I am not a tech savvy person - and my son needs a new gaming desktop that can run Monster Hunter Wilds. Could you please help me figure out if either of these two options will work? Option 1 is significantly cheaper, so I’m holding my fingers crossed for that one.

Thank you all in advance!

Specs for Monster Hunter Wilds:

  • CPU: Intel® Core™ i5-11600K or Intel® Core™ i5-12400 or AMD - Ryzen™ 5 3600X or AMD Ryzen™ 5 5500
  • RAM: 16 GB
  • VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA® GeForce® RTX 2070 Super(VRAM 8GB) or NVIDIA® GeForce® RTX 4060(VRAM 8GB) or AMD Radeon™ RX - 6700XT(VRAM 12GB)
  • DEDICATED VIDEO RAM: 8 GB (AMD 12GB)
  • PIXEL SHADER: 6.0
  • VERTEX SHADER: 6.0
  • FREE DISK SPACE: 140 GB

OPTION 1:

OPTION 2:

  • Noxy@pawb.socialEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    If you can afford option 2 go with option 2. That CPU especially is so much better, on top of the video card improvement.

    Wilds specifically is poorly engineered, just look at the Steam reviews. If that’s the main game he wants to play, every little bit helps make it run slightly less awfully, but also other demanding games will benefit as well

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    20·
    3 days ago

    As others have said #1 will do the job, but their expectations should be tempered. Even people with extraordinary computers struggle with performance issues with that game specifically. The engine that game was designed on was not made for the type of game they made and it has been struggling since day 1.

    I love the game, put many many hours into it, but even with a brand new rebuild that is closer to option #2 but a better processor, slightly worse graphics card, and more memory, my computer struggles a bit with it and I get noticeable performance drops.

  • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
    161·
    3 days ago

    Yeah option 1 should be fine and should be fine for almost every game until he gets older, gets a job, and buys a new rig himself or does upgrades.

  • deranger@sh.itjust.works
    14·
    3 days ago

    Option 2.

    Buying less expensive things can be more expensive in the long run. With option 1 you’re already behind the curve and will be needing upgrades sooner than option 2.

    • Dagnet@lemmy.world
      131·
      3 days ago

      I would agree but at least from those links, option 2 is almost 2x the price. Sadly wilds will run like shit no matter the machine you got, option 1 would be better value even in the long run (and I hate Intel)

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        3 days ago

        I believe the price difference is made up by the current generation CPU and GPU, plus the fact AMD Is much more upgrade friendly with CPUs when they time comes. Also, X3D whips ass in games. I’m still rocking a 5800X3D and don’t feel behind the times whatsoever with my gaming rig.

        I do not believe option 1 to be the value proposition for gaming, despite the significantly lower price.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 days ago

          Upgrade friendly doesnt really make sense, the CPUs are either AM4 or AM5 right now. If you want to “future proof” in any way you’d just want to make sure you get an AM5 motherboard+CPU combo. AM4 is find but when upgrade time comes youll likely need to replace the motherboard and/or the CPU.

          • deranger@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            2 days ago

            7800X3D is AM5 which is AMDs current socket. Of the choices presented, this is the most likely to be supported in the future, which is why I suggested this option.

            I never suggested an AM4 setup, nor is it an option presented. I’m merely sharing an anecdote that my current 5800X3D is still very relevant for gaming, so I believe a 7800X3D will fare similarly.

    • QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      2 days ago

      it’s a really controversial take but if you’re building a PC spend a ton of the money on the PCB so you have more options for upgrading in the future

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    12·
    3 days ago

    I’d suggest a little of both. A 7600x is $150. A 5600ti 16gb is $429. 1tb SSD is fine.

    This will cost the same as option 1. It will last years and then you’ll be able to upgrade the CPU, GPU and SSD.

    There’s no Ultra 7 as good as the best AMD for gaming right now. So in 5 years you’ll definitely be able to pick up a better AMD for cheap but there won’t be an equivalent cheap Intel without replacing the Motherboard.

  • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
    12·
    3 days ago

    Neither of the PCs you linked come with a monitor. These questions are hard to answer without knowing what resolution you want to run the game at. Running it at 1080p is very different from 1440p and 4k.

  • boletus@sh.itjust.works
    7·
    2 days ago

    First one is more than good enough to play this game, not sure why they mark the cpu as 1.8ghz but it can actually do 5.3.

    That said, the second one will last a bit longer, maybe.

  • impudentmortal@lemmy.world
    101·
    3 days ago

    Option 1 will work for a while. The only thing you will need for the near-ish future is larger storage. Games nowadays take up so much space and 1 TB won’t last long. Would recommend buying a 2-3TB HDD while you’re at Microcenter. They may even be able to install it for you

    • Forester@pawb.socialEnglish
      9·
      3 days ago

      you would not want a hard disk drive as reading data off of that will vastly slow the system performance.

      A solid state drive would be recommended. . Preferably an SSD that has caching.

      • Dhs92@piefed.socialEnglish
        5·
        3 days ago

        Most modern games will barely run when installed on a HDD as well. Especially open world games

    • deranger@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      3 days ago

      2TB HDDs, what is this the 2010s?

