It is 2014 and PC specs are still way too confuisng.

Wow, don't get me wrong, but a lot of the comments in here prove that pc gaming is not for everyone - and I'm not talking about some PC elitist bs.

If you're not interested in pc tech and hardware, you really should stay with consoles or other closed systems.

If you don't know some of the stuff in the reqs, do your research (like in your OP, c'mon, athlon is not a graphics card).

And recommending systemrequirementslab? It just compares your specs with the official reqs, an easy thing you should be able to accomplish on yourself.

That's the beauty of PCs, the variety, the unlimited possible combinations, the tweaking and working around, experimenting with new unknown parts. If that's confusing, read up on it or stick with consoles.
 
Here you go OP, I'll do the hard work for you


CPU

Motherboard

RAM

Video Card

Add some storage, case of your choice (full ATX) and any peripherals you need. Don't forget to get an OS to put on it

The above probably aren't the best value for money wise but all those components work together

The important thing is to choose a CPU (I'd recommend to get an Intel I-5 or I-7). Ignore the ones with the 'K' on the end because I'd suggest you aren't going to overclock.

Then look for a compatible motherboard - you're looking for the right socket. Any PC parts store should be able to filter motherboards based on your CPU socket.

Then look for compatible RAM. Look for the specs on the motherboard and they'll tell you what speed to look for.

Then look for a video card. Depending on your motherboard determines what type of card. Your looking for the PCI number (3 ort 2 probably) then look at those cards.

Everything else is easy. But if you have any questions I'm sure there is a NeoGAF thread on helping build a PC
 
Bloody hell, PC requirements these days are easier to read then back when I was a teenager; that was before the DirectX days, so we'd actually had to hope the game supported our hardware.

Nowadays; I just go to the computershop ever 3-4 years, buy a good upper-mid-range / lower high-end rig and be done with it.

Also; don't read too much into the requirements provided by the publisher, they are usually way off target, in my experience. According to Monolith, my rig would run Shadow of Middle Earth in medium, while in reality, most settings are on high.
 
I follow the PC hardware news from time to time, and whenever I want to build a new PC the research does take A LOT of time. Obviously there are ways to make it easier (like the helpful people here), but it needs to be easier for the laymen.

Why not assign a performance rating of 0-100, where the current "best" component would have a rating of 100 and everything else would be scaled accordingly? The industry could adopt this standard and have the performance number of, say, their graphics card in the specs. Different games could say what performance number you need in different components to run their games.

Obviously this isn't as straight-forward as it sounds as some components serve different purposes better than others, but it could work as a good guideline. It would be way easier to examine and research the best bang for your buck. It doesn't even have to be adopted by the industry, but would work via a third party as well.
 
TucoBenedictoPacifico said:
Then don't.
Adding 20-30 bucks to the total sum typically means someone else will do it for you.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to find a good store. The major parts seller I used previously is no longer building (they were superb). There's constant conflicting info I'm dealing with, regarding reliable builders. If I'm going to spend $2500, then I'm happy to pay a premium for cable management. But yeah, as I said..a lot of shit stores around. I once saw a store using a vacuum to dust someone's rig.
 
Gipsy Danger said:
If research is a pain then the platform is not for you.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this line of thinking for 2 reasons

1) If you're going to spend at least $1000 don't you think it warrants some research
2) It's not much research. Literally 1-2 hours and you're up to speed
 
My big brother stays away from PC for this reason.

He can't be bothered to turn this into a real hobby (where he has to read Toms/Anand), so he just plays on consoles or tablet.
 
Antti said:
I follow the PC hardware news from time to time, and whenever I want to build a new PC the research does take A LOT of time. Obviously there are ways to make it easier (like the helpful people here), but it needs to be easier for the laymen.
Click to expand...

The layman can buy a prebuilt enthusiast PC or ask their hobbyist friends for help. Packaged individual components are for hobbyists, not for the layman, and this is a large hobby (and has been so for decades) so the market can support the wide range of options.

Why not assign a performance rating of 0-100, where the current "best" component would have a rating of 100 and everything else would be scaled accordingly? The industry could adopt this standard and have the performance number of, say, their graphics card in the specs. Different games could say what performance number you need in different components to run their games.
Click to expand...

