Support NeoGAF

[Gamer79]

I am building a new modest rig and on other forums I got some shit because "its not future proof enough" My mid range budge build plan: Ryzen 5 5600x cpu, 4070 gpu, 32gb ddr4 ram, along with a 2tb 1.4 nvme drive and another 1 tb backup. Will my system be a world beater? No but should it play games for the foreseeable future? Hell yea (A 4070 is around 29 teraflops) My budget build around $900 but if I listen to many of the "experts" opinoins on parts that shoots to around $1200-$1400"

That had me doubing myself and got me to invesitage on what the average PC gamer uses to game on. Going by the forums I have been on, YOu would think that everyone was rocking 4080 Supers, 4090's, or at the Least 7900xt's. What I found was down right laughable. For those who do not know, Steam does a Hardware Survey on what gamers use to play games on their platform. What I Found was Quite shocking. Yes there are a hanful of PC gamers with money to spare who are rocking the latest CPU's and GPU's and fastest ram, yada, yada, yada. The vast majority are not. Here is what Steam found the average PC user used to game with just last month

Steam Hardware & Software Survey

Average PC Hardware on Steam:
OS: Windows 11 and Windows 10 are about 96% of user OS.
Ram: 16 GB (does not specify Speed)
CPU: Vast Majority have an intel CPU of (2.39-2.69 range) mosty likely in the lower end market of intel but there isn't enough info to say for sure (6-8 core range but that doesn't mean anything because $100 phones come with 6 core cpu's)
The top 5 gpus used in October 2024 for PC gamers: I am not a PC snob but this made me kinda vomit in my mouth a little: Top 5: 1. RTX 3060 2. 4060 (laptop version) 3. 4060 4. GTX 1650 5. RTX 2060 A GTX 1060 is in the top 10. Less than 1% own a 4090 about 2% own better than a 4060
Average Vram: 8gb
Average Resolution: 1080p

My point is, don't listen to the PC master race people who flash their digital cocks around about how much better their system is. The vast majority are rocking medicore to slow PC's. Looking at the Specs of the Series X and PS5 compared to the average PC hardware, it's clear to see the conosles outperform the average PC gamers hardware.

 

[STARSBarry]

 

[RagnarokIV]

PC is basically:

 

[Caffeine]

I don't listen to them lol i'm still using a i9 9900kf 4.66Ghz 8 cores 16 threads, 32 GBs of 2666Mhz ram, 4 ssd's, 3060 oc 12GB and I play on 2560x1080 60/120fps depending on the game rn.
My next and final upgrade purchase is probably a 5070. Before a new build in like 2029.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

I use a 3060 laptop and it runs games at 4K/60 using DLSS. Unfortunately, the 6GB VRAM will make it obsolete, but otherwise it is good enough.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Who cares what people say? They’re not paying for it. Truth be told most new games with fancy graphics are downright junk. And I say that as a sucker who bought a 4090.

 

[Lupin3]

My point is, don't listen to the PC master race people who flash their digital cocks around.

 

[Gaiff]

Gaf is an enthusiast forum, so we're not average casual gamers.

As for your thread, we were giving you recommendations to protect yourself. The 5600X isn't a bad CPU at all. It's just locked to a dead-end platform and restricts your upgrade paths. We were giving you recommendations for what we thought would be most advantageous for you in the long term. You don't need a 9800X3D and a 4090 to have a good PC gaming experience. What matters is a well-balanced build that responds to your needs and we thought there were better choices than a 5600X and AM4 platform for you.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Pc gamers are emotional I think computers are work machines first, computer owners have responsibilities to keep things updated, polish the components, when I see a computer OS I immediately think of emails, printing documents and a pissed off guy doing his taxes in a cubicle although people are trying to make computers hyped up as gaming, entertainment machines.

 

[keefged4]

I have a 4070 and a 5600 just now. And its amazing. I don't care about others e-peens.

 

[analog_future]

Yep, you're definitely right.

But the hardcore techy PC gamers that are posting in places like here and other gaming related communities are the ones that have the high-end stuff.

There's a lot of college kids or non-tech enthusiast gamers or whatever that are just playing DOTA or GTA V or Counter-Strike 2 or whatever and don't need or care about having a high-end PC.

