Buy $3000 PC

Let me guess, US ISP? That would take me around 20 minutes.

>game code 150mb
>game sounds and textures 99.9gb

This. You can build 4 excellent gaming and general use computers for that money.

>nVidia/Intel
Who the fuck buys anything non-AMD? Ryzen is literally the best CPU right now. I can see buying nVidia if you're a winfag, but if you think you need anything stronger than a 1070/RX590 (since 1160 isn't out yet afaik) then you're retarded and just wasting money anyways. There's literally no "GPU price problem". Any GPU you'd need costs less than 400$. You don't need the strongest GPU on the market with a 500W TDP just because it exists.

I remember when the best video card you could get was 150$ in the early 000s

Why would you spend $3,000 on a pc? A ~$500 ryzen 2600 + Rx 570 is more than enough even at 1440p for like 80% of vidya.

I didn't say best price/performance build I said top of the line. Top of the line always carries the premium cost.

>AMD will crash it down in few months
You © Just ® Wait ™

In 2003, the fastest cards cost $400-$500.

You were ignorant if you thought the best video card was $150 in early 2000s.

>top of the line
That's a meme made up to steal money from idiots. A 4% better performance for 300% the cost can't be considered "top of the line" by any means.

>consider buying a $3000 PC
>no better than a $300 Playstation 4
>fuck that shit

starcitizen was a scam and the developers tried to skip out on making it AND were found on a private island refusing to finish the game.

it was clear it was going to be a cluster fuck of unoptimized assets with no overlap for generic shit like vehicle and astroid textures ECT. as a result every grate / vent /pipe is unique texture wise for no reason . realistically all the textures could have probably been recycled and little more than ten 1024x1024 images but instead become this series of mages that if printed out would be enough to make a book the size of gone with the wind

>buying Ayymd
>Ever
Lmao even saying ryzen is better what an idiot.
Seeth more while i enjoy my 9900k

Attached: 1528052068957.png (190x266, 5K)

But at what cost? At 1440p the $500 i9-9900K is only 5% better than a $150 2600 BEFORE OC'ing and the i9-9900K is literally impossible to OC without an industrial water chiller. At 4K both processors have essentially the same performance.

techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/19.html

How many frames did the ps4 do again?

Consoles are nice when you have your casual pleb friends over for weed and fun.
Sitting in a couch and chilling, but other than that it's just a glorified netflix device.

4%? More like 0% Am i rite? My $10 from 30 years ago is just as fast XDDD

>$3k for vidya

Wew

>Who the fuck buys anything non-AMD? Ryzen is literally the best CPU right now.

Oh brother.

that's enough for 1080, for 1440 you need the 580

You're retarded. As expected from an average mindless consumerist sheep.

see
Are we REALLY going to pretend that you should still be playing at 1080p when the rtx 2070 or even a $400 vega 64 does 60-80 fps at 4K res?

I beg to differ, 570s are more likely to OC than 580s so even with 150-200mhz OC you're 90% within the performance of a stock 580. Why pay like $50 more for 10% better performance out of the box?

I will take 144 FPS at 1080p over 60 FPS at 4K every time.

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600/4028vs3955

Effective speed +38%, averague user bench +44%. Fuck off shill

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/4028vs3958

Effective speed +21%. The 2700x is $310. My i9 9900k is overclocked to 5ghz at 1.31v. Max temps on air are 85c with prime95, never above 70c in games. Obviously AMD is better performance per dollar, but who cares about that. You aren't poor, are you?

Spent 1000$ for my rig

1080Ti sli (paid for by mining) free+ profit
9800X 8c 16t 590$ 4.5Ghz
X299 Dark 220$
32GB 3200Mhz ram Gskill white sticks

Beats any ayyymd and SLI is smooth in frame time, check the pic of that flat Frametime chart. Not a single micro stutter

Attached: A3AFDBE3-1A6C-4F88-A0AC-26DA7D400ABA.jpg (1242x1049, 1.28M)

But would you do that when even TN displays can't keep up with the frame times? A lot of purported "1ms" TN displays will actually have 4-8ms of average response time. That kind of response time is only acceptable at 60 fps or lower. We don't have affordable oled/microled monitors yet.

144Hz = ~7ms frame times

That is for MULTICORE NOT SINGLE THREADED performance you fucking retard. At 1440p the difference is 5% between the 2600 and the 9900K.

Why do you like wasting money so much?

What industrial water chiller are you using?

The only game you need is 2hu.

Anything above 1080p is irrelevant. Anyone using 1440p and above is retarded and their opinions don't count.

