Originally posted by Kilrane I don't know about Glyph, but both Steam and Origin allow you to install games wherever you want. It has been this way for a very long time and it's very user friendly on both platforms. It is completely reasonable to go with a 250(ish) GB SSD along with a large storage drive.
Problem isn't the instalation, problem is when you want to free up space on SSD.
Hrm...it seems that Steam does allow you to "Backup" installed games. So in case of Steam, this might be actually an advantage since using traditional launcher to install the game, you would unlikely have the same option. Not sure about other "apps".
It is all very individual, depending how one use their computer and whether they want to deal with the hassle.
ASUS RAMPAGE V EXTREME, Extended ATX x99 Motherboard
Creative Sound Blaster Zx PCIe Gaming Sound Card
Phanteks Enthoo Series Primo Aluminum ATX Ultimate Full Tower Computer Case
EVGA SuperNOVA 1300G2 ATX12V/EPS12V 1300W 80Plus Gold Power Supply
EVGA GTX980 Superclocked ACX 2.0 4GB GDDR5
I am reusing my Razor keyboard and mouse from my old pc as well as my old Logitech 5.1 speakers as well as my current 4K dual monitor setup so my current build cost me $2000 (combination of Amazon Prime, Newegg Premier, Microcenter (Price Matching) and online coupons).......Christmas time is the best time to build a new pc...ALL THE DISCOUNTS!!!!
Originally posted by nycplayboy78 I am making a new gaming build right now and here it is: Intel i7-5820K 3.3GHzADATA XPG Z1 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2800SAMSUNG 840 EVO MZ-7TE1T0BW 2.5" 1TB SSD- OS ONLYSeagate Desktop SSHD 4TB Solid State Hybrid Drive - Everything ElseASUS RAMPAGE V EXTREME, Extended ATX x99 MotherboardCreative Sound Blaster Zx PCIe Gaming Sound CardPhanteks Enthoo Series Primo Aluminum ATX Ultimate Full Tower Computer CaseEVGA SuperNOVA 1300G2 ATX12V/EPS12V 1300W 80Plus Gold Power SupplyEVGA GTX980 Superclocked ACX 2.0 4GB GDDR5 I am reusing my Razor keyboard and mouse from my old pc as well as my old Logitech 5.1 speakers as well as my current 4K dual monitor setup so my current build cost me $2000 (combination of Amazon Prime, Newegg Premier, Microcenter (Price Matching) and online coupons).......Christmas time is the best time to build a new pc...ALL THE DISCOUNTS!!!!
ASUS RAMPAGE V EXTREME, Extended ATX x99 Motherboard
Creative Sound Blaster Zx PCIe Gaming Sound Card
Phanteks Enthoo Series Primo Aluminum ATX Ultimate Full Tower Computer Case
EVGA SuperNOVA 1300G2 ATX12V/EPS12V 1300W 80Plus Gold Power Supply
EVGA GTX980 Superclocked ACX 2.0 4GB GDDR5
I am reusing my Razor keyboard and mouse from my old pc as well as my old Logitech 5.1 speakers as well as my current 4K dual monitor setup so my current build cost me $2000 (combination of Amazon Prime, Newegg Premier, Microcenter (Price Matching) and online coupons).......Christmas time is the best time to build a new pc...ALL THE DISCOUNTS!!!!
You are buying a 1TB SSD for the OS Only??? Thats like buying a 15 passenger van to take your 80LB midget cousin to work every day.
Yes, you are correct, like I said above, it was a late night last night lol.
To everything else, was trying to see what these kinda builds would look like, thinking I should see what a 8350, i7, i5, 6300 builds would look like this week to see what the price differences are as well as see what kinda of hardware would make sense with each build to see what features I would get for those price points.
Although I think it goes to show, that I shouldn't work on this towards the end of the night when I'm seeing double, LOL
Sleep is underrated, it makes wonders
I would suggest you creating a base line, something from where you want to start.
I would go with FX-6300 build that allows you to keep your budget low and if willing to pay, fitting in some extras.
Particular parts are subject to change, it was put together to help you follow the price point and get a better picture what you may get for your money
You're going far out of your way to artificially narrow the price chasm between AMD and Intel.
The AMD CPU comes with a much better cooler than the Intel one, so you buy an aftermarket cooler for the AMD and keep the inferior stock cooler for the Intel. Many people would go the other way around, and nearly all of the rest would at least make the same choice for both CPUs.
Second, you're picking a much better motherboard for the AMD CPU than for the Intel. The Intel motherboard choice is particularly egregious if you get a Core i5-4690K, as you're paying extra for an overclockable processor only to have the motherboard disable overclocking. I'm not saying that either of the motherboard choices are never justifiable in isolation, but most people would pair a higher end motherboard with a higher end CPU and a lower end motherboard with a lower end CPU--both as a consequence of a larger or smaller budget.
And remember before when it was problematic that you picked a really low clocked Core i5? Well, it seems that you just found one clocked even lower.
