Building a PC

[Spazosaurus]

Man dissing the MSI boy. Yuh feeling OK? Yuh eh go get a Bess gigabyte for that price. They just eh ready.

I'd personally go with the 780 actually but the 770 is a good consolation prize.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[AR!Ø]

1 - Don't buy an 840 or 840 Pro unless it's 256GB or larger. It has problems with smaller file sizes. If you want a better smaller SSD, a Plextor M5P is a better choice for it.

2 - If getting a 770, go for the 4GB version. If possible, grab a 780 or a 780Ti for best single card performance without going SLI. SLI isn't really a bad thing and can boost the hell out of a slightly struggling system, but it has tradeoffs that I would not recommend it be the FIRST thing you aim for, so best single card = win. IF you still want to get SLI, then I would quicker suggest two 780s over one 780Ti, but if you can get SLI 780Tis you can easily play your Crysis 3 at 1440p maxed out.

I'd like to see some support for these claims please.

[D2ultima]

A 120 Hz monitor with 2 x 780 Ti is more than half of that 2000.

Why waste all that money if the PC isn't helping you MAKE money?

A 1440p  monitor with 2 x 770s will do just fine.   The 770 price/performance ratio right now is the best it can get.

I'd like to hear about some of these 'SLI tradeoffs', because as far as I'm concerned the only issue is increased power consumption.




Samsung Galaxy Note 2 | Omega v18 | SwiftKey | Tapatalk 4

Two 780Tis or something is the end result. Like, he could have that at the end of next year or something. If he buys a single 780Ti now and a 120Hz or 144Hz 23" or something screen that wouldn't crack $1k, and he could get the rest of the stuff for under another $1k, he should be good with that. Then, like I said, later on he can upgrade. I only suggested such a high end result BECAUSE he was already willing to spend so much. A single 780Ti is about as good as two 680s in SLI with maybe 75% usage on each card, so it's the ideal basic card. Even if he never upgrades to two, it should still be beyond amazing.

Also, he did suggest maxing Crysis 3 at 1440p, which even a single 780Ti isn't really able to do according to this video by tek syndicate here.

Finally, about SLI. Some games do not use SLI. They will run worse if you force SLI on. One such game is Deus Ex: Human Revolution Director's Cut. It will use up to 99% of one card of mine, sure, but if I force it to two cards, it actually runs WORSE though using 65% of each card on average. ENB and RCRN mods for Skyrim are other such games that refuse to use SLI unless you force it. Sometimes forcing it is a little tricky, and as I said in the case of Deus Ex, it actually results in WORSE performance.

Other games, while boosting from SLI, will not properly use all of SLI. It may use 60% of each card, and possibly get better performance than a single card, sure, but not by much. These games are relatively few, and most games will use 70% to 85% of each card while in SLI, and that's pretty fine and gives great boosts and all, but sometimes it is just not beneficial. It is NOT something that can be depended on for every single game there is. Also, as I previously mentioned, more than two monitors attached to the cards MUST result in a large desktop (I.E. if you fullscreen a game at say 1920 x 1080, your other two screens will go black). This means to use more than two monitors and still benefit as if you had two screens, you would need FOUR monitors. It's an added cost.

Also, if you install any new drivers, SLI is disabled requiring a restart, which isn't otherwise needed with new nVidia drivers since 245.xx if I remember correctly. If changing one card from Dedicated PhysX to regular SLI (and vice versa), it also requires the closing and restarting of a great many programs, which one would not think would normally be affected by this. Also, SLI cards are more difficult to overclock usually. For some reason, it seems to always be easier to push a single card higher in a system. Of course, mileage may vary per cards and per user's setup, but it's something to take note of.

All that being said and done, however, I *LIKE* SLI. I will continue to USE SLI. I even find it to be an extremely viable option for anyone. It just DOES have some drawbacks, and as a result there are users who refuse to SLI, ever. They'll buy the single strongest card available, call that georgie porgie pudding and pie and leave it be. It's up to you. I personally find the tradeoffs are FAR more apparent than the drawbacks, but I cannot deny that there are drawbacks.

[D2ultima]

1 - Don't buy an 840 or 840 Pro unless it's 256GB or larger. It has problems with smaller file sizes. If you want a better smaller SSD, a Plextor M5P is a better choice for it.

2 - If getting a 770, go for the 4GB version. If possible, grab a 780 or a 780Ti for best single card performance without going SLI. SLI isn't really a bad thing and can boost the hell out of a slightly struggling system, but it has tradeoffs that I would not recommend it be the FIRST thing you aim for, so best single card = win. IF you still want to get SLI, then I would quicker suggest two 780s over one 780Ti, but if you can get SLI 780Tis you can easily play your Crysis 3 at 1440p maxed out.

I'd like to see some support for these claims please.

http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/samsung-pm841-512gb-msata-ssd-review-performance-and-capacity-in-a-client-ssd/ for 840 series 128GB drive.

Check the post I made just above this one for the video where a 780Ti can't max Crysis 3 at 1440p.

[AR!Ø]

I have already seen that video; the ti at max settings on crysis 3 is barely playable - It does not consistently stay above 30 fps @ 1440p.

Considering that you'll have to spend another ~USD$800 for just that really doesn't justify the expenditure imo. Just the ability to crank all the settings up makes no difference if you can't get a reasonably playable frame rate, and busting the budget seems similarly pointless to me.

[D2ultima]

I have already seen that video; the ti at max settings on crysis 3 is barely playable - It does not consistently stay above 30 fps @ 1440p.

Considering that you'll have to spend another ~USD$800 for just that really doesn't justify the expenditure imo. Just the ability to crank all the settings up makes no difference if you can't get a reasonably playable frame rate, and busting the budget seems similarly pointless to me.

yeah, which is another reason (not counting the lack of refresh rates above 60Hz + lack of 3D gaming + more expense etc) that I am a little remiss about recommending 1440p for gaming right now. MOST games are fine, mind you, and many pretty games run fine at 1440p easily on even a single 780 non-Ti edition. BUT seeing as how some setups still struggle with the epitome of PC graphics even at 1080p (Skyrim + tons of mods, Crysis 3, battlefield 4 on single cards, planetside 2, etc. even though unoptimization of some games is the cause like in planetside 2) I rather get better performance from 1080p and possibly even get some good 3D gaming in than move to a higher resolution screen. That's my opinion though; some people place more importance on other things.

[Spazosaurus]

I have already seen that video; the ti at max settings on crysis 3 is barely playable - It does not consistently stay above 30 fps @ 1440p.

Considering that you'll have to spend another ~USD$800 for just that really doesn't justify the expenditure imo. Just the ability to crank all the settings up makes no difference if you can't get a reasonably playable frame rate, and busting the budget seems similarly pointless to me.

Hallelujah!!! Good sense prevailing in this thread. Ario, ah could shake yuh hand for what yuh say there...although to be fair, it wont be an additional $800 to spend unless you can explain why when doubling up on a gtx 770 will cost only an additional $400.

1080p on gtx 780, ultra settings NEVER dip below 60fps on BF4. I know because I has it. The only thing making this card dip under 40 is Metro.

I happen to fully agree with d2's take on SLI. He as actually put my thinking on the subject on paper quite nicely. This is why i've opted for a single powerful card instead of two less powerful ones in SLI.

[AR!Ø]

the extra 800 is in reference to the 780ti, after taxes/shipping etc. I will report my 690 performance when my 1440p monitor arrives!

[Arcmanov]

Allyuh keep the focus on the man PC-build please...ain't nobody got time f'dat. 



OP...my advice... a 1440p Korean monitor (from eBay) and 2 x R9 280X or 2 x 770/760 GTX.
Compare the price of that against the cost of one 780 Ti and a 1080p 120/144 Hz monitor.

GPU architecture evolves the fastest.  You can get two mid-range cards, and sell them when better stuff drops.
You can stay 'current', and still play all the latest games at max settings (better performance than a single, powerful card)

I can say this because that has been my strategy from time immemorial, and it has been largely successful at maintaining a certain gameplay standard from year-to-year.
I can't find fault with what others have suggested...their 'philosophy' differs from mine.  I'll always be an advocate for multi-GPU setups though. 

Of course, your final decision will be dictated by what you're willing to spend.

[TriniXaeno]

arc, as I asked Ultima, could you put figures together with your recommendations?

No sense throwing specs out if they are beyond budget.

Let us see the math as well.

[D2ultima]

Okay. He said he could make to $2400, so I went with that in mind, and made a very strong yet very easy to upgrade machine for ANYTHING he could ever want to do. Including a monitor. It came up to under $2400 and most parts have free shipping to the USA and thus could probably work well with a skybox, but it might cost a little more to bring it down. http://pcpartpicker.com/user/D2ultima/saved/2OzC

Unless I need to add keyboard and mice too, I'm also expecting him to at least have a headset or something of his own.

So if he wanna stick with that, CPU-bound games will have no problem (like BF3/BF4 and the possible upcoming watchdogs which looks like it might be CPU-bound itself) and all other games will be easy peasy to max, even the Crysis 3 he wanted (though at 1080p). But in return his 144Hz screen is going to be so smooth he'll love it, and like I said, if he in a year or two wants to get three screens, a second card and run some triple monitor 3D gaming and stuff, he's got the room to upgrade/change/etc, or he could just stay like that and enjoy himself as-is.

Good enough? .

[Arcmanov]

1. Motherboard way too expensive

2. A 6-core LGA-2011 CPU is unnecessary. (I should know)


Here are my recommendations:

Motherboard - 239 US
CPU - 319 US
RAM - 80 US
GPU x 2 - 700 US
CPU cooling - 72 US
Case - 110 US
PSU - 200 US
Monitor - 340 US
SSD - 130 US
HDD - 150 US

Comes to a grand total of about 2340...without shipping, of course...and them customs fees, well, that's a whole 'nother conversation. 
All items will ship to the freight-forwarder of choice.

Were I building a system for someone TODAY...that's what I would go with.
Those prices are subject to change if you stick too long though.

My rationale:
 - The dual-GPU setup will allow you to max out Crysis 3 on that 1440p monitor at 60 fps.  Will you notice the difference between 60 Hz/fps, and 120 Hz/fps?  I doubt it.
   When you see the resolution difference between 1440p and 1080p, you won't want to go back to 1080p...















   Drooling yet, OP? 
   Yes...all at 2560 x 1440, and @ 60 fps.



 - A modest overclock on the CPU to about 4-4.3 GHz will ensure that the 'CPU-bottleneck' is less of a factor.
   More exotic overclocks will require a custom liquid-cooling loop.  A 6-core CPU will look great in benchmarks, but will not make THAT much difference in-game.
   In my opinion, its a waste of about 200 US that could be put to use in other ways.

 - You can still upgrade to 6-core CPU down the line, and you can also upgrade the 770s to something more robust when that time comes.
   The sale of the 770s can offset the cost of another pair of midrange cards.  How much resale will you get on that one horribly expensive 780 Ti?
   If resale is not a consideration, then by all means go for the 780 Ti.  It's a beast in its own right.

[Arcmanov]

OP... I just remembered this thread... http://www.carigamers.com/cms/forums/index.php/topic,28338.msg303446.html#msg303446

Excellent info on pricing.

[D2ultima]

There was a reason I put the 6-core, and no, OCing quadcores to high levels does NOT overstep the benefits of six-core machines when a game is CPU-bound.

1 - The reason the MOBO is so expensive is because it's got the chipset for the extreme sandy and extreme ivy bridge CPUs. Yeah, in almost every single game ever out there an i5-2500K is pretty much king, god, jesus, allah, buddha, whatever you want to call it. It ain't gonna be too weak for years. But not when you have CPU bound games. CPU-bound games will never USE your CPU to its fullest capacity. It will use say... half. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. The CPU clock speed and number of cores won't change. It will always use around half. If you OC your CPU, you get more mileage in the game because it will use half of more resources. Sure. But adding more cores will make the CPU-bound game rejoice with all heaven, as it has even more to use.
Think of it like this. You got 4 sandwiches. You're feeding Battlefield 3 the four sandwiches. BF3 will eat 1/2 of each sandwich, then say it's hungry. You OC your CPU, that's like making four BIGGER sandwiches so that when it eats 1/2 of each, it's more full. But then you add a 6-core. BF3 then eats 1/2 of SIX sandwiches. Even if they're smaller than your four bigger ones, 1/2 of 6 x 3.4 is better than 1/2 of 4 x 4.2. Thus, the game will allow your GPUs to do more work.

Now, AGAIN, I *only* listed the hexacore CPU because of the existence (and popularity) of those two CPU-bound games. And also, again, Watch Dogs' minimum and recommended requirements tend toward it being a CPU-bound game as well. And real men want watch dogs. Also, if he for some reason ever takes up livestreaming, a 6-core is going to make him extremely happy.

Again, if he's gonna go with a cheaper board and a regular non-extreme i7, then by all means. Go for what your build has. In fact, it'll benefit him more in most games. I still say 120Hz and later 3D gaming will benefit the higher resolution, and I LOVE my 120Hz screen mind you. I'm not going back to a 60Hz one. But either way, they're both methods he can choose from.

Again, I explained why I suggested at first let him get accustomed to high end gaming with a single card then later on run SLI if he wants or whatever, but it's up to him. Once he decides what he wants to get, we can tailor the builds to suit. If he doesn't care that much about BF3/BF4/Watch Dogs all running at bleeding edge specs at 120fps constant lookin all pretty and stuff, then cool. We could get him the trend with your build. If he wants to go with the basic foundation style I made that'll last him till like 2018 or so without needing an upgrade besides an SLI or maybe an 800/900 series GPU in it a couple years later, then that's cool too.

Also, like I don't mind differing opinions and all, but if I give explanations as to WHY I say some things and AGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR OWN POINTS, I don't get why you all keep trying to re-prove your points. This is like the third time someone is telling me how 6-cores are worthless and I AGREE that they are for like 99% of the things.

[Arcmanov]

Relax...I'm just presenting another option.

Interesting analogy...but a quad-core, 8-thread CPU is already so powerful that it's not worth the extra 200+ US to invest in a hexa-core.  My opinion, of course.

...and 'CPU-bound' is just that.  Adding more cores to the mix won't change much.  Clockspeed, however, has been proven time and again to make a much greater difference.
There is a rather small percentage of games that utilize 4 cores, and even less that utilize more than 4.  If it's a gaming PC primarily, why waste all that money?

I can guarantee you that 2 GTX 770s with a 4820K will outperform a 4930K with a single 780 Ti.

I'd rather put that extra money into something else that would make a much more tangible difference to my gaming experience, like a sound-card,
or a proper gaming headset, or even better peripherals.

[D2ultima]

Relax...I'm just presenting another option.

Interesting analogy...but a quad-core, 8-thread CPU is already so powerful that it's not worth the extra 200+ US to invest in a hexa-core.  My opinion, of course.

...and 'CPU-bound' is just that.  Adding more cores to the mix won't change much.  Clockspeed, however, has been proven time and again to make a much greater difference.
There is a rather small percentage of games that utilize 4 cores, and even less that utilize more than 4.  If it's a gaming PC primarily, why waste all that money?

I can guarantee you that 2 GTX 770s with a 4820K will outperform a 4930K with a single 780 Ti.

I'd rather put that extra money into something else that would make a much more tangible difference to my gaming experience, like a sound-card,
or a proper gaming headset, or even better peripherals.

Actually, they did do some tests on the effects on hexacores vs OC'd quadcores in BF3 in the past, and it did give substantial increases sometimes up to over 10fps on max with the same rigs. I would have to go hunting for the article though; it came out way before BF4 came out. Sometime a lot earlier this year. That's the only reason I started mentioning that since then. I was all "meh my i7-950 still good all I really need is a new video card" then they tested 3770K OC'd compared to 3930Ks and the 3930K mash up the test. Also, hyperthreading only helps you use the cores you have efficiently. It gives a nice boost, but it honestly doesn't beat the extra cores for programs that are MASSIVELY CPU hungry (like streaming ones) or CPU bound games. If you had to OC a 4820 to beat a 4930K @ 3.4GHz in a CPU-bound program where the program uses only 50% of any given CPU, your 4820 would need to be over 5GHz. It's even simple math too, like 4 x 5GHz / 2 = 10GHz to game, whereas 6 x 3.4 / 2 = 10.2GHz to the game. If you add the threads it works out to the same, 8 x 5 = 40/2 = 20, and 12 x 3.4 = 40.8/2 = 20.4.

And again, you're completely right about the set up you listed beating the performance in quite a few areas. It needs to be running at over 70% efficiency on both cards though for it to beat a single 780Ti though (the two 770s that is), but most games DO grant this, so it wouldn't be a huge problem.

[Spazosaurus]

Actually, they did do some tests on the effects on hexacores vs OC'd quadcores in BF3 in the past, and it did give substantial increases sometimes up to over 10fps on max with the same rigs. I would have to go hunting for the article though; it came out way before BF4 came out. Sometime a lot earlier this year. That's the only reason I started mentioning that since then. I was all "meh my i7-950 still good all I really need is a new video card" then they tested 3770K OC'd compared to 3930Ks and the 3930K mash up the test. Also, hyperthreading only helps you use the cores you have efficiently. It gives a nice boost, but it honestly doesn't beat the extra cores for programs that are MASSIVELY CPU hungry (like streaming ones) or CPU bound games. If you had to OC a 4820 to beat a 4930K @ 3.4GHz in a CPU-bound program where the program uses only 50% of any given CPU, your 4820 would need to be over 5GHz. It's even simple math too, like 4 x 5GHz / 2 = 10GHz to game, whereas 6 x 3.4 / 2 = 10.2GHz to the game. If you add the threads it works out to the same, 8 x 5 = 40/2 = 20, and 12 x 3.4 = 40.8/2 = 20.4.

