Complete retard here. About how much money would you say that

About $1200-1300 dollars with a GTX 1070 and an i7 7700k (or 8700k very soon). This includes the case, high quality psu, motherboard and 500gb ssd + cheap hdd.

>>385541443
1k if you know what you're doing and live near microcenter. you could deck a pc out for 1k

>>385541624
Forgot about 16gb of 3000MHz+ RAM. Add another 100-150 dollars to that. So $1300-1400 if you're building from scratch and if you can even find a GTX 1070 for msrp (or any other mid-high end gpu because of mining).

Define "good".
It really depends on what are your performance goals, and what kind of games you play.

You can build a console-killer PC with less than 400 bucks at best these days, getting roughly PS4 pro level performance and visuals, with the added benefit of in-game options, mods and system upgradeability.

Anything over 500 bucks will get you a great 1080p / 60fps machine, and I would never go above 1000 $ myself, unless you REALLY want to game at 4K and over 60fps, at the same time.

Something like i3 + 8GB + GTX 1050ti 4GB would satisfy most PC rookie's needs just nicely, and allow you to play 99.9% of all PC releases at High or better settings.

>>385541443
Depends on what you want out of it, the price of a "console comparable" PC is different from a better build.

>>385541443
I'd say $700 minimum or just get a console. Depends on what you want to do. What games? Graphics whore?

>>385541624
>>385541690
>>385541748
Dont listen to these retards, they have absolutely no fucking clue of what they're talking about. You can do a decent rig with $600-$800.

>>385541915
>shit tier AMD trash with 8gb of RAM and small ssd or no ssd at all
>decent

>>385541443
I'd say about $700-800.

All you really need for 1080p gaming is an r5 1600 and a 1060/580

>>385541443

>>>/g/pcbg

>>385541915
He said good not decent

>>385541994
This.

>>385541443
About 800 bucks for the tower. I never payed more and can play any game on mid-high exclusing those constant 2-3 flavor of the month games that are never optimized. I need to play them on low. Oh no. Better pay additional 400 bucks!

>>385541748
for $1300-1400 you could easily fit in a 1080 or 1080ti, which would make it a 4k machine not a good gaming rig

>>385541443
You probably can't read if you're a complete retard, so here is a spread sheet.
http://www.logicalincrements.com/

>>385541443
About 2 maybe 3 hundred thousand dollars if you want a pc that is considered good by fellow mustards

>>385542145
people still use this shit? you can build much better builds at every single price point

>Good
$1000
give or take
you want at least an i5 and a gtx1070 or whatever equivalent
>decent
probably like $600
i3 and gtx1050ti or whatever should run games okay

File: 405$ PS4 killer 2016.png (119KB, 1075x540px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1075x540px

>>385541443
Very little, if you play your cards right.
Every extra 100$ will up your game notably tho'.

>>385541874
>I'd say $700 minimum or just get a console.
Why do people keep spewing this terrible meme around? A console-priced PC will nowadays BTFO of even PS4 Pro, and be much, much more versatile and powerful system. And A LOT cheaper in the long run, as you don't have to pay monthly fees just to play online, games don't (need to) cost 70 bucks a piece (+ tip), you got practically unlimited "backwards compatibility" worth of 30+ years of computer (and console) games, not to mention you can adjust and tweak your games and play them as YOU wish.

>>385541915
lol

>>385542325
>i5
>i3

m8 ryzen is out

File: AMD.jpg (23KB, 306x392px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 306x392px

>>385542441
>buying AMD shit

>>385542392
beacuse people generally dont want an i3/lowest end gpu system that wont run games after a year, or lowest settings

>>385541443
About 5k. Shit heads here will try to sell you on their emulation 4 year old port sadness machine by telling you less but they're wrong.

$350,000 for something that actually works

>>385542578
>5k
Is that in Mexican pity money?

File: AMD-Intel-Q3-2017-CPU-Market-Share.jpg (115KB, 749x597px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 749x597px

>>385542508
no one recommends i3 or i5s anymore unless they're retarded

literally no one, not /g/, not plebbit, every youtuber recommends/switched to ryzen, every hardware forum

if you really have a boner for intel they have 6 core i5s in september, so buying a quad core right now is retarded

>>385541443
go to /g/, /v/ is retarded. also, dont build one now because GPU prices are inflated to fuck. once crypto-mining-specific cards come out and/or the crypto bubble pops, then GPUs will be at a reasonable price. and both of those arent far off it seems

>>385542541
nigga, i3 2400 is still enough to run ANY game fine. Huge majority are way more GPU-dependent, and even in that case a modern "low-end", 100$ dedicated cards can do 1080p/60fps with decent settings.

I'm personally still rocking i5 2500 + GTX 560ti, and so far only RE7 and Witcher 3 have made me set more than a couple settings to "Low" to get good performance at 1080p.

>>385541443
Assuming you're alright with playing games at 1600x800 (or was it 900?) I can't see you spending more than $1000 on the tower.

>>385542986
youre a damn retard

Just wait for the quantom gaming computers bro!

File: 1478800403830.gif (3MB, 700x285px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 700x285px

>>385541915
this
you can build a high end all at once for around 1000-1200

or you can build a mid tier for around 600-800 and upgrade in a year or so

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/F8873F
this is one i built last year january

File: Rc9hobB.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

>>385541443
Let's be honest here. You want to join the Mustard Race so you're only going to play Overwatch, CSGO and League of Legends.
$450 should be enough.

File: 1475999432654.png (61KB, 190x287px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 190x287px

Why do so many people get so fucking asspained about the prices of pc components?

