Support NeoGAF

[orava]

I would gladly spend $500 on a PC. It's way too much for a console though.

 

[JamesJoyce1882]

There is no way a PC capable of producing a similar visual experience as the XBX in actual games can be built in the coming year:

In order to compensate for the lack of specific optimization, a PC GPU needs to be much stronger than just the hardware specs of the console. Once Forza 7 comes out, this will become obvious. I predict one will need at least a 1070, probably a 1080, to match the graphical quality of the XBX.

Another example for this is Rise of the Tomb Raider. That game has no business looking this good on PS4 pro. No chance in hell of getting that quality on the PC equivalent of the PS4 pro GPU.

 

[Lucifon]

Even if you find a build that can match it it's a weird one because the nature of consoles is different. Pc games are often brute forced to achieve performance rather than optimised for the hardware. Despite the high price it seems MS are putting together a package of pretty decent value for 2017 realistically speaking, it just still feels steep compared to the competition.

Hopefully they'll throw in a game to sweeten the deal. The XB1 and XB1S both launched with a free included game.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

No shit they struggled.

 

[Fredrik]

huh? 800 is plenty of money to spend on a well planned out pc.

Yes, but as a core gamer, why would you stop there? What's the point if you just barely match the consoles? I think most core gamer who decide to buy a gaming PC will invest more than $800 on their new rig. Look at the price of the 1070-to-1080ti and how popular those cards are on a core gamer board like this. Look at the price of a nice gsync or freesync screen.
Personally I don't know any core gamer that only spend $500-$800 on their whole PC, I'd say that it's more common to spend that on a regular upgrade. You totally _can_ buy a cheap PC, but how many does that among core gamers?

 

[joecanada]

That's great and all and you can write an essay on how much more practical or versatile or the 15,000 things that your PC can do better than an xbox but that's not what is being talked about here.
People are comparing the cost of a new xbonex and a new PC. Not the cost of upgrading your older PC and buying a new Xbox and then getting all defensive and saying how much better their PC is.

This is the real world though where people can easily buy used, reuse, sales, borrow , and have to pay for online , software , etc . Noone cares about a hypothetical set of rules like " hey compare these exact things that will fit everyone" .. it's a starting point to a conversation nothing more. In the real world you can get good value out of both scenarios but only if you care. If you don't care about money just buy everything. My friend has a pro, 1400 pc and will probably buy a x1x .... Me not so much the consumer I'm looking for long term investment.

Yes, but as a core gamer, why would you stop there? What's the point if you just barely match the consoles? I think most core gamer who decide to buy a gaming PC will invest more than $800 on their new rig. Look at the price of the 1070-to-1080ti and how popular those cards are on a core gamer board like this. Look at the price of a nice gsync or freesync screen.
Personally I don't know any core gamer that only spend $500-$800 on their whole PC, I'd say that it's more common to spend that on a regular upgrade. You totally _can_ buy a cheap PC, but how many does that among core gamers?

My i5 6500 + 1060 was 1040 Canadian and it's more than enough for me .... That's less than 800 last I checked exchange... It doesn't just barely match consoles lol.

 

[Sad Affleck]

In order to compensate for the lack of specific optimization, a PC GPU needs to be much stronger than just the hardware specs of the console.

No, not really. We'll see what happens when Forza 7 comes out but unless it's a very bad port I feel confident in saying that the X1X will provide similar performance to an equivalent PC GPU.

Another example for this is Rise of the Tomb Raider. That game has no business looking this good on PS4 pro. No chance in hell of getting that quality on the PC equivalent of the PS4 pro GPU.

Did you do any research on that? An RX470 is a bit faster that the Pro and it performs better than the Pro in Rise of the Tomb Raider. What did you base that claim on?

 

[Sweep14]

They said they weren't.

They probably didn't tell the complete truth.

 

[Steel]

There is no way a PC capable of producing a similar visual experience as the XBX in actual games can be built in the coming year:

In order to compensate for the lack of specific optimization, a PC GPU needs to be much stronger than just the hardware specs of the console. Once Forza 7 comes out, this will become obvious. I predict one will need at least a 1070, probably a 1080, to match the graphical quality of the XBX.

Another example for this is Rise of the Tomb Raider. That game has no business looking this good on PS4 pro. No chance in hell of getting that quality on the PC equivalent of the PS4 pro GPU.