I believe this is the article you are referring to. More cores, especially clocked higher are definitely able to pump out more raw frames...but if you're talking about increasing your average FPS from 120 to 150 with the move from a quad to a hex what is really the point? Spending, in this case double the amount on a cpu to achieve that performance is very counter productive to me. Sure, you're "future proofing" but I prefer to do a fresh upgrade when new tech which is always more efficient, cooler and have a higher IPC.

Also, very important to remember, this result is the RARE exception. The vast majority of games out there are NOT cpu bound and in many cases, even an i3 would more than suffice.

Case in point, I have a lowly i5 3470 non k overclocked to 4ghz. A less than middle of the road CPU of course, but paired with a 780, the GPU usage while playing BF4 online, 64man servers, FPS hovers between 95-98% in game with cpu usage rarely exceeding 89% and I get an average of 80fps

I think we can all agree that BF4 is one of the most taxing out there on any system. A good, solid benchmark for games present and maybe two years in the future. Of course if I were to go back to a 3930k that average would probably jump to 120fps, especially when oc'd to a healthy 4.4ghz, but do you REALLY need it?

OP, that is the question you need to ask yourself. You CAN spend a lot, but do you really need to...

[TriniXaeno]

You CAN spend a lot, but do you really need to...

This!

[Arcmanov]

Ahhhh...that article illustrates the conundrum quite convincingly, and lends quite a bit of credence to my rationale...

If you're already pushing 60 fps @ 1440p with a 4-core/8-thread CPU and two mid-range GPUs...do you really need a 6-core?

Therein lies the rub.

6-core advocates would say 'hells yeah', and I can certainly appreciate why.
Them extra fps not really worth the extra expense if you're already maxing the game at your preferred resolution.




Samsung Galaxy Note 2 | Omega v18 | SwiftKey | Tapatalk 4

[Berzerk]

Actually, they did do some tests on the effects on hexacores vs OC'd quadcores in BF3 in the past, and it did give substantial increases sometimes up to over 10fps on max with the same rigs. I would have to go hunting for the article though; it came out way before BF4 came out. Sometime a lot earlier this year. That's the only reason I started mentioning that since then. I was all "meh my i7-950 still good all I really need is a new video card" then they tested 3770K OC'd compared to 3930Ks and the 3930K mash up the test. Also, hyperthreading only helps you use the cores you have efficiently. It gives a nice boost, but it honestly doesn't beat the extra cores for programs that are MASSIVELY CPU hungry (like streaming ones) or CPU bound games. If you had to OC a 4820 to beat a 4930K @ 3.4GHz in a CPU-bound program where the program uses only 50% of any given CPU, your 4820 would need to be over 5GHz. It's even simple math too, like 4 x 5GHz / 2 = 10GHz to game, whereas 6 x 3.4 / 2 = 10.2GHz to the game. If you add the threads it works out to the same, 8 x 5 = 40/2 = 20, and 12 x 3.4 = 40.8/2 = 20.4.

I believe this is the article you are referring to. More cores, especially clocked higher are definitely able to pump out more raw frames...but if you're talking about increasing your average FPS from 120 to 150 with the move from a quad to a hex what is really the point? Spending, in this case double the amount on a cpu to achieve that performance is very counter productive to me. Sure, you're "future proofing" but I prefer to do a fresh upgrade when new tech which is always more efficient, cooler and have a higher IPC.

Also, very important to remember, this result is the RARE exception. The vast majority of games out there are NOT cpu bound and in many cases, even an i3 would more than suffice.

Case in point, I have a lowly i5 3470 non k overclocked to 4ghz. A less than middle of the road CPU of course, but paired with a 780, the GPU usage while playing BF4 online, 64man servers, FPS hovers between 95-98% in game with cpu usage rarely exceeding 89% and I get an average of 80fps

I think we can all agree that BF4 is one of the most taxing out there on any system. A good, solid benchmark for games present and maybe two years in the future. Of course if I were to go back to a 3930k that average would probably jump to 120fps, especially when oc'd to a healthy 4.4ghz, but do you REALLY need it?

OP, that is the question you need to ask yourself. You CAN spend a lot, but do you really need to...

could relate to this. Running a lowly 2600k and 2 mid range cards and I'm able to get 60+ fps consistent on bf4 on ultra. Honestly not seeing a need to upgrade for the foreseeable future.