AngryLittleAlchemist said:
To me that kind of outlook is usually just an excuse to inflate PC prices for console wars, although maybe you just have a weird perfectionist mindset haha I built my PC for like $1500 and that was for EVERYTHING (including overpriced peripherals, monitors, etc). Without those, it would have been like $900. That was back in Feb 2016, and the card I chose was a 970, which was already almost 2 years old at this point. The 970 is 4 years old now, and it can still handle new triple A games at high at 60+ fps. Most triple A games from this gen are 75-90fps on it, and a few of them even 100+. This is all through a 144hz monitor, too, so the refresh rate is way better. (By the way, funny how monitors are always included in PC prices but not TVs for consoles) I won't lie and say that 4k on PC isn't still hard for a majority of people, however you have to consider the criteria is extremely different. On PC the criteria is 60fps, 4k, and also ultra settings. That isn't really fair, because if you want something equivalent to a PS4 Pro (which has most games checkerboard and also has games at 30fps most of the time with low quality assets) then the price is obviously way different. So in a way, what you're saying kind of doesn't make sense. It's half assing it to have realistic expectations? No matter how much you pay, you aren't going to get Raytracing 4k at highest quality assets at 60fps. That's not realistic, but consoles don't even attempt any of those benchmarks (well, the Xbox One X does do real 4k, and it's exclusives are 60fps but I think they use variable resolution and also in games like Halo 5 the frames for the enemies can drop significantly which is very noticeable). Anyways, I wouldn't say you need to go to an RTX 2080Ti or else you're "half assing it". For the forseeable future, 1440p at 144hz is a better investment (although really I'd just wait for the second series of RTX cards). |
If I want something I in general save money for something and buy pretty much the best available. Or what I can save together in a reasonable time, 12 to 24,months or so for most hobbies. Also why would I want a PC that's equal to a PS4 pro. To me that defeats the whole reason I would go to pc gaming, since I can play third party titles on my PS4 pro. I could probably build a PC equal to a PS4 pro for €400-, with a CPU which is more competent than a common potato. But it doesn't have PS exclusives so I would be worse of, since I primairy play SP games.
I don't care to much about ray tracing, but if I play a game like Assasins Creed Oddesey on PC, I want to play it at 4k 60fps in HDR and since my tv doesn't support 120fps and 4K because HDMI 2.0 so I want at least 4k/60 for everything. Also I mostly play SP games so 60FPS is hardly a disadvantage.
But as you said also for that I would need a monster pc, also I would not like upgrading to much so if I put one RTX2080TI in there I could play games in 4k/60fps for at least a few years. It would be somewhat future proof which I would prefer over upgrading earlier.
In the end I play too little videogames to make that investment, by back to the topic if we don't consider pc a special category its totally fair to compare Battlefield V totally maxed on pc to a PS4 exclusive. I would even say that's the only fair way since we probably also use the PS4 pro version instead of the base PS4 version.
Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar
