Building a gaming PC

[tahirahmed]

Your welcome.

Well in that case you can go for this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834231974

It has Haswell i7 4710HQ, 8 GB ram, 750 GB HDD and GT 840m with 2GB GDDR3 vram. ASUS is a respectable brand in my eyes so for 699$ it's pretty good for gaming and schoolwork.

 

[PrincessCiri]

Your welcome.

Well in that case you can go for this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834231974

It has Haswell i7 4710HQ, 8 GB ram, 750 GB HDD and GT 840m with 2GB GDDR3 vram. ASUS is a respectable brand in my eyes so for 699$ it's pretty good for gaming and schoolwork.

That laptop actually looks perfect, it's a shame it's sold out in the USA/not available in the UK T_T


edit: However I've found this laptop http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152586
I don't know anything about MSI laptops, are they any good?

 

[tahirahmed]

MSI laptops are very good, actually you can count them in premium category like Alienware and as such they carry higher price. As you can see the ASUS one I suggested is stronger in two important categories (CPU & GPU) but still have same price like this MSI one so this MSI laptop has less value than ASUS one but as far as quality is concerned there are no doubts.

4th gen i5 is still a good pick like I said in my first reply but GT 820M is kind of weak if you ask for honest opinion. If you stay on the low side of graphic settings then it can give you good performance I think. Check this video showing Battlefield 4 game play at different presets on GT 820M, it has decent performance on low but it start to struggle on med and high, still it's much better than your previous 5 fps slideshow experience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LejuMVJzPco

 

[PrincessCiri]

MSI laptops are very good, actually you can count them in premium category like Alienware and as such they carry higher price. As you can see the ASUS one I suggested is stronger in two important categories (CPU & GPU) but still have same price like this MSI one so this MSI laptop has less value than ASUS one but as far as quality is concerned there are no doubts.

MSI laptops are very good, actually you can count them in premium category like Alienware and as such they carry higher price. As you can see the ASUS one I suggested is stronger in two important categories (CPU & GPU) but still have same price like this MSI one so this MSI laptop has less value than ASUS one but as far as quality is concerned there are no doubts.

4th gen i5 is still a good pick like I said in my first reply but GT 820M is kind of weak if you ask for honest opinion. If you stay on the low side of graphic settings then it can give you good performance I think. Check this video showing Battlefield 4 game play at different presets on GT 820M, it has decent performance on low but it start to struggle on med and high, still it's much better than your previous 5 fps slideshow experience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LejuMVJzPco

Thank you! I would have, if given the choice, gone for the ASUS laptop, but unfortunately since it's now only being sold at $799 it would be £50 over my budget and realistically £500 is probably too high anyway lol. So the MSI laptop would at least be under budget, even if the CPU and GPU are weaker.

But yeah, being able to play modern games on low settings is absolutely fine for me, since although I want to be able to game on this laptop, I don't need it to do anything spectacular, since that's what my desktop is for.

I'll have another talk with my parents about this later on in the week to discuss the budget but thanks for your help, it's really been very useful!

 

[tahirahmed]

Good luck with the purchase !

 

[tahirahmed]

Okay now I need help from the experts of mutli GPU or anyone who can help me in deciding. As expected my OCZ 850w PSU is proving insufficient for my 2x Gigabyte GTX 980 G1, I expected this to happen with twin R9 290s but it is also happening with twin 980s. I think Gigabyte models being factory overclocked with complete PCB redesign ask for more power than reference 980s.

Okay so this is what I am facing, when I run a demanding game say Dragon Age Inquisition it runs very well with all settings cranked up but that makes the top GPU get hot and reach 80c and when it does the entire system shutdown and then restart after a second. My guess is that when it reach 80c it ask for more power for stability and PSU being unable to deliver that power shutdown the whole system (it has overload protection like most PSUs).

So I tried two things, first I made aggressive fan profile and ran the game. It runs much longer but eventually make the top GPU reach 80c regardless of fan speed and I face the same restart. The second method I lowered the temp limit in MSI Afterburner from 80c to 70c which also reduced the power limit from 100% to 70%, now this method allows me to run every game without restarting but as a result the top GPU upon reaching 70c start doing thermal throttling, I see my core clocks going down from 1366 to 1050 or even lower to keep temps stable, I can also feel the impact on performance as the fps that remains on 60 with vsync start going to 50 or so.

Now the first proper solution to this is to get a new PSU ? so I can let them draw as much power as they want, I am thinking about Cooler Master V1000, it's easily available in my country but I need someone's opinion on it, all reviews says it's a very good supply with Seasonic design but does going from 850w to 1000w good enough ? I should also mention that my OCZ 850 is very old now so it might not be performing best but to be safe I want to get 1000w now. I have the system as below

2 HDD.
2 SSD.
4 Fans.
Core i5 4690k (not overclocked).
8 GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 ram.
2x Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming (factory OC only).
MSI Z97 G1 Gaming motherboard.