Originally posted by QuizzicalYou're going far out of your way to artificially narrow the price chasm between AMD and Intel.
Nothing artificial there.
1) With FX-6300 being the low budget setup with max aim on value/performance, overlock is expected thus decent board and aftermarket fan.
Although, one could probably save 20 USD with Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P.
2) i5-4690k indeed needs Z97 and a cooler. An oversight on my end, good catch.
3) There was no issue with previously suggested i5-4460 build, it was an alternative to suggested FX-8350 and the budget was very tight on that one.
i5-4440 dropped in price for 20 USD and as such, it is a big step up from FX-6300 for least money.
One could probably save a lot going with H81 in this setup, making FX-6300 built pointless, but I wanted to keep an option for possible future upgrade.
EDIT: Changed the list to reflect your points. Dropped that FX-6300 altogether, i5-4440+H81 combo is just too good being for the same money as FX-6300.
ASUS RAMPAGE V EXTREME, Extended ATX x99 Motherboard
Creative Sound Blaster Zx PCIe Gaming Sound Card
Phanteks Enthoo Series Primo Aluminum ATX Ultimate Full Tower Computer Case
EVGA SuperNOVA 1300G2 ATX12V/EPS12V 1300W 80Plus Gold Power Supply
EVGA GTX980 Superclocked ACX 2.0 4GB GDDR5
I am reusing my Razor keyboard and mouse from my old pc as well as my old Logitech 5.1 speakers as well as my current 4K dual monitor setup so my current build cost me $2000 (combination of Amazon Prime, Newegg Premier, Microcenter (Price Matching) and online coupons).......Christmas time is the best time to build a new pc...ALL THE DISCOUNTS!!!!
You are buying a 1TB SSD for the OS Only??? Thats like buying a 15 passenger van to take your 80LB midget cousin to work every day.
Dude...Those Windows Updates are NO JOKE...Also I should have stated that it will also contain my A/V software and anti-malware software as well...Just last week I downloaded 1GB worth of updates....Also no making fun of my midget
Originally posted by nycplayboy78 Dude...Those Windows Updates are NO JOKE...Also I should have stated that it will also contain my A/V software and anti-malware software as well...Just last week I downloaded 1GB worth of updates....Also no making fun of my midget
If 1T SSD fits in your budget, awesome.
That being said - 1G of updates vs 1T of space is... a drop in the bucket. That, and updates tend to be rather space-neutral, they take up space as they download, but once they install they tend to replace existing files, and the download ultimately (should) gets deleted, so the net change in disk space isn't very much at all once the process finishes.
A well-maintained Windows installation should take about +/- 40G of space - you can cut it in half if you really work at it, and it can get bloated over time with temporary files and such, 40G is a working average installation size with a bit of margin for things like downloading patches.
Also - AV/A-Malware stuff. Typically pretty small. Most are well under 1G, heck, even under around 100M.
That said - if you can afford it, awesome. I just don't want anyone thinking you need 1Tb because of Windows updates and antivirus.
Originally posted by nycplayboy78 Dude...Those Windows Updates are NO JOKE...Also I should have stated that it will also contain my A/V software and anti-malware software as well...Just last week I downloaded 1GB worth of updates....Also no making fun of my midget
If 1T SSD fits in your budget, awesome.
That being said - 1G of updates vs 1T of space is... a drop in the bucket. That, and updates tend to be rather space-neutral, they take up space as they download, but once they install they tend to replace existing files, and the download ultimately (should) gets deleted, so the net change in disk space isn't very much at all once the process finishes.
A well-maintained Windows installation should take about +/- 40G of space - you can cut it in half if you really work at it, and it can get bloated over time with temporary files and such, 40G is a working average installation size with a bit of margin for things like downloading patches.
Also - AV/A-Malware stuff. Typically pretty small. Most are well under 1G, heck, even under around 100M.
That said - if you can afford it, awesome. I just don't want anyone thinking you need 1Tb because of Windows updates and antivirus.
At this point, I will probably just pick up a SSD in the 128-512 range if I can swing it. Then use an extra hard drive for other storage till later in the year to purchase a larger faster HD. I'm more concerned with getting the right CPU/MB/GPU/RAM than anything else which is why I try to make suggestions and also look at what other folks are suggesting.
I'm thinking probably a 128gb SSD, cause I'm used to dealing with low amount of storage and then another 500gb on another drive to start with. That should be sufficient since I usually play 2-3 games at a time, although may have 8-10 games installed at once.
The trick is finding the CPU/MB/GPU/RAM components that won't create a self imposed bottleneck, especially since I already plan an SSD so that should make the HD a non issue bottleneck wise.
At this point, I will probably just pick up a SSD in the 128-512 range if I can swing it. Then use an extra hard drive for other storage till later in the year to purchase a larger faster HD. I'm more concerned with getting the right CPU/MB/GPU/RAM than anything else which is why I try to make suggestions and also look at what other folks are suggesting.