Who sets the numbers? How are they updated with new parts? Who builds and updates the software suite to determine these numbers? How are the components tested? This idea is pie in the sky and cannot realistically be implemented. It's also completely unnecessary, you can literally skim two reviews of a new GPU launch and have a good idea what baseline performance is going to be like.

Today's tech is amazing and easier to use than ever, in both hardware and software, but planning and construction of enthusiast PC is targeted at hobbyists and while you don't have to be one to do the task, you do have to at least get the pertinent information from the hobbyist media and outlets (if not a friendly hobbyist themselves) to have satisfaction and success.

The hobbyist influence is a feature of the platform and helps drive the culture of openness that truly makes the PC unique.
 
Been PC gaming since the mid 90s. I still think system requirements can be confusing and though I will do it I hate researching upgrades as I can get sucked into a endless rabbit hole of comparing components.

I mostly hate overly vague system requirements. A common one appearing now is simply "Requires an i7" what does that even mean? There's a big varience between a first gen i7 and a modern one. Surely a newer i5 is better then an early i7. The spec means nothing.
 
The Dennis System said:
Yeah, but consoles exist.
Click to expand...

Then play consoles, I guess.

I just think it's weird how folks can handle things like car and home ownership, but when it comes to PCs, things are just too confusing. That they can't do any research or take an afternoon one weekend to grasp things.

Building a PC is barely any harder than putting together a LEGO set. Things are pretty damn clear and basic.

It's the best investment someone that likes games can make. You get the best version of a game, you can play it on future hardware FOREVER, you're always going to save money on games, services, and peripherals over consoles due to their closed nature, and the variety of games is unbeaten on any console.

Warranties on PC hardware is also much better than console warranties and typically last MUCH longer too. Not to mention many PC hardware companies will send you a replacement before you send back the defective part. How many console companies do that? Not a damn one.
 
Who cares about the given minimum requiements? buy the game on steam or origin, if the game is unplayable contact the support that its dont run on your pc and they refund your money without any problem at all.
 
haveheart said:
If you're not interested in pc tech and hardware, you really should stay with consoles or other closed systems.
Click to expand...
This really is the best advice. Closed systems are easier in just about every way, and more likely to play your games, and play with others, without issue.

I got a nice rig a few years ago and was surprised at how many small and large problems I ran into. For the games that worked it worked amazingly well. For way too many others I ran into performance issues, weird workarounds, lots of trial and error experimentation, and some games that I just never got to run decently at all.
 
Basically, what you do is get a sense of how your CPU and GPU compare to the CPUs and GPUs that are being used as the benchmarks for the system requirements. I have a 7870 and I know that it's little bit less powerful than a 670 or a 7950 by looking at some benchmarking images. If you see a GPU being used in the system requirements text, just go look up how it compares to your card.
 
AxeMan said:
2) It's not much research. Literally 1-2 hours and you're up to speed
Click to expand...

My research was off and on over the course of a month at the end of last year, would have loved for everything to be in the one place and 1-2 hours :p Admittedly my chassis was more difficult compatibility wise, but as with most things I'm interested in I'd rather know what's best both in performance and quality for the price so it became endless searches and reading about A vs B, B vs C... until I had enough of an idea of what it was all about and could make some informed judgments.

If one wanted some tested and recommended preset part options GAF's own Build A PC thread is the place to go though.
 
samurai1226 said:
Who cares about the given minimum requiements? buy the game on steam or origin, if the game is unplayable contact the support that its dont run on your pc and they refund your money without any problem at all.
Click to expand...

Steam support will most likely just ask you to reinstall all your games, Windows and then send you a few more generic responses before refunding and flagging your account to never receive any refunds ever again. Unless they have done drastic improvements over the last few months.
 
I built a budget machine in 2011 and I've never really had any problems with minimum requirements. I install a game and hit run. If you're not going the crazy enthusiast route nearly every game should run okay with little tinkering.
 
JNA said:
I got a challenge, or more like a request: I guess using that site, make a rig that can play most if not all play games at maximum settings (because I don't see the point in PC Gaming otherwise) for a fair price. Say, between $1000-$2000? Can that be done or close to it? I'm really curious.
Click to expand...

If that's the only reason you see to PC games then you don't really sound like PC gaming is your thing.

When you get a new rig its a great perk but people who want top settings always tend to upgrade a lot and love the tech side of things.

The real point to PC gaming is game price, backwards compatibility, PC exclusives, modding, free online and the ability to tweak a game to run how you want it to.

If you don't see the point in any of those things then you should prob stick to consoles really.
 
Alphahawk said:
Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

No. Your quite right, and frankly if you have no interest in learning about some of the technical details that make gaming possible then I would say you should steer clear of PC gaming.

I've been building my own gaming machines since I was 14 (I'm 31 now) and I've always been fascinated by the technology behind the games I love, so it just came by default that I learned a lot of the things you need to know as a pc gamer because you desperately wanted to run the current blockbuster game.

Back when I was younger PC games like Half Life and Unreal were so vastly superior to anything on console that it was an even greater gaming nirvana than it currently is.

Someone is never going to learn the many technical details they really do need to understand if they are simply not interested enough in the first place.

I'll reiterate what others have said in that it's definitely worth investing the time to learn these things as PC gaming is objectively better than console gaming on the whole, but it's not for everyone, and I'm totally fine with that.
 
I've always found PC specs pretty straightforward really.

Can't relate to what people are complaining about.
 
It's true things could be improved. Steam already can read your actual hardware info, so with that base, it could be very easy to mark in green or red the requisites you pass or you lack.
 
Antti said:
I follow the PC hardware news from time to time, and whenever I want to build a new PC the research does take A LOT of time. Obviously there are ways to make it easier (like the helpful people here), but it needs to be easier for the laymen.

Why not assign a performance rating of 0-100, where the current "best" component would have a rating of 100 and everything else would be scaled accordingly? The industry could adopt this standard and have the performance number of, say, their graphics card in the specs. Different games could say what performance number you need in different components to run their games.

Obviously this isn't as straight-forward as it sounds as some components serve different purposes better than others, but it could work as a good guideline. It would be way easier to examine and research the best bang for your buck. It doesn't even have to be adopted by the industry, but would work via a third party as well.
Click to expand...

Because it's a constantly shifting scale. Microsoft tried this by assigning a performancescore to your rig.. But a rig doing 90 now is a 30 in 4 years time. And it's not even time-based, because a 100 GFX-card is only 100 untill it's manufacturer builds something better.

If you want to be a PC gamer, but don't want to do the research, go pre-built. There are tons of good pre-built rigs out there that will carry you a long way. Go for an upper-mid-range to lower-high-end machine and you'll be able to game for 4 to 5 years.
 
Antti said:
I follow the PC hardware news from time to time, and whenever I want to build a new PC the research does take A LOT of time. Obviously there are ways to make it easier (like the helpful people here), but it needs to be easier for the laymen.

Why not assign a performance rating of 0-100, where the current "best" component would have a rating of 100 and everything else would be scaled accordingly? The industry could adopt this standard and have the performance number of, say, their graphics card in the specs. Different games could say what performance number you need in different components to run their games.

Obviously this isn't as straight-forward as it sounds as some components serve different purposes better than others, but it could work as a good guideline. It would be way easier to examine and research the best bang for your buck. It doesn't even have to be adopted by the industry, but would work via a third party as well.
Click to expand...
Because it would require some governing body that assigns these ratings and that just isn't gonna happen.

Not to mention that the goalposts are constantly moving.

And of course there would be all sorts of complaints by people who aren't knowledgeable when a part that is rated 'x' doesn't perform as well as anticipated on a particular game, for a myriad of reasons.

Its just an impractical solution. There are sites you can find that will give general rankings of GPU's and CPU's in certain benchmarks and that's about as good as you're gonna get.

Otherwise, I don't see that it should take a *ton* of research. Obviously the more you put in, the more likely you're gonna make the best choices, but its not necessary to spend hours and hours and hours of researching to put together a competent gaming rig.

One bit of advice I would make to people is that you don't *need* max settings in every game. That benchmark you're looking at where it says you'll only get 40fps with a certain GPU? That does not mean that you will not be able to play that game at 60fps. Turn down a couple settings, many of which will be almost imperceptible(especially while playing) and bam, performance gained. These benchmarks are mainly used for comparison purposes rather than to judge exactly what sort of performance you'll actually get.

Just in general, the obsession with 'max settings' is crazy and does more harm than good when people are trying to ascertain what sort of hardware they need.
 
Stevey said:
I've always found PC specs pretty straightforward really.