What am I even reading. Before citing examples, you might want to actually look at the PC equivalent of the pro, the 470(Well, a downclocked 470), performance in the same game. Yes, the 470 performs better than the Pro in that game. The 470 plays it at absolute max settings and always remains above 30 fps.

Keep in mind the pro does not play the game at ultra settings, it plays the game at very high settings. Hell even the 380 a gpu much older than the pro performs on par with the pro in that game.

What, did you just play rise of the tomb raider, marveled at how pretty it is and thought, "Wow no way a PC could do that with equivalent hardware"?

There is no such thing as coding to the metal. That's just marketing talk that you're more than happy to fall for.

 

[Fredrik]

This is the real world though where people can easily buy used, reuse, sales, borrow , and have to pay for online , software , etc . Noone cares about a hypothetical set of rules like " hey compare these exact things that will fit everyone" .. it's a starting point to a conversation nothing more. In the real world you can get good value out of both scenarios but only if you care. If you don't care about money just buy everything. My friend has a pro, 1400 pc and will probably buy a x1x .... Me not so much the consumer I'm looking for long term investment.



My i5 6500 + 1060 was 1040 Canadian and it's more than enough for me .... That's less than 800 last I checked exchange... It doesn't just barely match consoles lol.

Less than $800 in total in a plug and play state, screen included? Isn't the 1060 4TF too? I'm sure the CPU is leagues above consoles but the GPU?

 

[Joey Ravn]

Less than $800 in total in a plug and play state, screen included? Isn't the 1060 4TF too? I'm sure the CPU is leagues above consoles but the GPU?

No one in their right mind will include the TV as part of the price of a console. A monitor shouldn't be any different.

 

[Steel]

Less than $800 in total in a plug and play state, screen included? Isn't the 1060 4TF too? I'm sure the CPU is leagues above consoles but the GPU?

Nvidia TF =/= AMD terraflops. The 480 has 5.8 tf but performs on par with the 1060, both of which are better than the pro by a decent margin and a little less than the X1X.

And in fact, if that poster cheaped on the CPU to a G4560 that still blasts the console's cpus out of the water that computer could cost <$400 new. That being said, why the hell would you include the monitor? That's like including a console's tv.

 

[FairFriend]

There is no way a PC capable of producing a similar visual experience as the XBX in actual games can be built in the coming year:

In order to compensate for the lack of specific optimization, a PC GPU needs to be much stronger than just the hardware specs of the console. Once Forza 7 comes out, this will become obvious. I predict one will need at least a 1070, probably a 1080, to match the graphical quality of the XBX.

Another example for this is Rise of the Tomb Raider. That game has no business looking this good on PS4 pro. No chance in hell of getting that quality on the PC equivalent of the PS4 pro GPU.

.

I can run ROTR at better settings than PS4 standard on an ancient overclocked 7850 (at 30 fps 1080p of course). Don't know about the specifics of the pro version but in my experience the console optimization and coding to the metal is not a factor as important as people usually think when the PC port is good. In this specific case I guess that having a decent CPU (fx 8300 @ 4Ghz) and DX 12 help the situation a lot.

As for the topic at hand, a game like crackdown 3, which appears to be CPU bounded, could perhaps run at higher framerates on a 500$ rig to be built when XBOX comes out. As I noticed in the other thread a CPU like the one I mentioned can be found for 85$, and it absolutely stomps on the Jaguar

 

[Sad Affleck]

There is no such thing as coding to the metal. That's just marketing talk that you're more than happy to fall for.

Just a small point, coding to the metal on consoles is very real, as is CPU overhead, driver overhead and OS overhead on PC. It's just that nowadays all these factors don't matter much when it comes to performance. Consoles have very weak CPUs so no amount of coding to the metal can help them at least match even bargain-priced PC CPUs. PCs are powerful enough to run games at the best possible performance with resources to spare for the driver and OS. DX11 and Nvidia's optimizations cut a lot of that driver overhead down and modern low-level APIs like DX12 and Vulkan bring PC development a lot closer to console-like coding to the metal. Both consoles use AMD GPUs so any specific console GPU optimizations can and do largely apply to AMD PC GPUs too. The end result is as you said, a PC GPU performing similarly to a console GPU. The myth of needing a GPU twi ce as powerful as the console one to achieve the same results is dead.

