What exactly is the problem with low/middle-line PC Gaming Hardware?

[aozgolo]

Okay I've been around the internet a couple of times and I see all over the place forum threads pop up regarding upgrading or buying a new gaming PC, and I invariably see posts suggesting ALL top of the line products ONLY and often out-right dissing anything below that. I NEVER understood this mentality because I never saw a problem with middle line PC hardware.

I built my own gaming rig for about $500 (The average price now of new consoles) and it has low-middle end hardware

Spoiler

Intel I3-2125 @ 3.30GHz
16GB RAM
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1
500GB HDD
EVGA GeForce 550 GTX Ti @ 2GB VRAM

I have as of yet to find a single game that cannot be run at the highest graphic settings without churning the FPS with that hardware. Granted I know how to somewhat tweak Windows to run smoother while I play games, but I never encounter even the slightest issues with gaming on a PC at all. I can play Skyrim just fine at Ultra High Graphics with High Res Textures and close to 150 mods running without so much as a hiccup in performance (though some mods do tend to make it crash but that has nothing to do with hardware). I have not yet encountered a single game that I cannot play to the fullest extent of it's capabilities.

I'm certainly not trying to diss the high end hardware, I mean it's nice to future proof your system but we're already close to this hardware plateau and old trends of needing the highest end hardware to still be capable of running games in a few years isn't so much a valid reason anymore. I built my rig in 2012 and I doubt I'll see a need to HAVE to upgrade it for the next several years.

So can someone explain to me why so many PC Gamers feel it absolutely necessary to have the highest end hardware? I mean if you have the money sure go for it, but going middle of the road on what is considered a "low performance" processor & video card can still give you everything you need to play any game you want at a perfectly acceptable level.

 

[Directionless]

I'm sorry, but unless you've just been playing 2d platformers, you're not maxing games. You have to realize that when people say "maxing", they mean all settings up at 1080p (at least) and 60FPS on a game that has 3 dimensions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing games at lower settings. A lot of PC gamers, at least the one's with money, like making their games balls to the walls pretty.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

I've asked myself the same question, and sadly I haven't come up with an answer. Sometimes I think it's just that old habits die hard and our general nature of wanting new and shiny. I think there's also still some of that mentality that graphics are everything that matters, though I think we're shedding that viewpoint by now. But there will always be some people who will want to, and want others to, push the envelope of hardware and software as long as it can be pushed.

Personally, I'm saving up for a gaming PC myself since none of this cycle's consoles really appeal to me. I miss some games from consoles but these days so much of it is on PC anyway that I really don't need to worry. I was still severely shocked at the price I was quoted of over a grand for something approximating what I'd like. Sadly it seems like that's par for the course these days based on the looking around I've done. Sure you can get some stuff for like $800 but it seems like it's older tech and regardless of that you're still around the thousand-dollar mark in either direction. It feels like it's a no-win scenario. So I figured if I'm gonna do it, might as well future-proof it as much as I can without giving myself a heart-attack.

 

[veloper]

There's nothing wrong with going mainstream. You get less and less extra performance for money if you move towards the upper end.

Don't buy cheap crap obviously, but you still don't need more than an aging core i5 2500k and slightly more expensive GPU to play most new games on medium to high settings. Many games still look fine on custom-low settings even aslong as the view distance isn't reduced and the renderer is on native resolution, so you can get by with a worse setup than that.

I rarely ever hear PC gamers recommending the expensive hardware frankly. The only issue that regurlary crops up is when someone new to PC gaming buys a PC off the shelves, that sounds fancy enough with it's fancy core i7 CPU and 8 GBs of RAM, but also came with a very low-end GPU and ends up performing worse than an ancient core2duo with a decent GPU.

 

[aozgolo]

I'm sorry, but unless you've just been playing 2d platformers, you're not maxing games. You have to realize that when people say "maxing", they mean all settings up at 1080p (at least) and 60FPS on a game that has 3 dimensions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing games at lower settings. A lot of PC gamers, at least the one's with money, like making their games balls to the walls pretty.

