|16 posts found|
OP 4/19/13 1:55:26 PM#1
im looking at building a pc for a girl i know, as her laptop is really a brick for gaming. iv been poking around ncix do to the fact i found out recently they have a store like 40minute walk from my house.
just kinda curous how this pc would stack up to current gaming trends (i skipped the OS as i plan to buy win7 x64 ult for her instead of the win8 they want to put on most of their systems at the store)
ideally i wanna make it as cheap as possible as she doesnt really like the idea of dropping 2k on a system (though that is currently her budget planned for it)
i know i can make it cheaper by switching out the vid card BUT frankly i love evga and well FTW cards are really that fking good IMO its also what im upgrading my current sys card to.
system i manually threw together stealing ideas from their "prebuilds"
case: $104.99 CAD
mobo: $169.99 CAD
cpu: $349.99 CAD
heatsink: $79.99 CAD
ram: $64.99 CAD
psu: $159.99 CAD
HDD:gaming $104.98 CAD
HDD:os $107.99 CAD
dvd: $23.98 CAD
video: $424.99 CAD
price without taxes: $1,591.88 (with 2 extra cooling fans its around 1600 which is a hell of alot less for the same system specs off their "gamer pc list" but then again ill be manually building it instead of paying the 50+ for them to build it)
the desktop she did have was at best cerc 2004 before it finally died last week on her. i am thinking of throwing some 120mm fans in the case extra but those are only like 19-25bucks each
every system ncix suggests to me has 16-32gb of ram which is just overkill and stupid IMO... im not super familier with alot of these "noname" brand products so their quality is kinda an X factor to me, but they seem to be alright price wise for her budget as well the system seems that it will support newer title games like the newer lara croft that she wants to play and possibly saints row 4 (more so, so she may kill me yet again in that game... while blaming system lag or something)
4/19/13 3:15:57 PM#2
I might change out the I7 for an I5. Gaming wise you wont see a diiference and neither will you with average daily use for most people.
If you like EVGA FTW cards then just realize you are paying a premium. If it were me I would probably throw in a 7950 or 7970 instead. But overall a nice build as is. You can shave off some money with the I5 and a different gpu, buts thats for you guys to decide.
4/19/13 3:19:24 PM#3
The links don't work, so I can't see the prices on individual items.
Not Safe For Woona (NSFW)
4/19/13 3:26:50 PM#4
Originally posted by jdnewell
Yeah, however the i7 will allow you to run more stuff without bogging down your system.
4/19/13 6:34:59 PM#5
Originally posted by birdycephon
Probably. But how much stuff do you need to run at one time? and how often are you doing it? If your running 2 MMOs, burning a DvD and streaming a movie all at the same time then yeah the I 7 is better. But for most people its overkill. A fantastic cpu to be sure, most will just never use it to its full potential with daily use.
Life - the one and only MMO. All the rest will FAIL!!!!
4/19/13 6:39:22 PM#6
Its like trying to kill a fly with a cannon!!!
4/19/13 7:01:04 PM#7
Out of curiousity, and this is based purely on my experience of building computers for other women, did your friend choose the case you have listed? It's a rather large and heavy case, certainly more so than what you need for the parts you've picked.
This is by no means meant to come off as sexist but I've never personally known any female gamers who actually liked having full size towers for computers if they could get the same performance in a smaller case. Just something to think about in case you were picking it based on your own preferences rather than hers.
OP 4/19/13 9:34:40 PM#8
pretty much she has said she wants really good shizzle wizzle and has left it up to me to get her really great parts at the same time i have nothing to rip parts from so i have to build it 100% from scratch so iv had to tell her it wont be cheap, i had hoped to use the cheapo crap case she had but its "broken" or some thing i jacked a "gamer" style case from ncix's pc build line as shes going air flow not water cool for the most part. as for the weight of the case meh shes not that weak to be honest lolol so long as the system works and runs her games shes happy.
the I7 was picked out over I5 simply do to the fact I7 would give her alot more breathing room for upgrades there is less chance of a cpu bottleneck from upgrades. also as i do dabble in OCing stuff its alot easier i find to OC a I7 then a lower tier cpu given its vastly larger head room and overall power.