 

[Gameplay>Story&&Graphics]

...But it is a stupid comparison. PC and console are different things.

And some of you even have size as an argument that a PC would be even more expensive when built the same size as X1X.

Well then I would like to argue that the Nintendo Switch is the most powerful machine ever made for 299. The most bang for any buck in the history of mankind.

How much would it cost you to build a PC that you can fit in your pocket and dock to your TV with the same specs as a Switch? That takes cartridges? Where you can fit the controller on each side of the console while poratable? With accelerometer, gyroscope, and brightness sensor?

And you are complaining about the Switch battery life, well how long would your pocket size portable PC last while playing in the park?

Thought so...Go out and buy a Switch now, coz comparison.

 

[ISee]

Even if you find a build that can match it it's a weird one because the nature of consoles is different. Pc games are often brute forced to achieve performance rather than optimised for the hardware. Despite the high price it seems MS are putting together a package of pretty decent value for 2017 realistically speaking, it just still feels steep compared to the competition.

Hopefully they'll throw in a game to sweeten the deal. The XB1 and XB1S both launched with a free included game.

No. Most games are able to run as good on PC hardware with console like specs as on said cobsoles. Are there exceptions? Of course and first party devs can do incredible stuff with the limited hardware they have to work with. But most AAA games perform and scale very well across different levels of hardware.

 

[Steel]

...But it is a stupid comparison. PC and console are different things.

And some of you even have size as an argument that a PC would be even more expensive when built the same size as X1X.

Well then I would like to argue that the Nintendo Switch is the most powerful machine ever made for 299. The most bang for any buck in the history of mankind.

How much would it cost you to build a PC that you can fit in your pocket and dock to your TV with the same specs as a Switch? That takes cartridges? Where you can fit the controller on each side of the console while poratable? With accelerometer, gyroscope, and brightness sensor?

And you are complaining about the Switch battery life, well how long would your pocket size portable PC last while playing in the park?

Thought so...Go out and buy a Switch now, coz comparison.

I mean, GPD win has somewhat similar performance to the switch at 720p for $350(GDP win has a much better processor, Switch has a better GPU, both can run skyrim, well eventually). It's a smaller handheld, too with built in controls, similiar battery life, both have touch screens, has an accelerometer, ability to tv out, GDP win has a bigger library, and a nice clamshell design. So.....

Just a small point, coding to the metal on consoles is very real, as is CPU overhead, driver overhead and OS overhead on PC. It's just that nowadays all these factors don't matter much when it comes to performance. Consoles have very weak CPUs so no amount of coding to the metal can help them at least match even bargain-priced PC CPUs. PCs are powerful enough to run games at the best possible performance with resources to spare for the driver and OS. DX11 and Nvidia's optimizations cut a lot of that driver overhead down and modern low-level APIs like DX12 and Vulkan bring PC development a lot closer to console-like coding to the metal. Both consoles use AMD GPUs so any specific console GPU optimizations can and do largely apply to AMD PC GPUs too. The end result is as you said, a PC GPU performing similarly to a console GPU. The myth of needing a GPU twi ce as powerful as the console one to achieve the same results is dead.

You're right, but it's effectively the same result as saying it doesn't exist.

 

[metareferential]

That 8 core cpu is useless.

Buying used parts would get the build further in performance while keeping the price down.

So they build the system and no benchmarks? Great journalism.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

It doesn't matter how good your GPU is if your CPU hobbles it, and that's the problem with all consoles, you may have a 1070 equivalent card but it's not being used fully so it's just wasted power. You'll get better results with a 1060 plus decent CPU. Paying for a premium console and still only getting 30fps is just nuts to me.

 

[Izuna]

PC World, as in Curry's PC World? Lmao

 

[TJP]

Mass produced console cheaper than equivalent PC shocker. How many times do we need these stories to be published?

Hope there is a story how an iPod & earbuds are cheaper than a Linn hi-fi setup.

 

[Lister]

There is no way a PC capable of producing a similar visual experience as the XBX in actual games can be built in the coming year:

In order to compensate for the lack of specific optimization, a PC GPU needs to be much stronger than just the hardware specs of the console. Once Forza 7 comes out, this will become obvious. I predict one will need at least a 1070, probably a 1080, to match the graphical quality of the XBX.

