posted
So I'm finally in a position to build my own computer, hopefully for gaming. I don't know my exact budget yet, but I'm not looking to spend a ton of money. I want a system that will run the Total War games, Starcraft II, and probably Final Fantasy XIV when it comes out.
I'm just starting doing the research into what's good and not, but I thought I'd ask trusty old Hatrack for suggestions. Thanks!
posted
You're looking to actually build it yourself, yeah? Then a lot of your answer is gonna come from newegg.com
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The computer I built from Newegg parts and no prior experience 7 years ago is still running like a champ, while my new computer from HP crashes every damn day.
So I for one support your decision .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Set your budget THEN optimize within it. It's too easy to keep noticing that for an extra hundred or so, the part you'd get would be nicer to have, 4 or 5 different times. You could end up in $1200-$1500 territory without trying too hard, but that's a lot to spend given the rapid depreciation of components.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are lots of great deals out there if you look hard. Basically start by picking the processor you want and the video card ( ATI for sure at the moment ). As far as picking between AMD and Intel I would take a look at price/performance points. See what you can spend and get the best bang for your buck in that area. From there pick a motherboard etc. I would just hit up sites like Toms Hardware or Anandtech to get a look at benchmarks across the board.
That and a little tip. Once you have picked what you want go look at their technical support forum and see what problems, if any, people have been running to with that particular mobo etc.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, btw. Good for you. I greatly enjoy building my own computers and it has worked out very well for me. This isn't the way to get the cheapest acceptably functioning PC possible (with a Best Buy clearance sale I once got an acceptable new PC for about $140; you couldn't have built it for anything close to that). But it is a way to get a really good price for what you end up with, and, more importantly, end up with exactly what you want. Plus it lays a foundation in confidence and knowledge about how computers work, which pays off when you replace just the piece that is failing without paying retail repair prices or getting upsold to a total replacement scenario.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When purchasing your video cards, there are a few things you should know.
If you prefer SLI and Nvidia, and want to go on the cheaper side, consider the Geforce 8800GT. It is an older card and can be harder to find, but the first card that out performed them was the GTX260. The cards under it are basically re-hashes of the 8800's, and are often over priced.
If you are looking for a little bit more of a mid market card you could go for the 270 or 290 series, but if you want massive power that will last you for years, go for one of the new cards in the 400 series. They will cost you about $500 a piece, but you are not going to need to upgrade for the next 5-10 years.
On board audio has actually caught up and is sufficient for most gaming. Most have the EAX chips as well so you don't have to worry about buying anything extra for it. If you do any audio mixing or music however you will want a good internal card.
RAM, Motherboards, and Processors are more tricky. The new I7 processors are nice and powerful, but an I3 or I5 will play any game out there and for half the price.
Make sure that your motherboard supports the RAM you purchase. DDR3 and DDR4 may be nice, but it is a hell of a lot more expensive than the DDR2. Again, it depends on how much you are spending.
Make sure the motherboard has SLI/ Crossfire support if you are going to go that route or plan to in the future.
Other than that, if you are going for a powerful machine don't get anything less than an 800 watt power supply, and get a good pair of headphones.
Tiger Direct and New Egg have good deals all the time, keep an eye on those two sites. I picked up a 24 inch Acer LCD Monitor for $129 around 6 months ago, and I love it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: if you want massive power that will last you for years, go for one of the new cards in the 400 series. They will cost you about $500 a piece, but you are not going to need to upgrade for the next 5-10 years.
I think that's an exaggeration. 5, maybe. After a couple of years you'll be unable to play some newer titles at high quality settings. In 10 years you'll be lucky if the thing works at all, and if it does work it'll be horribly outdated.
Don't pay enthusiast prices for future proofing. It doesn't work.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ehh, cap yourself at about $500 or $600. Expect the computer to last for three years. Get the "almost best" of every component (Core i3, 1.5 T harddrive, Blu-Ray reader / cd burner).
You'll save a bundle and replace in three years. You'll be able to run anything you like in the interim. Likely, it'll still run great and you can have two PC's (I'm up to four fairly current PC's, just update video cards etc.)
Check Tigerdirect and Newegg. Sometimes you save by using both -- or just one. Check the shipping.
Good luck, have fun, and learn about "grounding yourself" if you aren't that experienced.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Don't pay enthusiast prices for future proofing. It doesn't work.
