£300 pc vs £3000 pc - interesting

For £3000 I could have built something with 2x the gaming performance as that rig by just xfiring 7970's and dropping the silly 3930k option. 2700k with dual cards would have been noticeably better to any layperson. Also they chose quite undemanding games. Crysis 2, Dirt 3?? How about Witcher 2 and Metro?
 
This thread had promise, until you went and got all snarky at the end.

Ignoring that, someone who cant tell the difference in loading times between a Revo SSD, and a normal HDD is... well not very perceptive at all. Oh wait, they actually left that part out completely, so thats 1300 pounds thats just there to superficially inflate the numbers. Strike one.
Then the CPU, lol. Another 600 pounds wasted to help inflate the numbers, or that overkill PSU thats another 100 pounds wasted. So we're down to what, 300 vs 1100? Woops, thats actually 500 vs 1100 if that site could do simple maths for the budget system. Strike two.
Finally, the test consisted of a grand total of 4 people... Thats not enough to draw any conclusion whatsoever. Strike 3
And thats ignoring all the other caveats involved when doing a highly subjective test, like the nice old games they decided to use...

Having said all that, of course different people will react differently to different image quality settings. Some people can barely notice when you turn shadows down/off. Me - I see it straight away and cringe, it destroys the experience for me. Others I'm sure wont mind. If you're one of those that wont mind, good for you. The easiest comparison for me actually is sound - I'll happily spend R1500 on good sound because I know how carp onboard sound is. Freaking constant high pitched whine no matter what you are doing drives me insane. Then again, other people dont hear it all all, so good for them, they save R1500. I cant, it ruins everything.
 
I can tell you that my single GTX460 struggles to play BF3 on 2560x1600, where as 2 of them runs it very smoothly ;)

I'd love to get my hands on an GTX680, but I don't need that kind of performance yet, and spending R6k+ on a graphics card just to make my framerate like 1.5 higher isn't worth it for me.

I agree with Cerberus that they didn't spend their money well - or not at least to get the optimal gaming performance from the respective budgets. I mean, who would spend ~R20 000 on a SSD in a gaming PC!?
2x GTX680's would've completely changed the game...

Secondly, their choice of games are wrong. They should've chosen newish/demanding games.
 
I agree with Archer

it comes down to what you perceive/what you notice/what is important to you.

when people buy a cellphone, they usually flock to Blackberry coz of BIS. I dont give a carp about BIS. I want a screen with at least 300 PPI and 720p res, and if not then its rubbish.

All comes down to the person and what they can/do notice

edit : I turn OFF shadows :p
 
im personally buildign amd apu pc soon, to check how budget you can go to play bf3 at 1080p :P

i will exclude hardrive price from the rig as the hardrives prices is just scam in my eyes, refuse to pay it.

will include:
amd a8 3870k will oc to 3.4ghz on stock cooler or so.
4gig adata ddr3 2000mhz, faster memory for the APU.
msi a75 p35, cheap matx
gigabyte hd 6670 1gig, to crossfire with the APU.
cm elite 343

is about R3500 at rebeltech, excludes the psu, have one and have a hardrive.

was told it can play bf3 on meduim 1920x1080p, see if that is true :P
 
kolaval said:
Wasn't being snarky, but wondering the cost vs prerformance value of a R6k graphics card
Click to expand...

If you have money for a 6k graphics card you should be playing and an equally expensive screen/s with a better resolution than 1080p.

There is no use buying a 20K pc and gaming on 1024x768 screen.
 
To be honest guys, they wasted money on the cheap rig too - 800 watt Power supply?

c'mon....
 
Archer said:
This thread had promise, until you went and got all snarky at the end.

Ignoring that, someone who cant tell the difference in loading times between a Revo SSD, and a normal HDD is... well not very perceptive at all. Oh wait, they actually left that part out completely, so thats 1300 pounds thats just there to superficially inflate the numbers. Strike one.
Then the CPU, lol. Another 600 pounds wasted to help inflate the numbers, or that overkill PSU thats another 100 pounds wasted. So we're down to what, 300 vs 1100? Woops, thats actually 500 vs 1100 if that site could do simple maths for the budget system. Strike two.
Finally, the test consisted of a grand total of 4 people... Thats not enough to draw any conclusion whatsoever. Strike 3
And thats ignoring all the other caveats involved when doing a highly subjective test, like the nice old games they decided to use...

Having said all that, of course different people will react differently to different image quality settings. Some people can barely notice when you turn shadows down/off. Me - I see it straight away and cringe, it destroys the experience for me. Others I'm sure wont mind. If you're one of those that wont mind, good for you. The easiest comparison for me actually is sound - I'll happily spend R1500 on good sound because I know how carp onboard sound is. Freaking constant high pitched whine no matter what you are doing drives me insane. Then again, other people dont hear it all all, so good for them, they save R1500. I cant, it ruins everything.
Click to expand...

+1
 
kolaval said:
Wasn't being snarky, but wondering the cost vs prerformance value of a R6k graphics card
Click to expand...

It actually gives a pretty linear cost vs performance right the way up the chart - with some variance. 680@ $500 is priced a bit below its performance level. But you do get what you pay for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X