Another example for this is Rise of the Tomb Raider. That game has no business looking this good on PS4 pro. No chance in hell of getting that quality on the PC equivalent of the PS4 pro GPU.

I'm hoping this is some sort of joke post.

 

[OfTheOverflow]

Yeah, we'll buy parts at consumer price and try to match a custom built system with business prices. Oh, we didn't manage to? What a shock.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[almostjuliuscaesar]

Yeah, we'll buy parts at consumer price and try to match a custom built system with business prices. Oh, we didn't manage to? What a shock.

Yea idk how people thought this was gonna go vs custom built parts bought in bulk at direct sale pricing

 

[Fredrik]

No one in their right mind will include the TV as part of the price of a console. A monitor shouldn't be any different.

Everyone have a TV, even if they've never had a console. Everyone doesn't have a PC monitor though. I had nothing at all when I started with PC gaming 4 years ago so not including the monitor in the total price would be totally weird, especially since I wanted great stuff all around and went for gsync at least in the middle screen.

Nvidia TF =/= AMD terraflops. The 480 has 5.8 tf but performs on par with the 1060, both of which are better than the pro by a decent margin and a little less than the X1X.

And in fact, if that poster cheaped on the CPU to a G4560 that still blasts the console's cpus out of the water that computer could cost <$400 new.

A little less than XBOX isn't what was said though, rather that it was much better.
And like I said above, I didn't have a PC monitor when I started with PC gaming so not including that in the total price would be weird.
I already had a TV when I started with console gaming though. However, if I would buy an XBOX I would buy a 4K TV too, which would make the total price a lot higher than $499.

 

[ElfArmy177]

What am I even reading. Before citing examples, you might want to actually look at the PC equivalent of the pro, the 470(Well, a downclocked 470), performance in the same game. Yes, the 470 performs better than the Pro in that game. The 470 plays it at absolute max settings and always remains above 30 fps.



Keep in mind the pro does not play the game at ultra settings, it plays the game at very high settings. Hell even the 380 a gpu much older than the pro performs on par with the pro in that game.

What, did you just play rise of the tomb raider, marveled at how pretty it is and thought, "Wow no way a PC could do that with equivalent hardware"?

There is no such thing as coding to the metal. That's just marketing talk that you're more than happy to fall for.

I actually disagree that coding to the metal is marketing talk. You're telling me there is no difference in performance for games made to take advantage of nvidia hardware vs amd? There is most definitely an aspect of "coding to the metal". For Christ sake people cmon. Yea the phrase coding to the metal is silly, but you better bet your ass if you gave a developer a PC to SPECIFICALLY make a game for it's going to run smoothest on that PC vs others that take thousands of configuration in mind. Hell, denuvo makes games run slower and that's just fucking software to check for piracy.


The problem with many of you is you're so hell bent on your own bullshit opinion you're blinded to the points of the other side. Take the devil's advocate point of view for once in your lives and realize there are pros and cons to each side, not just your close minded opinion on what's "supposed" to be correct.

Also, get the hell over the fact that people are buying an Xbox one x for 500$. It's not your money and they are going to do it regardless of you liking it or not. What difference does it make to you? Why are you even trying or arguing? It's obviously not for you so keep your opinion about people wasting money or buying a PC or yadda yadda to yourselves... It's literally going to change nothing.

 

[low-G]

There is no way a PC capable of producing a similar visual experience as the XBX in actual games can be built in the coming year:

In order to compensate for the lack of specific optimization, a PC GPU needs to be much stronger than just the hardware specs of the console. Once Forza 7 comes out, this will become obvious. I predict one will need at least a 1070, probably a 1080, to match the graphical quality of the XBX.

Another example for this is Rise of the Tomb Raider. That game has no business looking this good on PS4 pro. No chance in hell of getting that quality on the PC equivalent of the PS4 pro GPU.

Except now that there are 3 models of Xbox they have to build for, and even "Xbox exclusives" are launching on PC, they won't specifically optimize like they used to. So you're going to get the equivalent of a PC in a box anymore.

 

[Magwik]

My thoughts exactly.

