40 replies to this topic

[MaradrX]

I'll be in Prague next week but after I'll be reviewing and submitting the order. I'm looking forward to the process and trying not to buy anything that will leave me short.

[FEK315]

ArmageddonKnight, on 09 June 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/14Gwg

vwala
Didnt know if u had a OS to use from a older rig, or if u needed a optical drive. Since the OS is expensive and can be obtained by other means i didnt include it, but i did put in a optical drive since they be cheap.

If u absolutly cant go over $1k then just get a cheaper Case and maybe go down a grade on the motherboard, and ofc u have that $17 in the optical drive that u may or may not need if u have an old one to re use.

I am interested in this one, I am buying a computer for graphics editing and MWO. I want my MWO graphics to play on high but need to stay around 1300 dollars for the whole computer. That includes keyboard mouse Mechs and possibly a new monitor. I am also thinking about having it pre-made at Newegg. Is this budget feasible?

[Dragoon20005]

FEK315, on 16 June 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

I am interested in this one, I am buying a computer for graphics editing and MWO. I want my MWO graphics to play on high but need to stay around 1300 dollars for the whole computer. That includes keyboard mouse Mechs and possibly a new monitor. I am also thinking about having it pre-made at Newegg. Is this budget feasible?

i found some combos from NewEgg

http://www.newegg.co...t=Combo.1328731

http://www.newegg.co...t=Combo.1292364

http://www.newegg.co...t=Combo.1294568

[FEK315]

WOOOOOOT!
Thank you!!!
I like the first one and third.
I am going to try to put it together myself in the new few weeks. If I can't I'll take to a computer store.
thank you again can't wait to play with out the shuddering, chopping and lag!!!!

[CHWarpath]

Catamount, on 12 June 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

First off, that "crappy" i5 is faster in gaming than any AMD CPU on the market, so I'm not sure where you're pulling these adjectives out of. Secondly, the machine already has one of the best 7970s on the market, so you're concocting analogies that have nothing to do with this thread.

The GPU is important, and yes, it's more important in gaming than the CPU, but that does not mean the CPU is unimportant, and since I already have the OP spending just shy of twice as much on the GPU as the CPU, I'd say my build is considerably better than whatever you think you're suggesting.


The i5 is going to mean the difference between having MWO run at 60fps and having it not run at 60fps, since no AMD chip is capable of that. It's going to mean not chunking in other CPU-heavy multiplayer environments. It's going to mean not bottlenecking down the road because the OP didn't skimp and get some POS FX4300 in a thousand dollar build. It's going to mean not bottnecking whatever fast GPU you stuck in there by pairing, to use your own example, a $60 CPU with a $300 GPU.

If we're to follow your logic, then what the OP should really do is get a $900 GPU, and then spend $10 each on the case, PSU, RAM, CPU, HDD and motherboard, because having a $900 GPU is awesome, beacuse nothing but the GPU matters, AMIRITE?

Here in the corporeal world, however, when the budget does, in fact, permit, then having a faster CPU is advantageous, and the OP isn't exactly giving up something more important there, since the focus is already far more on the GPU. The OP is simply putting enough focus into the CPU to not bottleneck that fast GPU, and to not miss out on those games (including MWO) which are heavily CPU-centric. More to the point, throwing out $50-$80 will absolutely savagely cut the CPU, but isn't going to net a GPU that's in any way significantly faster to offset that loss, so what you're really suggesting is that the OP give up something important, and get nothing in return.

I realize it's fun to be an AMD fanatic; I'm one myself. Nevertheless, please, actually bother to consider the budget and build before making a suggestion like this.

Catamount, on 12 June 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

First off, that "crappy" i5 is faster in gaming than any AMD CPU on the market, so I'm not sure where you're pulling these adjectives out of. Secondly, the machine already has one of the best 7970s on the market, so you're concocting analogies that have nothing to do with this thread.

The GPU is important, and yes, it's more important in gaming than the CPU, but that does not mean the CPU is unimportant, and since I already have the OP spending just shy of twice as much on the GPU as the CPU, I'd say my build is considerably better than whatever you think you're suggesting.


The i5 is going to mean the difference between having MWO run at 60fps and having it not run at 60fps, since no AMD chip is capable of that. It's going to mean not chunking in other CPU-heavy multiplayer environments. It's going to mean not bottlenecking down the road because the OP didn't skimp and get some POS FX4300 in a thousand dollar build. It's going to mean not bottnecking whatever fast GPU you stuck in there by pairing, to use your own example, a $60 CPU with a $300 GPU.