Is this the general consensus? I've been trying to decide whether or not its worth it to go for a quad core over a dual core, and whether or not to go for DDR3.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless you are using a lot of well programmed multi-threaded applications, then stick with the dual core. As it seems that this is mainly for gaming I would most certainly stick to 2 cores. Lower system temperatures, not to mention a much better price point.
DDR3 has dropped in price a lot, but you can get low latency DDR2 memory for a lot less than the equivalent DD3. Then you have to think if you will be running a 32 or 64 bit OS, since going over 3-4 gigs on a 32 bit OS will do you no good as it can't address more than 4, with a 64 bit OS you do not have the same limitation.
That and I would personally avoid the 400 series Nvidia cards, they are nothing but heat demons. With video cards it is almost always more efficient to pay around 150-200 for a card and then simply uprgrade on a fairly regular basis and you end up with better real world performance then you would otherwise. Not to mention do not spend a ton of money on a video card if you do not have a monitor that will keep up with what you have. Who cares if you can play games at an insanely high resolution if you have a monitor that can't display at those resolutions. Hence, go for the middle.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just looking into the 32 bit vs 64 bit question and it seems like a good idea to go for 64.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With a Windows 7 64 bit rig, a cheap quad core will run circles around a cheap dual core. You'll notice a huge difference in performance, especially game performance.
The real question is dual core versus the low-end i3.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Don't pay enthusiast prices for future proofing. It doesn't work.
Is this the general consensus? I've been trying to decide whether or not its worth it to go for a quad core over a dual core, and whether or not to go for DDR3.
Personally I'd look for dual core with hyperthreading and DDR3. I think this is doable without getting into the priciest stuff.
The point I was trying to make is that buying the top of the line stuff now will not mean your stuff isn't outdated in a few years compared to the stuff that will be available then. (If you want high end stuff now, don't kid yourself that you're saving money over the long run by buying it.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So would this be a good deal? It's a AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM2+ 125W Quad-Core Processor for $125.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: So would this be a good deal? It's a AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM2+ 125W Quad-Core Processor for $125.
Yea, for a simple (or complex) gaming machine AMD's are a better bang per buck
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think that's an exaggeration. 5, maybe. After a couple of years you'll be unable to play some newer titles at high quality settings. In 10 years you'll be lucky if the thing works at all, and if it does work it'll be horribly outdated.
Don't pay enthusiast prices for future proofing. It doesn't work.
Half true. The more powerful video card you have now, the longer you can use it until you have to upgrade. If you purchase a card in the 8000 series now, you may get a few years out of it, but will have to upgrade sooner than if you purchased a top of the line card.
I've been playing brand new games such as Mass Effect 2 at maximum settings with my two 8800GT's at a cool 50-60 fps. I got my cards in 2006. The only game I have not been able to run at full settings is Crysis, though not even the new 400 series can play it at max settings, so there you are.
I can also play Starcraft 2 at full settings with no slow down, even with massive amounts of units on the screen. The computers at Blizzcon last year that had Diablo 3 at max settings were running on single Geforce 250 cards. That game won't even be out until 2012.
Video card improvement has slowed down in the past four or five years. The jump from the 6000 series to the 7000 series to the 8000 series was greater than the 8000 to the 9000 and 200 series. Likewise, games haven't been taxing computers as badly as games in the past. I remember when Doom 3 came out and a ton of people needed to upgrade in order to even play the game. Now you can go down to Walmart and pick up a computer for $350, go home and install almost any game and play it without a problem. (Though at reduced settings)
It is my opinion (and only my opinion) that game performance at this point in time are going to be determined more by your processor and amount of RAM than your video card.
When I play World of Warcraft, I use two monitors. I have a 24" that I play Wow on (In windowed mode with max settings) and a Sony 19" that I always have displaying movies, music, anime, or internet pages. I have never experienced any slow down on either WoW or in any movie I've watched. My two 8800GT's handle it just fine.
Not even close to being the most powerful machine, but I can run 99% of games at max settings with cards that are 4 1/2 years old. I bought the cards the day they came out for $263 each (I got them at cost since I worked at a computer store at the time)
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
The 8800 GTs were released in Oct 2007. That would put their age at this point at a bit over 2.5 years, not 4.5.
Plus, you were recommending "one of" the new GeForce cards, not two in SLI (which would double the initial cost).
As for decelerating improvements, I think you're wrong. Let's compare pixel fillrate (since it's a convenient metric).