I'm thinking probably a 128gb SSD, cause I'm used to dealing with low amount of storage and then another 500gb on another drive to start with. That should be sufficient since I usually play 2-3 games at a time, although may have 8-10 games installed at once.
The trick is finding the CPU/MB/GPU/RAM components that won't create a self imposed bottleneck, especially since I already plan an SSD so that should make the HD a non issue bottleneck wise.
I'd recommend at least 256gb SSD if you can afford it. Some modern games take up to 50gb, so with 128gb SSD it would be only a matter of time where the 2-3 games you play at a time wouldn't fit.
Originally posted by Cramit845 The trick is finding the CPU/MB/GPU/RAM components that won't create a self imposed bottleneck, especially since I already plan an SSD so that should make the HD a non issue bottleneck wise.
I think your stressing out this part too hard.
There's always a bottleneck somewhere. If there wasn't, everything would move at the speed of light and compute instantaneously. And the resulting entropy would force the universe back into another cataclysmic self implosion of destruction, only to be reborn in another Big Bang.
The RAM stays the same. The motherboard is a function of the CPU, and apart from that mostly stays the same. You'll get a great gaming rig either way, it's just one will have a little faster CPU, and the other a little faster GPU.
Originally posted by Cramit845 The trick is finding the CPU/MB/GPU/RAM components that won't create a self imposed bottleneck, especially since I already plan an SSD so that should make the HD a non issue bottleneck wise.
I think your stressing out this part too hard.
There's always a bottleneck somewhere. If there wasn't, everything would move at the speed of light and compute instantaneously. And the resulting entropy would force the universe back into another cataclysmic self implosion of destruction, only to be reborn in another Big Bang.
The RAM stays the same. The motherboard is a function of the CPU, and apart from that mostly stays the same. You'll get a great gaming rig either way, it's just one will have a little faster CPU, and the other a little faster GPU.
I agree, which is why I have been quiet for a bit on the subject. I need to play around with parts and try not to get too bent out of shape. At this point, looking at a possible AMD build with a FX6300 or FX83xx or i5 build with either 4460 or 4690k. I've kinda decided it will be one of these now it's just a matter of figuring out exactly which way to go.
Choosing motherboards and what not, I've pretty much been looking at what is suggested here. Primarily z97 chipset for the intel boards and AM3+ for the AMD boards. Otherwise, everything else is still open and trying not to over think everything.
Originally posted by Cramit845 I agree, which is why I have been quiet for a bit on the subject. I need to play around with parts and try not to get too bent out of shape. At this point, looking at a possible AMD build with a FX6300 or FX83xx or i5 build with either 4460 or 4690k. I've kinda decided it will be one of these now it's just a matter of figuring out exactly which way to go.Choosing motherboards and what not, I've pretty much been looking at what is suggested here. Primarily z97 chipset for the intel boards and AM3+ for the AMD boards. Otherwise, everything else is still open and trying not to over think everything.
CPU bottleneck in games virtually does not exist for a while and even less these days, CPU performance is far, far ahead of CPU requirements.
Do not get scared by games like Dragon Age: Inqusition - poorly coded mess. Bioware had same issues with SWTOR.
Ok, so as I've said I've been quiet for a bit trying to figure out which way to go. I'm leaning towards i5 because I think I can make a decent build with the money I have available without having to skimp out too much. This build is my attempt at looking at a system to replace my current internals of my case. So I wouldn't need a case in this instance. I also still need to check my current PSU to see where thats at, but I recall seeing it in the 450w area and being a couple years old I figured an upgrade wouldn't be a terrible idea. I'm also figuring that the current RAM/GPU/PSU/SSD will be the same no matter what else I get.
So questions and concerns I have on this build. Is the Z97 worth while to go after or is working with the Z87 just as good? I would have to take the Z series at least because I am building this rig to overclock if the need arises. With that thought in mind, the CPU cooler is a very basic model, if there others that people would recommend or would that be sufficient for OC at a later date? The motherboard is from a manufacturer I have never purchased from myself, but with many RL friends and some posting here backing them up, I feel comfortable with it. Any other thoughts, suggestions or issues with this build please post them, would love to have some other thoughts.
Results in game benchmarks that you can find aren't necessarily representative of results in the games you'll actually play. There are two main reasons for this:
1) Review sites tend to cherry-pick games that manage to perform poorly even on very powerful hardware. This is because a review that says you can get 200 frames per second on this hardware and 250 on that hardware really only tells you that they're all plenty fast enough. Sometimes this goes so far as spotlighting games precisely because they're inefficient, and a game being badly coded tends to cause other problems beyond just poor frame rates.