If we're to follow your logic, then what the OP should really do is get a $900 GPU, and then spend $10 each on the case, PSU, RAM, CPU, HDD and motherboard, because having a $900 GPU is awesome, beacuse nothing but the GPU matters, AMIRITE?

Here in the corporeal world, however, when the budget does, in fact, permit, then having a faster CPU is advantageous, and the OP isn't exactly giving up something more important there, since the focus is already far more on the GPU. The OP is simply putting enough focus into the CPU to not bottleneck that fast GPU, and to not miss out on those games (including MWO) which are heavily CPU-centric. More to the point, throwing out $50-$80 will absolutely savagely cut the CPU, but isn't going to net a GPU that's in any way significantly faster to offset that loss, so what you're really suggesting is that the OP give up something important, and get nothing in return.

I realize it's fun to be an AMD fanatic; I'm one myself. Nevertheless, please, actually bother to consider the budget and build before making a suggestion like this.

You are also confused at how computers work apparently. I did not just start building computers a few years ago when I found Tomshardware threads created by people who were 19 years old. I have been building these things since 1994. Its not about being a fanatic its about being efficient and not wasting money when people ask about budget PC's for gaming. Your core i5 is only going to help you game on several titles, most of them being from console ports such as Skyrim. I suggest you do some of your own benchmarks and research benchmarks and get on my level. If you want a gaming PC on a budget you don't run out and buy CPU's that were designed for productivity. The various video graphic manufact. did not start making GPU's for PCI slots, AGP, and PCI Express slots because the CPU was so efficient, they created them because that is what is required for high resolution graphics and stable framerates. These basic principles are even taught in entry level college courses, introduction to operating systems. There is no excuse for such rampant ignorance with such vast resources available to people at the touch of a keyboard.

[Catamount]

CHWarpath, on 22 June 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

I did not just start building computers a few years ago when I found Tomshardware threads created by people who were 19 years old.

It's a pity, since you could learn a few things from the average 19 year old on the internet, like how to actually make a basic, relevant post, not to mention a readable one that isn't a single monolithic block of text.

In that massive block of a tirade about nothing, you didn't actually manage to make a single, solitary point, let alone address my point. When you can manage addressing those two things, then maybe we could slowly move towards having an actual discussion.

Why don't you start by actually suggesting a better build if you're so good at it. Then we can weigh the pros and cons. Of course, since your massive slashing of CPU power won't net enough extra money to meaningfully increase the GPU over what I suggested, that being that little point you completely failed to address, good luck

[CHWarpath]

Catamount, on 22 June 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

It's a pity, since you could learn a few things from the average 19 year old on the internet, like how to actually make a basic, relevant post, not to mention a readable one that isn't a single monolithic block of text.

In that massive block of a tirade about nothing, you didn't actually manage to make a single, solitary point, let alone address my point. When you can manage addressing those two things, then maybe we could slowly move towards having an actual discussion.

Why don't you start by actually suggesting a better build if you're so good at it. Then we can weigh the pros and cons. Of course, since your massive slashing of CPU power won't net enough extra money to meaningfully increase the GPU over what I suggested, that being that little point you completely failed to address, good luck

I'm sorry, I am not about to make a double spaced essay in MLA/APA format for you or dumb it down because you lack simple work ethic to read it. Your the expert, please continue to push intel products because websites like MaximumPC are paid to tell you they are so good. I mean who in their right mind would pay$159 for an 8 core CPU from AMD when you can pick up a dual core for the same price from Intel? I built a computer for an individual with a core i7 ivory bridge and a 660ti and I find it amazing that my old 45nm AMD 965 with an aging 6850 is pushing the same amount of frames in many games that I tested including this one. GPU>X86

Edited by CHWarpath, 22 June 2013 - 10:42 PM.

[Bloodshed Romance]

i'll go where I can spend the least amount of money and get really good stuff.. AMD has that.. if someone has the money i'll tell them to go intel because yes, PER CORE, intel is better.. but overall I think i'll stick with AMD.... and for the "19 year old" comments.... i'm 19

Edited by Bloodshed Romance, 22 June 2013 - 11:23 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

CHWarpath, on 22 June 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I am not about to make a double spaced essay in MLA/APA format for you or dumb it down because you lack simple work ethic to read it. Your the expert, please continue to push intel products because websites like MaximumPC are paid to tell you they are so good. I mean who in their right mind would pay$159 for an 8 core CPU from AMD when you can pick up a dual core for the same price from Intel? I built a computer for an individual with a core i7 ivory bridge and a 660ti and I find it amazing that my old 45nm AMD 965 with an aging 6850 is pushing the same amount of frames in many games that I tested including this one. GPU>X86

Your wrong.
The I5 will beat any AMD chip on the market in 95% of games. That's how it is because AMD chips are just not as good at gaming, rendering, encoding etc sure then AMD away. But in gaming terms, I5's are the best chip available within the average consumers budget, very very few games take true advantage of anything more than Quad Core CPU's, having 4 sat basically idle doesn't exactly mean anything ...