In the first half of 2005, the 6800 Ultra was released with about 6.4GP/s.
In the second half of 2007, the 8800 GT was released, and can do about 9.6GP/s. The needle moved 50% in 2.5 years.
Now the Fermi cards, after another 2.5 years, can do 24.3GP/s. (GTX 470). 150% improvement in the same time span, compared to 50%.
More importantly, your 8800GTs cannot support DirectX 11. Future revisions to standards will probably only be supported by future products, not the ones on the shelf right now.
In 5 years the current Fermi cards will be outdated, although I believe many of them will still be in use. In 10 years it'll be like a Diamond Viper v770 is now.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say this. One fermi card now, plus a second once they are a few years in and available for less money, would mean you had SLI later (when games might be taxing enough to require two) without as much cost. This would give you more life than a single card without a dramatically increased cost.
Also, this: I'm considering a Fermi card right now too. It's not like I'm against buying the new expensive stuff. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you even buy 8800GTs anymore? And even if you can, why would you buy one instead of a 9800GT, which is just a rebadged 8800GT that uses a little less power and supports HybridSLI?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
As to why one would: I have one. I don't think I can do SLI with anything other than another 8800GT. So it might be something I would do, if I didn't want to get DX11 support with my next upgrade.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Who's suggesting you buy 8800GTs anymore?
Geraine did. I have a 9800GT and love it, but I think there are better recommendations for someone building a new machine.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So how big of a difference is there between, say, a 2.6 GHz processor and 3.0 GHz? I'm talking about AMD here.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming you're talking about Phenom II X4s, here's a comparison chart. Not a huge difference in some things, but there is a pretty decent difference in others.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Don't pay enthusiast prices for future proofing. It doesn't work.
Is this the general consensus? I've been trying to decide whether or not its worth it to go for a quad core over a dual core, and whether or not to go for DDR3.
You know, five years ago I would have absolutely agreed. Right now it's a lot less clear. The extended game console cycle and the long-term success of World of Warcraft has kept some of the excesses of game designers in check for now. With the exceptions of some of the Crysis engine games, a quad-core system with a mid-level video card has been a very comfortable place to be for some time. I think in the medium term (5 years or so) you're more likely to have trouble with the OS (and Direct X, and relevant drivers) than you are with hardware.
But I would definitely go with a quad-core system. The prices on them have fallen so dramatically there's very little reason to go with dual-core unless you find a truly amazing deal on a pre-built system. And while AMD's best still fall behind the i7 line, with a decent video card one is talking about the difference between receiving 100fps on the latest and greatest and only getting, say, 60.
Oh, and while I love me some NewEgg, I've often found it's worth having a gander at TigerDirect as well if you're buying things piecemeal.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think in the medium term (5 years or so) you're more likely to have trouble with the OS (and Direct X, and relevant drivers) than you are with hardware.
The Direct X thing was something I was thinking about with video cards. My gut says go for something with Direct X 11 support, but that definitely limits my selection by a lot. But it seems like we are pretty much at the cusp where from some point in the near future, Direct X 11 compatibility will be necessary. Am I misjudging things and making it too big of a deal?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main reason I ask is because this EVGA GeForce 9500 GT Video Card is only $50 over at Tigerdirect. I could get two and do the whole SLI thing and pretty much be at budget, or just get one and be quite underbudget.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 9500 GT is not that great of a card—there are much better cards for the money, I think. Check here.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I actually went to that exact page not too long after I posted. I actually right now am liking the look of the Radeon 5750. It's a little pricier, but I suppose for a gaming machine if I'm going to put a bit of money into something it should be the graphics card. And right now it's going for around $120 on Newegg (that's with a little rebate action), which isn't that bad.
My goal is to stay under $130 (maybe a little more) for the graphics card and processor and under $100 for the memory (in other words I'm going to be happy with 4 gigs).
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I recently built a nice gaming rig (2 months ago). The parts I used:
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (3.2) Motherboard - Asus M4A785D-V Evo Hard Disk 1TB 7200rpm, SATA 3 Gb/s, Cache 128 MB 4x Memory Markvision 2gb 1333MHZ (DDR3) Case - Gabinete CoolerMaster Elite 335 Video - Nvidia GT 260
Cost: Well... I'm from Brazil, so computer stuff is more expensive here. At least I can provide you some specs.
posted
The Radeon 5750 and GeForce 9800 are apparently quite comparable. The most significant difference I see between them, if it's an issue, is the GeForce pulls significantly more power. Failing that, it comes down to price; I suspect that either would make a fine choice.