2) The most demanding games at ultra settings tend to have a handful of very demanding features enabled that account for a large fraction of the workload at such settings. Some such settings make a game look different, but not really better. Sometimes they actually make the game look worse, in addition to slowing your frame rate. The sensible thing to do when playing the game is to turn such settings off. Even if you find a game where this high-end hardware gets 30 frames per second and that high-end hardware gets 40, often just selectively turning off a few things like a sensible gamer would do when actually playing the game jumps both to something much higher than the monitor refresh rate and you can't even tell the difference apart from synthetic measurements.
That's not to say that hardware reviews are worthless, though some are worthless as a result of being stupidly done. But some interpretation is needed. If a review says this piece of hardware gets 20 frames per second in this game at ridiculous settings that you'll never use, that doesn't necessarily mean that you won't get 80 frames per second if you actually play the game on that hardware and pick more sensible settings.
Ok, so as I've said I've been quiet for a bit trying to figure out which way to go. I'm leaning towards i5 because I think I can make a decent build with the money I have available without having to skimp out too much. This build is my attempt at looking at a system to replace my current internals of my case. So I wouldn't need a case in this instance. I also still need to check my current PSU to see where thats at, but I recall seeing it in the 450w area and being a couple years old I figured an upgrade wouldn't be a terrible idea. I'm also figuring that the current RAM/GPU/PSU/SSD will be the same no matter what else I get.
So questions and concerns I have on this build. Is the Z97 worth while to go after or is working with the Z87 just as good? I would have to take the Z series at least because I am building this rig to overclock if the need arises. With that thought in mind, the CPU cooler is a very basic model, if there others that people would recommend or would that be sufficient for OC at a later date? The motherboard is from a manufacturer I have never purchased from myself, but with many RL friends and some posting here backing them up, I feel comfortable with it. Any other thoughts, suggestions or issues with this build please post them, would love to have some other thoughts.
The 4690K is a very decent processor, and if you can push your budget up to accommodate it it's a good choice. The AMD R-290 is also a very good choice and you can leave the option open later for Crossfire if you want to upgrade. Z87 and Z97 are barely any different, it's mostly a marketing thing to sell more boards. There's no point in getting Z87 now though.
The cooler is fine as a stock replacement, but won't be suitable for anything except the most minor overclocking.
Lastly, 600W is too much for the system, you don't need more than your current 450W and power supplies are more efficient at higher loads. If you want to get Crossfire in the future you'd probably want 650-700W.
Originally posted by Quizzical Results in game benchmarks that you can find aren't necessarily representative of results in the games you'll actually play. There are two main reasons for this:1) Review sites tend to cherry-pick games that manage to perform poorly even on very powerful hardware. This is because a review that says you can get 200 frames per second on this hardware and 250 on that hardware really only tells you that they're all plenty fast enough. Sometimes this goes so far as spotlighting games precisely because they're inefficient, and a game being badly coded tends to cause other problems beyond just poor frame rates.2) The most demanding games at ultra settings tend to have a handful of very demanding features enabled that account for a large fraction of the workload at such settings. Some such settings make a game look different, but not really better. Sometimes they actually make the game look worse, in addition to slowing your frame rate. The sensible thing to do when playing the game is to turn such settings off. Even if you find a game where this high-end hardware gets 30 frames per second and that high-end hardware gets 40, often just selectively turning off a few things like a sensible gamer would do when actually playing the game jumps both to something much higher than the monitor refresh rate and you can't even tell the difference apart from synthetic measurements.That's not to say that hardware reviews are worthless, though some are worthless as a result of being stupidly done. But some interpretation is needed. If a review says this piece of hardware gets 20 frames per second in this game at ridiculous settings that you'll never use, that doesn't necessarily mean that you won't get 80 frames per second if you actually play the game on that hardware and pick more sensible settings.
That is what happens when theorycrafting tries to beat a reality...true Quizzical.
I don't go in critiquing builds "Oh you could save $5 with this part instead of that part" - so I don't know if this is the absolute cheapest/best deal - some people that's important, others it doesn't matter quite so much. Quiz is usually the bargain hunter - but to me if your happy with the price/performance and it all works together - that works for me.
Looking over the build:
I don't see a case, or optical drive (more or less optional, but some people like them), and I don't see a Windows license (you may already have one, but make sure). In the OP you mention you may just be upgrading and reusing these components - and that's fine. Be aware that Windows licenses only "legally" transfer to new builds (motherboards in particular) in certain situations, which is why I nearly always include/mention the price Windows in the budget.
Apart from that, the build looks good, the components look good, and it looks like a screaming gamer rig.
TO answer your questions: Very little difference between Z87 and Z97. At this stage in the game, unless your getting a fantastic closeout deal on a Z87 (and that is rare for electronics, usually they do not get deeply discounted just because it's obsolete, but occasionally if some place is trying to clear out inventory - just make sure it's not a refurb being marked as new or something), go with the 97 - they will be more likely to continue to recieve BIOS and driver updates over an already-obsolete product.
The CPU cooler you picked will be adequate for mild-moderate overclocks. It won't be on any of the "BEST COOLER EVER" lists, but it will be miles ahead of the stock Intel one, and it's a good price.