You amazed that you build a bad gaming computer I7 and 660TI and found the 660TI held it back? that's not amazing, that is building a gaming computer badly, just like cyberpower, ibuypower etc etc.

If you knew anything about the poster your talking to, you'd know he is an AMD fanboi and poster child (not quite as much as Vulp but close!).

[Catamount]

CHWarpath, on 22 June 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I am not about to make a double spaced essay in MLA/APA format for you or dumb it down because you lack simple work ethic to read it. Your the expert, please continue to push intel products because websites like MaximumPC are paid to tell you they are so good. I mean who in their right mind would pay$159 for an 8 core CPU from AMD when you can pick up a dual core for the same price from Intel? I built a computer for an individual with a core i7 ivory bridge and a 660ti and I find it amazing that my old 45nm AMD 965 with an aging 6850 is pushing the same amount of frames in many games that I tested including this one. GPU>X86

If basic formatting is beyond you, I would have yet again settled for you actually making a point, which you didn't.

I challenged you to back up your random ramblings about nothing in particular by actually presenting a better system than mine to actually show that there was something to what you were saying, and you couldn't. When you not having a point changes you'll merit further response.


If your sole purpose is to produce unsolicited and pointless commentary on me, someone you've never met and know nothing about, you needn't my help to continue, and since that's all you seem capable of, I'll just reiterate my original point, which is that the OP gains nothing by scaling that CPU down, while losing substantial performance in titles like MWO, and losing something to gain nothing is not a productive venture.

DV McKenna, on 22 June 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

If you knew anything about the poster your talking to, you'd know he is an AMD fanboi and poster child (not quite as much as Vulp but close!).

I'm still in second place? Damn. Must try harder

Edited by Catamount, 23 June 2013 - 07:04 AM.

[Badconduct]

DV McKenna, on 22 June 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Your wrong.
The I5 will beat any AMD chip on the market in 95% of games. That's how it is because AMD chips are just not as good at gaming, rendering, encoding etc sure then AMD away. But in gaming terms, I5's are the best chip available within the average consumers budget, very very few games take true advantage of anything more than Quad Core CPU's, having 4 sat basically idle doesn't exactly mean anything ...

You amazed that you build a bad gaming computer I7 and 660TI and found the 660TI held it back? that's not amazing, that is building a gaming computer badly, just like cyberpower, ibuypower etc etc.

If you knew anything about the poster your talking to, you'd know he is an AMD fanboi and poster child (not quite as much as Vulp but close!).

...i5 is faster than AMD? That's really generic.

is a Ferrari faster than a Ford?

.... Which i5 are we talking about?
i5 3570k is comparable to the FX-8350 in some games.

Prior to that, there's no advantage in 4 cores vs. 8.

Sure, the single thread performance on the newer i5 may be better than AMD, so it's true that 95% of games will run better.

But since we only play games made in the last 2 years or so, you are really only going to be playing that 5% anyway...

The i5 3570k, i7 3770k and FX 8350 will have no impact on your FPS. Unless you are running a massive set up, with 3 or 4 way SLI, the only bottle neck will be your video card.

Not sure what to tell you...


Prior to this, the Phenom II x4 965 was very comparable to anything in it's price range.

Edited by Badconduct, 23 June 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[Catamount]

The FX8350 has its pros and cons vs the 3570k/4670k. MWO greatly favors the i5, as does any other CPU-intensive game at the moment, but that's a limited assortment of games, and down the road, the 8350 might pay off. Really, either choice works for a general gaming machine. Excluding MWO, the tradeoffs are small either way.