Regarding Direct X, I honestly don't know for certain. Game companies were very slow to adopt DX 10, many choosing to release games that played just fine under DX 9 and only used 10 to deliver a little bit of extra "chrome". Again, the fact that the majority of AAA games these days are cross-platform releases that have to be playable on the Playstation 3 and XBox 360 has reduced the willingness of many developers to make massive redesigns (of the sort that would most advantage the latest versions of DX) just for the PC. Consider that Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 2, and Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands - three of the latest and greatest, all considered to be at or near the graphics state-of-the-art- all require DX 9 rather than 10.
If the pattern holds consistent, I wouldn't expect versions of DX after 10.1 to be a requirement for some time.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright. It's come down to three processors.
First, we have the Intel Core i3-530. Clocking in at 2.93 GHz, this is only a dual core, but it also is reasonably priced.
Next, we have AMD Phenom II X4 945. Slightly pricier, but it also has the four cores and clocks in at 3.0 GHz.
Last but not least is the AMD Phenom II X4 940. The differences I note between this and the previous one are that this one is cheaper, but does not include a fan, is 125W as opposed to 95W, uses the AM2+ socket instead of the AM3, and the HyperTransports (??) are 3600 as opposed to 4000.
Honorable (pricey) mention goes to the AMD Phenom II X4 955, the 945's big brother. Slightly faster, includes the fan and heatsink, but also slightly more expensive.
So, is the 945 worth it? Or the 955 for that matter? If I stick with something a little cheaper will I notice a significant difference?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The i3 would be preferable if you intend to upgrade this PC in the future or if you intended to overclock.
The 945 would be preferable if you'd prefer raw power now and have no intention of overclocking or upgrading, though the difference would vary depending on the game you played.
Wouldn't the i3 drive up the motherboard / RAM cost a little (or a lot)? It's a total re-engineer, omitting the front-side-bus that has been used forever. Though I haven't played a lot with the new series of processors, you'd think that their performance in SOME tasks would be quite superior (just due to the FSB changes).
I'd say to go with whichever can give you the cheaper overall computer with comparable performance (once you add in the motherboard / ram prices).
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2 GHz Quad-Core Processor
AMD 790GX Motherboard
Radeon HD 5770 1 GB Graphics Card
AMD Black Edition 4 GB DDR3 1600 Memory
Individually that would cost almost around $575, but with combo deal discounts and rebates it comes out to around $460. I figure that's a pretty good price for some quite good parts. Not top of the line, but quite good. I also like that the motherboard, memory, and processor are all compatible.
Any thoughts? Am I missing something?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha, I know I need all of that. I meant more am I missing something about this being a good deal.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like a good system, but it might be a little bit of overkill. You've really rocked the price point, if you don't mind spending that much. After hard drive, case, and optical drive, you'll be lucky to run under $800.
I built a quad core a year ago with 4 gigs of ram, a 9800 GT, Blu-ray drive, ahd 1 T hard drive for around $600. It'll run any game I throw at it, in 1080P even.
I guess it just depends on how much you want to save money and how soon before you'll replace it as your primary gaming PC. You could get a cheaper AMD X4 processor, a 9800 GT, some cheaper ram and motherboard and shave several hundred dollars.
The setup you've listed should last for at least four years. Mine'll probably be good for another two or three.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 5770 is $160, but its part of a combo deal that takes $25 off it and the RAM, which was $100, then there's an additional $15 mail in rebate. So say I take $25 off the card, makes it $135, then $15 off the RAM, makes it $85, both of which come in right at what I was wanting to spend.
The motherboard and processor I'm not as sold on, as both are a bit pricier than I intended. But I do like the idea of the system lasting me quite a while. There's also a deal for a 500 GB Hard Drive for $40. That should do me, as I have a 750 GB external already.