      Get a 1TB SSD for OS/games and 10TB HDD for media/cold storage. Neither are particularly pricey these days.

      • impudentmortal@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 days ago

        I guess 2 TB is also relatively small. However, considering that OP only mentioned one specific game their child wanted to play, I think it’s not an unreasonable amount of storage.

        If their kid also wants to do things like download/edit movies, graphic arts, or other storage heavy activities then of course they could go for a larger storage. It all depends on their needs and budget.

        • deranger@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          3 days ago

          2TB is SSD range now, is my point. Buying an HDD that small is kinda pointless. It’s massively outclassed in both speed and capacity by modern drives. It will be replaced quickly and end up being more expensive in the long run for more effort and a subpar experience.

          • impudentmortal@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 days ago

            Yeah I replied to another comment saying I’m surprised how cheap lower capacity SSDs have become. It was only like $100 more than a comparable HDD.

      • Owl@mander.xyz
        3·
        3 days ago

        Please, don’t buy an extra HDD, buy an SSD. The difference is that an HDD has a physical spinning disc inside of it (picture yourself a CD) while an SSD doesn’t rely on physical moving components like that, which makes them literally 10 or more times faster. If you have an old computer that is slow it’s very likely that it has an HDD and swapping it out for an SSD would make it feel new. Do not fall into the “HDDs are a bit cheaper” trap, it’s not worth it especially with those two machines

        • impudentmortal@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 days ago

          It’s been a long time since I’ve upgraded the storage on my PC so I am surprised at how much cheaper SSDs have gotten. The fact that a 4TB WD Black SSD is only $100 more than the HDD one is pretty crazy to me. With that in mind, if OP is willing to spend more money, than the SSD is definitely the way to go.

          One thing to note, however, is that Option 1 only has expansions for 3.5" storage (i.e. HDDs). So if OP does decide to go with Option 1, they’ll have to take the 1TB SSD it comes with and replace it with whatever they buy, rather than adding additional storage. Option 2, however, only has m.2 expandable storage so using only SSDs for that computer would be a lot easier.

  • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    6·
    2 days ago

    Make sure you check out their PowerSpec line, its Microcenters own custom builds and they tend to go above and beyond supporting them with any issues you might have. MSI and ASUS can be hard to deal with their customer service.

    Ive also seen Asus stuff returned at a higher rate than other brands so that could be a sign of build quality.

    I currently work at Microcenter so if you have any questions feel free to ask.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        2 days ago

        Usually clearance/refurbished stuff with protection on it is cheaper than new without for the same items.

        Inland is microcenters own brand so that stuff is cheaper and supported directly.

        We get refurbished graphics cards daily, and those are fantastic prices IMO.

        Youd likely want to start checking the website daily, I’d say late evening or early morning.

        Edit: just to add since this was about prebuilt PCs the only way to save money there is by only buying what you need now. If you dont care about “future proofing” you suddenly are looking at much cheaper computers.

  • dslashdx@lemmy.zip
    6·
    3 days ago

    Either option should be able to run the game, I’m just referencing what you’ve got picked out versus the listed minimum specs on Steam. That being said, option 2 is a significant upgrade, hence the cost. Without knowing more about what your son’s expectations are with respect to resolution and frame rate it’s hard to speculate about what will “work”. Hope that helps!

  • relativestranger@feddit.nlEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    either one meets or exceeds the requirements you posted for the game.

    note that if you’re able to shop in person at microcenter, many more options are available, including their own brand of prebuilts (powerspec) and custom-builds assembled in-store.

    • Bongles@lemmy.zip
      4·
      3 days ago

      Yeah but a while back they capped your monthly hours for the paid tiers to 100 (i think you pay to keep streaming after). I was easily averaging 3 hours a day as a kid, especially with weekends and summer vacations.

        • Bongles@lemmy.zip
          1·
          2 days ago

          I am judging a book by it’s cover here, but they said they’re not tech savvy, and asked the question in the post, so my assumption is that they themselves do not own one.

      • sturlabragason@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 days ago

        Yeah it’s probably enshittified since I last used it.

        I could not spring for a gaming rig but wanted to play BG3.

  • Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    I can see very little difference between the two, then again my PC refresh period is roughly eight years.

    Both will run Monster Hunter Wilds with possibly 15% difference in framerate, but very manageable whichever you choose. I’ve listed below some ideal components to look for in a PC - if you can find a desktop with most of them your son will be set for a decade:

    CPU:

    • Intel Core Ultra 265K/F or higher
    • AMD Ryzen 7900X3D or higher (X3D > X)

    GPU:

    • Nvidia 4080, 5070 or higher (but if you can wait one month, Super variants are going to be released soon - October-November is always a huge time for tech releases)
    • AMD Ryzen 9070XT or XTX

    RAM:

    • Minimum 32GB, DDR5, 5200MHz.
    • Brands: Corsair, Crucial, Kingston and PNY are the top

    SSD:

    • Minimum 2TB, M.2 NVME, 6000MB/s sequential read.
    • Brands: Samsung, Western Digital Black/Blue, Seagate, Corsair and, again, Kingston

    PSU (Power Supply):

    • Brands: Corsair, MSI

    Preference: Performance over RGB lighting aha