Most PC gamers waste their money on video cards

[BonzaiDuck]

There is no enjoyment here. Only numbers and opinions.

I think the OP's points have some merit. Let me explain, and keep in mind -- I'm a "modest' graphics enthusiast. I'm really not a "serious" gamer: I'm a "serious system builder." I don't even necessarily keep up annually with the latest and greatest.

There most certainly are diminishing returns in a performance/price ratio. They keep changing with each new graphics generation. You could also consider "diminishing returns" of enjoyment for outlays: it becomes a subjective matter, limited by budget and income, devotion of time and energy toward gaming, desires for "bragging rights," and other things. I could criticize someone who spends $3,600 on 3x graphics cards, but then -- if I felt cavalier about $3,000 of it -- if I didn't think I could spend it better (or save it better!) elsewhere, maybe I would -- maybe I wouldn't.

There IS an issue of "future-proofing," which is probably a euphemism for "investment." A person will choose to spend so much money over time on computer graphics hardware. A person might decide that spending X is "too much," Y is "just right." But they haven't the most accurate idea of what needs and wants will be 9 months later, 2 years later and so on.

There's also a "curiosity" factor. In my case, I just decided to buy two cards for the mere pleasure of overclocking them. Whether or not I'm getting immediate bang-for-buck -- this is an aspect of the OP's argument. I might not accurately assess the future; I might "over-invest" -- I might "under-invest." There are other questions: "Do I really CARE about upgrading to 4K NOW!?" "Do I really NEED a 2x or 3x multi-monitor setup?" Or the flip sides of the same question: "Do I really WANT to spend what it takes to get those things now -- knowing that 2 years, 3 years or so later, a 4K monitor or 4K HDTV will cost half what the going price is now?" Will I MISS those things much if I "just don't care" for three or four more years?

I've been impressed that forum members aren't usually judgmental about these things. If you want to spend $500 on graphics cards, that's OK. If you want to spend $2,000, that's probably OK too -- it's your money. It's your perception of benefits. It's your "time-stream of expenditure."

On the other hand, there's this smell of "alarmism" in the air. "Ah! Ya ain't gonna be future proof" with this or that graphics card. "The game programmers gonna lock you out." [You won't be able to have a "great gaming experience" with some game you'll not likely buy or enjoy anyway.]

Incidentally. There was once a color Activision version of "Asteroids" for XP. Is there an updated version of "Asteroids?"

I remember . . . . I remember . . . going into the restaurant-bar near Fort Myer around 1982 -- the neighborhood described by James Jones in "From Here to Eternity." I could put quarters into that damn machine for hours! Yet -- I never much missed that pocket change . . .

I just miss "Asteroids!"

So -- yeah -- there should be enough joy and enjoyment to go around, howsoever deep or shallow your pockets are.

 

[cbn]

There most certainly are diminishing returns in a performance/price ratio.They keep changing with each new graphics generation.

That is definitely true, but with this generation of video cards on the AMD side I am quite surprised to see performance/price ratio basically the same going from R7 250X up to R9 290.

R7 250X (often starts at $59.99 AR, sometimes $54.99 AR); 640 stream processors, 128 bit GDDR5, 1GB
R9 290 (often starts at $219.99 AR): 2560 stream processors, 512 bit GDDR5, 4GB

~ Four times the stream processors, four times wider bus, four times more VRAM for 4 times more money.

With that pointed out I have to wonder how much Fiji will change this basically linear relationship?