While in general I do not play loads and loads of the most "cutting edge (graphically speaking)" games I do own some, I find few who would argue that Skyrim is certainly up there... Mass Effect 3 is by no means crap-looking, I've never tried out CryTek's games, but I can run Saint's Row IV, Kingdoms of Amalur, Overlord, The Witcher 2, any MMO I've ever tried, and plenty of other 3D games at smooth fluid FPS at my full resolution (1680x1050) way better than their console counterparts can. Now you can nitpick all you want about those games if you so choose but the bottom line is I've played hundreds of games on this PC build and not a single one of them ran poorly at the maximum settings, it's not an argument of playing them on lower settings on lower end machines, it's entirely possible to play them to the max without having the highest end hardware.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Nothing wrong with it at all especially with that fact PC games are being made with consoles in mind so it's rare for a game to be made that can't be ported to a console rather easily (that's if the game was initially developed for the PC), most PC games are console ports and standard stuff like resolution is upped. You'll probably see a big jump in PC requirements shortly with the new consoles coming out though.

There's really no reason to get the best video card at all, spend your $100 on the best card you can find, then upgrade in a year or two as that $500 video card now will be $100 when you go to upgrade later down the road. RAM is cheap and easy to upgrade so no issue there. I would say getting the best processor you can afford extends the life of your gaming rig the most as when you want to upgrade your processor that usually requires getting a new motherboard as well. Getting the best processor is the best way to future proof your machine; upgrading the video card and RAM is simple and easy.

 

[Directionless]

I rarely ever hear PC gamers recommending the expensive hardware frankly.

I agree with this. Everywhere i've seen, they usually recommend the most bang for your buck, rather than the latest and greatest or old gooey stuff.

I'm sorry, but unless you've just been playing 2d platformers, you're not maxing games. You have to realize that when people say "maxing", they mean all settings up at 1080p (at least) and 60FPS on a game that has 3 dimensions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing games at lower settings. A lot of PC gamers, at least the one's with money, like making their games balls to the walls pretty.

While in general I do not play loads and loads of the most "cutting edge (graphically speaking)" games I do own some, I find few who would argue that Skyrim is certainly up there... Mass Effect 3 is by no means crap-looking, I've never tried out CryTek's games, but I can run Saint's Row IV, Kingdoms of Amalur, Overlord, The Witcher 2, any MMO I've ever tried, and plenty of other 3D games at smooth fluid FPS at my full resolution (1680x1050) way better than their console counterparts can. Now you can nitpick all you want about those games if you so choose but the bottom line is I've played hundreds of games on this PC build and not a single one of them ran poorly at the maximum settings, it's not an argument of playing them on lower settings on lower end machines, it's entirely possible to play them to the max without having the highest end hardware.

The PC community, refers to "maxing" at this time as at least 1080p and a constant 60 FPS with all settings turned up. So you're not maxing TW2 at 900p with an unknown FPS. It still looks better technically than any console game, but it isn't what people consider "maxing".

So what you're really doing is playing games on PC with moderate settings. That said, a moderate build is all you really need to get you through a console generation as long as you're willing to miss out on shiny. And, like i said before, a lot of the pc community like their stuff to look sexy.

 

[veloper]

i think its more a case of building for the long term. somethign built to high specs will last longer before needing to be upgraded

Or you could just upgrade when you need it and save yourself some money.

Hardware depreciates fast in value and the difference between mainstream-performance and high end is so small, you still end up having to replace the expensive kit not long after you would have replaced the cheaper hardware anyway.

 

[spartandude]

i think its more a case of building for the long term. somethign built to high specs will last longer before needing to be upgraded

Or you could just upgrade when you need it and save yourself some money.

I think thats what hes saying, getting high end components means they wont need to upgraded for a long time, heck i had a computer that last from 2007 (it was second hand from my uncle and built before that) till 2013 and the only thing i changed in that entire time was GPU (brought one that was descent enough at the time) because the original one broke.

OT

Theres nothing wrong with lower- mid end PCs so long as you get the performance YOU want out of it. I paid a bit more for mine because I wanted a high performance but that gives me no right to judge you. Of course there are advantages to better PCs but it doesnt matter.

 

[veloper]

i think its more a case of building for the long term. somethign built to high specs will last longer before needing to be upgraded

Or you could just upgrade when you need it and save yourself some money.

I think thats what hes saying, getting high end components means they wont need to upgraded for a long time, heck i had a computer that last from 2007 (it was second hand from my uncle and built before that) till 2013 and the only thing i changed in that entire time was GPU (brought one that was descent enough at the time) because the original one broke.