I don't go in critiquing builds "Oh you could save $5 with this part instead of that part" - so I don't know if this is the absolute cheapest/best deal - some people that's important, others it doesn't matter quite so much. Quiz is usually the bargain hunter - but to me if your happy with the price/performance and it all works together - that works for me.
Looking over the build:
I don't see a case, or optical drive (more or less optional, but some people like them), and I don't see a Windows license (you may already have one, but make sure). In the OP you mention you may just be upgrading and reusing these components - and that's fine. Be aware that Windows licenses only "legally" transfer to new builds (motherboards in particular) in certain situations, which is why I nearly always include/mention the price Windows in the budget.
Apart from that, the build looks good, the components look good, and it looks like a screaming gamer rig.
TO answer your questions: Very little difference between Z87 and Z97. At this stage in the game, unless your getting a fantastic closeout deal on a Z87 (and that is rare for electronics, usually they do not get deeply discounted just because it's obsolete, but occasionally if some place is trying to clear out inventory - just make sure it's not a refurb being marked as new or something), go with the 97 - they will be more likely to continue to recieve BIOS and driver updates over an already-obsolete product.
The CPU cooler you picked will be adequate for mild-moderate overclocks. It won't be on any of the "BEST COOLER EVER" lists, but it will be miles ahead of the stock Intel one, and it's a good price.
Well I appreciate you looking it over and at least telling me that there aren't any HUGE issues with it which is more or less what I was looking for. It does seem like I may not be able to start purchasing till after Christmas so the prices may not matter all that much although if anyone has suggestions on any part where another would give the same performance and is cheaper would love to hear but since purchase is probably not gonna happen till after Christmas it's not that big of an issue.
(Still toying with the idea of starting some of the purchasing now and getting the rest afterwards but haven't made a decision yet)
There is no case or optical drive because this is a build where I figured I would just take out my current components and replace with the above. So I already have an optical drive (2 actually although only 1 is hooked up currently) and a case to use. As well as another HP pre-built case where my current MB came from so I figure my current internals will be put into that case while I use my better antec case for this PC. As for windows license, I actually purchased a boxed Windows, so I can install that onto this PC and not worry about the license being strictly for that PC since last I read only OEM windows licenses are specifically tied to the system while a boxed copy you can install on as many machines as you want as long as you own them.
The CPU cooler is exactly what you described and what I hoped it would do. I just wanted something that would allow me to do some small overclocks later in the PC's life (My way of attempting to somewhat future proof this rig) and if it came to a point where I wanted to OC a lot than I would replace the cooler. I also shared your thoughts on the chipset, seemed no real reason to go to the older chipset when the newer Z97's aren't extremely over priced from what I have seen.
If cash is no problem. Always go with Nvidia and Intel.
I have a AMD processor, a 8350 fx, and crossfired 290xs. While certainly not bad, heck even borderline great. The fact is, both use of too much power, and deliver less performance than Nvidia and Intel. In the case of Nvidia cards, the cost is close to the same performance.
Driver wise, AMD is just as good if not better. Really enjoy the Omega driver.
AMD is coming out with some new cards next year, that may change my opinion on the graphics card front. As the 290/290x were impressive for awhile on their release.
But for gaming Intel will always be better than AMD for gaming (I'd really love to be wrong because intel is expensive).
Always try to find ram with shortest heatsinks, rams with coolers even slightly higher than the ram itself will obstruct 90% of the high-end air coolers, the only alternative is to only buy water-cooling
1600Mhz/1866/2133 there's no difference almost, for classical cpu+gpu implementation after 1600Mhz the difference in speed is under 0.1%
Never heard of Diamond for GPUs as of recently, i'd rather go for asus, the model i linked is still cheaper than the diamond one.
Originally posted by Troveaholic If cash is no problem. Always go with Nvidia and Intel.But for gaming Intel will always be better than AMD for gaming (I'd really love to be wrong because intel is expensive).
This happens to be true now, but definitely not "always".
There was a time where Intel didn't have the speed advantage. It doesn't happen often, but I can think of a couple of times at least where Intel didn't have the fastest x86 chip out for gaming.
There are times where nVidia doesn't have the speed advantage - and the back and forth between nVidia and AMD happens fairly frequently (they usually leapfrog each other every other generation or so). nVidia has been more prone to "Speed over all else" and release some particularly questionable cards just for the sake of having the fastest card (and using that as a marketing ploy to imply that all their cards are therefore faster, and believe it or not, a lot of people let themselves get brainwashed). AMD does so occasionally, but is often content to just have the best "bang for the buck" and leave it at that.
Originally posted by 13lake Never heard of Diamond for GPUs as of recently, i'd rather go for asus, the model i linked is still cheaper than the diamond one.