CW's argument, if there was one, wasn't about AMD or Intel; he was asserting that ANY investment in the CPU was bad for a gaming machine. His suggestion to swap company appears to simply be a consequence of suggesting the OP get a vastly cheaper chip, like an FX4300 or Phenom II x4 (he said cheaper AMD *quad core*). I think we can all agree that regardless of which, an 8350 or 3570k is WAY more appropriate to a $1000 build than an aging phenom or bottom-of-the-barrel FX. Well, all but one of us can, anyways

Edited by Catamount, 23 June 2013 - 08:13 AM.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Don't listen anyone suggesting lower then an 800Watt PSU, you don't want to run a PSU at max capacity while you play, running too small of a PSU will kill it and running one that just meets your needs will slowly kill it. You want to run your PSU no more than 75% load, preferably less then that. You can build cheap, but build for making additions and improvements. Start with 8gb of ram in one slot, then buy another and add it later. Start with a great PSU, Great MB and reliable drives, get a CPU that will work, a GPU that is good enough for the job. After you have the system going plan out your upgrades over the next two years, adding memory, changing CPU and GPU's. Maybe even change out the hard drives later for SSD's. The hardest parts to change out and the most risky to change are the PSU and the MB, so make sure the ones you get are top notch!

I'm building my son a LGA1150 system with a 4770k($298 after tax at microcenter) and a Sabertooth MB, I already have the Kingwin 1220 Mach1 PSU and his case. He will be using my old HD4870 Dark Knights for a few months and I switched from using SSD's to two WD500GB Blues, and I will start with one 8gb stick of Corsair Vengeance Ram. All in all the system is less than $1500, but I will be able to keep building on it for a few years to max it all out.

[Catamount]

Even with dual 4870s, 800W isn't remotely close to necessary unless you plan on heavily OCing the CPU and GPUs. The 4870 has a 160W TDP and the 4770k has an 84W TDP, which means that it would extremely difficult for you to draw 500W out of that machine even if you were running prime95, furmark, and thrashing your optical drive and HDD(s) all at the same time. A realistic heavy gaming load for that machine would be more like 350W-400W.

For a more typical modern system, I have an i5-3570k and 7970OC and also don't draw more than 400W, and generally my system won't even get that high. For a non-OCed system, there's no reason for such a system to have more than, say, a good 530W PSU. There's absolutely nothing wrong with running a PSU at a high percent load if it's a good unit; it'll still keep good ripple and voltage regulation. The problem is simply that when the unit ages you lose a few watts, so having a little headroom is nice.

Since I typically like to have a modest OC, I have a 650W PSU, and I still don't approach using that kind of power even OCing. Don't go cheap on the PSU, but there is such a thing as overkill.

Quote

I will start with one 8gb stick of Corsair Vengeance

I would recommend just getting two 4GB DIMMs. Right now, 4GB is more than adequate for gaming, and it'll be a long, long time before 8 isn't adequate, probably beyond the useful life of that computer. Hell, it'll be quite awhile before 8 is even necessary, let alone inadequate. OTOH, while the computer won't suffer from having "only" 8GB of RAM across two sticks, it may well suffer from using single channel RAM. DDR3-1600 on up doesn't meaningfully bottleneck computers, and even 1333 doesn't, usually, but slash the DIMMs down to one, and you're only getting half the memory performance we associate with those standards, because it's only a single channel of such RAM. That almost certainly will bottleneck the system.

Edited by Catamount, 23 June 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[Bloodshed Romance]

I have FX8350 and XFX7970.. running 650 watt PSU (single rail) and havent had any problems the year and a half I had it.
(except for something which was dumb on my part... I built it so it was to sit on my desk and when I moved stuff around the rig ended up sitting on the floor (carpet) and at that point I had the PSU fan facing down (bottom mounted PSU) and it suffocated itself... flipped the PSU over and hasn't done it since.. so derp for forgetting the fan was down when moving from hard desk to carpet..)

[Badconduct]

Werewolf486, on 23 June 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Don't listen anyone suggesting lower then an 800Watt PSU, you don't want to run a PSU at max capacity while you play, running too small of a PSU will kill it and running one that just meets your needs will slowly kill it. You want to run your PSU no more than 75% load, preferably less then that. You can build cheap, but build for making additions and improvements. Start with 8gb of ram in one slot, then buy another and add it later. Start with a great PSU, Great MB and reliable drives, get a CPU that will work, a GPU that is good enough for the job. After you have the system going plan out your upgrades over the next two years, adding memory, changing CPU and GPU's. Maybe even change out the hard drives later for SSD's. The hardest parts to change out and the most risky to change are the PSU and the MB, so make sure the ones you get are top notch!

I'm building my son a LGA1150 system with a 4770k($298 after tax at microcenter) and a Sabertooth MB, I already have the Kingwin 1220 Mach1 PSU and his case. He will be using my old HD4870 Dark Knights for a few months and I switched from using SSD's to two WD500GB Blues, and I will start with one 8gb stick of Corsair Vengeance Ram. All in all the system is less than $1500, but I will be able to keep building on it for a few years to max it all out.