Would you have replaced the CPU one year earlier if it had been 5% slower? The diminishing returns in the high end market, make it that you pay through the nose for a little extra performance, but the gamer still end up replacing that stuff almost just as quickly.

Gamers with meanstream hardware haven't needed to upgrade for a long time either, because the requirements to run the software have barely increased with time, after the 360's debut.
There's little reason to shell out $800 for a CPU (or GPU), when a $500 alternative performs almost just as fast and even a $300 unit still does very well.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Hell, all the interesting stuff coming out for PC is low-spec.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

So can someone explain to me why so many PC Gamers feel it absolutely necessary to have the highest end hardware?

There's a certain amount of overlap between the PC gaming communities and the PC hardware enthusiast scenes.


Here's the thing, though... if you're enjoying your gaming experience, why the fuck do you care what other people say? If they're enjoying themselves, why do you care how much scratch they're blowing?

 

[spartandude]

i think its more a case of building for the long term. somethign built to high specs will last longer before needing to be upgraded

Or you could just upgrade when you need it and save yourself some money.

I think thats what hes saying, getting high end components means they wont need to upgraded for a long time, heck i had a computer that last from 2007 (it was second hand from my uncle and built before that) till 2013 and the only thing i changed in that entire time was GPU (brought one that was descent enough at the time) because the original one broke.

Would you have replaced the CPU one year earlier if it had been 5% slower? The diminishing returns in the high end market, make it that you pay through the nose for a little extra performance, but the gamer still end up replacing that stuff almost just as quickly.

Gamers with meanstream hardware haven't needed to upgrade for a long time either, because the requirements to run the software have barely increased with time, after the 360's debut.
There's little reason to shell out $800 for a CPU (or GPU), when a $500 alternative performs almost just as fast and even a $300 unit still does very well.

In regards to your first paragraph, im not saying something should be upgraded the moment something better comes out, i merely meant that if you have high end stuff now, it will take alot longer before it becomes low end (ok it does happen quickly, but i mean running things on the lowest settings) much slower compared to something that is currently mid end. And again i see nothing wrong with people purchasing mid end PCs, my current PC is mid-high end and i upgraded it all this year.
And yes i agree nothing NEEDS (gaming is a luxury) to be upgraded for quite a while, but the high end PC i had in 2007 was barely running games at low settings in 2013. Also some people like to upgrade things every now and then when it isnt needed because they may like better performance and they have the money to spend. But with the new Console gen coming out i do see a jump in PC requirements over the next couple of years for newer releases, although the indie market and older games on GoG (yay cheap old school D&D games) means that some older PCs will stay useful.

 

[veloper]

i think its more a case of building for the long term. somethign built to high specs will last longer before needing to be upgraded

Or you could just upgrade when you need it and save yourself some money.

I think thats what hes saying, getting high end components means they wont need to upgraded for a long time, heck i had a computer that last from 2007 (it was second hand from my uncle and built before that) till 2013 and the only thing i changed in that entire time was GPU (brought one that was descent enough at the time) because the original one broke.

Would you have replaced the CPU one year earlier if it had been 5% slower? The diminishing returns in the high end market, make it that you pay through the nose for a little extra performance, but the gamer still end up replacing that stuff almost just as quickly.

Gamers with meanstream hardware haven't needed to upgrade for a long time either, because the requirements to run the software have barely increased with time, after the 360's debut.
There's little reason to shell out $800 for a CPU (or GPU), when a $500 alternative performs almost just as fast and even a $300 unit still does very well.

In regards to your first paragraph, im not saying something should be upgraded the moment something better comes out, i merely meant that if you have high end stuff now, it will take alot longer before it becomes low end

And this is where we've differed right from the beginning. The period lasts about as long. That $800 Titan will need replacement shortly after that $300 GTX will need it, because the performance difference is not so great as the ongoing technological progress being made. Both will also lack the lastest directx features within a couple years.
There is no future proofing for PCs.

The new CPU probably didn't matter at all, if the old one's worth $200 or more, because even modern games (like metro or c3) with all their bells and whistles switched on, are almost entirely bottlenecked by even the fastest GPUs on the market. A core i5 will be idling, waiting for the titan to finish it's instructions.

The only worthwhile remaining question is how much a few extra percent in performance is worth to the player right on the day of purchase.