 

[Big Baller]

 

[Alexios]

My PC has a mix of 12 and 7 year old hardware in it. I'd love to upgrade some time soon but I can still play loads of amazing games fine, most of the new ones too, save for exceptions like Dragon's Dogma 2 or Callisto Protocol (lol). Don't think I'd care someone on some forum was mean to me

 

[twilo99]

My point is, don't listen to the PC master race people who flash their digital cocks around about how much better their system is. The vast majority are rocking medicore to slow PC's. Looking at the Specs of the Series X and PS5 compared to the average PC hardware, it's clear to see the conosles outperform the average PC gamers hardware.

All current consoles are basically mid tier PCs from 2018/2019

 

[REMAINSILLY]

Average PC gamer here with my PC with a 4070 Ti Super, PS5 Pro, and Steam Deck.

 

[Fahdis]

I have GeForce Now Ultimate. Spare yourself bro if you're in Western Nations.

 

[AV]

Yes, we know about the Steam hardware survey, it's been a thing for about 16 years

 

[StereoVsn]

Gaf is an enthusiast forum, so we're not average casual gamers.

As for your thread, we were giving you recommendations to protect yourself. The 5600X isn't a bad CPU at all. It's just locked to a dead-end platform and restricts your upgrade paths. We were giving you recommendations for what we thought would be most advantageous for you in the long term. You don't need a 9800X3D and a 4090 to have a good PC gaming experience. What matters is a well-balanced build that responds to your needs and we thought there were better choices than a 5600X and AM4 platform for you.

Yep, it’s better to invest upfront for a bit more expandable platform basically which will last longer.

And for 4070, might as well wait till first week in Jan if you can for 5070 news.

 

[Holammer]

Looks like someone found the hardware survey again.
Wait till January'ish and a bunch of gaffers will slap you around with their 50xx e-peens.

 

[Vick]

We get to read results of these surveys in plenty of Threads on a daily basis.. we get it.
And results in supposed "enthusiast" places like this are surely going to differ.

All current consoles are basically mid tier PCs from 2018/2019

Mid-Tier 2018 PCs running RE4R at native 4K solid 60fps with RT? Three 8K 60fps games in less than a month since launch, or Callisto Protocol at 8K 30fps with RT (reconstructed or not) or 4K stable 60fps with both RT features on?

Don't be a clown man.

 

[IAmRei]

i often see, pc user in near me, told me that their pc is superior because it's price.
after strolling in this forum a bit, I think expensive is not always better.
because, if the pc is not build in a good way, it could led to bottleneck(?) and some games in console graphic are not too far either for me.
I dont hate pc user, since i'm also PC user, and have PS5, Switch, Steam deck, and Rog Ally as well (though my PC mainly for work, and not the beef like You guys).
I really don't like the way people who buys expensive PC and looking down to anything else.

well, each to their own, but they are, annoying, and usually doesn't have any knowledge to the game itself... and only be able to buy something expensive to raw power

 

[bender]

I, for one, am tired of PC platform holding back what developers are able to achieve.

 

[UnrealEck]

The Steam Hardware Survey isn't really a useful gauge in these conversations. Any PC can run the survey and any PC can run Steam (within reason of course). So even computers in an office that someone's downloaded Steam on to play a couple of 2D games on can be included.
There's billions of PC's in the world. Many many PC's that aren't use for gaming have at some point downloaded Steam and clicked through the survey.

Another gauge to use is something like concurrent players. You can look at games like BG3 or Elden Ring. These aren't games with massive requirements but they do need PC's above the average office PC, yet they've still had many hundreds of thousands of PC's running the games concurrently.

Regarding what to buy - just save what you can. I say hold off and try to buy the best you can. But these days with things like DLSS you can play games a lot longer on aging hardware at higher settings.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I still boot up RDR2 on PS4 and my jaw still hits the floor so...

People use graphics to justify everything but i'll always follow a good catalog of games and an easy platform to play. No way in hell am i ever going to deal with a game that doesn't work on my graphic card on release and then waiting for the eventual update that's gonna fix those issues.

But i get it if some people enjoy that.

 

[FalconPunch]

All current consoles are basically mid tier PCs from 2018/2019

No there not according to steam surveys. Consoles are stronger than 90% of pc's as per steam and I say this as someone who owns a top of the line pc. Buying high end parts on pc is for suckers since the pc games with the biggest budgets are console ports. There are like 5-10 games on pc which require high end parts. The rest, you can play on a 2060 super and even 1660.

