Should low rated players study GM games?

I realize this has been asked before in various forms, but was wondering what the value is for sub 1000 rated player, such as myself, studying GM games. As you can see from my games if you look at some, well some are good some and some are awful as expected for my rating level. Regarding GM games, I see the benefit for overall ideas and strategy, but when one plays opponents at my level, theory often goes out the door at move 5 or even earlier from the opponent, thus I feel like it's just tactics at that point. Then I wonder why I spend time looking at a Kasparov or Carlsen game, etc, since the main lines or nothing even close to them ever materializes. 

So, should I keep plugging away on looking at GM games in depth, or is simple chess fundamentals more important this point?

You have to learn how to take advantage of small mistakes first. Minor things such as "this piece is misplaced" or "he has just weakened his kingside with those pawn moves" and then learning how to take advantage of those. 

Low rated players can study games of Capablanca and earlier masters. They laid the foundations in chess.

Maurice Ashley (who was then agreed with on-stream by both Wesley So and Fabiano Caruana) is that one of the best ways to get better at chess is to consume well-annotated high-level games.

So part of your chess study should revolve around GM games, but don't just look at them!  Whether it's from a book or a YouTube video, the game should have commentary from other high-level players.  It can give insight in how to look at a position, identifying strengths and weakness, and ways to convert a position into a draw or win (among other things).

If the games are well annotated, then yes.  A collection like Irving Chernev's Logical Chess, Move by Move, Every Move Explained can be quite valuable.  It is true that tactics and board vision are most important at your level, but if you don't spend at least some time studying how chess should be played, you can end up developing terrible habits and "perfecting" your mistakes.  My $.02.

Yes, Chernev is good. I have it, would recommend.

Thanks guys. I see the overreaching theme is to make sure the games are well annotated for max effect. This makes sense and I'll focus on those. I have chessbase, so I have a bajillion games to look at, but not all are annotated. Yeah, I know, I don't "need" CB at my level, but I splurged and bought it so might as well make most of it.

One of the things I love about YT creators, like Levy, Hikaru, etc, is that they show you how to capitalize on say an opening sequence where you play theory, and if opponent plays x, y, or z, then here's the trap they fall into. With GM games, you pull it up, and well obviously these "traps" never happen at their level since they are, well, GMs. So, you just see theory for  the first 15 moves and don't see how to capitalize on common missteps in various positions. 

Mammoth Book of the World Greatest Chess Games is well annotated. Add it on your book library.

Getting good general ideas down helps a ton. Getting a sense of how pieces are laid out and where weak points are useful at every level. 

Watch youtube videos explaining the moves

People still do crazy stuffs at all levels. 

e. g.  BongCloud is still played by 3000+ online players. 

It is not you alone, I also have to deal with crazy stupid openings.  If I could not figure out,  I constantly need to review with Stockfish.

But study GM games and Clasical lines at any rate.