• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Future of PC Gaming Requirements

U

ultima_trev

Member
In today's world, it seems many games are recommending a quad core Intel CPU, 8 gigabytes of RAM, and 4GB GPUs of R9 390/GTX 970 caliber. This is pretty steep in my opinion. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised in five years we see system requirements such as: 8 cores/16 threads, 32 gigabytes of RAM, 16GB high end GPU. I also wouldn't be surprised at that time if 4K is like what 1366*768 is now to us, and 8K is pretty much the standard. And I'd expect threads like "Can my PC run Crysis(5)?" to become extremely commonplace.
 
IMO a more likely scenario is that the desktop PC will largely disappear in the next 10 years, and most games will be played on mobile devices.
 
I'm glad consoles finally caught up somewhat which is leading to improvements in the graphical quality of PC games. It's about time we started pushing the PC requirements envelope. It's been stagnant for too long.
 
You can spend $1,000 on a rig that will easily last you five years. If you want a PC that is comparable to console quality, then you can dumb it down to around $750 for five years or $1,000 for ten years. My PC is about seven years old and the only thing I've upgraded is my GPU and I can still run damn near every game on the market maxed out at 1440p with no issues.

It's not that difficult to build a future-proof PC and if you pick good parts, you can easily do some initial overclocking to stave off upgrading for another year or two, then you should only need to upgrade one or two parts and be back on top again. People tend to complicate PCs more than they should.
 
Stg-Flame said:
My PC is about seven years old and the only thing I've upgraded is my GPU and I can still run damn near every game on the market maxed out at 1440p with no issues.
Click to expand...

Your CPU is only 4 and a half years old, and that's assuming you got it at launch.
 
ultima_trev said:
In today's world, it seems many games are recommending a quad core Intel CPU, 8 gigabytes of RAM, and 4GB GPUs of R9 390/GTX 970 caliber. This is pretty steep in my opinion. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised in five years we see system requirements such as: 8 cores/16 threads, 32 gigabytes of RAM, 16GB high end GPU. I also wouldn't be surprised at that time if 4K is like what 1366*768 is now to us, and 8K is pretty much the standard. And I'd expect threads like "Can my PC run Crysis(5)?" to become extremely commonplace.
Click to expand...

And you can build a complete i5 system with 8gb rx480, 8gb ram, OS, case, ps, and 1tb spinner or 256gb ssd for around $700.-

At this rate I would gladly pay around $700.- for 8 cores/16 threads, 32 gigabytes of RAM, 16GB high end GPU in your Utopian future world. PM me when we get there just to remind me.
 
Stg-Flame said:
You can spend $1,000 on a rig that will easily last you five years. If you want a PC that is comparable to console quality, then you can dumb it down to around $750 for five years or $1,000 for ten years. My PC is about seven years old and the only thing I've upgraded is my GPU and I can still run damn near every game on the market maxed out at 1440p with no issues.

It's not that difficult to build a future-proof PC and if you pick good parts, you can easily do some initial overclocking to stave off upgrading for another year or two, then you should only need to upgrade one or two parts and be back on top again. People tend to complicate PCs more than they should.
Click to expand...

I7 3770k is 4 years old.....

http://ark.intel.com/products/65523/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz
 
My i5 2500k at 4.3 GHz is 5 years old and still handles games great. I recently upgraded to an AMD 480 and 16GB of RAM for $275, which should last me another few years. I'll recoup some of that cost from selling my old 7870 and 8GB of RAM.
 
kalrith said:
My i5 2500k at 4.3 GHz is 5 years old and still handles games great. I recently upgraded to an AMD 480 and 16GB of RAM for $275, which should last me another few years. I'll recoup some of that cost from selling my old 7870 and 8GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

Watch Dogs 2 will murder your CPU. Its 2017 nearly, an i7 is what anyone should be aiming for with a gaming box.
 
escrow4 said:
Watch Dogs 2 will murder your CPU. Its 2017 nearly, an i7 is what anyone should be aiming for with a gaming box.
Click to expand...

Source? I seriously doubt that any game would murder my cpu at 1080p 60Hz with an AMD 480. Obviously the CPU would bottleneck a GTX 1080, but that's moot.