Diamond has been around for a long time in graphics sound cards, and other multimedia-related peripherals (thinks like video adapters and such). Once they stopped making their own GPUS (S3 Verge was popular for a bit several years ago), they became an ATI/AMD partner. They usually put out reference stuff - it won't have fancy coolers or crazy overclocks, but it's a reliable brand.
Comments
Problem isn't the instalation, problem is when you want to free up space on SSD.
Hrm...it seems that Steam does allow you to "Backup" installed games. So in case of Steam, this might be actually an advantage since using traditional launcher to install the game, you would unlikely have the same option. Not sure about other "apps".
It is all very individual, depending how one use their computer and whether they want to deal with the hassle.
I am making a new gaming build right now and here it is:
Intel i7-5820K 3.3GHz
ADATA XPG Z1 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2800
SAMSUNG 840 EVO MZ-7TE1T0BW 2.5" 1TB SSD- OS ONLY
Seagate Desktop SSHD 4TB Solid State Hybrid Drive - Everything Else
ASUS RAMPAGE V EXTREME, Extended ATX x99 Motherboard
Creative Sound Blaster Zx PCIe Gaming Sound Card
Phanteks Enthoo Series Primo Aluminum ATX Ultimate Full Tower Computer Case
EVGA SuperNOVA 1300G2 ATX12V/EPS12V 1300W 80Plus Gold Power Supply
EVGA GTX980 Superclocked ACX 2.0 4GB GDDR5
I am reusing my Razor keyboard and mouse from my old pc as well as my old Logitech 5.1 speakers as well as my current 4K dual monitor setup so my current build cost me $2000 (combination of Amazon Prime, Newegg Premier, Microcenter (Price Matching) and online coupons).......Christmas time is the best time to build a new pc...ALL THE DISCOUNTS!!!!
No SLI? Very disappointed...
You are buying a 1TB SSD for the OS Only??? Thats like buying a 15 passenger van to take your 80LB midget cousin to work every day.
You're going far out of your way to artificially narrow the price chasm between AMD and Intel.
The AMD CPU comes with a much better cooler than the Intel one, so you buy an aftermarket cooler for the AMD and keep the inferior stock cooler for the Intel. Many people would go the other way around, and nearly all of the rest would at least make the same choice for both CPUs.
Second, you're picking a much better motherboard for the AMD CPU than for the Intel. The Intel motherboard choice is particularly egregious if you get a Core i5-4690K, as you're paying extra for an overclockable processor only to have the motherboard disable overclocking. I'm not saying that either of the motherboard choices are never justifiable in isolation, but most people would pair a higher end motherboard with a higher end CPU and a lower end motherboard with a lower end CPU--both as a consequence of a larger or smaller budget.
And remember before when it was problematic that you picked a really low clocked Core i5? Well, it seems that you just found one clocked even lower.
Nothing artificial there.
1) With FX-6300 being the low budget setup with max aim on value/performance, overlock is expected thus decent board and aftermarket fan.
Although, one could probably save 20 USD with Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P.
2) i5-4690k indeed needs Z97 and a cooler. An oversight on my end, good catch.
3) There was no issue with previously suggested i5-4460 build, it was an alternative to suggested FX-8350 and the budget was very tight on that one.
i5-4440 dropped in price for 20 USD and as such, it is a big step up from FX-6300 for least money.
One could probably save a lot going with H81 in this setup, making FX-6300 built pointless, but I wanted to keep an option for possible future upgrade.
EDIT:
Changed the list to reflect your points. Dropped that FX-6300 altogether, i5-4440+H81 combo is just too good being for the same money as FX-6300.
Dude...Those Windows Updates are NO JOKE...Also I should have stated that it will also contain my A/V software and anti-malware software as well...Just last week I downloaded 1GB worth of updates....Also no making fun of my midget
If 1T SSD fits in your budget, awesome.
That being said - 1G of updates vs 1T of space is... a drop in the bucket. That, and updates tend to be rather space-neutral, they take up space as they download, but once they install they tend to replace existing files, and the download ultimately (should) gets deleted, so the net change in disk space isn't very much at all once the process finishes.
A well-maintained Windows installation should take about +/- 40G of space - you can cut it in half if you really work at it, and it can get bloated over time with temporary files and such, 40G is a working average installation size with a bit of margin for things like downloading patches.
Also - AV/A-Malware stuff. Typically pretty small. Most are well under 1G, heck, even under around 100M.
That said - if you can afford it, awesome. I just don't want anyone thinking you need 1Tb because of Windows updates and antivirus.
At this point, I will probably just pick up a SSD in the 128-512 range if I can swing it. Then use an extra hard drive for other storage till later in the year to purchase a larger faster HD. I'm more concerned with getting the right CPU/MB/GPU/RAM than anything else which is why I try to make suggestions and also look at what other folks are suggesting.
I'm thinking probably a 128gb SSD, cause I'm used to dealing with low amount of storage and then another 500gb on another drive to start with. That should be sufficient since I usually play 2-3 games at a time, although may have 8-10 games installed at once.
