Slashdot Mirror
Valve Releases SteamVR Perf Test To Measure Your PC (pcper.com)
Vigile writes: Valve took another step to prepare the world for VR gaming by releasing the SteamVR Performance Test today. This application that is free to download through Steam, runs a portion of the Aperture Science Robot Repair demo originally built for the HTC Vive VR headset, and reports back performance metrics and a grade for your PC's hardware. Scores include a Not Ready, Capable and Ready result as well as an "average fidelity" numeric score that is even more interesting. Valve integrated a dynamic fidelity feature "that adjusts image quality of the game in a way to avoid dropped frames and frame rates under 90 FPS" — a target for an acceptable VR experience. Early results put the GeForce GTX 980 Ti at the top of the GPU stack though AMD's Radeon products do very well at every price point below $600. Is your wallet ready?
Even though the demo ran smooth on my i7-920 @ 3.8 GHz, the program said not enough snuff.
Here's the link to the application on steam:
http://store.steampowered.com/...
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
I have about $600 into my Gaming PC, which includes a 500GB SSD (could have more now, prices have dipped considerably) and a mid-range video card (still just a 750Ti, look the machine is old now.) This is good enough to play even new titles at decent quality settings at 1920x1200. However, I mostly play older games, because they are cheap. Games of a few years ago run like mad bastards on this rig. And it's also a PC. Sony has put a lot of effort into making you not able to use the PS4 as a PC, even though it's just a PC.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because a Pinto is just as fun to drive as a Bentley.
That is why you are not a geek or a gamer.
If you were a geek you'd already have the computer, if you were a gamer you wouldn't be able to stand week platforms like PS4/Xbone.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Windows only means VR games will only be available on Windows? Seeing as how Valves own OS is Ubuntu based, one would think they'd support that as well.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
My build about 1.5 years ago was old drives from old PC, AMD 6 core, and 8GB RAM, plus a decent big PSU and an AMD R& GPU. Total cost ~$600. Since then I have upgraded to a Samsung PRO SSD, and upgraded to a better nvidia GPU. But I was able to do it ON MY TERMS.
Try that with our rootkit pal sony.
Silence is a state of mime.
Or spend $6499 on a RealDoll2 and really dick around.
Um, the only thing that will blow is the Pinto's gas tank. Those cars are only good for boat anchors and reefs for the fishies. If it weren't for the Pacer and the Yugo , it would also hold the ugliest car in the world title.
Apparently AMD's hardware absolutely rocks on the next-gen architectures like those two, and Vulkan being directly based on Mantle can't hurt even a teensy bit.
AMD being the king-of-the-hill for VR would make a world my ooooh-goody-competition-means-good-prices little heart is just piiiiining for.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Windows only means VR games will only be available on Windows? Seeing as how Valves own OS is Ubuntu based, one would think they'd support that as well.
Steam Hardware & Software Survey: January 2016
Windows --- All Flavors 95.4% [No change]
Win 7 64 bit 34.3%
Win 10 64 bit 32.8% [Up 1.5%]
Win 8.1 64 bit 14.0%
OSX --- All Flavors 3.55% [No change]
Linux --- All Flavors 0.95% [No change]
Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS 64 bit 0.2%
Ubuntu 15.10 64 bit 0.2%
Linux 64 bit 0.1%
Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa 64 bit 0.1%
It would be mean to remind folks here how often Linux Mint has been suggested as a plausible migration path away from Windows.
What I find more interesting and unexpected are the stats for Language. The US has 41 million native Spanish speakers and only Mexico has more.
English 46%
Russian 18%
Simplified Chinese 6%
Spanish 5%
I just built a new desktop box with the plan of connecting an Oculus Rift. I was a bit concerned that the photocopy of the AMD press release posted on pcper.com did not include the minimum-spec AMD video card listed on the Oculus Rift site -- The R9 290. I was afraid AMD was backpedalling on being able to support VR with the R9 290 because they didn't include it in the comparisons, even though the minimum Nvidia card is listed.
Fortunately, after downloading the Steam test app and running it, my new machine ranks modestly high.
The card is actually an XFX R9 290X, the i5-4690 is not overclocked, and the RAM is Gskill TridentX.