 

[NeverYouMind]

You miss the part where settings are highly customizable beyond console platforms (like removing the awful chromatic aberration that developers seem to think is pure kino) and mods that add replayability, quality-of-life improvements, and extra content. You are focusing too much on the hardware and not enough on the software benefits. Also, no extra subscription for online play because f@%k that noise.

P.S. An argument could also be made for nearly full backwards compatibility for older games being the best available.

 

[Ironman_Bad]

It's kinda like a bunch of guys at club rocking major jewelry yeah some of them got 20k$ bling on but most them rocking 20$ knockoffs but they all flex together

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Where the hell is this shittake coming from that PC gaming is best on 5k+ rigs? That's ridiculous. Gaming on a machine for little more than a console with two controllers and a stupid subscription while at the same time enjoying all of the myrad benefits an open platform brings is when PC gaming is best.

 

[Puscifer]

Who cares what people say? They’re not paying for it. Truth be told most new games with fancy graphics are downright junk. And I say that as a sucker who bought a 4090.

Honestly I'm saying this as a 4080 owner myself that most modern games just aren't worth the heavy investment. I'm not joking when I tell people I could've been just fine with a 2080 ti because I've been playing older games in 4K that my cards fan is often idling lol.

Edit: what I mean by this is that why on earth would you want to play the new Dragon Age with RT. If we're getting games of quality like Battlefield 4 or RDR 2, etc with RT then yeah, I could understand but we aren't.

 

[FalconPunch]

The Steam Hardware Survey isn't really a useful gauge in these conversations. Any PC can run the survey and any PC can run Steam (within reason of course). So even computers in an office that someone's downloaded Steam on to play a couple of 2D games on can be included.
There's billions of PC's in the world. Many many PC's that aren't use for gaming have at some point downloaded Steam and clicked through the survey.

If they no longer have steam, it's not included in the hardware survey. It doesn't matter if they're playing 2D or old 3d games, as long as they're paying customers.

Another gauge to use is something like concurrent players. You can look at games like BG3 or Elden Ring. These aren't games with massive requirements but they do need PC's above the average office PC, yet they've still had many hundreds of thousands of PC's running the games concurrently.

Baldur's gate 3 can run on the 1660 and 1650 just fine. I even occasionally play it on my steam deck. You don't need high end hardware to run those games. Many of us when were younger played games on pc at low settings at sub 60fps at times because that's what we had. It didn't mean we'd stop playing those games because of that....

All of this is to say that steam surveys paying customers and those pc's are a representative of the pc gaming market.

 

[Self_Destructive]

The low end console gamer has a PS4/Xbox One
The mid range console gamer has a PS5/Series X
The high end console gamer has a PS5 Pro

Half of Sonys players are playing on PS4 and lower..
Most PC gamers have PCs better than a PS4 now.

PCMR continues

 

[Bavarian_Sloth]

It all comes down to the resolution of your monitor.

Your combo is absolutely fine for 1080p or 1440p.

4k, for example, would need at least a 4070 Ti Super or a 4080 Super.


(I have the letter connected to a 4k Oled, you poor peasants)

 

[Gamer79]

I, for one, am tired of PC platform holding back what developers are able to achieve.

Ironically it holds people back with better graphic cards. Yes certain things can be scaled but I highly doubt any game has come even close of utilizing the full potential of say a 4080 or 4090. Always got to program for the lowest common denominator.

 

[Schmendrick]

Setting up a new system on an EOL platform and whining about people telling him that... it's an EOL platform.

Being uninformed is one thing. Being uninformed and choosing to stay uninformed while pretending to be clever and withstanding the imaginary influence of that imaginary master race is just being stupid with extra steps....
And just under how many tons of rocks must one have been sleeping to think Steam hardware surveys are an unknown thing in 2024....
This thread is profoundly stupid on several levels.

 

[analog_future]

I, for one, am tired of PC platform holding back what developers are able to achieve.

This is why the whole "Series S is holding gaming back!" thing has always been stupid. Virtually all modern games still run on computers that are less performant than Series S.