The trick is finding the CPU/MB/GPU/RAM components that won't create a self imposed bottleneck, especially since I already plan an SSD so that should make the HD a non issue bottleneck wise.
I'd recommend at least 256gb SSD if you can afford it. Some modern games take up to 50gb, so with 128gb SSD it would be only a matter of time where the 2-3 games you play at a time wouldn't fit.
I think your stressing out this part too hard.
There's always a bottleneck somewhere. If there wasn't, everything would move at the speed of light and compute instantaneously. And the resulting entropy would force the universe back into another cataclysmic self implosion of destruction, only to be reborn in another Big Bang.
The RAM stays the same. The motherboard is a function of the CPU, and apart from that mostly stays the same. You'll get a great gaming rig either way, it's just one will have a little faster CPU, and the other a little faster GPU.
Interesting read right there.
I agree, which is why I have been quiet for a bit on the subject. I need to play around with parts and try not to get too bent out of shape. At this point, looking at a possible AMD build with a FX6300 or FX83xx or i5 build with either 4460 or 4690k. I've kinda decided it will be one of these now it's just a matter of figuring out exactly which way to go.
Choosing motherboards and what not, I've pretty much been looking at what is suggested here. Primarily z97 chipset for the intel boards and AM3+ for the AMD boards. Otherwise, everything else is still open and trying not to over think everything.
CPU bottleneck in games virtually does not exist for a while and even less these days, CPU performance is far, far ahead of CPU requirements.
Do not get scared by games like Dragon Age: Inqusition - poorly coded mess. Bioware had same issues with SWTOR.
On more quick benchmark on CPU performance in gaming:
http://www.hardwarepal.com/2014/09/28/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
AMD is ok performance wise but does not provide good value for money.
Ok, so as I've said I've been quiet for a bit trying to figure out which way to go. I'm leaning towards i5 because I think I can make a decent build with the money I have available without having to skimp out too much. This build is my attempt at looking at a system to replace my current internals of my case. So I wouldn't need a case in this instance. I also still need to check my current PSU to see where thats at, but I recall seeing it in the 450w area and being a couple years old I figured an upgrade wouldn't be a terrible idea. I'm also figuring that the current RAM/GPU/PSU/SSD will be the same no matter what else I get.
i5 Build
PSU - $74.99 - $10.00(rebate) = $64.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139048
RAM - $79.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231460
SSD - $99.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148694
GPU - $289.99 - $25.00(rebate) = $264.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103247
CPU - $219.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117372
Motherboard - $99.99 - $10.00(rebate) = $89.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157521
CPU Cooler - $29.99 - $10.00(rebate) = $19.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065
Total: $894.93 - $55.00(rebates) = $839.93
So questions and concerns I have on this build. Is the Z97 worth while to go after or is working with the Z87 just as good? I would have to take the Z series at least because I am building this rig to overclock if the need arises. With that thought in mind, the CPU cooler is a very basic model, if there others that people would recommend or would that be sufficient for OC at a later date? The motherboard is from a manufacturer I have never purchased from myself, but with many RL friends and some posting here backing them up, I feel comfortable with it. Any other thoughts, suggestions or issues with this build please post them, would love to have some other thoughts.
Results in game benchmarks that you can find aren't necessarily representative of results in the games you'll actually play. There are two main reasons for this:
1) Review sites tend to cherry-pick games that manage to perform poorly even on very powerful hardware. This is because a review that says you can get 200 frames per second on this hardware and 250 on that hardware really only tells you that they're all plenty fast enough. Sometimes this goes so far as spotlighting games precisely because they're inefficient, and a game being badly coded tends to cause other problems beyond just poor frame rates.
2) The most demanding games at ultra settings tend to have a handful of very demanding features enabled that account for a large fraction of the workload at such settings. Some such settings make a game look different, but not really better. Sometimes they actually make the game look worse, in addition to slowing your frame rate. The sensible thing to do when playing the game is to turn such settings off. Even if you find a game where this high-end hardware gets 30 frames per second and that high-end hardware gets 40, often just selectively turning off a few things like a sensible gamer would do when actually playing the game jumps both to something much higher than the monitor refresh rate and you can't even tell the difference apart from synthetic measurements.
That's not to say that hardware reviews are worthless, though some are worthless as a result of being stupidly done. But some interpretation is needed. If a review says this piece of hardware gets 20 frames per second in this game at ridiculous settings that you'll never use, that doesn't necessarily mean that you won't get 80 frames per second if you actually play the game on that hardware and pick more sensible settings.
The 4690K is a very decent processor, and if you can push your budget up to accommodate it it's a good choice. The AMD R-290 is also a very good choice and you can leave the option open later for Crossfire if you want to upgrade. Z87 and Z97 are barely any different, it's mostly a marketing thing to sell more boards. There's no point in getting Z87 now though.
The cooler is fine as a stock replacement, but won't be suitable for anything except the most minor overclocking.