I'm happy with the results listed above. My only disappointment with this setup is current Mac OS X El Capitan support for the 290X is spotty. I was planning to use Windows 10 for VR and Mac OS X for everything else, but there are a lot of video glitches when running Mac OS X, so I'll back off of that for now and keep my older i5 equipment around for Mac OS X.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
You haven't factored in price of games. PCs get a lot cheaper over time when you do.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I'm too am excited. Given that scenes need to be rendered twice, the APIs being optimized to reduce CPU usage will be more important than ever.
A lot cheaper? In many cases you can find them upwards of 25% off before they hit release day. They'll be waiting a year or so before their console games drop $20.
Om, nomnomnom...
Unfortunately Macs are all wrong, both from a hardware perspective and a software perspective.
The killer issue is that no Mac ships with a GPU fast enough to meet the Vive or Rift recommended specs. The fastest Mac Pro GPU is essentially a Radeon R9 280X, but the recommended spec is an R9 290 (and don't let the name fool you, there's a good 20%+ per difference between the two). And that's the fastest Mac; every other Mac Pro configuration, the iMacs, and the MacBook Pros all ship with slower GPUs. So right off the bat, you don't have enough performance to match what devs are being told to design their games around. Also, most of the Macs use Apple's Optimus-like implementation of utilizing the iGPU plus the dGPU, which means the display ports are not wired directly to the dGPU.
However software is also a big problem. Only Apple distributes GPU driver updates these days, and while OS X is a competent platform, it's not a cutting edge platform for new driver features or API updates. In particular, AMD and NVIDIA have developed low-latency rendering paths for their GPUs specifically for VR in order to cut down on input lag, and ultimately motion sickness. These low-latency paths are not available under OS X, and since Apple maintains the OS and distributes drivers, they would need to participate to get any of this supported. And unfortunately, Apple moves slow on the graphics tech front.
Mac users do tend to be upscale buyers with more money to spend, but the technical issues coupled with the small user base makes this a non-starter. Early adopters are going to fall into the "PC Master Race" crowd: enthusiasts who are primarily PC users and build workstation-class systems with high-performance parts.
Well that's weird. I have a very similar GPU (R9 270 @975MHz) but using an i5 CPU. The test said that despite being 0% CPU bound, I only got a 0.4 average fidelity score - almost as low as it goes on the scale. How can that be? Since my GPU card is low end but up to date, I wasn't expecting top marks or anything, but I wasn't expecting it to be anywhere like that low either. Something's not right.
You'll be better off with 2X Crossfire/SLI from the current generation than a single next-gen card.
SLI is currently a no go for VR.
Either I can spend north of $1000, and countless hours dicking around with a "gaming computer", or I can spend $400 and get a PS4. Hmmm... tough decision...
Yeah, if you want to do that whole VR thing that is .. Or at-least with the fidelity they want, I guess I'm not convinced something with say Mario 64 lookalike graphics (but higher resolution) wouldn't be enjoyable in VR, doesn't have to look realistic.
Anyway, the PS4 can't do what the .. let's be realistic here - a 980Ti PC is more likely $1500, computer can do.
As of right now we're not even sure if the PS4 can do it alone or whatever it will use some sort of external device which bring more power to it.
If you want to build a PC which can perform like a PS4 you don't need to spend $1000.
i3 6100 cost what? $120?
H110 motherboard? $70?
8 GB of RAM? $50?
GTX 950, $160?
PSU + case $80?
250 GB SSD? $70?
I don't live in the US. $550 there + controller $600, maybe cheaper. Online gaming would cost money on the PS4 but on the other hand you get free games with that so I guess I'm ok calling that a subscription service and setting the price on $0. If one do that the PC cost ~50% more than the gaming console.
That is why you are not a geek or a gamer.
If you were a geek you'd already have the computer, if you were a gamer you wouldn't be able to stand week platforms like PS4/Xbone.
Likely thought Slashdot was dating site for spectacular nerdy men.
The guy above didn't say what GPU he had, it was likely an R9 290 or R9 290X (more likely the later maybe?)
Your R9 270 would most often be slower than the GTX 950 I think but maybe better than the GTX 750Ti over in the Nvidia camp but the requirements is higher for what they intend (high quality graphics in a high resolution at very high frame-rates.)
Your processor isn't the problem and you two just happen to have different graphics cards.