ETA: I confess, I'm a bit lost when it comes to motherboards. There's such a big selection with such a price range that I'm not sure what to look for. So seeing this one recommended by both the RAM and the Processor appealed to me. Is buying a cheap motherboard ok? In this case the processor is $160 and the motherboard $125, but there is a $20 mail in rebate and $25 combo discount, making the processor $140 (which is what I was planning on spending with the 945) and the motherboard $100, which... well, I have no idea what an acceptable pricerange is there, but as I said, this one evidently works well with both the processor and the RAM.
posted
If the motherboard works with the CPU and RAM, the two other things to consider are the reputation for reliability and the phsyical specifications. Does it have enough room for your video card? Will the presence of your chosen video card block anything else you might want to put into a PCI slot? Do you have enough room for future expansions you might want to make? Does it have onboard features you need- networking, modem, Wi-Fi, sound- or if not, does it have the PCI slots or USB ports to add them? If you need it, does it have a Firewire port? Adequate number of SATA connections, or even IDE connections if you plan to hook up an older drive?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I looked at several reviews of the board and it seems pretty good for what I need. The only thing that's questionable is the ease to Crossfire it, but I'm not planning on doing that anyways, and even if I was, it looks like its definitely possible, just perhaps not with the card I got, as it may or may not end up covering both slots.
So now on to power supply and case. What's the reason to get a really expensive case? Why not a $30ish one as opposed to a $130 one? I personally could care less how it looks, as long as my parts fit in it. I've noticed that some have significantly more fans. If get, say, a $70 case with 3 fans, will that be enough?
Same goes for power supply. I'm thinking I'll get 600W (I put what parts I got into a power supply calculator and it recommended 450, so I figure 600 gives me some room to expand), but why get a $100 one as opposed to spending $30?
It's pretty exciting. I'm almost there. If I'm able to spend $150 on the case, power supply, and optical drive, I'll be in at right around $650.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest thing with picking a power supply is long-term reliability. For that, check Newegg reviews.
There are substantial quality differences between cases. Sometimes the cheaper ones are hidden gems. Often, they're not. With a lot of the more expensive cases, you're paying for the flashy features more than anything. Not sure if you're into the flashing lights and whatnot. Either way - Newegg reviews. Antec makes decent looking reliable cases. Lian Lis are purdy and sturdy, but a bit pricey.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Strangelove: a power supply is arguably one of the most important components you can buy for your custom rig, and a good one is likely to outlive most of the other components you buy.
It actually makes more sense to buy a low-end GPU with the intention of upgrading someday than it does to buy a cheap power supply. Do not skimp on this.
Personally, I highly recommend Corsair supplies, but there are a number of solid, reliable brands out there. (Any one manufactured by Seasonic, regardless of branding, is worth investigating.)
posted
Board: It's fine to go dirt cheap. MAKE SURE that it has the slots that you want (PCI-Express, etc). Check reviews to ensure that it doesn't have a bad rating (below 3.5 stars or so).
Power Supply: It's fine to go dirt cheap. MAKE SURE that it has the enough power connections for your peripherals and MAKE SURE that it either has the proper power cable for your video card or that you purchase a good adapter. Check reviews to ensure that it doesn't have a bad rating (below 3.5 stars or so).
Cases: It's fine to go dirt cheap. Make sure that the form factor (mATX, ATX, etc) is the same as the motherboard. Some cheap cases include a digital display and sensors for temperatures -- if you're overclocking, it's a good investment to have a manual temp monitor. Check reviews for bad ratings.
Fan: You can find a good, cheap, silent fan for around 10 or 15 dollars. Use every fan port that the case gives you -- they're designed to use that airflow, and omitting a fan is bad juju.
Optical drives: Cheap drives like Lite-On are usually fine. Check reviews based on the exact model. At this point, there isn't much need for a Blu-Ray burner, and you don't need a Blu-Ray player unless you're a videophile or using the PC as a media center.
Ram: Check the speed and the review. If you're buying the fancy ram, make sure that the motherboard can support the higher clockspeed. Make sure that the ram cards are THE SAME speed (or it'll run at the slowest speed). You don't always get a noticeable improvement from a higher speed / "better" brand ram.
Processor: Check reviews and benchmarks and compare to your pricepoint. AMD's are usually cheaper for the money and perform well in video games. Intel's usually a little pricier but performs better in raw computation (zip files, Photoshop, transcoding video). If you're a gamer, get an AMD. If not, you might want to invest in the Intel.
Video Cards: Reviews and benchmarks. Look at the different vendors. Look at the factory overclocked models.
Hard drives: Go for volume at the mid-range price point. Unless you have a teeny case, buy a 1.5 T and you can probably add a second down the road.
Monitors: Save money in the rest of your PC and buy a 42" LCD for around $500.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