 

[GoaThief]

but you still don't need more than an aging core i5 2500k

Those 2500k still aren't dirt cheap however (can't really call them low end) and overclock extremely well (mine is not even breaking a sweat at 4.5ghz on air), Ivy Bridge is a literal sidestep and newer i5s offer sod all for the extra dollar, not to mention comparatively more expensive motherboards due to the socket requirements. I'd recommend a 2600k minimum if you were going that slightly older route though, purely due to the new consoles having games optimised for 8 cores and that should be reflected in new titles over the coming year or two... keeping in mind the 2500k doesn't have hyperthreading and the 2600k does.

Best thing to do in my honest opinion is spend around 700 every two years, selling your old rig to help balance the cost so you'll pay about half. The only reason I haven't this year (mine is roughly due) is purely for external finance matters; new generation of consoles + fresh lappy + production hardware vs cutting back on the aforementioned in some way for a really minimal performance increase as I get 30+fps on everything I've played up to now at 1080p. Rather just pay 700 in a year or so for hopefully more gain over what I have now. I blame console stagnation for that, really.

Resolution is also interesting to the topic at hand, if you're playing at 1080p or thereabouts a mid end rig should be great for pretty much anything if you don't go crazy on the AA but it's going to get flaky fast at higher resolutions. When people say low end rigs are good for them I imagine they're gaming at 720p or they're just very insensitive to frame rates. Horses for courses, I wish more people gave their target resolutions when considering specs as it makes a huge difference and adds clarity to discussions.

 

[TehCookie]

Haven't you heard of the MUH GRAFIX people? A lot of people who get high-end PCs are usually the tech enthusiast and want to see how fancy things can get. Acceptable isn't good enough, it must be the best it can be.

 

[spartandude]

i think its more a case of building for the long term. somethign built to high specs will last longer before needing to be upgraded

Or you could just upgrade when you need it and save yourself some money.

I think thats what hes saying, getting high end components means they wont need to upgraded for a long time, heck i had a computer that last from 2007 (it was second hand from my uncle and built before that) till 2013 and the only thing i changed in that entire time was GPU (brought one that was descent enough at the time) because the original one broke.

Would you have replaced the CPU one year earlier if it had been 5% slower? The diminishing returns in the high end market, make it that you pay through the nose for a little extra performance, but the gamer still end up replacing that stuff almost just as quickly.

Gamers with meanstream hardware haven't needed to upgrade for a long time either, because the requirements to run the software have barely increased with time, after the 360's debut.
There's little reason to shell out $800 for a CPU (or GPU), when a $500 alternative performs almost just as fast and even a $300 unit still does very well.

In regards to your first paragraph, im not saying something should be upgraded the moment something better comes out, i merely meant that if you have high end stuff now, it will take alot longer before it becomes low end

And this is where we've differed right from the beginning. The period lasts about as long. That $800 Titan will need replacement shortly after that $300 GTX will need it, because the performance difference is not so great as the ongoing technological progress being made. Both will also lack the lastest directx features within a couple years.
There is no future proofing for PCs.

The new CPU probably didn't matter at all, if the old one's worth $200 or more, because even modern games (like metro or c3) with all their bells and whistles switched on, are almost entirely bottlenecked by even the fastest GPUs on the market. A core i5 will be idling, waiting for the titan to finish it's instructions.

The only worthwhile remaining question is how much a few extra percent in performance is worth to the player right on the day of purchase.

Well i dont know the exact percantage difference between my two machines is but i can tell you this, going from a
Windows XP
2Gb Ram
2.7 (roughly) Ghz Dual Core (over clocked btw)
Nvidia GTX 460 768 mb

to a

Windows 7
8 Gb Ram
I5 3570k 3.4 Ghz Quad Core
Nvidia Gtx 660 Ti

made one hell of a difference. And look im not saying it was 100% critical that i upgraded but i had the money to do so and it has made a huge difference for me. My old one was only just able to run Skyrim on lowest settings with at 30 FPS with lots of graphical glitches and no chance of modding with out frying my machine. The new beast is running Skyrim maxed at 60 FPS ive only encountered one graphical glitch (it is a bethesda game) and i have modded the hell out of it.

And no one here has said that a high end PC is 100% future proof and will never have to be upgraded, im just saying that higher end components will likely be lasting that person a bit longer, while providing a better performance now.