PC Build Thread

[DonutVikingChap]

So this is my current plan for my new rig as of now.

Already picked up my new mouse since I literally wore out my current one with the 72hr contest.

Some things I'm not 100% sure on:

CPU: Do I really need an i7? Could I perhaps go for an i5 instead and maybe get to bump something up elsewhere with the savings? Is there going to be much of a dramatic difference to warrant the cost?

Motherboard: I want something easy to overclock with. My current MSI board has OC Genie built right into the card, I literally just press a button in and boot it up and it's overclocked. Not sure how this all works these days.

Monitor: I just want something with a low response rate and bigger than 22". Anything cheaper out there?

Storage: I am sitting on a Intel 120Gb x25-M SSD currently that I was going to pull out of my current machine, is it worth it to pick up something more current? Is there a big difference in performance? I'm seeing a few 240Gb SSD's sitting around the $80 price range. This something worth looking into for the extra room on my primary drive?

PSU: 750W overkill for this build?

Okay, so

CPU: In 80% of games you will hardly notice a major difference in performance between the i7-4790K and the i5-4690K, but in other more demanding applications (like Hammer) you might. If the Hammer compiler is good with multi-threading (I'm not sure if it is), you will especially have better compile times with the i7.

Motherboard: Like iiboharz said, most good motherboards today have some sort of automatic overclocking feature. But obviously, some are generally better/more stable than others. In this test (Swedish website), for example, 4 different popular Z97 motherboards were reviewed and compared against eachother. According to this review, the Asrock Fatali1y Z97 Killer had the "best" automatic overclocking feature, but the ASUS Z97-A had the "most advanced" automatic overclocking functions, and also the highest overall score in other categories. The MSI Z97 Gaming 5 had the "worst" automatic overclocking, and the Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 5 apparently automatically overclocks by itself without the user knowing (so I'd personally stay away from that particular model). I've also tried the automatic overclocking myself on my own ASUS P8Z77-V motherboard, and I think it works pretty well. Just make sure whatever automatic overclocking you use doesn't go too crazy on the voltage.

Monitor: Depending on the quality of your two old monitors and whether or not you want to use Nvidia Surround (which has a lot of requirements), I'd recommend either getting a monitor of similar quality to those ones if you want to save money (like you're proposing), or to get a much better one (in terms of response time and refresh rate) to put in the middle and use as the primary monitor. In the second case, you might even want to wait for G-Sync monitors to come down in prize (or fork out a lot of money to buy one now, like the ROG Swift) since that technology is pretty awesome, or even buy an AMD graphics card instead and wait for FreeSync (which may or may not be less expensive than G-Sync in most cases). To answer your question though, here's one: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-vn247hp

Storage: As long as you have a secondary hard drive, your old SSD will do just fine if you manage your space correctly. If the only game you have on your SSD is TF2, and the rest of your games are on the hard drive, you should have plenty of space left. But if your hard drive is really slow at loading games, I guess you could add another SSD (which you would then use as your boot drive since it would probably be faster) so you can have faster load times.

PSU: No. It's also always nice to have some headroom as long as you don't have to pay too much extra for it.

I'd also like to add two things I said in an earlier post that I still think are important:

As for the memory [...] Just pick the cheapest kit you can find with CL9 or lower latency, 1.5V or lower voltage and 1600MHz or higher clock speed from a reputable manufacturer. (You may want at least 1866MHz with this budget.)

Anyway, the only other thing I have to point out is that I think the Supernova NEX and the Supernova G2 are not the same thing, and the Supernova G2 is the only one I've seen get excellent reviews.
Other than that, good luck with this awesome build!

 

[DonutVikingChap]

The computer's primary usage would be gaming and mapping, the reason behind the two crappy graphics cards is that I needed the ports in a earlier build (for four monitors) but now I'm only really looking at a 2/3 monitor setup, I had not changed the Graphics card(s) as I don't have any real knowledge on cost efficient and high quality graphics cards.

My budget right now is around £1000 which is around $1504.86 according to Google.com.

Well, today you usually don't need more than one graphics card for multiple monitor support anyway, and it's way better to have a single powerful card than two weak ones in most cases.

For you, I'd recommend something like a GTX 970 or an R9 290X, as well as a Z97 motherboard, a Core i5 4690K and 8GB or 16GB of RAM. You definitely don't need an X99 board and an Extreme Edition CPU if your primary usage is gaming and mapping.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

If it helps, I have an r9270x. It gave me a little issue with VRAM to the point where I had to return it and a fan became squeeky. Beyond that, was awesome.