Anon dont listen to these guys bout 530 will get you a sick personal vector dont go with phaseboner get a buttmongler dont forget the triplug ram bam gotta have led lit methane cooled cpu throw it in any case thats totally ass and youre good to go

>>385542860
No it isnt, im running a 2500k @ 4.8 and a 980 and the 2500k bottlenecks my 980 in many recent 2016/17 AAA games. Even older ones like Crysis 3 or bf4.

If you are are content on running older games at 1080p60fps then sure, for modern games at max settings/higher than 60hz its not enough.

>>385541915
>he doesn't know mid-tier gpus cost that much since the btc miners wrecked the market

>>385541443
This depends on what level of gaming you want to do? Do you want to play current AAA titles at 4k resolution on maxed out settings? Then expect to spend around $1500 for something "good." If previous generation games at 1080p will do good enough, you can get in for around $800 for something "good."

>>385543624
more like nvidia wrecked the market

mid range x60 cards gone from $150 to $300, mid range x70 cards gone from $250-300 to $400+

File: 729.gif (137KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 340x340px

>>385543472
First reply before this post gets a lot of (you)s

File: 129€ recycle center PC specs 2016.png (47KB, 809x473px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 809x473px

>>385541443
>About how much money would you say that I need to save up to be able to build a good gaming rig?
Good for.... what?
All the Valve shit? A ten years old core2duo + a lower-mid tier GPU can do that just fine. Those can be carried out of recycling centers and shit for half free nowadays. Pic related is what I grabbed from my local fleamarket last fall for less than 130 €, and the sucker runs some fairly modern games, like MGS5 and Talos Principle, just fine at FullHD and med-high settings. Yes, it even runs Crysis and PS2 emulation.

The poorly optimized AAA console ports at 1080p? 500 bucks.
Same shit at 4K / 144 fps? 1000 bucks.

Anyway, just check out the Logicalincrements.com -site, and maybe some "(Your budget) $ gaming PC 2017" videos on Youtube. Then do your own research on parts and prices in your area.

>>385541915
This guy is also a fucking retard, you only need to spend about $400 for a gaming PC

>>385541443
$1000 is about the minimum to build a good system that will last 3 - 5 years, in terms of running games on highish settings. If you can spend around $1300, you'll have a great system for a solid 5 years, maybe more, depending on how things progress.

If you're an extreme poorfag, you can get away with an $800 system, but it's only going to be a middle of the road system after a year.

>>385543771
Long gone are the days you could build something competitive to current gaming consoles for $400.

>>385543472
Op here
I fucking hated Overwatch and League honestly. I'm going to be playing Total War with graphics that dont look like ass close up if I build a good computer

>>385543856
>$1000 is about the minimum to build a good system that will last 3 - 5 years,
Kinda true, as my 2011-built PC still performs great, and I've not changed a single thing in it during these years. And 100$ of it was for a legit W7 Ultimate disc alone.
That being said, PC components have gotten cheaper and more powerful during the years. I've seen 400$ builds that would totally BTFO of my computer, all while using fraction of the power mine does even while in idle.

>800$
>poorfag
bruh, that's seriously exaggerating.

>>385543943
>you will never buy the highest performing gpu on the market for $400 again

all started with this titan shit on the 600 series. now people gobble up the titans and $800 ti cards

>>385544149
really? I dont really see anything "BTFOing" a 2500k build from 2011.

for the same money today you can get an i5 with similar performance or a r5 1600

>>385544149
What are you running that a $400 PC will beat it?

>>385544050
Shame Total War runs like ass on anything when you put 2x 20 stacks or more

>>385544393
he probably bought a bulldozer system instead of master race sandy bridge

>>385544327
>I dont really see anything "BTFOing" a 2500k build from 2011.
the 2600K would. And the next-gen variants of i5 and i7 in general.

heck, that intel g4560 CPU beats my i5 in most benchmarks and specs.

>>385544393
i5 2500 + 8GB DDR3 + GTX 560ti 1GB.

>>385544590
nope.

>>385544605
2600k costed way more than the 2500k? and performed basically the same until recently where games are using hyperthreading.

the next-gen variants of i5 and i7 are 0-25% better than sandy bridge depending on what iteration you are looking at, not really astonishing performance for 6 years of progress.

>>385544605
if you got the K version you could have oc'd it to 4.6+ and have the same performance as a 6600k at 4ghz.

Replace the 560ti (I got rid of mine years ago) that can barely run todays games. Even something cheap like the 1050ti would be multiple times faster.

>>385544816
>2600k costed way more than the 2500k?
it can be found for way less these days. And like said, the total "potato tier" CPU like G4560 does beat my CPU in most cases nowadays - which is one reason Intel's now trying to kill it, as it's towering over their current i3 processors.

I'm planning to upgrade to 1060 6GB soon-ish, and yes, I've even considered that 1050ti. The numerous amateur benchmark videos people have posted online with both cards have been very impressive indeed.

But yeah - if a rookie would build a G4560 + 1050 / Ti system today, he'd get a stronger and cheaper machine than what I got now. For a fraction of the cost too.

As soon as youve got it its out of date garbage and you'll need to upgrade it and as soon as youve installed and updated your upgrade is out of date garbage and you'll need to upgrade it

>>385542392
>i3
I wish, can't play several games because they simply won't run on this shit.

>>385545976
>can't play several games because they simply won't run on this shit.
Sounds you're doing something very wrong then.
Name some of these mystery titles, please.

>>385541443
112£, which is like 150-or-so bucks: https://youtu.be/HxWJSRNUuxY

I'd however spend a bit more and get a GTX 1050ti instead.