The Watts aren't always accurate.

I own something similar to this:
http://www.hardwares...ply-Review/1716

Make sure your PSU can handle the load, and it should be fine.
http://www.hardwares....com/page/power

First; find the total wattage. It's probably not as high as you would expect.
http://www.extreme.o...n.com/PSUEngine

Catamount, on 23 June 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

The FX8350 has its pros and cons vs the 3570k/4670k. MWO greatly favors the i5, as does any other CPU-intensive game at the moment, but that's a limited assortment of games, and down the road, the 8350 might pay off. Really, either choice works for a general gaming machine. Excluding MWO, the tradeoffs are small either way.

CW's argument, if there was one, wasn't about AMD or Intel; he was asserting that ANY investment in the CPU was bad for a gaming machine. His suggestion to swap company appears to simply be a consequence of suggesting the OP get a vastly cheaper chip, like an FX4300 or Phenom II x4 (he said cheaper AMD *quad core*). I think we can all agree that regardless of which, an 8350 or 3570k is WAY more appropriate to a $1000 build than an aging phenom or bottom-of-the-barrel FX. Well, all but one of us can, anyways

I would cheap out the GPU over the CPU. You can always buy -just- a GPU. Not always can you buy -just- a CPU upgrade.

[Bloodshed Romance]

I would want to balance my system evenly to my budget... I did upgrades.. I went from an AMD phenom II X4 2.8GHZ with a XFX 6770... upgraded the motherboard then PSU... then went to a 8150.. then went to a 7970, then went to a 8350 and passed the 8150 to my friend for christmas.. in the mean time I ended up with a new case, then SSD, then another 1TB of storage

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

The entire point of having a larger then needed PSU is to avoid running it at high loads, and having a buffer. I know having 1220watts is overkill for my system, but I never have to worry about running it at load, running it hot or it getting burned up because of running it at full load. It simply eliminates an area I read many complaints about. To often I read how people had to replace their PSU and it was dead because it was running at full load most of it's life. It's not a matter of NEED to have, it's more a matter of security knowing I don't have to worry about running my PSU at full load and knowing that will make it last much longer. Also when I build myself a new system I can reuse the PSU with no worries. You can argue the point anyway you want to justify it in your brain and maybe even others, but the proof is that I have NEVER had a PSU fail on any of my builds. I will stick with what I know works and so far this has worked for me and the many people I've built systems for. Take the advice or leave it, I don't care, I'm just trying to help a person avoid a potential issue. The lower the load the lower the chances of a failure.

[Catamount]

The reason people complain about PSUs is because they buy bad PSUs.

Look at any review, and good PSUs are easily able to deliver extremely clean power, with tight voltage regulation and nearly nonexistent ripple, even under unrealistic load scenarios. HardOCP and Hardware Secrets savagely abuse their PSUs, and even in a hotbox, giving out more watts than their rated for, good PSUs still don't break a sweat. PSUs are supposed to be able to run at high loads for their lifespan. You don't have to buffer it yourself; that's what engineers are for, and why they're conservative when they make them. A bad 400W PSU is really a mediocre 250W PSU with a 400W label on it. A good 400W PSU is really a decent 480W PSU with a 400W sticker on it. Now, I still agree that barely scraping by isn't good. Running a PSU at literally 100% all the time under normal conditions is bad, because then you lack headroom for when your draw a really big load, or when the unit loses wattage as it gets old.

Still, there's a difference between spending a few bucks on a buffer, say, maybe having a PSU that can deliver 30% more power than you'll ever need (ie powering a 400W system with a 530W PSU), and spending a massive amount of money on an wasted capacity that will never benefit you. Powering a 400W system on a 1200W PSU is beyond overkill. In fact, it's so overkill, that not only is it a colossal waste of money, but you may actually be stressing the PSU more by drawing such tiny loads. PSUs get really inefficient when drawing very low percentage loads, because they're not designed for it, so having such an oversized PSU actually makes the unit run hotter than a lower power unit would, and may well degrade the quality of power you're getting. PSUs are designed to deliver power a certain way, and when you deviate, they lose performance and endurance; drawing 300W from a 1200W PSU day after day after day after day is no better than taking a 12v heavy PSU and plugging it into an old 5v heavy system.

I mean, you can blow that kind of money if you want, but I'm just trying to save you that money. Also, I've never had a power supply fail in a build either.

Edited by Catamount, 24 June 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Well we can chalk it up to different beliefs and leave it at that.