Trending Games | Neverwinter | Ecol Tactics Online | WildStar | Guild Wars 2
Network: Gamertube FPSguru RTSguru
| 78 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
12/30/12 3:55:27 AM#41
I will add that what Rid and Quiz offered is basically the same given the time at which they were offered. Both builds are more than enough to meet the needs of the modern PC gamer but if your personal needs are that of Frapping your gaming sessions, then yes, you might need a better card that will cost a bit more. You can find AMD 7970 and Nvidia GTX 670 cards anywhere between 300-400 USD these days which are a bargain when you think about the gaming power they possess in the current market. That said if you wish to have said power and are willing to wait until the next gen cards come out you MIGHT save a bit of cash.
|
|
|
Alright thanks a lot everyone.
|
|
|
12/30/12 7:52:11 PM#43
Originally posted by Quizzical I don't know why you suggested such a junk CPU! With the sales on now you can get an I7 for 330$
CPU 330$ Hard Drive 100$ Ram 80$ OP 85$ SSD 150 Case 70 MOBO 100 PSU 50
965$
|
|
|
12/30/12 8:29:02 PM#44
Originally posted by Dantae87 You might want to replace that, as at least some Ultra power supplies are junk. Even at stock speeds, you've got some high wattage hardware, and overclocking might well be running the power supply out of spec. For a power supply that I wouldn't trust even if you keep its wattage draw within the claimed requirements, that's a very bad thing. |
|
|
12/30/12 8:36:39 PM#45
Originally posted by EvilMix For gaming purposes, you don't need 16 GB of system memory. On a large enough budget, I'll include it just because it's gotten cheap. More to the point, it doesn't really matter which particular memory kit you get. What matters are the specs. The most critical thing by far is to get a kit with exactly two memory modules, as opposed to one or three. (Two of the same one-module "kits" will also work if that happens to be cheaper.) 1.5 V is the stock voltage for DDR3, so it's probably best to go with that. You want at least 1333 MHz (which includes nearly everything), and I usually recommend 1600 MHz just because it's basically the same price as 1333 MHz. Latency timings are in a number of clock cycles, so higher latency timings at higher clock speeds isn't necessarily higher latency as measured in nanoseconds. Lower latency timings are better, but most of the latency it takes for a CPU to access system memory isn't due to the memory module. If you haven't already made the purchase, this looks nice if you want 16 GB: http://ncix.com/products/?sku=73133&vpn=F3%2D12800CL10D%2D16GBXL&manufacture=Others&promoid=1033 or this will work if you'd rather save some money by going with 8 GB: http://ncix.com/products/?sku=70136&vpn=KHX1600C9D3B1K2%2F8GX&manufacture=Kingston&promoid=1033 |
|
|
12/30/12 8:45:31 PM#46
Originally posted by EvilMix Yeah, what Ridelynn linked you will work. He knows his stuff. Some of the parts I picked a few days ago are better than what he picked, but that's why my build is also more expensive. As for a power supply, you could also try this: http://ncix.com/products/?sku=67325&vpn=HCG%2D620M&manufacture=Antec&promoid=1033 |
|
|
12/30/12 8:52:35 PM#47
Originally posted by EvilMix A solid state drive will mostly function like a hard drive, except a lot faster. If you want to load a bunch of things at once off a hard drive, it has to stop and physically move the drive head and spin the platter to the next spot between each read, and that typically takes on the order of 10 ms. One could argue that it's actually 5 ms here or 15 ms there, but an SSD is about 0.1 ms--and yes, that is a decimal point there. 10 ms doesn't sound like much, but if you want to read or write hundreds or thousands of things at once (as is common when loading a program or zoning in a game), at 10 ms each, you get to sit there and wait. That's what loading screens are for. Multiply 0.1 ms by hundreds or thousands with an SSD and it still doesn't amount to much. Perhaps more significant is the quicker reaction time of an SSD just doing what you need right away rather than hesitating slightly. 100 ms isn't much, but you'd sure notice if your ping time in a game changes by 100 ms. Think of an SSD as being kind of an offline equivalent of greatly reducing your ping time in an online game. That's hard to measure, but easy to feel. When you use an SSD for the first time, the computer just works, and it might not seem magically fast. But if you go back to a hard drive after a bit, you'll really notice the difference and want your SSD back. |
|
|
12/30/12 9:01:42 PM#48
Originally posted by rawfox While Nvidia GeForce 600 series cards can force FXAA through drivers, AMD Radeon HD 5000 series cards can force MLAA through drivers. But in both cases, you shouldn't, as doing it through drivers means that it can't be aware of the geometry of the scene--and more importantly, which things shouldn't be blurred, such as text and UI components. If FXAA is implemented as a post-processing effect in OpenGL or DirectX or whatever, then the programmer can customize it and tell it which parts to blur and which to leave alone. That makes it work much, much better, as then it smooths the jagged edges without blurring things that ought to be sharp. But that also makes it run on any card that supports the API used, regardless of vendor--and including some cards that are very old by now. Being usable on more hardware is a good thing, of course, but it's not a reason to get a GeForce 600 series card. The GeForce GTX 660 Ti tends to be a poor value for the money, as third bins of a GPU chip tend to be low volume parts, so Nvidia doesn't have to offer a good price to get rid of the chips. If you want to go with Nvidia, the cards that are often a good value for the money are the GeForce GTX 670, GTX 660, GTX 650 Ti, and GTX 650. But a GTX 650 Ti isn't any faster than the original poster's current GTX 560, and while a GTX 660 is an upgrade, it's not a large enough upgrade to really justify it. The choice between Intel and AMD on a processor is basically one of fewer, faster cores or more, slower cores. In a well-coded game that scales well to as many cores as you've got (which actually isn't that hard to do for games), they're basically equivalent. In a badly-coded game that can't put very many cores to good use, extra cores that don't get used don't do you any good, so the Intel processor is better, at least if you're looking at an Ivy Bridge quad core. |
|
|
12/30/12 9:02:26 PM#49
Yeah ssd is the way to go. I thought my 10,000 rpm hd was fast but my ocz vector 4 ssd smokes it. Love ssd.