i know an I5 is cheaper but when someone is asking you "is this better over this" then they want the better item :/ ya kinda just roll with it lol iv told her price wise I5 is cheaper but overall I7 is better so she wants I7 lolol
there i CnPed each item's price from the links, so far comparied to newegg ncix seems cheaper to me, partly do to the fact while i have some pst and i guess gst/hst taxes on the items plus enviro-tax i dont have to pay extra on shipping.
most of the parts also seem just cheaper priced from what i have seen though im sure you will have a better idea then i do lol you always seem to :P
4/19/13 10:35:03 PM#9
If she is willing to spend the money then grab her the stuff she wants for sure. The title of your post seemed to indicate price may have been an issue.
All the stuff you listed are good components and will make a great PC. If you want different prices then maybe just price compare on different sites that ship to your area on the components you have listed.
I guess I am just not sure what answer your looking for. If your asking will that make a good $1500-$1600 PC then yes it will, can you build a cheaper PC that will offer similar gaming / daily use performance then thats a yes as well. Which is why going with an I5 and a different gpu were my suggestions.
The PC you listed will kick ass no doubt, but there is not going to be some big savings out there with that class of components on any site. An I7 and an EVGA 670 FTW edition is expensive no matter where you buy it.
Either way she will be happy, and if she is willing to pay the money then go for it I say =)
OP 4/19/13 10:48:46 PM#10
yup thanks, basically im just trying to figure out if most of the parts listed would be the best choice for price. her budget shes willing to pay out after i explained how a desktop works over a laptop is about $2000 naturally she wants it cheaper but at the same time she is looking at playing games like the newest lara croft and stuff like saints row 4 or whatever so ideally i know she will need a pretty decent rig to not get horrible choppy game play that she got on the laptop.
im just not sure if the MSI stuff is the best mobo for the price or not, i thought about going asus but alot of those are pretty pricy as well.
i switched out the ram to g skill over the munchin or w/e ncix was suggesting i use ... cause frankly i have yet to see a gaming system require 16-32gb of ram for any reason O-o
the prebuilds on gaming rigs that i was poking around at for ideas had a similar system using mostly MSI hardware running up to 1800-2000 stock. the parts i have above minus the 2 120mm fans i plan to also add runs around 1500-1600 (im paying for her OS so that price isnt included) im just trying to find areas where i might cut out prices while still giving her top of the line hardware that isnt out of date by tomorrow lol that will support her gaming :)
4/19/13 10:53:41 PM#11
New Egg is based in the US, while NCIX is based in Canada. Shipping across the border adds a fair bit of cost, so even though New Egg is usually cheaper if you're in the US, NCIX is commonly cheaper if you're in Canada.
That's too much to pay for that power supply, really. You can get a better power supply for cheaper:
Or even top of the line quality for a bit less, though you do give up some wattage (that you don't need anyway):
There are a lot of places in the build that you could save money if so inclined (CPU cooler, motherboard, etc.), but it's really a matter of budget. I'd personally go for a larger SSD and cut back elsewhere, but that's a question of priorities, and one could reasonably disagree.
You might want to check to see how much hard drive space she really needs, as most people don't need anywhere near 2 TB.
4/19/13 10:57:25 PM#12
Ah, if she's willing to pay up to $2000, then you could grab a bigger SSD and not need to cut back elsewhere. For example:
OP 4/19/13 11:08:30 PM#13
well i picked the 2TB as that is mostly what ncix has alot of. plus as shes been getting in to gaming on steam and such alot (she plays games like The Sims ect that use alot of hdd space) i figured 2tb would set her up for years on space if she dabbles with anime or movies or w/e as well.
i know my self my 1TB gamer hdd barely drops under 50% used lol but then i remove games weekly :/
ill give those links a checking out and see. she not a fan of paying 2k but thats what i suggested she budget for as she wants a whole new system with no salvaged parts. i like to have the extra space to play with tweeks :) if i can cut it down to 1500 id be happy personally lol
4/19/13 11:20:28 PM#14
I'm a networking guy that doesn't know crap about video cards. I figured I'd ask here since it was relevant. For us gamers, whats the differences we would care about between OP's vid card listed and say a 660TI superclocked which is about 100 less. And on the flip said what would we/he gain by going to say a 680?