Yea idk how people thought this was gonna go vs custom built parts bought in bulk at direct sale pricing

That's
Not
The
Point
Of
This

 

[Beerman462]

I actually disagree that coding to the metal is marketing talk. You're telling me there is no difference in performance for games made to take advantage of nvidia hardware vs amd? There is most definitely an aspect of "coding to the metal". For Christ sake people cmon. Yea the phrase coding to the metal is silly, but you better bet your ass if you gave a developer a PC to SPECIFICALLY make a game for it's going to run smoothest on that PC vs others that take thousands of configuration in mind. Hell, denuvo makes games run slower and that's just fucking software to check for piracy.

Wow you seem upset. There are instances where games run better on NVIDIA or AMD and there is some advantage to building towards a set spec with regards to an exclusive title. The advantage is not nearly as great as some people believe and in the case of most third parties non existent. The Xbox OX is a slick piece of hardware no doubt, just don't expect it to outperform equivalent PC hardware in a substantial way.

 

[tuxfool]

I actually disagree that coding to the metal is marketing talk. You're telling me there is no difference in performance for games made to take advantage of nvidia hardware vs amd? There is most definitely an aspect of "coding to the metal". For Christ sake people cmon. Yea the phrase coding to the metal is silly, but you better bet your ass if you gave a developer a PC to SPECIFICALLY make a game for it's going to run smoothest on that PC vs others that take thousands of configuration in mind. Hell, denuvo makes games run slower and that's just fucking software to check for piracy.

The issue here as people have pointed out isn't that you can target workloads to favour an architecture, but rather the impact it has is fairly negligible. Moreover, game developers will generally opt to get something that works relatively well everywhere, rather than hyperoptimize for a single target.

 

[LordRaptor]

I actually disagree that coding to the metal is marketing talk. You're telling me there is no difference in performance for games made to take advantage of nvidia hardware vs amd? There is most definitely an aspect of "coding to the metal".

But game developers aren't the ones doing that.
Engineers from NVidia and AMD are, and they are rolling that work out as drivers, not as videogames.

 

[Elandyll]

Didn't they recently publicly say they're not selling at a loss or profit?

Spencer said they aren't making a profit.

He was far more evasive on the loss question, which leads me to think they are likely losing between $10 and $50 per machine, which 2 games sold online or a single XBL yearly sub would cover.

 

[kinggroin]

What am I even reading. Before citing examples, you might want to actually look at the PC equivalent of the pro, the 470(Well, a downclocked 470), performance in the same game. Yes, the 470 performs better than the Pro in that game. The 470 plays it at absolute max settings and always remains above 30 fps.



Keep in mind the pro does not play the game at ultra settings, it plays the game at very high settings. Hell even the 380 a gpu much older than the pro performs on par with the pro in that game.

What, did you just play rise of the tomb raider, marveled at how pretty it is and thought, "Wow no way a PC could do that with equivalent hardware"?

There is no such thing as coding to the metal. That's just marketing talk that you're more than happy to fall for.

....dayum. Do more. DO MORE!!

 

[Kssio_Aug]

The problem with many of you is you're so hell bent on your own bullshit opinion you're blinded to the points of the other side. Take the devil's advocate point of view for once in your lives and realize there are pros and cons to each side, not just your close minded opinion on what's "supposed" to be correct.

Also, get the hell over the fact that people are buying an Xbox one x for 500$. It's not your money and they are going to do it regardless of you liking it or not. What difference does it make to you? Why are you even trying or arguing? It's obviously not for you so keep your opinion about people wasting money or buying a PC or yadda yadda to yourselves... It's literally going to change nothing.

I'm not seeing this kind of thing too much in this thread. Who is saying XBX is a waste of money? Who is saying there's no benefit in buying the console? People were just replying to a really crazy post talking some sense into it. I think you're overracting.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

They're likely taking a loss on the hardware.

Nah... they're just not buying the parts at Newegg

 

[Beerman462]

Nah... they're just not buying the parts at Newegg

Yeah, people over estimate the price of this thing. One thing worth noting is the Xbox One X has 40CUs. The 580 only has 36. The Xbox also has the Jaguar cores on the same Silicon. Even so the lower clock of the Xbox and the "hovis method" should help to reduce binning.

People should consider this. A retail 580 is $240. That's half the price of an Xbox One X. It has 8GB DDR5. It has slightly less silicon. It has a gang of ports. Then the PCB and cooling. At this point you are talking about a case, controller, and the two drives to finish up the console. MS might not be making much on this thing, but they aren't loosing money either.