 

[bundylove]

I am building a new modest rig and on other forums I got some shit because "its not future proof enough" My mid range budge build plan: Ryzen 5 5600x cpu, 4070 gpu, 32gb ddr4 ram, along with a 2tb 1.4 nvme drive and another 1 tb backup. Will my system be a world beater? No but should it play games for the foreseeable future? Hell yea (A 4070 is around 29 teraflops) My budget build around $900 but if I listen to many of the "experts" opinoins on parts that shoots to around $1200-$1400"

That had me doubing myself and got me to invesitage on what the average PC gamer uses to game on. Going by the forums I have been on, YOu would think that everyone was rocking 4080 Supers, 4090's, or at the Least 7900xt's. What I found was down right laughable. For those who do not know, Steam does a Hardware Survey on what gamers use to play games on their platform. What I Found was Quite shocking. Yes there are a hanful of PC gamers with money to spare who are rocking the latest CPU's and GPU's and fastest ram, yada, yada, yada. The vast majority are not. Here is what Steam found the average PC user used to game with just last month

Steam Hardware & Software Survey

Average PC Hardware on Steam:
OS: Windows 11 and Windows 10 are about 96% of user OS.
Ram: 16 GB (does not specify Speed)
CPU: Vast Majority have an intel CPU of (2.39-2.69 range) mosty likely in the lower end market of intel but there isn't enough info to say for sure (6-8 core range but that doesn't mean anything because $100 phones come with 6 core cpu's)
The top 5 gpus used in October 2024 for PC gamers: I am not a PC snob but this made me kinda vomit in my mouth a little: Top 5: 1. RTX 3060 2. 4060 (laptop version) 3. 4060 4. GTX 1650 5. RTX 2060 A GTX 1060 is in the top 10. Less than 1% own a 4090 about 2% own better than a 4060
Average Vram: 8gb
Average Resolution: 1080p

My point is, don't listen to the PC master race people who flash their digital cocks around about how much better their system is. The vast majority are rocking medicore to slow PC's. Looking at the Specs of the Series X and PS5 compared to the average PC hardware, it's clear to see the conosles outperform the average PC gamers hardware.

 

[EverydayBeast]

How pc gamers see themselves:

Reality:

 

[Gamer79]

It all comes down to the resolution of your monitor.

Your combo is absolutely fine for 1080p or 1440p.

4k, for example, would need at least a 4070 Ti Super or a 4080 Super.


(I have the letter connected to a 4k Oled, you poor peasants)

I have a 65" inch Samsung oled and a 1440p 32inch desktop monitor. Yes the oled has much better contrast but as far as resolution it is hard to tell the difference between 1440p and 4k on a screen that is not massive. Also DLSS 3 Quality can scale many games up to 4k if needed and looks very close to native.

 

[FalconPunch]

It all comes down to the resolution of your monitor.

Your combo is absolutely fine for 1080p or 1440p.

4k, for example, would need at least a 4070 Ti Super or a 4080 Super.


(I have the letter connected to a 4k Oled, you poor peasants)

4080 super is not sufficient for 4k. It's not even sufficient for 1440p UW. As more games come out, I start to strongly regret downgrading from my 4090 to a 4080 super

 

[ap_puff]

I am building a new modest rig and on other forums I got some shit because "its not future proof enough" My mid range budge build plan: Ryzen 5 5600x cpu, 4070 gpu, 32gb ddr4 ram, along with a 2tb 1.4 nvme drive and another 1 tb backup. Will my system be a world beater? No but should it play games for the foreseeable future? Hell yea (A 4070 is around 29 teraflops) My budget build around $900 but if I listen to many of the "experts" opinoins on parts that shoots to around $1200-$1400"

That had me doubing myself and got me to invesitage on what the average PC gamer uses to game on. Going by the forums I have been on, YOu would think that everyone was rocking 4080 Supers, 4090's, or at the Least 7900xt's. What I found was down right laughable. For those who do not know, Steam does a Hardware Survey on what gamers use to play games on their platform. What I Found was Quite shocking. Yes there are a hanful of PC gamers with money to spare who are rocking the latest CPU's and GPU's and fastest ram, yada, yada, yada. The vast majority are not. Here is what Steam found the average PC user used to game with just last month

Steam Hardware & Software Survey

Average PC Hardware on Steam:
OS: Windows 11 and Windows 10 are about 96% of user OS.
Ram: 16 GB (does not specify Speed)
CPU: Vast Majority have an intel CPU of (2.39-2.69 range) mosty likely in the lower end market of intel but there isn't enough info to say for sure (6-8 core range but that doesn't mean anything because $100 phones come with 6 core cpu's)
The top 5 gpus used in October 2024 for PC gamers: I am not a PC snob but this made me kinda vomit in my mouth a little: Top 5: 1. RTX 3060 2. 4060 (laptop version) 3. 4060 4. GTX 1650 5. RTX 2060 A GTX 1060 is in the top 10. Less than 1% own a 4090 about 2% own better than a 4060
Average Vram: 8gb
Average Resolution: 1080p