Since Mac users are willing to pay more for quality hardware
More willing to pay a lot for Apple hardware. I can go as far as grant you "custom built computers" rather than standard off the shelves cases and components, also I'd accept that they may have had better screens because Apple had made that decision for the consumer.
As for everything else you said .. mac users has been so very clear telling me over and over again that you shouldn't get a mac for gaming and that macs are for professional/serious work (sound like PC guy with his spread-sheets) and not for gaming. You've been so proud telling yourself and the whole world that's the case so enjoy the pit you've dug for yourself. Also Apple haven't cared either. People who buy Apple products may spend more money but they don't get the best GAMING machines and many of them likely DON'T PLAY GAMES AT ALL. Harsh reality is that Windows has been dominating for computer gaming for so long and have many more titles that you're more likely to find a gamer there, some Mac users likely run what they can and accept that situation.
Someone posted a Steam survey above which said that 4% of the Steam users ran OS X and 1% ran Linux, I think I've read like 10% of the Steam users are those who have very many games and there's so many which like only have Dota2 or CS:GO or whatever and more or less only play that. So for this VR gaming stuff you're likely looking at the entusiasts which if they are 10% of the 95% of the Valve users who play on PC still make up 9.5% of all users whereas the Mac users only make up 4%. Those PC users have lots of games whereas likely very few of the OS X users do. Of all 95% Windows users more will have a better machine than the 4% OS X users.
Sure the average OS X user maybe would have more money to spend on hardware (I'm not convinced they buy more games if nothing else because less is available for OS X) but in total they don't and won't spend more money than the Windows users and they will have weaker machines than the top of the Windows users.
OpenGL performance are most often "very" (30%?) slower than DirectX 11 and with DirectX 12 performance will become even better. I know OS X have Metal and I know they will make Metal-Vulkan or whatever it was called but if nothing else that's more work and the stuff which are normally used will still run slower.
21.5" iMac only ship with integrated graphics. Totally useless for what they want to create with VR.
27" iMac cost a fortune and still only ships with MOBILE graphics chips.
Macbook Pro still expensive as it ever has been, I thought they cost less now. All 13" models only have integrated graphics, the most expensive 15" one have integrated graphics + mid-tier MOBILE graphics chip.
So the 27" iMac would come closest but it will likely still not be able to keep up with the lowest recommended R9 290 or so because it uses MOBILE chips.
The Mac Pro can't be much of the complete Apple market, 5% at best? 2-3%? Even less?
It cost a shit-ton and is decent at best relative the systems you'll see actual run the VR headsets.
Of those 4% OS X users on Valve how many will be laptop users? 3/4? More? 80? How many have 27" iMacs or Mac Pros? at most 10%? That's 0.4% of the Steam user-base.
Whereas of the 95% of Windows users how many have a PC which can beat those macs? 20-25%? Or 40-50 times more?
I didn't think anyone still liked Sony after all the ways they've fucked their customers over, and the horribly shit hardware they make now, but I guess some of you are still astoundingly stupid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
PS4 has something along the lines of AMD 7870 and has the luxury of being the main testing target for many games, which your faster than that PC cannot boast.
Games might SEEM more expensive on Consoles, but once you take into account the fact that you can BUY USED and RE-SELL console games, that most of them play just fine offline, it ain't such a PC advantage any more, if at all. (bar No-DRM games from gog.com, god bless it's creator)
PS
I never got why it has to be either or anyhow.
I can't imagine Starcraft 2 on console and neither does playing Rayman Legends on PC feel ok to me.
then enjoy buying a new console in 3-5 years and an entirely new set of games.
3 - 5?, more like 5 to 7.
2600: 1977
5200: 1982
7800: 1986
NES: 1985
SNES 1991
N64: 1996
Gamecube 2001
Wii: 2006
Wii U: 2012
PSone: 1995
PS2: 2000
PS3 2006
PS4 2013
Besides, there are OTHER PC guys who claim that console generations are too LONG.
As for buying a new set of games, thats true, but the old machine doesn't stop working.
The ONLY reason they drop so fast on PC is because:
1. PC Gamers, who after spending so much money on their rigs, are less willing to spend money on games. Which is why the most popular games being played on STEAM are F2P titles.
2. In the second/third world, PC gamers are pirates, the prices drop so quickly to try to get "some" of the guys in Russia, Romania, Poland, Brazil, etc etc to pay.
No you wouldn't.