Can't relate to what people are complaining about.
Click to expand...

This pretty much.

The people replying " oh it's part of the fun, you just need to do research" are just being polite

There is nothing even remotley difficult about understanding pc specs, nothing.
 
Does the game you want to play only work with IBM PC/XT/AT/PS2, Tandy 1000/3000, and compatibles?
 
Seanspeed said:
One bit of advice I would make to people is that you don't *need* max settings in every game. That benchmark you're looking at where it says you'll only get 40fps with a certain GPU? That does not mean that you will not be able to play that game at 60fps. Turn down a couple settings, many of which will be almost imperceptible(especially while playing) and bam, performance gained. These benchmarks are mainly used for comparison purposes rather than to judge exactly what sort of performance you'll actually get.

Just in general, the obsession with 'max settings' is crazy and does more harm than good when people are trying to ascertain what sort of hardware they need.
Click to expand...

I would echo this. Chasing ultra settings on every game is a bit of a fool's errand; it is down to what you feel is acceptable in terms of the performance when using ultra settings e.g. fps and resolution.

A lot of times you cannot spot the difference all that much between say very high and ultra (at least this is what I have noticed at 1080p). Dropping one or maybe two settings can be the difference between a slightly choppy 50-60 fps experience or a constant smooth 60fps.
 
Let me explain it this way, hold on to your hats people:

I've been a PC gamer for 20+ years (mid-high end), I've never ever read a game's system requirements, yet I'm still alive.

Conclusion: Don't read them, you'll probably be fine.


And yes: they are confusing..
 
Seanspeed said:
Just in general, the obsession with 'max settings' is crazy and does more harm than good when people are trying to ascertain what sort of hardware they need.
Click to expand...

This obsession is out of control. The babyrage that results when a game does include "futureproofing" graphical features that current hardware has issues with is extremely counterproductive.
 
Alphahawk said:
To start off I'll fully admit to being a noob when it comes to PC gaming but this stuff just is way to confusing for it's own good. I'm on steam and it seems like for every system requirement their are like 5 different ways of stating them. One might say to run this game I need a AMD Athlon or equivalent which forces me to google whether my graphics card is good enough to run the game. Another game might mention "hey you need a sm 2.0" to run this game, after googling I determine that the object in question is actually determined by what direct X number you have, so why they even bothered to list it outside of a direct X requirement is beyond me. Again a lot of this stuff may be common since to PC gamers, in fact I'm sure it is, but as a primary console gamer all the techno babble and additional websites I have to consult make me never want to purchase a game that looks even the least bit modern.

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

If you want to be master race you need to deserve it... that's all
 
AxeMan said:
I don't understand this line of thinking for 2 reasons

1) If you're going to spend at least $1000 don't you think it warrants some research
2) It's not much research. Literally 1-2 hours and you're up to speed
Click to expand...

I assume you're referencing the post I'm quoting and not me? Because I have no issue with the research involved. I love the platform and I enjoy learning more about it. But some people don't want to put in even the smallest amount of research for a hobby they love, and I don't think the PC platform is for them.
 
It's simple OP.

All you need is a modern CPU at around 150-250$ (i recommend an i5) , a VGA at 180-300$ (Nvidia's 970 seems to be the hot item right now) a 70-100$ PSU that has a decent weight when you hold it (at 600w and more) 8-16 GB RAM (whatever brand, these things have lifetime warranties) and whatever motherboard supports these things (at around 70-90$)

Once you build it and start fiddling with it it will come to you, assuming you are interested. If you are not interested and you only want to double click at game icons you will never get it and you will always ask these questions, but that's OK you know. I have a few friends who have PCs for years and they are still noobs. Because not everyone really wants to fiddle with them. Some people just want to play games.

I only learned about PCs when i bought one and started studying it by myself. I was a noob once but now i build my own PCs and troubleshoot every little problem that might appear by myself. But if i didn't have a PC of my own i would never do that. You won't learn anything by reading posts. You just have to experiment with your own PC.

In other words, consider your first PC a "test" build. If it pushes your buttons and you enjoy fiddling with it, your will know what parts you need for the next one.
 
TheSeks said:
Such as...?
Click to expand...

Toms hardware gives a breakdown of where to put your cash for new CPU's and GPU's once a month.

