24
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
24 points (92.9% liked)
PC Master Race
14227 readers
1 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.
Notes:
- PCMR Community Name - Our Response and the Survey
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
alright that's a far more reasonable amount to spend
yeah, I'm gonna disagree with this guy. that's definitely not going to get you that performance for 5 years. that will get you that now on most, but not all games at Max. if you want 120 high 1440 for 5 years you need close to the highest end offered now.
that said, this community is probably the most amd focused place I've ever seen. the debate between amd and Nvidia isn't nearly as cut and died as they want to make it seem. even if they are mad at nvidia for real reasons. right now nvidia is not chasing traditional rendering at all. so amd is winning when it comes to that, but that's not where nvidia says the future is. nvidia is building their cards around their objectively superior, even if proprietary, upscaling technology (dlss). so for the next 5 years at least, nvidia will be pushing it's massive anti competitive weight into making dlss the way of the future. into making sure games are made with performance targets exprecting the use of dlss.
so honestly, a big part of this decision that no one here will tell you is whether you want to fight for what you believe should be the future of gaming, or you accept that nvidia will just do whatever regardless of how many foss heads scream about it.
You can pretend to know that for certain all you want, but we have no idea what technological limitations we will run into or change in the market will demand that companies optimize their games because the market simply can't support buying newer hardware.
You're correct that my build won't get me the stated performance for five years, but I don't think you need to snag a 4090 to get 1440p 120FPS with medium graphics five years from now. While you may disagree with that assessment, we are both shooting in the dark here as the market goes through the next half decade.
What's my justification? Performance at a specific resolution is always going to be more important, if my 1660 can get 75FPS on high settings with modern games at 1920x1080p then there's no reason to believe that a build/card that can get you 144FPS at 1440p high/ultra graphics today won't be able to play games for five years by just adjusting certain titles down a bit.
Five years isn't even a full console generation, unless the games are planning to be unplayable on consoles they have to be around the same level of capability. His only real concern is VRAM so I think either AMD or a high GB Nvidia on the used market. Pair with a late gen Ryzen 7 AM4 and he's good to go for a budget friendly build on a more realistic dime.
He will have to adjust his settings but that's not a problem according to him.
didn't say he needed a 4090 lol. no one needs a4 4090, it's ridiculous and way way overpriced card. the top end is never worth it. that 4090 well be matched by a 6070tii in like 4 years for like a 5th the price.
i said he needed closer to the top, more like a 4070, or a 3070 ti. 40 series is pretty not worth it. (only referencing nvidia because their naming scheme is easier to follow)
also, this is all speculative. just as i can't claim to KNOW what will be needed, neither can you. my prediction is that those specs well leave him struggling at low -medium on new games in 5 years. you can't claim to know that the hardware will be fine that long any more than i can claim that it won't. it's just a prediction and that's the best anyone can offer.
this is a very volatile and uncertain time in the future of pc hardware. my real advice is not to try that hard to predict 5 years from now.
I literally suggested a 3070ti or 3080 though? Somewhere in this thread, I could have sworn.
To get that FPS for the next five years you'd need something slightly beefier, assuming you purchase brand new games and want them on max settings.
If you're like me and ok with turning shadows to medium and ambient occlusion, etc. Off entirely, then you could probably squeeze a 3070ti for five years but a 3080 would be a good choice too. I prefer Nvidia graphics because they're more established and AMD is still catching up on certain technologies, but AMD CPU's have come a long way and are absolutely the best bang for your buck, and while I'll get downvoted again for speaking the truth, you don't need an AM5 socket for gaming performance and IMO it's all overpriced still. Stick with AM4 and snag a last gen Ryzen 7, that'll help keep your other components lower in price. Unless you're doing video rendering you simply don't need a very robust CPU. Almost every model in this thread would be three to four times as powerful as you need and would massively overload your budget.
Don't skimp on PSU but you can get a good one for 80-100USD from a reputable brand like Corsair that would fit your needs (850-950 watt.)
So far I haven't seen anyone actually pitch you a build that does what you need at the most reasonable price, they're just overloading you and then claiming you can't get the performance you're asking for at the price you want.
I have a PC at home that says otherwise, your downvotes mean nothing to me.
lol yea some of these ppl are saying to drop like 3k on my PC. I make 10k a year. I can't afford to drop that much on some sand. on my car? sure. not a fuckin PC tho lol
anyways ty for your input :)