 

[Coding Ethan]

I'll tell you right away that you should go for an NVIDIA card instead of an AMD.

Well, today you usually don't need more than one graphics card for multiple monitor support anyway, and it's way better to have a single powerful card than two weak ones in most cases.

For you, I'd recommend something like a GTX 970 or an R9 290X, as well as a Z97 motherboard, a Core i5 4690K and 8GB or 16GB of RAM. You definitely don't need an X99 board and an Extreme Edition CPU if your primary usage is gaming and mapping.

If it helps, I have an r9270x. It gave me a little issue with VRAM to the point where I had to return it and a fan became squeeky. Beyond that, was awesome.

Thank you for your responses, I have now replaced the two graphics cards with a single Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB Video Card, the multi-monitor support was not too present on the old cards anyways, I have replaced the motherboard with a MSI X99S SLI Plus ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard as it seems like a good choice and I have added a CPU cooler as the intel one does not come with one, I am keeping the current CPU as the new system I am building is meant to be a direct upgrade from my current setup, which has an i7 CPU.

The cost is now $1473.78 w/o discounts which is around £979.56.
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/TheCodingEthan/saved/33cmP6

I have saved it under a new name as it is slightly more costly than my previous build.
The cost was $1449.34 w/o discounts which is around £963.32
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/TheCodingEthan/saved/3BNWGX

 

[Crash]

Okay, so

CPU: In 80% of games you will hardly notice a major difference in performance between the i7-4790K and the i5-4690K, but in other more demanding applications (like Hammer) you might. If the Hammer compiler is good with multi-threading (I'm not sure if it is), you will especially have better compile times with the i7.

Motherboard: Like iiboharz said, most good motherboards today have some sort of automatic overclocking feature. But obviously, some are generally better/more stable than others. In this test (Swedish website), for example, 4 different popular Z97 motherboards were reviewed and compared against eachother. According to this review, the Asrock Fatali1y Z97 Killer had the "best" automatic overclocking feature, but the ASUS Z97-A had the "most advanced" automatic overclocking functions, and also the highest overall score in other categories. The MSI Z97 Gaming 5 had the "worst" automatic overclocking, and the Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 5 apparently automatically overclocks by itself without the user knowing (so I'd personally stay away from that particular model). I've also tried the automatic overclocking myself on my own ASUS P8Z77-V motherboard, and I think it works pretty well. Just make sure whatever automatic overclocking you use doesn't go too crazy on the voltage.

Monitor: Depending on the quality of your two old monitors and whether or not you want to use Nvidia Surround (which has a lot of requirements), I'd recommend either getting a monitor of similar quality to those ones if you want to save money (like you're proposing), or to get a much better one (in terms of response time and refresh rate) to put in the middle and use as the primary monitor. In the second case, you might even want to wait for G-Sync monitors to come down in prize (or fork out a lot of money to buy one now, like the ROG Swift) since that technology is pretty awesome, or even buy an AMD graphics card instead and wait for FreeSync (which may or may not be less expensive than G-Sync in most cases). To answer your question though, here's one: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-vn247hp

Storage: As long as you have a secondary hard drive, your old SSD will do just fine if you manage your space correctly. If the only game you have on your SSD is TF2, and the rest of your games are on the hard drive, you should have plenty of space left. But if your hard drive is really slow at loading games, I guess you could add another SSD (which you would then use as your boot drive since it would probably be faster) so you can have faster load times.

PSU: No. It's also always nice to have some headroom as long as you don't have to pay too much extra for it.

I'd also like to add two things I said in an earlier post that I still think are important:

Changed my memory, I had honestly only went with it because it was orange.

But I'm going to go with a slightly smaller PSU. That PSU you suggested is nearly double the cost, and I can't justify going with that one because it has better reviews.

Here's the updated build:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($316.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: NZXT Kraken X61 106.1 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($128.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Asus Z97-A ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($137.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Gaming Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($130.98 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card ($329.00 @ Directron)
Case: NZXT H440 (Orange/Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($109.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.99 @ NCIX US)
Monitor: Asus VS248H-P 24.0" Monitor ($148.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Mouse: Logitech G502 Wired Optical Mouse (Purchased For $0.00)
Total: $1367.92
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-29 17:56 EST-0500

Changed monitor to one another forum mentioned, as it doesn't have built-in speakers and is about the same. Although it doesn't have a Display Port in it, either, so I'd be force to use HDMI. But that other forum is saying that's not an issue either.