Lastly, 600W is too much for the system, you don't need more than your current 450W and power supplies are more efficient at higher loads. If you want to get Crossfire in the future you'd probably want 650-700W.
That is what happens when theorycrafting tries to beat a reality...true Quizzical.
I don't go in critiquing builds "Oh you could save $5 with this part instead of that part" - so I don't know if this is the absolute cheapest/best deal - some people that's important, others it doesn't matter quite so much. Quiz is usually the bargain hunter - but to me if your happy with the price/performance and it all works together - that works for me.
Looking over the build:
I don't see a case, or optical drive (more or less optional, but some people like them), and I don't see a Windows license (you may already have one, but make sure). In the OP you mention you may just be upgrading and reusing these components - and that's fine. Be aware that Windows licenses only "legally" transfer to new builds (motherboards in particular) in certain situations, which is why I nearly always include/mention the price Windows in the budget.
Apart from that, the build looks good, the components look good, and it looks like a screaming gamer rig.
TO answer your questions:
Very little difference between Z87 and Z97. At this stage in the game, unless your getting a fantastic closeout deal on a Z87 (and that is rare for electronics, usually they do not get deeply discounted just because it's obsolete, but occasionally if some place is trying to clear out inventory - just make sure it's not a refurb being marked as new or something), go with the 97 - they will be more likely to continue to recieve BIOS and driver updates over an already-obsolete product.
The CPU cooler you picked will be adequate for mild-moderate overclocks. It won't be on any of the "BEST COOLER EVER" lists, but it will be miles ahead of the stock Intel one, and it's a good price.
Well I appreciate you looking it over and at least telling me that there aren't any HUGE issues with it which is more or less what I was looking for. It does seem like I may not be able to start purchasing till after Christmas so the prices may not matter all that much although if anyone has suggestions on any part where another would give the same performance and is cheaper would love to hear but since purchase is probably not gonna happen till after Christmas it's not that big of an issue.
(Still toying with the idea of starting some of the purchasing now and getting the rest afterwards but haven't made a decision yet)
There is no case or optical drive because this is a build where I figured I would just take out my current components and replace with the above. So I already have an optical drive (2 actually although only 1 is hooked up currently) and a case to use. As well as another HP pre-built case where my current MB came from so I figure my current internals will be put into that case while I use my better antec case for this PC. As for windows license, I actually purchased a boxed Windows, so I can install that onto this PC and not worry about the license being strictly for that PC since last I read only OEM windows licenses are specifically tied to the system while a boxed copy you can install on as many machines as you want as long as you own them.
The CPU cooler is exactly what you described and what I hoped it would do. I just wanted something that would allow me to do some small overclocks later in the PC's life (My way of attempting to somewhat future proof this rig) and if it came to a point where I wanted to OC a lot than I would replace the cooler. I also shared your thoughts on the chipset, seemed no real reason to go to the older chipset when the newer Z97's aren't extremely over priced from what I have seen.
If cash is no problem. Always go with Nvidia and Intel.
I have a AMD processor, a 8350 fx, and crossfired 290xs. While certainly not bad, heck even borderline great. The fact is, both use of too much power, and deliver less performance than Nvidia and Intel. In the case of Nvidia cards, the cost is close to the same performance.
Driver wise, AMD is just as good if not better. Really enjoy the Omega driver.
AMD is coming out with some new cards next year, that may change my opinion on the graphics card front. As the 290/290x were impressive for awhile on their release.
But for gaming Intel will always be better than AMD for gaming (I'd really love to be wrong because intel is expensive).
Always try to find ram with shortest heatsinks, rams with coolers even slightly higher than the ram itself will obstruct 90% of the high-end air coolers, the only alternative is to only buy water-cooling
1600Mhz/1866/2133 there's no difference almost, for classical cpu+gpu implementation after 1600Mhz the difference in speed is under 0.1%
Never heard of Diamond for GPUs as of recently, i'd rather go for asus, the model i linked is still cheaper than the diamond one.
This happens to be true now, but definitely not "always".
There was a time where Intel didn't have the speed advantage. It doesn't happen often, but I can think of a couple of times at least where Intel didn't have the fastest x86 chip out for gaming.
There are times where nVidia doesn't have the speed advantage - and the back and forth between nVidia and AMD happens fairly frequently (they usually leapfrog each other every other generation or so). nVidia has been more prone to "Speed over all else" and release some particularly questionable cards just for the sake of having the fastest card (and using that as a marketing ploy to imply that all their cards are therefore faster, and believe it or not, a lot of people let themselves get brainwashed). AMD does so occasionally, but is often content to just have the best "bang for the buck" and leave it at that.
Diamond has been around for a long time in graphics sound cards, and other multimedia-related peripherals (thinks like video adapters and such). Once they stopped making their own GPUS (S3 Verge was popular for a bit several years ago), they became an ATI/AMD partner. They usually put out reference stuff - it won't have fancy coolers or crazy overclocks, but it's a reliable brand.