of-the-line stuff. Because we'd rather spend our hard-earned money elsewhere.

P.s. I too am interested to see the results of this poll - it'll be interesting to see the tendency of the Escapists on this matter.

 

[Furious Styles]

I have £1500 in the bank, bt need it for uni. I already have a laptop that can play Crysis pretty well and can comfortably deal with most games, but will soon be superseded. If I had to replace I'd probably be willing to fork out £600 or thereabouts.

If I had to get a gaming PC I'd just get a reasonable PC then get my uncle put a new graphics card and processor in (he's a professor of computing who builds hi-spec computers in his spare time, but he lives like 200+ miles away and I don't like him all that much).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The middle of the road is almost assuredly the way to go. Yes, if one spares no expense they will end up with a fantastic machine but once you begin creeping beyond the 1k USD mark the performance gains one gets per dollar become slim at best.

My own gaming machine cost (including shipping) 1100 USD. It plays all current games at well above adequate framerates and can readily be upgraded in the future. Sure, I could have spent 700 USD on a video card instead of 200 - it just didn't seem like the 20% performance boost was worth it. The same goes for my CPU (and AMD Phenom X2) or my memory (a middle of the road choice in terms of performance).

 

[Azure Sky]

Price/performance is the king as long as you have monetary constraints.

This is true, but everyone is different, in both budget and preferences.

Indeed. But according to very basic microtheory of economics, people use money to satisfy different needs and wants. These needs and wants have different weight. Having a top-of-the-line gaming computer is rarely among the top needs or wants ; people would rather use money to buy a car, a better apartment, go for a holiday etc. And that means, for those of us who aren't obscenely rich or among the very very top of the PC-gaming enthusiasts, we try to see if we are getting good price/performance for our computer. Because as we start improving the build, we are seeing less and less increase in performance for a steep rise in cost. ANd as long as the build does what we want it to, we can be quite unwilling to pay those almost exponentially increasing prices for the absolute newest stuff. Because components that are 6-12 months old are more than sufficient (from our point of view) but are simply incompareable in price/performance ratio.

And once we have the computer, many of us are unwilling to upgrade it within the year, or three or even six. After all, you don't buy a new TV every few years. In return, we are more than prepared to accept that we aren't having the top-of-the-line stuff. Because we'd rather spend our hard-earned money elsewhere.

I suppose, however, from my observation there are more and more people putting 'wants' ahead of 'needs' in this day and age. It's a simple question of what a person would 'do' not what they 'should do'.

Also, editing OP to clarify something.

 

[Aenir]

Close to top of the line, but wouldn't buy the best of the best; they're more expensive per their performance typically. Second of the best for everything so that it lasts long and doesn't need to get anything replaced for a while.

Also, don't get pre-built. Much cheaper to build yourself

 

[Korey Von Doom]

Probably the somewhere in between with my current budget. I'd like to build a gaming PC in the future but buying something like an Alienware would be too rich for my blood.

It would be dumb to buy an Alienware anyway, they are overpriced for what you get, better off finding a friend that knows how to build a computer and buy the parts separate, comes out much cheaper for much more power.

 

[Estocavio]

Just what i have now all over again - $750 and it can run anything without exception at medium settings.

 

[MisterShine]

I built a pc for about 600$ (w/o monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers) last year, this bad boy can run everything at medium, and everything other than Metro 2033, Crysis and STALKER 2012 at high settings without issues. Sure, I got some good deals then, but I bet now for 6-700 I could build something slightly better.

Unless I had a very well paying job, I can't see myself spending more than a grand on a pc or laptop, the diminishing returns on the money after that are just ridiculous. What the hell do you need a computer that could run 2 Crysis's on ultra at the same time? I don't get it.