 

[Freyja]

I'll tell you right away that you should go for an NVIDIA card instead of an AMD.

Let's not introduce personal bias here. AMD cards are perfectly fine, if not better in a lot of cases. The The 290 is basically equal on performance to the 970 (and performs better at higher resolutions) and is like $100 cheaper. It just uses a lot more power and has older technology because it's a generation behind. AMD has every opportunity to knock nvidia's socks off with their 300 series.

It's also probably important to bring into this topic that recently the 970 has been revealed to have a VRAM problem where the last 0.5gb runs much slower, and in any game that uses 3.5gb+ of vram you'll have frame stuttering when it tries to access the slower memory. It's still a great card, but might not last as long as expected with games going to heavy-vram route these days. Consequently lots of people have begun suggesting the R9 290 instead.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

There was something about how you can turn in your 970 for a newer Radeon or something, because of that.

found link

 

[seth]

Crash, I don't know what your budget is for monitors, but there is a particular Korean market that churns out basically knock-off Apple designs that didn't exactly meet Apple's requirements. They are great IPS, LED displays that are of the same quality as Apple's displays, but they retail for much much less. You can pick them up in the range of $250-$400.

http://www.tested.com/tech/pcs/449537-korean-monitor-guide/

 

[DonutVikingChap]

Let's not introduce personal bias here. AMD cards are perfectly fine, if not better in a lot of cases. The The 290 is basically equal on performance to the 970 (and performs better at higher resolutions) and is like $100 cheaper. It just uses a lot more power and has older technology because it's a generation behind. AMD has every opportunity to knock nvidia's socks off with their 300 series.

It's also probably important to bring into this topic that recently the 970 has been revealed to have a VRAM problem where the last 0.5gb runs much slower, and in any game that uses 3.5gb+ of vram you'll have frame stuttering when it tries to access the slower memory. It's still a great card, but might not last as long as expected with games going to heavy-vram route these days. Consequently lots of people have begun suggesting the R9 290 instead.

Yeah, it's a bit of a bummer that such an otherwise amazing card has to have these small issues that people find out like coil whine and the memory bug. I hope Nvidia eventually releases a new flagship to drive the 980 down in price or something, since that card seems to have less issues.

There was something about how you can turn in your 970 for a newer Radeon or something, because of that.

found link

lol

 

[DonutVikingChap]

Changed my memory, I had honestly only went with it because it was orange.

But I'm going to go with a slightly smaller PSU. That PSU you suggested is nearly double the cost, and I can't justify going with that one because it has better reviews.

Here's the updated build:


Changed monitor to one another forum mentioned, as it doesn't have built-in speakers and is about the same. Although it doesn't have a Display Port in it, either, so I'd be force to use HDMI. But that other forum is saying that's not an issue either.

Okay, looking pretty good now!
(That memory is still CAS 10, though, but it's not a huge deal if you don't want to change it.)

 

[Vel0city]

To all the people planning to go with a GTX970 now: don't. It has some serious memory issues where speeds drop down as low as 6 GB/s which is INSANELY low when the memory starts to fill up. Normal is around 190 GB/s.

 

[Crash]

So I* decided to bump a few things up a notch, including going with the 980 and getting a new larger SSD. I also bumped the RAM up to a CAS 9 variety as per recommended. Here's the new, close to final build:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($316.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: NZXT Kraken X61 106.1 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($128.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Asus Z97-A ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($137.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($139.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: PNY Optima 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 980 4GB STRIX Video Card ($544.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: NZXT H440 (Orange/Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($109.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($47.99 @ NCIX US)
Monitor: Asus VS248H-P 24.0" Monitor ($148.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Mouse: Logitech G502 Wired Optical Mouse (Purchased For $0.00)
Total: $1655.91
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-30 18:14 EST-0500

*Mrs Crash said I could.

 

[YM]

Is liquid cooling really worth it? Is there a nice paper or article that has some good clear data on performance and longevity of a CPU when liquid cooled vs fan cooled that anyone can link me to?

 

[Freyja]

To all the people planning to go with a GTX970 now: don't. It has some serious memory issues where speeds drop down as low as 6 GB/s which is INSANELY low when the memory starts to fill up. Normal is around 190 GB/s.

I explained this last page. It's only the last 0,5gb, it's still a very good card, considering most games don't reach that. It's just a longevity problem really.

 

[Vel0city]

I explained this last page. It's only the last 0,5gb, it's still a very good card, considering most games don't reach that. It's just a longevity problem really.

For single displays, yes. However, Crash is already using 2 displays, and he's considering adding a 3rd, so that last 500 MB is reached quite quickly then. Also, some people have reported seeing enormous memory speed drops when their cards only reached 2.5 GB usage. Of course, your milage may vary.

 

[DonutVikingChap]

So I* decided to bump a few things up a notch, including going with the 980 and getting a new larger SSD. I also bumped the RAM up to a CAS 9 variety as per recommended. Here's the new, close to final build:

*Mrs Crash said I could.

Looks very nice, but I'd probably get this SSD: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/crucial-internal-hard-drive-ct256mx100ssd1 or the Samsung 850 EVO instead, since they're more reputable SSD manufacturers.

Is liquid cooling really worth it? Is there a nice paper or article that has some good clear data on performance and longevity of a CPU when liquid cooled vs fan cooled that anyone can link me to?

Not really. It always depends on the model of course, but in general you can usually get almost the same performance with a good tower cooler as you can with an AiO water cooler, and have it run quieter as well. That's why I usually recommend this 140mm Noctua cooler.

But of course, if you just want the maximum performance possible (or just want your rig to look cool), getting a dual-fan AiO water cooler can certainly be justified (as long as you have a Core i7 or equivalent). It's just that the difference won't be very big.

(I personally have a Corsair H100, but I built my PC in 2012 and I didn't know as much about CPU coolers back then. I currently have it running at the lowest fan speed option due to its noise, and even with a modest overclock my i7-3770K is running at good temperatures, even under load. Had I built my PC today, I would've gotten an air cooler.)

 

[Freyja]

It's important to note, while probably not a problem in england, here water cooling is almost better on the sheer fact that it takes the heat out of the case immediately, especially in sweltering summers.

 

[DonutVikingChap]

It's important to note, while probably not a problem in england, here water cooling is almost better on the sheer fact that it takes the heat out of the case immediately, especially in sweltering summers.

Well yeah, that is essentially the main benefit of water cooling.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

Alright, so my turn to play PC Part picker. I don't have much at all right to go on, since I'm in the early stages, but I have some questions about parts I should look into or look for so I'm not too wasteful in my research.

I'm looking for a computer that is really good for dealing with game editors, packaging, compiling, etc (basic game developer shit), while still being able to play most games at high+ settings. I currently have a Phenom II X6 Hexcore processor and love it, but it's starting to show its age. I also will be using a (soon to be new/refurbished) AMD r9 270x (manufactored by MSI) as the GPU.

What could be some powerful Mobo/CPU part families(?) that can help me get the power I'd like, while still being an awesome gaming computer? Don't worry horribly about price, but I'd like to be as reasonably cheap as possible.

What I have so far, (basically all the stuff that I've bough in the past 1.5 years that are still good EXCEPT THE CASE**) since that'll help

 

[Vel0city]

Alright, so my turn to play PC Part picker. I don't have much at all right to go on, since I'm in the early stages, but I have some questions about parts I should look into or look for so I'm not too wasteful in my research.

I'm looking for a computer that is really good for dealing with game editors, packaging, compiling, etc (basic game developer shit), while still being able to play most games at high+ settings. I currently have a Phenom II X6 Hexcore processor and love it, but it's starting to show its age. I also will be using a (soon to be new/refurbished) AMD r9 270x (manufactored by MSI) as the GPU.

What could be some powerful Mobo/CPU part families(?) that can help me get the power I'd like, while still being an awesome gaming computer? Don't worry horribly about price, but I'd like to be as reasonably cheap as possible.

What I have so far, (basically all the stuff that I've bough in the past 1.5 years that are still good EXCEPT THE CASE**) since that'll help

For the game dev shit some Intel 6-cores will do the trick. X99 stuff is great but that's just REALLY EXPENSIVE, but X79 is still an awesome platform. Heck, even Hammer can handle up to 16 threads (so 8 cores, 8 threads if you go for the beastly I7-5960X on X99) so even if you have a 6-core in there it will be much faster. However, if you're budget bound any 4-core i7 will do.

As for the GPU: a lot of game development stuff (or 3D stuff in general) benefits ENORMOUSLY from CUDA related stuff (like 3D modeling programs), so I'd throw out that 270X for a 980 or a 970 (although the 970 has some issues right now) or even a GTX960. Yeah I know expensive, and yeah I know Source doesn't like nVidia cards a lot (especially TF2 with all the driver issues) but it's so worth it in the long run.