Best gaming graphics cards for the money Sep-2014 - Toms Hardware

Best gaming CPU's for the money Sep-2014 - Toms Hardware

Anandtech's Bench is a good way of comparing performance of any piece of hardware on many triple A games.

Anandtech GPU 2014 Bench

Hazaro's awesome PC build guides here on Gaf

I Need a New PC!

There's much more out there, but it gives you an idea of the amount and quality of information available to anyone who is interested.
 
RulkezX said:
This pretty much.

The people replying " oh it's part of the fun, you just need to do research" are just being polite

There is nothing even remotley difficult about understanding pc specs, nothing.
Click to expand...
I find this to be a very close-minded and somewhat condescending view. People aren't lying when they say they find PC parts and names and specs confusing. When you say there's nothing remotely difficult about it, its basically implying that if you don't understand it, then you must be an idiot or something and that totally isn't the case. I can totally understand why some people might find it overwhelming and all the numbering schemes for parts and what does what, which is best for what, what do you need for whatever, what goes with what, etc etc. It does take a little bit of time to make sense of it if you're coming from a point of little-to-no knowledge of this stuff.

I think it will quite quickly start to come together once you spend that time learning, but it is not all inherently obvious stuff.
 
I think it's not as bad as people make it out to be often. You might not know what your 4 year old NVidia card is in terms of AMD cards but quick info is in your hands just by googling something like GPU hierarchy. Pretty much all you have to know about right now really is CPUs and GPUs, anything remotely modern will have the Direct Xs, the Shader Models, etc needed.

I mean, there's always going to be something a bit confusing for some people because it keeps evolving.


As far as building a PC, it might be a bit tougher but there's a ton of resources out there. I'd say the only confusing thing there could be the motherboard, the layman not realizing they need to pick their CPU first.
 
I don't find it too bad but I certainly see how it's not friendly to new players or to people who just want to play without worrying about the nerdy tech stuff. And a lot of it is just stupid and needless, like OP said.
 
Mugatu said:
I don't find it too bad but I certainly see how it's not friendly to new players or to people who just want to play without worrying about the nerdy tech stuff. And a lot of it is just stupid and needless, like OP said.
Click to expand...

Gaming used to be a nerdy tech hobby. What happened?
 
computers are machines built with highly specified components. Just like a car, you have to want to learn about the components if you want to build a pc. I don't know about car parts because I haven't done the research. That's just the way it is. I buy a pre-assembled car because of that.

I don't ever want pc parts to be something that any random guy could make decisions on. I don't want them to be dumbed down. I want ultra-specialized hardware.....that's what makes it a fun hobby! If you aren't someone who feels this way, or you think its too confusing, it's just not for you. Have a friend build you one, or go to a store and buy one.

Building the PC itself is pretty easy and it's pretty hard to "break" hardware these days, but it's not for everyone, and that's good.
 
Whilst I don't think it is all that confusing in general, this is definitely something that Valve should work on addressing, especially with the future release of Steam Machines.

They are already able to collect info on your hardware so it shouldn't be too difficult for them to translate to rough performance expectations such as a 'no go / low / med / high'.

Anything that suits accessibility is a good thing for sales and the platform in general.
 
I've run into significantly more errors and intrusive garbage lately on consoles than I have in the last half decade of PC gaming. I've spent multiple afternoons troubleshooting random bullshit on both of the consoles I purchased from this generations batch. Honestly, these new boxes are built like garbage and have the operating systems to match. Having grown up on consoles and Japanese games I'll never be able to ditch them entirely, especially as an impulse buyer, but they're running out of boons really quick this generation.
 
Once you get a general feel of how poweful your PC is you don't need to look at specs. If a new game comes out just look at impressions on a forum such as this one on how well the game runs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oblivion Remastered patch 1.2 is out...and it still sucks
2
95
2K
Walliwallipaloo replied
I don't see how any of the PC handhelds can compete with Valve when it comes to Price vs. Specs
2
76
322
RavageX replied
I use AI daily, so why is it bad if game developers use it too?
2 3
120
251
Toots replied
Is the main war going forward PlayStation vs Steam? If so, will Sony still do PC ports?
3 4 5 6 7
332
429
Zacfoldor replied
Why is a console as a PC component still not a thing? I know it sounds stupid
2 3
113
3K
KungFucius replied
Top Bottom