Hello all, I'd like you to convince me I should or should not spend more monies on a GPU. I don't have any set budget for my new rig, but would like to spend as little money as possible, over the longest period of time, to keep myself with a usable machine. IE, the best philosophy to allocate money over the next 15 years to keep myself capable of playing the newest games, not necessarily on the best settings. My current machine is woefully incapable of playing SC2 arcade games, which is what is prompting me to upgrade. But I also may be interested in buying a new shooter, like bf3. In general I will just be using the machine to game, internet browse and listen to music, preferably with the capability to do all at once. Here is the build I am looking at now:
CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: MSI Z87-G41 PC Mate ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.99 @ Microcenter) (MOBO combo deal)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($62.13 @ TigerDirect)
Storage: Sandisk 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($89.99 @ Microcenter)
Video Card: Galaxy GeForce GTX 660 2GB Video Card ($174.99 @ Newegg)
Wireless Network Adapter: Rosewill RNX-N250PCe 802.11b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter ($17.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8 (OEM) (64-bit) ($88.98 @ Outlet PC)
Monitor: AOC e2351F 60Hz 23.0" Monitor ($117.47 @ TigerDirect)
(500w PSU and optical drive being harvested from my media pc)
Looking at some Tom's reviews and forums stuff, for this price build many would spend another $100 on GPU and possibly reduce the CPU or RAM. This intuitively seems gratuitous to me, spending more money on a GPU than a CPU. I get that I can eak out more FPS with a better GPU than CPU, but three years down the line will I be better served have an i5+ ok video card or with an i3+great video card. I don't really need to play anything on 1080P, frankly I'm not sure how you could see that detail on a 23" screen. I don't go above 720 on a TV unless it is over 40". Not trying to insult videophiles out there, I just want to know if everyday Joes should really invest in a good GPU. When I worked consumer electronics about a decade ago I would tell people to buy a $100 video card, then wait a couple years and buy a new $100 video card because the $100 video now (2003-04) could play everything on the market, and the $100 video card in 2 years was going to be light-years ahead of a 2 year old $300 video card. Tech changes though and I haven't paid much attention over the years. Would my statement be true today?
Thanks for your consideration
CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: MSI Z87-G41 PC Mate ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.99 @ Microcenter) (MOBO combo deal)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($62.13 @ TigerDirect)
Storage: Sandisk 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($89.99 @ Microcenter)
Video Card: Galaxy GeForce GTX 660 2GB Video Card ($174.99 @ Newegg)
Wireless Network Adapter: Rosewill RNX-N250PCe 802.11b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter ($17.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8 (OEM) (64-bit) ($88.98 @ Outlet PC)
Monitor: AOC e2351F 60Hz 23.0" Monitor ($117.47 @ TigerDirect)
(500w PSU and optical drive being harvested from my media pc)
Looking at some Tom's reviews and forums stuff, for this price build many would spend another $100 on GPU and possibly reduce the CPU or RAM. This intuitively seems gratuitous to me, spending more money on a GPU than a CPU. I get that I can eak out more FPS with a better GPU than CPU, but three years down the line will I be better served have an i5+ ok video card or with an i3+great video card. I don't really need to play anything on 1080P, frankly I'm not sure how you could see that detail on a 23" screen. I don't go above 720 on a TV unless it is over 40". Not trying to insult videophiles out there, I just want to know if everyday Joes should really invest in a good GPU. When I worked consumer electronics about a decade ago I would tell people to buy a $100 video card, then wait a couple years and buy a new $100 video card because the $100 video now (2003-04) could play everything on the market, and the $100 video card in 2 years was going to be light-years ahead of a 2 year old $300 video card. Tech changes though and I haven't paid much attention over the years. Would my statement be true today?
Thanks for your consideration