To OP: I'm glad you went with 8 gig or ram. I see so many getting 16 and there is just no way most people will use that much right now and its about the eeasiest thing to upgrade if you ever needed to. Kudos.
Edit: Cuz i slept in English class.
OP 4/19/13 11:28:43 PM#15
heheh i was going to get a 660 TI but Quizzical actually suggested the normal 670 for me awhile back do to bottle necking of the gpu or something the 660 has compared to the 670.
personally though for me im not finding much use for the 680 as comparably the 670 is about the same arch i think the 680 uses :/ though im really bad when it comes to tech now days... im still living in the past when a 486 was the best system on the planet... #cryervrytime
but ya when i was poking around the PC builds on websites like newegg and ncix lolol iv noticed most of their builds are stupidly overloaded... i think its a market ploy to charge more.. my system has been running 4gb for about 3yrs now i really should stop being lazy and get another 2 lolol
but unless you are doing audio/video edits or want to play next gen cryst on insane settings OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR just want to have the highest rating on the benchmark sites there is no real reason to use more then 8gbs in a system lolol even then 8 is over kill IMO :P
4/20/13 12:12:40 PM#16
Memory prices have spiked far upward in the last several months. New Egg had a Black Friday deal of 16 GB for $50. Now it's hard to find 8 GB for $50. On a big budget, you can justify paying an extra $30 to double your memory for reasons of futureproofing. An extra $60, not so much, especially when it's likely to be back down to $30 to add the additional memory a year from now.
Elpida's bankruptcy left three major memory manufacturers (Samsung, Hynix, and Micron) standing rather than the previous four, so reduced competition may lead to higher DRAM prices in the future than we would otherwise have. But then, low DRAM prices from excessive competition are what drove Elpida into bankruptcy in the first place.
If we're comparing various GeForce 600 series cards, just listing which parts of the GPU chip are available gives you a pretty good comparison. The two major types of pieces are SMXes (which include shaders, texture units, and some other things) and memory channels (which are grouped with ROPs). A GeForce GTX 680 has 8 SMXes and 4 memory channels. A GTX 670 has 7 and 4. GTX 660 Ti has 7 and 3. GTX 660 has 5 and 3. GTX 650 Ti Boost has 4 and 3. GTX 650 Ti has 4 and 2. GTX 650 has 2 and 2.
So the real question for performance is whether it depends more on SMXes or memory channels. The answer there is that it depends. It can easily vary from game to game, as well as from one program to the next within a game. But it also depends a lot on the ratio of them that you already have to determine where the bottlenecks are. If a card had 6 memory channels, going from 2 SMXes to 4 would basically double your performance, as you'd have so much memory bandwidth for it not to be an issue. If you only had one memory channel, then going from 5 SMXes to 10 likely wouldn't affect performance at all, as the extra hardware would just mean more pieces constantly waiting on video memory access.
With their Kepler architecture, Nvidia went more heavily for SMXes than memory channels, so their cards are pretty heavily constrained by memory bandwidth. With Southern Islands, AMD did just the opposite (AMD calls their architecture's roughly equivalent pieces CUs, not SMXes), so AMD cards have plenty of memory bandwidth and are more dependent on their CUs.
This means that with Kepler cards, losing a memory channel really hurts, while losing an SMX isn't necessarily that bad. That means that a GeForce GTX 660 Ti tends to perform closer to a GTX 660 (same memory bandwidth) than a GTX 670 (same SMXes), though it varies from game to game.
The cards with 3 memory channels have the additional problem that the channels are mismatched. Ideally, you want the same amount of video memory on every channel, as this makes it trivial to split memory accesses evenly among the channels and fully exploit the memory bandwidth available. Every video card ever made up until about 2011 did this, because it's the best way to maximize performance per cost to build the card.