My point is, don't listen to the PC master race people who flash their digital cocks around about how much better their system is. The vast majority are rocking medicore to slow PC's. Looking at the Specs of the Series X and PS5 compared to the average PC hardware, it's clear to see the conosles outperform the average PC gamers hardware.

It all depends on what your goals with gaming are.

If you just want 60fps and 1080p games, that build will last you an incredibly long time. But if you're expecting to play the latest AAA games at 1440p max settings or 120fps, it will start to struggle. Also... if it ain't a huge stretch, getting the 5700x3d for an extra $100 would increase the longevity of the cpu by quite a bit and help with a lot of cpu-intensive games. Also, never skimp on the power supply.

 

[FalconPunch]

I have a 65" inch Samsung oled and a 1440p 32inch desktop monitor. Yes the oled has much better contrast but as far as resolution it is hard to tell the difference between 1440p and 4k on a screen that is not massive. Also DLSS 3 Quality can scale many games up to 4k if needed and looks very close to native.

I'd advise a visit to the optometrist. It's not meant as an insult but, seriously. I used to think this too until I got glasses. It was like seeing the world in HD. The difference between 1440p and 4k on a 32 inch screen is very noticeable.

 

[Gamer79]

I'd advise a visit to the optometrist. It's not meant as an insult but, seriously. I used to think this too until I got glasses. It was like seeing the world in HD. The difference between 1440p and 4k on a 32 inch screen is very noticeable.

IF you do a side by Side comparison it is diffciult to tell. If you aren't doing side by side it's almost impossible.

 

[DirtyBast8rd]

I, for one, am tired of PC platform holding back what developers are able to achieve.

Come again?

 

[ap_puff]

I'd advise a visit to the optometrist. It's not meant as an insult but, seriously. I used to think this too until I got glasses. It was like seeing the world in HD. The difference between 1440p and 4k on a 32 inch screen is very noticeable.

I have a 32" 1440p and a 32" 4k monitor side by side and it's definitely very noticeable.

 

[Gamer79]

It all depends on what your goals with gaming are.

If you just want 60fps and 1080p games, that build will last you an incredibly long time. But if you're expecting to play the latest AAA games at 1440p max settings or 120fps, it will start to struggle. Also... if it ain't a huge stretch, getting the 5700x3d for an extra $100 would increase the longevity of the cpu by quite a bit and help with a lot of cpu-intensive games. Also, never skimp on the power supply.

I keep hearing people push me to go for the x3d version but I have seen numerous benchmarks for the 4070 there is little improvement. IF I went to say a 4080 or above I would see improvement but to be honest the build I have should easily play most modern games at high or extreme settings for the next 5+ years. Especially factoring in DLSS 3.

 

[XXL]

I still boot up RDR2 on PS4 and my jaw still hits the floor so...

Not a good example, in my opinion.

RDR 2 is a significant upgrade when playing at 60fps or above on PC.

But I agree with your comment in general, but 30fps is a big downgrade for some games RDR2 being one of them, Max Payne 3 being another.

Max Payne 3 at 120fps+ is fucking insane in comparison to the PS3 version of the game. Its almost an entirely different experience.

 

[Gamer79]

I have a 32" 1440p and a 32" 4k monitor side by side and it's definitely very noticeable.

There could be other factors at play. Maybe one is IPS vs VA or maybe one has a better backlight or contrast. IF it's 2 different monitors you are comparing apples to oranges. If they are the same type then I stand corrected in your case.

 

[TintoConCasera]

Peasants, all over the shop.

Anyway. OP, play in whatever way you want. Who gives a fuck about what other people have? Just build the PC that matches what you want and have fun.

That said, I saw the other thread and agree that a 5600X ain't the best option, but again, you are free to do as you please.

 

[Vick]

Fucking hell at the state of this supposed "enthusiast" place. There's people actually believing PS5 Pro being inferior to a 2080.

 

[bundylove]

How pc gamers see themselves:

Reality: