Do High End Gaming PCs matter?
Do High End Gaming PCs matter?
They might have phrased it differently if they didn’t want it to seem serious. Just a response to what was said.
It seems my humor doesn't come through clearly in writing. Alright, okay...
Of course, the point remains unchanged. Since the original text didn't contain any subtle wit or irony, it doesn't meet the criteria for thought-provoking content. Also, as an American, I might have overlooked any hidden humor.
I think the car comparison makes sense.
Most folks drive civics and other jobs well enough, but without the big brands like Porsches and Lamborghinis, the industry wouldn’t progress. People need something inspiring to aim for. Striving for more is completely normal.
Next time a luxury sports car appears on the street, don’t focus on it—look at the kids who get nervous seeing it. Nobody really gets excited about a family van.
I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t say they’re irrelevant… it depends on how you look at it.
They're relevant, they're just not as relevant as some would like them to be.
There is a tendency on forums like this to act as if any computer that isn't capable of playing the latest games at 4K60 is a piece of trash, that a system's relevance is based on whether or not you can stuff an RTX 2080 Ti inside. Gaming rigs do push the boundaries by pushing companies to develop certain kinds of CPUs and GPUs, but so do workstations, ultraportable laptops and even budget PCs. And let's be honest, there are many more people buying $1,200 ultraportables than there are $3,000 gaming rigs.
I need my premium computers to perform exactly as I want. If I could manage with fewer, that would be ideal. Before the year 2000 my systems were decent but then I invested in MS Flight Simulator 2000 and my average machine could only reach around 10 frames per second on the ground and 15 in the air. With that game you could add content and I continued doing so for years, so when I stopped playing I was limited to about 30 frames per second in the air and 20 on the ground using a high-end setup. Then MS Train Train Simulator came along and I really enjoyed those powerful trains with many engines. The system handled complex physics, so I upgraded to the fastest CPUs available.
Next I tried Oblivion in 2007 and modified it until Skyrim was released in 2011. It required a very fast hard drive—over 7200 rpm—to load extra content while exploring, so I switched to 10,000 rpm drives that cost more than double the standard ones. They eliminated stuttering. Now I’m switching from SATA SSDs to NVMe M.2 (2TB 970 EVO) for the same reason.
With a heavily modified Skyrim, powerful cores weren’t enough; I needed a strong GPU with plenty of VRAM too. I upgraded from a GTX 670 (2GB) to a 680 4GB model just to boost VRAM and moved away from the 700 series because they only offered 3GB. Now I require more than the 11GB on my 2080 Ti since I’m using 10.5GB in one of my modified games.
In 2015 I came across 4K resolution and wanted to play everything at that quality. My Skyrim (with ENB) managed 60fps at 1080p with a GTX 980, but it dropped below 20fps at 4K. The aim was to hit 60fps, which required an RTX 2080 Ti. Now ray tracing is available. Currently I can achieve 1440p at 60fps in my RT games, but the target is 4K at 60fps and soon it will rise to 4K at 120fps. Then 2160p at 21:9 120fps.
Right now I’m playing Space Engines at 4K with an average of 120fps. As I continue building, frame rates will drop but I’ll keep going. This journey will never stop.
Are they important, this depends on personal preference, is 4k necessary for your needs? Some prefer 1080p at 144hz, others are content with 4k at 60fps or even lower. As you move toward more advanced gaming systems, the performance-to-value ratio can drop significantly. It’s like comparing a Ferrari or Bugatti to a budget Volkswagen—relevance comes down to your specific requirements.