How is an i7 better than an i5 for gaming? That part of your comment makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

This article is a bit old, but it shows that an overclocked i5 2500k is about 20% slower than an i5 6500 using a Titan X: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k. If they ran those same tests with an AMD 480, I bet the results would be much, much closer.
 
escrow4 said:
Watch Dogs 2 will murder your CPU. Its 2017 nearly, an i7 is what anyone should be aiming for with a gaming box.
Click to expand...

ultima_trev said:
This is pretty steep in my opinion. [snip] And I'd expect threads like "Can my PC run Crysis(5)?" to become extremely commonplace.
Click to expand...

Can my pc run watch doggy 2?

If this is the future of pc gaming count me out. I'll just buy a console and spend the other $1200.- on.........
 
Last edited:
lol, octa core. I remember when dual cores were around a decade ago and everyone thought we'd have 16 cores as standard by now. Dual cores (with hyper threading) are still in use today and are perfectly viable for most.
 
Sonikku said:
lol, octa core. I remember when dual cores were around a decade ago and everyone thought we'd have 16 cores as standard by now. Dual cores (with hyper threading) are still in use today and are perfectly viable for most.
Click to expand...

There is always an appropriate XKCD.

extrapolating.png


You're absolutely right. And 15 years ago, we were supposed to be running 20GHz Netburst-derived single cores by now.

That kind of superficial analysis is pretty typical. Whenever somebody's idea is declared to be the "next big thing", a bunch of journalists and wannabe tech writers get their rocks off taking it to the ridiculous conclusion. And many pageviews are had by all. But little of value is created.
 
escrow4 said:
Watch Dogs 2 will murder your CPU. Its 2017 nearly, an i7 is what anyone should be aiming for with a gaming box.
Click to expand...

It looks like CPU can make a big difference in Watch Dog 2 if you're running 1080 SLI: http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/WATCH_DOGS_2/wd2_proz.png

The i5-2500k at 3.3 GHz runs it at 53fps minimum at 1080p. The AMD 480 runs it at 45fps: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

Given that my i5-2500k is overclocked to 4.3GHz and that the reviews show the CPU at stock capable of running faster than the AMD 480 can, I think it's safe to say that Watch Dog 2 will not "murder" my CPU. On the contrary, it appears that my CPU will in no way hinder my system's performance in that game. In other words, if I had $600 to spend, I'd probably get more gaming performance boost out of a GTX 1080 than a new mobo/CPU/RAM.
 
kalrith said:
It looks like CPU can make a big difference in Watch Dog 2 if you're running 1080 SLI: http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/WATCH_DOGS_2/wd2_proz.png

The i5-2500k at 3.3 GHz runs it at 53fps minimum at 1080p. The AMD 480 runs it at 45fps: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dog_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

Given that my i5-2500k is overclocked to 4.3GHz and that the reviews show the CPU at stock capable of running faster than the AMD 480 can, I think it's safe to say that Watch Dog 2 will not "murder" my CPU. On the contrary, it appears that my CPU will in no way hinder my system's performance in that game. In other words, if I had $600 to spend, I'd probably get more gaming performance boost out of a GTX 1080 than a new mobo/CPU/RAM.
Click to expand...

New benches:

wd2_proz_2.png


A 2500K even overclocked is old rubbish in near 2017.
 
escrow4 said:
New benches: A 2500K even overclocked is old rubbish in near 2017.
Click to expand...
It's a Ubisoft game. That means 1 core is being used by 3x layers of DRM, 1 core by anti-cheat systems constantly scanning the whole system memory / locking down modding, preventing legitimate users from playing online, etc, leaving the remaining 2 cores for what little "game" there is buried underneath another 'formulaic' "tower climbing simulator" clone...

A game with a bundled kernel driver that adds unwanted Windows services that monitor files on your drive ends up running like cr*p on all CPU's? "It's the Ubisoft guarantee"... 😀
 
Last edited:
escrow4 said:
New benches:

wd2_proz_2.png


A 2500K even overclocked is old rubbish in near 2017.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming my point. A non-overclocked 2500k averages 45 fps which perfectly matches what my AMD 480 averages. My overclocked 2500k would do even better.

404 rubbish not found.
 
Odd, I always felt that the advantage of PC gaming was being able to throw a ton of money at it to get top notch performance, not stretch a penny.
 
kalrith said:
Thanks for confirming my point. A non-overclocked 2500k averages 45 fps which perfectly matches what my AMD 480 averages. My overclocked 2500k would do even better.

404 rubbish not found.
Click to expand...

It doesn't hit 60FPS for averages and nowhere close to 60FPS for minimums. When the engine inevitably dips there will be huge stutters you can feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top