I don't know what GPU you have but the R9 290 if that's what you have stop may do better than the GTX 970 and even more so in higher resolutions, the GTX 970 over-clocks better and I don't know what win then. But sure, I'd let you have that R9 290 on occasion has been cheaper.
As for the processor though nowadays the FX-8350 and the i5 4460 would cost about the same and the i5 4460 would be the better gaming CPU.
I don't know what we'd compare at the time of when you purchased your machine, what did the FX-8350 cost relative say an i5 2500K?
Nowadays even the i3 6100 may hold up against/beat the i5 2500K and the FX-6300.
a dual core and 250GB drive? Make it a quad core and that's more like it, but still that drive would be too small considering PS4's come with 500GB by default (and 1GB soon).
f you were a geek you'd already have the computer,
I've been a Linux user since 2002, but I don't play many games on Linux, that's what the PS2/PS3/PS4 are for.
if you were a gamer you wouldn't be able to stand week platforms like PS4/Xbone.
The word is weak, and I've probably been playng games longer than you have been alive. Take a look at the STEAM hardware survey sometime, and you'll see that a lot of gaming seems to be done on budget laptops that are weaker than a PS4. Besides, PC gamers and console gamers are often playing the same games these days. Do you really think something like Minecraft, or Rebel Galaxy is that much different on various platforms?
It doesn't matter how fun it is to drive if you can't afford it.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If you were a geek you'd already have the computer, if you were a gamer you wouldn't be able to stand week platforms like PS4/Xbone.
And if you were a real gamer, you would have all three.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You can build a decent budget gaming rig for 400 to 800.
Even a low range gaming GPU alone is going to cost about $150. No way are you going to build anything resembling a "gaming" system for $400.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Oh look, console talking points.
1) You mean, the price drops so quickly because they've realized that a lower price means more sales, which means more money. Gee, who'd have thought that. It's like people have realized that you can make more money with honey instead of sawdust.
2) In 2nd and 3rd world, console gamers are incredible pirates. You can walk down just about any street and buy the latest titles for consoles at half of what it costs for a PC copy. Including paying for someone to jail break your console for a couple of bucks, if they're not already sold as that.
Om, nomnomnom...
No, no need for a quad-core.
The i3 6100 beats the FX-6300 which is six-core 3.5 GHz.
The CPU in the PS4 is eight-core 1.6 GHz, it's complete garbage.
Maybe even an Athlon X4 860K (quad-core 3.7 GHz) would beat the PS4 processor, that's a processor for $75.
The i3 6100 is DEFINITELY better than the PS4. The GTX 950 is also better graphics than what the APU in the PS4 has.
And Intel quad-core like the i5 4460 would beat an FX-8350 for gaming and the FX-8350 is eight core 4.0 GHz. You're totally exaggerating the shitty performance of AMD APUs and think the PS4 have much more power than it has and the i3 6100 much less than it has. The i3 6100 may be dual-core but it's not too bad.
The Samsung EVO 850 250 GB SSD cost more than a 1 TB 7200 RPM drive but sure, go ahead and replace it with a 1 TB or 500 GB drive if you want to. SSDs cost about 8 times more / GB than HDDs and if the PS4 got a 500 GB HDD in this case I had replace it with an SSD only half the size so you shouldn't be complaining. I used the SSD because it's quick and the space may be enough for some (Steam let you download games as many times as you want anyway ..), replace it with a cheaper 1 TB HDD or a 2 TB HDD for about the same price if you want too, I don't care.
Fact is that the i3 6100 and the GTX 950 are both more competent hardware pieces than the PS 4, will they run games better? I don't know, possibly.
GTA V on setting very high on i3 6100 + GTX 950 in 60+ FPS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's a 30 FPS 1080p title on the Playstation 4.
A stinking AMD eight-core at 1.6 GHz isn't powerful at all and the INTEGRATED GRAPHICS used in the AMD APU in question is a bit more powerful than in general AMD APUs but by today calling it mid-range would kinda be stretching it.
Fallout 4 high - ultra @ 55-60 FPS avg. 43 FPS low here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's a 30 FPS 1080p title on the Playstation 4.
So as you can see the i3 6100 + GTX 950 is at-least as good as the Playstation 4, I'm not sure the GTX 750Ti is better, at-least not when you consider the higher optimization on the Playstation 4.
