Where do you draw the line of value and frame rates and appearance?

[ctbaars]

http://www.andovercg.com/services/waste-money-on-gaming-computer.shtml

Do we really only need minimum frame rates of 20?
Is this article spot-on?

Chris

 

[genghiskron]

the article is correct in that its a huge waste of money to spend 5 grand on a gaming computer. i would say $600-800 (no OS/monitor) is the sweet spot, and you can still get good value up to about $1300. You should be able to get absolutely every stupid thing you want for $2500.
the arguments are highly generalized, though, and not useful. i 100% guarantee you that you will not be happy with 20fps. i can also tell you that new games (think Battlefield 3) are a thing of beauty on a powerful computer.

 

[foverosiv]

I'm sorry, but that article was some absolute bullshit to me.
to sum it up from my POV, heres what the article is saying: you shouldn't game on PCs, go buy councils, if you want to play on PC, play pacman, or pong, the best game you should ever play is Doom 1. the only way to obtain a PC is from companies like Dell or Alienware. because the super large amount of extra money they tell you to spend makes your gaming PC a gaming PC. also, $1000 graphics card exists. I raged so hard reading this peice of bs written probably by an 80 year old typing on his IBM

 

[Outlander_04]

30 FPS is the minimum for smooth game play

anything over 60 is a waste of money on a conventional 60 Hz monitor

 

[wxyjac]

Agreed with people above.

I have played with games with fps ranging from 5 fps (very close to unplayable, grants you an ability to teleport from place to place, even if the game doesn't have that skill programed) to 60 fps (extremely smooth graphic)

I can assure you 20 fps will not be satisfactory. 30 fps or above is where you want it.

Computer fps is determined by many things, as opposed to that of television's; things like particles on the screen, program running in the background, material texture, shadow, object rendered, or special effects can all cause a spike or lag on your frame, sometimes even freeze.

Television, on the other hand, only needs to display the signals sent to them. Computer NEEDS to generates the signal first (in case of gaming, multiple things spontaneously) before sending it to the monitor, big difference.

How come a gaming console cost so much less than a gaming computer for the same result? No idea. Maybe that's because gaming console is built solely toward gaming, maybe computers aren't the type of machine for gaming to begin with, maybe it's because computer can do so much more, or maybe like the author said, computer company is trying to squish our little wallet.

But one thing I know for sure, having a $500~$800 homebuilt computer will definitely be worth better than gaming consoles, unless you only plans to play games and games only on the computer, then I am not sure.

 

[3xch4ng3]

This is a Soap Box article. It really doesn't go into any depth on proving the writers point on how or why expensive gaming machines are "Killing the Industry" as he claims.

In racing they have the saying, "He who wins on Sunday, Sells on Monday" Simply put, these $5,000 gaming machines help sell mid-level to budget machines as well. If Nvidia designs the "Fastest GPU to date" is more about brand recognition than selling the card itself.

Or to be blunt, Why the hell does he care if people spend money on a gaming machine? It's the users choice if they want to spend $5K+ on a computer for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure 98% of people that drop $5K on a PC know they're spending more than they need to.

From a Frame Rate standpoint, Any configuration that can consistently pull 50-60 FPS is the price point you should shoot for. Shoot for that standard and only buy / build system that can be upgraded easily and you'll never have to worry about dropping $5k+ every 12 months to keep up with current games.