Support NeoGAF

[LilJoka]

OK well I found other boards for even cheaper that are and have decent features. Mostly around $50-60. Can't speak for the old Xeon board but it still changes nothing.

The PC would work and play games, but your kidding yourself if you think its really a good investment. A PS4 would be a wiser choice at this price.

The CPU is DOA, that means board will need upgrading soon enough since the GTX 1060 will be bottlenecked by even an overclocked i5 2500k at 4.5Ghz.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

The CPU you chose is incredibly weak in todays standards. You are talking 40-50% slower than a 2500k.
I bet there were plenty off instances where the game tanked in his testing. And im sure other games would be even worse.


If you want to build a PC, just be prepared to spend a bit extra to start off with - otherwise youll just pay the price later on.

As a PC gamer - i just wouldnt recommend builds at this price point.

The minimum i would go with would be a 2600k build or a skylake i3 build - usage dependent. And i would go for a 2nd hand GTX 970 or similar.

 

[LelouchZero]

The PC would work and play games, but your kidding yourself if you think its really a good investment. A PS4 would be a wiser choice at this price.

The CPU is DOA, that means board will need upgrading soon enough since the GTX 1060 will be bottlenecked by even an overclocked i5 2500k at 4.5Ghz.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

The CPU you chose is incredibly weak in todays standards. You are talking 40-50% slower than a 2500k.
I bet there were plenty off instances where the game tanked in his testing. And im sure other games would be even worse.


If you want to build a PC, just be prepared to spend a bit extra to start off with - otherwise youll just pay the price later on.

As a PC gamer - i just wouldnt recommend builds at this price point.

The minimum i would go with would be a 2600k build or a skylake i3 build - usage dependent. And i would go for a 2nd hand GTX 970 or similar.

A 2500K minimum would be a good idea, it's pretty solid especially if you pair it with 1866 or 2133MHz memory.

A 2600K would be even better, that chip is awesome and you can find them for decent prices, it will definitely hold up well in 2019+.

Digital Foundry have a huge article on the 2500K and how it fairs today with faster memory and higher clocks, they even included the 3770K and i5 6500 in their testing.

Is it finally time to upgrade your Core i5 2500K?

Hmm IIRC there's about a 10% difference in IPC between Nehalem and Sandybridge, using faster memory on Sandybridge would probably put it above 30% though.

 

[LilJoka]

A 2500K minimum would be a good idea, it's pretty solid especially if you pair it with 1866 or 2133MHz memory.

A 2600K would be even better, that chip is awesome to this day, and you can find them for decent prices, it's sure to hold up well into 2019.

Digital Foundry have a huge article on the 2500K and how it fairs today with faster memory and higher clocks, they even included the 3770K and i5 6500 in their testing.

Is it finally time to upgrade your Core i5 2500K?

Hmm IIRC there's about a 10% difference in IPC between Nehalem and Sandybridge, using faster memory on Sandybridge would probably put it above 30% though.

i5 750 is Lynnfield, its even slower than Nehalem since its not hyperthreaded - games are actually using HT now, hence i start with a 2600k. 2500k is in the bottleneck territory now - its not balanced for a 1060, but alteast you can jump to a 3770k on the same platform and be good a for a good while. 1156 is dead.

In that DF video, the 2500k is having frametimes into 45ms, thats awful.

 

[LelouchZero]

i5 750 is Lynnfield, its even slower than Nehalem since its not hyperthreaded - games are actually using HT now, hence i start with a 2600k. 2500k is in the bottleneck territory now - its not balanced for a 1060, but alteast you can jump to a 3770k on the same platform and be good a for a good while. 1156 is dead.

Yup, the i7s have distanced themselves from i5 processors much more thanks to their Hyper-threading.

The 2600K is indeed a much better option than the 2500K as it performs better in games that scale past 4 threads.

Lynfield is still Nehalem, Lynfield is the codename for the 1156 socket processors but it's based on the same architecture. There's even i7s like the i7 860.