But then in 2011, Nvidia launched the GeForce GTX 550 Ti with three memory channels. It performed about the same as the Radeon HD 5770 which had two memory channels and 1 GB of video memory. If the GTX 550 Ti had 256 MB per channel, it would have had only 768 MB for the card, which makes it look worse than the 5770. If it had 512 MB per channel, then it would have 1.5 GB for the card, which adds to the cost of production.
So Nvidia's marketing department came up with the solution of having two memory channels with 256 MB and one with 512 MB. If the card doesn't need more than 768 MB of video memory, then ignores the last 256 MB and treats it like a 768 MB card with 256 MB per channel. If it does need more video memory than that, then the last 256 MB has to use just the one channel. That's still faster than accessing system memory across the PCI Express bus, but if half of your memory accesses have to use one particular channel, then for memory bandwidth purposes, you might as well only have two channels.
One tech site decided to use CUDA to see what it said about how the memory was allocated. CUDA says that a GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a 768 MB card and ignores the last 256 MB. I generally recommend that people considering buying one do the same.
Now, the GeForce GTX 550 Ti had more memory bandwidth than it really needed, at least if it wasn't trying to use more than 768 MB. So effectively having only two memory channels when you use the full 1 GB of video memory wasn't really that bad. In raw SM performance, the Fermi equivalent of Kepler's SMXes, the 4 SMs in a GeForce GTX 550 Ti are roughly equivalent to two Kepler SMXes, so two memory channels really was enough.
In a perfect world, consumers would have reacted to these shenanigans by boycotting the card en masse, and then Nvidia would learn never to mismatch memory channels again. Make your engineering decisions on the basis of what will perform well, not what you can convince your fanboys to overpay for.
But alas, Fermi was an awful architecture from the start, so no one looking for a value for the money card bought a GeForce GTX 550 Ti anyway. It performed about the same as the Radeon HD 5770/6770 while costing substantially more and using substantially more power, even before we consider the mismatched memory shenanigans. A bunch of clueless Nvidia fanboys ran out and bought the card anyway, and Nvidia learned that they don't need to offer a good product to get it to sell.
So they repeated the situation with the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, which was also an awful card. It's fine on energy efficiency, but tends to cost about the same as a Radeon HD 7950 with boost while offering much less performance. The 7950 also offers 3 GB of video memory, as compared to 2 GB for the GTX 660 Ti, or 1.5 GB if you ignore the extra from the mismatched memory channel. And this time, the card really was heavily constrained by memory bandwidth, so losing that last memory channel really hurts.
But Nvidia fanboys went out and bought the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, too. The idiots. Even now that Nvidia has other good cards available such as the GeForce GTX 670, GTX 660, GTX 650 Ti Boost, and GTX 650 Ti, a lot of people still recommend the GeForce GTX 660 Ti today. I don't know if they're just stupid to pick out the only Nvidia card in the $130-$400 price range that is basically never a good value for the money, or if it's some Nvidia viral marketing campaign to get people to buy awful cards and clear inventory, since a GK104 chip with a defective memory channel can't be sold as a GTX 670 or higher.
So Nvidia repeated the shenanigans with the GeForce GTX 660, which has 2 GB, or 1.5 GB if you disregard the extra from mismatched channels. There, one can argue that 1.5 GB is quite a bit of memory at least, even if it's less than the 2 GB that the AMD competitor, the Radeon HD 7870 has. If you thought 1.5 GB was enough (which is perfectly reasonable), then the GTX 660 was often a good value for the money--because it's around $200, as opposed to $300 for the GTX 660 Ti, which is stupidly overpriced.
And then came the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, which has both 2 GB and 1 GB versions, both with mismatched channels. You can justify a 2 GB version at the right price. Nvidia refused to send 1 GB versions to review sites, as 768 MB before losing memory bandwidth really isn't very much these days. I categorically recommend not buying a 1 GB version of a GTX 650 Ti Boost at all, unless it's very cheap--as in, very near GTX 650 Ti non-boost prices.