Just in case you don't trust me when I say the i3 6100 beats the FX-6300:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/C...
Advantage i3 6100:
Single-core speed: +58%
Quad-core speed: +24%
Advantage FX-6300:
Multi-core speed: +8%
But games and DX11 aren't really good in taking care of many cores, and that's still a six core 3.5 GHz chip vs the PS4 eight core 1.6 GHz one.
This person compare a G3258 (dual-core without hyper-threading) with a GTX 750Ti vs Playstation 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
i3 4130 + GTX 750Ti in Witcher 3 vs Playstation 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why is that? The instinctive (and therefore probably wrong) first thought that pops into my head is 'two displays, two GPUs, seems perfect.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
You mean, the price drops so quickly because they've realized that a lower price means more sales, which means more money.
Well it can lead to more money it depends on the product, and the price. In some cases you can lose money by dropping the price.
But in PC gamers case, it does mean PC gamers are cheap bastards. Why else is the PC version an afterthought? HUGE games like Fallout or Divinity or Dragon Age aren't worth $59 to PC gamers? Do you think that Bethesda considers some guy who buys skyrim for $5 on a steam sale in 2016 a "real" customer compared to those who bought the thing in November of 2011? Whose feedback are they going to be more interested in?
I'm old enough to remember the 80's and the prices then, considering inflation and how much game you get for your money, games cost LESS than what they did then. Go on, check the Sears Wishbook in 81 or 83 if you don't believe me.
http://www.wishbookweb.com/
In 2nd and 3rd world, console gamers are incredible pirates. You can walk down just about any street and buy the latest titles for consoles at half of what it costs for a PC copy.
#define latest console.
I know, but it doesn't matter how fast the drive is when you run out of space after 4 "full-size" games + OS.
Sure maybe you don't care about space if all you're playing is TF2, CS, LOL, or DOTA to the exclusion of anything else...but to a generalist gamer...space matters.
The killer issue is that no Mac ships with a GPU fast enough
Neither does the PS4. Neither to MOST PCs.
That's why Sony has a co-processor box, AS I MENTIONED.
Only Apple distributes GPU driver updates these days
Which is irrelevant with CO-PROCESSOR BOX. On a system where every laptop for years has Thunderbolt...
Mac users do tend to be upscale buyers with more money to spend, but the technical issues
Which Sony has resolved and will thus capture the entire market because they aren't targeting cheap bastards only.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why do you care how much the Morpheus dev kits will be? You're willing to spend more for a quality product.
That is actually an excellent question, and indeed it may not matter because after more thought I realize all of the other hardware makers are just messing around and only Sony is serious about mainstream adoption, so if I want to build something that would have a market I have to go with Sony.
However I am an indie developer and that means if the dev kit costs too much there's just no way I can afford to speculate this early. Yes I'm willing to pay for quality, but I have a limit on the premium I can pay for being a very early adopter.
I'll probably just keep experimenting with the Oculus dev kits to develop ideas and wait to see how Morpheus shakes out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Dude, PC gamers need to figure out which matters more, speed or cores, because back in the PS3 days with the PS3's fast hyperthreaded PPC core, PC gamers tended to say that # of cores mattered, not clock speed and hyperthreading.
And really, are you going to be twitch streaming on a dual-core? Multi-core is mattering more and more.
So forgive me for assuming that PC Gamers in general, especially Europeans, are PCMR hypocrites making shit up to make themselves feel better about spending so much money on their "rigs". I mean really, I watched those videos and don't see enough of an "improvement" to justify the hardware price differential....or justify using Windows.
You need to figure out shit at all.
There's no benefit in the PS4 having eight weak-ass cores. If the complete package was powerful because of it then fine but it's not, it's a weak CPU. Even the AMD pieces at ~4 GHz with 8 cores can't keep up with 4 core Intel ones for gaming.
The i3 6100 as said beat the FX-6300 in many games regardless of the later having three times the more cores and it's clocked twice as high as the PS4!
The AMD CPUs perform like shit and AMD knows it.
Here you have the weak-ass Athlon X4 860K, it should be very similar to what you have in the PS4, it's quad-core here but running at 3.7 GHz instead:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX...
Feel free to compare it straight to the PS4, it's clocked twice as high but with half the cores so it should be about right I guess:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-...