I'll be the one to say: as an intard myself (delided 8400) there is a point where getting a "better" CPU only gives you single digit gains and at that point it's not worth it anymore. You can have a 5.1 GHz i9-9900K but if it's paired with a shitty gtx 1070 or worse it's going to perform abhorrently when compared to a system with a 2600 and an rtx 2080 or vega 7.

The CPU wars are over, now begins the struggle for 90 fps at 4K res and 8+GB graphics cards so VR will stop being shit.

Higher resolutions offer more detail and clarity.

Correct me if I'm wrong but at 2 feet away from the screen human beings are able to discern up to 150 ppi.

27" 1080p = 81 PPI
27" 1440p = 108 PPI
27" 4K = 163 PPI

Of course you can apply 128X MSAA to 1080p but it will never look as detailer and crystal clear as a native 4K rendering resolution with no AA.

and yet all PC games are PS4 ports. enjoy your $3000 placebo.

The i9 9900k's single core performance is 22% greater than the 2700x and 32% better than the 2600. That's without an overclock.

techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/

>here it was 13% faster on average with a 21% greater frame time result.

That's over a 2700x, the 2600 is shit in bfv

A couple hundred dollars is nothing to me when you consider how long you keep components for.

nh-d15

I literally can't see a difference in screens above 1080p and I have perfect vision. Even smartphone screens.
If you sit unnaturally close to your screen of course it will look like shit.
>at 2 feet
I don't have anyone's foot with me to figure out what this distance means.

Might wanna get your vision checked lmao

>have perfect vision
>LMAO CHECK YOUR VISION
Fuck off, consumerist sheep.

What RAM was used in that test?

(you don't have perfect vision if you can't discern between 1080p and 1440p on a pc monitor)

>"I have perfect vision but I someone can't tell the difference between 86 PPI and 150+ PPI despite people with actual perfect vision being able to discern 700+ PPI"
lul

Rgb has a tax user

I'm not even the same guy, but you're ignoring his point that at 1440p or more, the gaps shrinks since you hit a GPU bottleneck before a CPU. In the only comparison between the two CPUs in 1440p, the 9900k is 13% and 21% faster on average and minimum fps.

Anyone claiming you'll have the better gaming experience with a AMD CPU is delusional. The sensible argument is that paying an Intel premium doesn't make sense IF you're running at 1440p or more. For 1080p AND high refresh rates Intel is king. So, you buy Intel if

a) You want high refresh rate
b) You want lower resolutions

Any other use cases and Intel loses it's appeal. Not because it's worse, but because you're paying more for the same experience. 140fps on a 60hz monitor is a waste.

Attached: 9900k.png (1328x1091, 55K)

>what is different size screens
I'm not talking about a gigantic 4k TV vs a gigantic FHD TV.

Yes, it's not noticeable unless you literally force yourself to focus on pixels and get close or if you have a huge screen.

Accurate af

jesus christ i don't know who's trolling who anymore

Lmao feel bad 4 burgers.

Land of the rice got 10 gig connections

I dunno my 9900K seems to help out alot in 1440p and my 2080ti too.

even a shithole like Bulgaria as 1 gig connections ayy lmao at burgerland

Attached: 152478748829.png (1920x1080, 1.12M)

We can either talk about what seems or what is, mate.

>Frametime and 0.1 lows are the same thing

Lmao retard

Attached: IMG_20190205_141307.jpg (3648x1824, 1.16M)

tell me what is when it comes to any game built on unreal 4 or any strategy game. There are cases where you are right and cases where you arent. The other case comes to a game like that Anthem demo. When everyone else could barely run the game, I had no such issues. There are more use cases than just thinking of the standard dipshit playing something like csgo lol but some games no matter the hardware run like aids. 60% of the time ur right i wont need anything this strong, but in the rest of the situations it sure is damn nice to have. And thats just gaming alone. But people in this day and age have multiple monitors multiple programs so while you can make an argument for any one game sure, but when a person has 2 or more monitors as an example having more than 1 game open, chrome, adobe etc. all across monitors at the same resolution or higher I fail to realize how an 8 core monster that offers the best game/moderate workstation performance loses interest. The only reason why i jumped to it is because while my old i5 ran games amazingly, if I alt tabbed I'd brick up. now even in the most stressful situations my cpu never goes past 80% usage.

>Yes, it's not noticeable unless you literally force yourself to focus on pixels and get close or if you have a huge screen.
I have 27" 4K and 1440p monitors both. At ~65cm viewing distance the image quality on the 4K screens is very, very clearly superior to 1440p. 1080p at this screen size and viewing distance would be even worse than 1440p which is already visibly inferior.

You're literally schizophrenic. Re-read my post and find any semblance to anything related to what you've rambled, crazy motherfucker.