 

[TatteredHat]

There are a ton of reasons why it's not possible at the moment and another ton of reasons why that's not a big deal.

 

[EGM1966]

Why compare retail markup prices to supplier cost prices?

I don't get this strange obsession comparing PC builds to consoles. It's not apples to apples and neither is their value/service proposition.

 

[mas8705]

So is that to say that we can justify the 1X's price range of $500? It does seem like it was going to be a powerful system that was going to be high in the price range, but they probably wanted to avoid the 599 US Dollars that Sony fell in back with the PS3.

 

[Neptonic]

As a PC guy, that hardware is really impressive for the price

 

[nkarafo]

They can try again the day the console will be released.

 

[joecanada]

Everyone have a TV, even if they've never had a console. Everyone doesn't have a PC monitor though. I had nothing at all when I started with PC gaming 4 years ago so not including the monitor in the total price would be totally weird, especially since I wanted great stuff all around and went for gsync at least in the middle screen.

A little less than XBOX isn't what was said though, rather that it was much better.
And like I said above, I didn't have a PC monitor when I started with PC gaming so not including that in the total price would be weird.
I already had a TV when I started with console gaming though. However, if I would buy an XBOX I would buy a 4K TV too, which would make the total price a lot higher than $499.

I bought my led IPS for 40 bucks if you want to add it in the price. My build response was to a poster who said why go less than a grand on pc. I will have two years gaming on it before x1 releases.

 

[Leonidas]

What am I even reading. Before citing examples, you might want to actually look at the PC equivalent of the pro, the 470(Well, a downclocked 470), performance in the same game. Yes, the 470 performs better than the Pro in that game. The 470 plays it at absolute max settings and always remains above 30 fps.

Keep in mind the pro does not play the game at ultra settings, it plays the game at very high settings. Hell even the 380 a gpu much older than the pro performs on par with the pro in that game.

What, did you just play rise of the tomb raider, marveled at how pretty it is and thought, "Wow no way a PC could do that with equivalent hardware"?

There is no such thing as coding to the metal. That's just marketing talk that you're more than happy to fall for.

Your graph shows benchmarks for Tomb Raider (2013) not Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Ryzen 5 and board from microcenter $179
6gb 1060 $200
Psu $15
8gb ram $50
1tb hdd $30
Case $20
Linux

$494 total

Done

Uhd bluray isn't a realistic consideration as there isn't any pc software that plays it. A PC does x1000 things the Xbox can.

Factor in xbox live and youre really looking at a $700 build price too if you have the Xbox for a few years

 

[Freshmaker]

Ryzen 5 and board from microcenter $179
6gb 1070 $200
Psu $15
8gb ram $50
1tb hdd $30
Case $20
Linux

$494 total

Done

There is no such thing as a $200 1070 much less a 6gb version.

 

[Joe White]

Uhd bluray isn't a realistic consideration as there isn't any pc software that plays it.

Yes there is, PowerDVD 17 Ultra.

 

[kiyomi]

There is no such thing as a $200 1070 much less a 6gb version.

Guessing he meant the 1060 6GB version, but even that starts at $240.

As much as I love PC gaming and don't really believe the XBOX will hit 4K/60 in many games, I have to concede it will end up looking a pretty impressive piece of hardware for the price.

 

[ZOONAMI]

There is no such thing as a $200 1070 much less a 6gb version.

$250 then, but can be had on sale for less, either way $545 total is in line with Xbox one given live.

 

[Magwik]

Ryzen 5 and board from microcenter $179
6gb 1070 $200
Psu $15
8gb ram $50
1tb hdd $30
Case $20
Linux

$494 total

Done

Uhd bluray isn't a realistic consideration as there isn't any pc software that plays it. A PC does x1000 things the Xbox can.

Factor in xbox live and youre really looking at a $700 build price too if you have the Xbox for a few years

A $15 PSU for a $200 1070?????

Pffffffffft
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is the best shit I've read all week

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I would gladly spend $500 on a PC. It's way too much for a console though.

I'd gladly, and have, spent well more than that. Difference being I work at home a lot and need a reasonably competent CPU and RAM for my work. Not a big deal to spend a bit more and throw a gaming GPU in. I think I spent $200 more than the non-gaming set ups I was looking at last year ( I don't give a shit about 4K anytime soon so a 970 was good enough).