Also you got links to videos of actual game-play and I guess that's what matter the most, that account for less optimization with the PC games and for the lacks DirectX 11 have with poor multi-threading and draw calls which use up lots of processing power but it still perform ok.
What matters IS PERFORMANCE, THE AMD CHIPS DOESN'T HAVE IT!
Also your "argument" make no sense because the PS3 was the Cell one there the cell part had 8 SPEs of which 6 was used for gaming and one for OS and then one Power core. So I guess PS4 gamers viewed that as 7-9 core.
Who said anything about twitch-streaming? But yeah I figured I'd throw that in for good measure too, how well does the PS4 do that with it's weak-ass processor? The AMD chips at-least on PC encode video with more of a penalty than the Nvidia chips to. The GTX 950 have encoding on the graphics card so it drop close to nothing for encoding game videos.
Of course you don't see enough of a difference! This $600 PC with an i3 6100 + GTX 950 wasn't there to BE SUPERIOR TO THE PLAYSTATION 4! It was there to state what a PC with at-least as good performance would cost!
Sure you can spend $3000 on a gaming-PC but then it will be much much much much better than the PS4, for $1000+ you could get the i5 + GTX 970 PC but then that would totally smoke the PS4 and give you ~60 FPS gaming in Ultra in 1080p in more or less all titles. The PS4 doesn't do that and yes a PC which do that cost $1000 or thereabout (maybe even more, it will do more than 60 FPS in some titles of course.)
The i3 6100 + GTX 950 is still enough to beat the Playstation 4 and that cost as said around $600 or 50% more than the similar PS4 console.
Now if you want to see a difference ..
Here, have some Star wars: Battlefront Ultra 4K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You won't be able to play that on a $600 i3 6100 + GTX 950 machine though but I never said you would.
On a $2000-2500 machine yes.
Being a gamer just means you play games. Being a geek just means you have a love for understanding how something works. The platform you play your games on only defines this status if you're an idiot.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Here you've got Nvidia ShadowPlay shown:
https://youtu.be/Nq8n7-vDTv8?t...
I don't know what PS4 do inregard of streaming.
Seem like it can do 720p 30 FPS 2.5 mbps at-least.
With his attitude I question whether he's either.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
You can build a piece of underperforming shit for $400 that you will spend the majority of your time swearing at. You can build an "ok" gaming machine (read: spend all your time at low to mid detail settings) for $800, but it won't be much better than a console.
In reality, unless you're willing to commit about $1000 to your gaming PC, you're better off sticking with a console. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. If someone is having fun on their console, mission accomplished. That's the objective in the first place.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
If changing an SSD and GPU takes a lot of time, PC gaming is not for you. Too bad, despite console game sales being a lot better than they used to be, they still don't compare to Steam sales.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I just built this (all but GPU on NewEgg):
$180 - Second-hand GTX 780ti (from a buddy that just upgraded to the 980ti)
$46 - Corsair Carbide Series SPEC-01 RED LED Black ATX Mid Tower ($10 rebate)
$75 - CORSAIR CX series CX750M 750W ($20 rebate)
$120 - GIGABYTE GA-Z170-HD3P (rev. 1.0) ($10 rebate)
$220 - Intel Core i5-6600 6M Skylake Quad-Core 3.3
$70 - CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4
$120 - ADATA Premier SP550 2.5" 480GB SATA III
$831 before / 791 after rebates. I don't include monitor as the console doesn't include TV & to be fair, I am not including KB/mouse as they were moved from old rig to new. Now, I spent well over 1/2 that on my monitor (Dell P2415Q), but even at 4k, I can play every game I own at med-high or better (at decent enough framerates) & all of my games work at Ultra at 1080p.
As always, YMMV, but the new Unreal Tournament Pre-Alpha detected my rig at Ultra everything at 4k and played great.
TL;DR
You can build a really nice box for $800. If you don't have the option for used (that you trust - you can always find used, but I totally get not wanting one from an unknown source), you could take 1 step back on GPU and game all day long at really nice settings in 1080p.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Minecraft is quite different on PC due the massive amount of mods available that expands it quite greatly.
Bearing in mind that my "gaming computer" is able to run three 4K displays simultaneously at 60FPS, rip DVDs at 16x real time, process image stacks into ultraHD videos in less than a week and compile a linux kernel in less time than it takes to make a cup of coffee, I know which of us is reading the wrong website.