Also the antec psu is top notch. I've had the 1000 watt for the last four years.
Just makes sure you get a good psu. Dont under power the system or it'll hurt your gaming fun.
|
|
|
12/30/12 9:07:41 PM#50
Originally posted by Imperator101 The advantage of a Core i7-3770K over a Core i5-3570K is hyperthreading. If you can't put more than four cores to good use, Windows won't even use hyperthreading, but it can increase performance by up to 30% in programs that scale flawlessly to eight cores. There are some programs where that's a big deal, but games aren't among them. For the next several years, if a game doesn't run well on a Core i5-3570K, it will probably be because it's a badly-coded game that can't use all of the cores--so adding hyperthreading won't help a bit. Games that do scale well to four cores and still can't run well on a Core i5-3570K are going to find an awfully small audience in the near future. If Moore's Law survives long enough, then games might start to show up 8 or 10 years from now where a Core i5-3570K performs poorly because it just doesn't have enough CPU cores. But the solution wouldn't be a slight gain from hyperthreading in a CPU bought today; it would be to replace the system with a brand new 12- or 16-core processor, or whatever we'll end up with by then. |
|
|
12/30/12 9:12:38 PM#51
Agree a i5 is more then enough. I feel like my i7 isnt that much fast tbh
|
|
|
12/30/12 9:16:50 PM#52
Originally posted by Imperator101 i got that I5 and it runs stupid fast, i dont c what u call it junk for sum of us dont have money to throw away on I7's. considering i got mine for 190 shipped im laughing at your and your overpriced I7 lolz. Got my I5 overclocked to 4.6hrtz
Also i have been using my Ultra 550 PS for year with NO ISSUES plus they have a LIFETIME warrenty... i can cut that cpu price u listed in half and have enough to get me a 560TI video card
For 900 bucks i can build a top of the line PC, just have to know where to look and not be willing to buy new :p
|
|
|
12/30/12 9:39:41 PM#53
Originally posted by Dantae87 The risk of a bad power supply isn't that the power supply might die. It's that it might take everything else in your system with it. Ultra's warranty doesn't cover everything that the power supply destroys, and if it does fry your system, do really want to collect on warranty service and see if an identical model does the same to your next system? Maybe it will work just fine. But it's an unnecessary risk. |
|
|
12/30/12 10:14:41 PM#54
Originally posted by Dantae87 Buying used computer parts is very scary, you dont know what kind of punishment the parts were put thru. |
|
|
12/30/12 10:17:44 PM#55
Originally posted by Souldrainer Windows 8 on my brand new laptop... runs everything perfectly fine. Anything that claims to not support Windows 8, can be run in Windows 7 mode... |
|
|
12/30/12 10:20:03 PM#56
Anyone mention to the OP that a quality video card is going to run him 1/3rd his budget?
I noticed someone posted a long part list and left out the video card which is in the top 2-3 most important items of a gaming rig lol... |
|
|
12/30/12 10:22:15 PM#57
Originally posted by Painlezz If you read the op he is going to use his 560 gpu. |
|
|
12/30/12 10:33:04 PM#58
Originally posted by Painlezz The idea is that he'll continue to use the GeForce GTX 560 that he already has for a while longer, and then build an otherwise excellent rig around it. At some point in the future, he'll decide that the GTX 560 just isn't getting it done anymore, upgrade that, and still have a very nice gaming rig. I think that makes more sense than replacing the video card today and cutting back on everything else. Depending on what games he picks up in the future, a GeForce GTX 560 might be good for another several years. Or it might not. But it's still a capable card, and it should be quite a while before there are meaningful games that it can't handle at least at moderate graphical settings. |
|
|
Wow thanks a lot guys for posting, so should I go with Rides computer build then? It leaves me with some money left over which I wouldn't be sure what to do with haha.
EDIT: I read all your posts Quizz, thanks a lot man. I got lost in some of the stuff you were saying, but I really want to learn about PC building and stuff like this. |
|
|
Ok guys. I'm thinking of using Ride's PC build then, I have the credit card in front of me now.
|
|
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 24, 2013 11:31 AM
- Page Created in 0.437 seconds -