 

[Sad Affleck]

The PC would work and play games, but your kidding yourself if you think its really a good investment. A PS4 would be a wiser choice at this price.

Yeah, as far as I can tell noone has recommended that someone should actually go out and build a PC like that. I've said many times now that the Potato Masher is an experiment with the purpose of showing how a PC handles games over time vs a console, since many people held the belief that over time the console would outperform similar PC hardware. It's not buying advice. Budget PC gaming is quite affordable but you have to make smart choices so that you get the maximum return on your investment.

 

[Aztechnology]

Ko

The PC would work and play games, but your kidding yourself if you think its really a good investment. A PS4 would be a wiser choice at this price.

The CPU is DOA, that means board will need upgrading soon enough since the GTX 1060 will be bottlenecked by even an overclocked i5 2500k at 4.5Ghz.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

The CPU you chose is incredibly weak in todays standards. You are talking 40-50% slower than a 2500k.
I bet there were plenty off instances where the game tanked in his testing. And im sure other games would be even worse.


If you want to build a PC, just be prepared to spend a bit extra to start off with - otherwise youll just pay the price later on.

As a PC gamer - i just wouldnt recommend builds at this price point.

The minimum i would go with would be a 2600k build or a skylake i3 build - usage dependent. And i would go for a 2nd hand GTX 970 or similar.

I want really advocating for it. I've already linked parts for both US, UK and could provide other links or alternatives for other places saying what I'd say is a minimum build I'd personally recommend. Just wasn't really the point.

I said for some future proofing and performance that would eclipse the PS4 Pro you'd be looking to spend around $600. But could lower the price in the U.S at least with well timed deals and scaling some or the parts back I recommended like 16gb RAM to 8, the case, 1atB HDD to a smaller option, GPU from 480 to a 470 etc. Which would bring you into $500 or lower range but I wouldn't recommend that as opposed to spending a little extra.

I mean I'd probably also recommend an I5 minimum, but that too wouldn't exactly be relevant because it's only about bringing the machine past what the Pro can do. I mean I would never recommend anything close the CPU equivalent of the PS4 or pro either even though that would bring the machine cost down an extra 50 from the I3 6100.

 

[grandwizard]

Yeah, as far as I can tell noone has recommended that someone should actually go out and build a PC like that. I've said many times now that the Potato Masher is an experiment with the purpose of showing how a PC handles games over time vs a console, since many people held the belief that over time the console would outperform similar PC hardware. It's not buying advice. Budget PC gaming is quite affordable but you have to make smart choices so that you get the maximum return on your investment.

This is the sensible position, it isn't recommended to go build a PC at these prices but as an experiement it's valuable to see how the hardware holds up over time. For just a few hundred more you could build a much more capable machine that would last longer and give you better gaming experiences (higher fps, etc).

The problem is experiments like this bring out hostility because it shows that budget PC gaming does just as well and better in some cases over time and that goes opposite to the 'coding to the metal' and 'special sauce magic' that people believe consoles have in them to get their level of price/performance.

 

[John Wick]

He isn't that far off.

i5 750 $40

Arctic Alpine 11 Cooler $10

Intel DZ68DB Motherboard $60

8GB AMD DDR3 Ram $20

Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB $240

EVGA 430W PSU $40

WD 320GB HDD $20

Azza CSAZ Case $20

Windows $25

Total $475

To be fair you can get a PS4 Pro for $380

You need to put in a 1 TB Hard Drive for a start.
Also a decent Mouse and Keyboard
A good gaming pad like Dualshock 4 or X1 controller and wireless dongle.

 

[LilJoka]

Ok in terms of showing that PC parts don't lose all performance after a year - fair play, they certainly don't and will hold up against a consoles whole gen if chosen carefully.

But I do not take that video at face value, I suspect those parts will struggle in other games and frametimes to not be so consistent.

 

[RichiRamjag]

The PC would work and play games, but your kidding yourself if you think its really a good investment. A PS4 would be a wiser choice at this price.