My '71 Pinto was the hot rod of my youth. Don't laugh it off so fast. Header and some carb tuning, it was quick. I could stay neck and neck with camaros & firebirds (yes, lower case) until around 60. The V8's would then start to pull away. You had less than a pony car with a V8? Eat my dust. Oh, Roadrunners could outrun me too.
Did it have problems? Yeah. Timing belt would break on a regular basis. Got to the point I could change it w/o tools. Line everything up, slip the new belt on. Being a Ford there was all sorts of stuff that weren't up to snuff but that thing was a runner.
Well it can lead to more money it depends on the product, and the price. In some cases you can lose money by dropping the price.
But in PC gamers case, it does mean PC gamers are cheap bastards. Why else is the PC version an afterthought? HUGE games like Fallout or Divinity or Dragon Age aren't worth $59 to PC gamers? Do you think that Bethesda considers some guy who buys skyrim for $5 on a steam sale in 2016 a "real" customer compared to those who bought the thing in November of 2011? Whose feedback are they going to be more interested in?
Never heard the saying "it's easier to make a fast nickle instead of a slow quarter?"
No, it means nothing of the sort except what you believe. The PC version isn't an afterthought, huge games like FO, Divinity and Dragon Age weren't afterthoughts. All three of those games were PC only titles to start with. FO4 if you're talking about a specific case, was so dumbed down that people on both sides are complaining about the lack of RPG elements. And according to Bethesda, yes they're a customer still.
I'm old enough to remember the 80's and the prices then, considering inflation and how much game you get for your money, games cost LESS than what they did then. Go on, check the Sears Wishbook in 81 or 83 if you don't believe me.
Funny, me too! And sadly, no they don't. See I live in this place called "Not the USA" that means an average title is now around $89-129.
#define latest console.
#thisisthe2ndand3rdworldyou'retalkingabout
Om, nomnomnom...
Why is that? The instinctive (and therefore probably wrong) first thought that pops into my head is 'two displays, two GPUs, seems perfect.'
I'm no expert and there is certainly ongoing work to fix this. What engines are doing for VR is taking advantage of similarities in the scene to save redundant work when rendering for perspective of both cameras. What actually goes on does not so much resemble duplicating rendering job between GPUs. You could simplify and do that of course but the problem you are left with is that simply copying result across GPUs for display on the GPU VR headset is plugged into itself takes several ms you just don't have. To put it into perspective rendering 90fps is 1000/90 = 11ms/frame. Jitter and latency literally cause people to feel nauseous.
Have no doubt this is a temporary situation for SLI going forward but current gen hardware is probably SOL. Hardware was simply not designed for a "reality" in which latency matters to such a degree.
It's cool that you got a box together but...
No display, no mouse, no keyboard. Re-evaluate. These are all necessary components, and should be included in any quoted price.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Kb/mouse (not mine, maybe what I used to use) is $20 (less on sale) & I mentioned not including monitor as the console doesn't include TV. Heck, lots of gamers use their TV, so it's really an optional bit. I also have a moderately high-end scanner and a tablet (for Photoshop), should I have included them too? (OK, admittedly that was a little cheeky, but trust you get my point - these are options & like my 4k monitor, are really not pertinent as consoles can use none of them - not fully, anyway). Really, what I missed (and you should have gotten me on) is the OS. Obviously I'm not comparing gaming in Linux to a console :) As it happens, I actually had a spare Win 7 key but cost of OS might affect someone else's build. If I needed it and had to stay to an $800 budget, gtx 750 (fine card, not enough to do 4k, tho) and 1 a lesser motherboard leaves room for KB/mouse/OS. Sorry for no line breaks, on mobile. Good sig, BTW
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Bah meant 950 not 750
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I'd rather spend money on games not upgrades...
Steam sales are so good, that you might save money on games in the long run. I usually get my games for 50% or more off and I can't remember the last time I paid full price.
That's funny. I built one for a friend of mine for ~$360 back in November. If you can't build one for less than $400 then you are not trying. Check out the Media Elite on this page: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmas...
Do you not realize how cheap hard drives are these days? $50 for a 1.5TB http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
I do, but the OP used an SSD in his example for performance reasons in a "we can put our games on fast SSD" kind of way.
That's primarily for the operating system and a few of your games with long load times. Things that don't need it go on the regular drive.