The CPU is DOA, that means board will need upgrading soon enough since the GTX 1060 will be bottlenecked by even an overclocked i5 2500k at 4.5Ghz.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

The CPU you chose is incredibly weak in todays standards. You are talking 40-50% slower than a 2500k.
I bet there were plenty off instances where the game tanked in his testing. And im sure other games would be even worse.


If you want to build a PC, just be prepared to spend a bit extra to start off with - otherwise youll just pay the price later on.

As a PC gamer - i just wouldnt recommend builds at this price point.

The minimum i would go with would be a 2600k build or a skylake i3 build - usage dependent. And i would go for a 2nd hand GTX 970 or similar.

Agreed. I'd rather spend a bit more upfront and save the money down the road.

 

[SapientWolf]

The PC would work and play games, but your kidding yourself if you think its really a good investment. A PS4 would be a wiser choice at this price.

The CPU is DOA, that means board will need upgrading soon enough since the GTX 1060 will be bottlenecked by even an overclocked i5 2500k at 4.5Ghz.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

The CPU you chose is incredibly weak in todays standards. You are talking 40-50% slower than a 2500k.
I bet there were plenty off instances where the game tanked in his testing. And im sure other games would be even worse.


If you want to build a PC, just be prepared to spend a bit extra to start off with - otherwise youll just pay the price later on.

As a PC gamer - i just wouldnt recommend builds at this price point.

The minimum i would go with would be a 2600k build or a skylake i3 build - usage dependent. And i would go for a 2nd hand GTX 970 or similar.

The PS4 is a terrible investment if you want high frame rate gaming. The 750 holds up pretty well, clock for clock.

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/eve...-lynnfield-to-skylake-7-years-of-i5-goodness/

 

[Sad Affleck]

The problem is experiments like this bring out hostility because it shows that budget PC gaming does just as well and better in some cases over time and that goes opposite to the 'coding to the metal' and 'special sauce magic' that people believe consoles have in them to get their level of price/performance.

It doesn't matter. The people who are in it for the platdorm wars will never accept anything else than what they already believe to be true. Others who are genuinely interested can still get useful information.

 

[LilJoka]

The PS4 is a terrible investment if you want high frame rate gaming. The 750 holds up pretty well, clock for clock.

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/eve...-lynnfield-to-skylake-7-years-of-i5-goodness/

Just look at the DF analysis link. The avg and even minimum fps arent that bad.
The frametimes however... they are not so great. Personally even if i have 80 fps and i am getting frametimes over 30ms at various points, its not good. You are better off with a locked 30 than bad frame pacing. Forza Horizon 3 is a good example of this when played on PC vs Xbox.

Its all good making PCs look good, because they absolutely are, but im trying to be realistic here.

 

[Aztechnology]

I'm curious if you could put a compact 1060 or 470/80 into something in this

https://flash.newegg.com/Product/9SIA9RF5528723?icid=WP_8_01032017

or

https://flash.newegg.com/Product/9SIA5YV4XJ8211?icid=WP_0_01022017

The first one at least you would need a new PSU and I'd say more Ram so that would add on cost to the point where you should probably just build.

The second one, I don't know. Maybe? I can seem to find any info about the PSU or Mobo.

Just hypothetical for really low cost, small form. I would personally never recommend it. But it would very likely outperform at PS4 Pro.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

you could get used ps4s for 250 and sometimes less in early 2015

Uhhh, prove it?

because IceCold it sounds like you're making a rare deal you found out to be the norm for the sake of your argument...

... the conversation is completely about gaming, if it weren't, there wouldn't be a comparison with a GAME console. If you're looking at other things you can do with a computer, get a Raspberry Pi.

this is legitimately one of the most insincerely ignorant posts I've read in some time lmao

 

[icecold1983]

Uhhh, prove it?

because IceCold it sounds like you're making a rare deal you found out to be the norm for the sake of your argument...


this is legitimately one of the most insincerely ignorant posts I've read in some time lmao

theres no way i can prove it now, but im doing for playstation exactly what jermgaming did for their potato masher. its unfair to do anything else