Do you guys think 1000w is good enough for this system ?

The second proper solution is to install a 200m side fan on the case so the top GPU gets cold air, for this I have to mod the side panel of my case as it's only acrylic now, I am thinking about removing the transparent acrylic part and installing a metal mesh on it, they are easily available so I just need to find the design that matches my case and then get it cut with same dimensions as the acrylic part then install it myself and finally install a 200mm fan on that. I cannot afford to get a new high grade case just for one side fan at least not now so this is my fast solution.

I will really welcome some bright ideas

 

[eskiMoe]

As expected my OCZ 850w PSU is proving insufficient for my 2x Gigabyte GTX 980 G1

I'm running 2 overclocked GTX 970s on my Corsair AX760 and it works without a hitch. Can't see why the OCZ couldn't handle a couple of GTX 980s.

 

[tahirahmed]

I'm running 2 overclocked GTX 970s on my Corsair AX760 and it works without a hitch. Can't see why the OCZ couldn't handle a couple of GTX 980s.

I am not sure, single cards work fine without any issue, it's just two cards in SLI when the system shutdown and that is when the top card reaches 80c. I should also mention one important point here that Gigabyte GTX 980's require two 8 pin power connectors unlike regular GTX 980 that need 6 pin connectors and my PSU has one 6+2 connector pair while the other pair is only 6 pin so I cannot use that one to power the second 980 that is why I am using 4 molex connectors with converter cables supplied with card. Could this be the issue ?

EDIT:

Okay here is the shot of my system, see the bottom card being powered by standard molex connectors.

excuse the shitty cable management

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Hardware questions - to you experts out there

Hey guys,

so I am in the process of getting myself an all new rig (mainly for TW3 and MGSV, but also for other upcoming games)
Here is what I had in mind:

processor: Intel Core i5 4690k 3,5 Ghz
mainboard: MSI Z87-G43 Intel Z87 So.1150 Dual Channel DDR3 ATX
power supply: 550 W Enermax Triathlor ECO Modular 80+
CPU Cooler: be quiet! Dark Rock 3
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 4GB + my old 2x2GB sticks (no-name product)

Here is the problem: The graphics card.

Now I want a Nvidia one actually. And I have only a few options.

- GTX 980 is too expensive for me
- GTX x50 or below are not powerful enough

I though about those:
(MSI or Gigabyte)

- GTX 770 3GB
- GTX 780 3GB
- GTX 780 6GB (Asus is the only 6GB Edition I found) (pretty expensive though)
- GTX 960 2GB
- GTX 970 4GB (well, actually 3.5 GB + 0.5 slow GB)

Now I have - and that is important - a 1680x1050 screen, but I want to make the resolution in my games FullHD anyway (you know supersampling (that is how it works right? correct me if I am wrong here)).

My trouble is mostly the price/efficiency ratio - that being: what is best for my intended purpose?

I want 2 things you know. First, I want this graphic card to give me the highest possible graphics for the next year or two. That means graphical settings high - ultra, most effects on, min. 40 FPS. Second, I want the graphic card to hold at least 4 years if possible (of course while scaling down graphical settings in the later years as the requirements get higher)

My concern is that in the future 4GB of VRAM will not be enough. Now I know VRAM also has something to do with the size of the screen and the resolution the game is displayed and rendered in. I know the GTX 960 only has 2GB which is very little (I wish they would finally start making cards with more VRAM) and the 4GB are supposed to be released in March, but we know something like this has been postponed in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if this would get postponed as well.

Actually the GTX 970 would be perfect but the problem is that it can only use 3.5 GB of VRAM at a high accessing speed while the other 0.5 GB take more time which makes the framerate drop and the framtime gets longer (if I understand it correctly). Now if todays games like SoM with demands like 6GB VRAM (though 2 GB are enough I heard) already need that much how much do the games need in 1 year? I know the consoles have 8GB unified RAM and can use about 5GB of it (since 3GB are needed for the OS). But that will change. The OS - like in the last generation - will need less and less RAM because the console developers will find ways to make the OS use the RAM more efficiently which means the consoles could use up to (almost) 6GB RAM for a game. The problem is the PC has no unified RAM meaning it takes FOREVER until the graphic card can actually access the mainboards RAM and the other way around, meaning you have to see them separately, meaning you need high RAM for both the mainboard and the graphic card.

Now there are 8GB models of the GTX 970 and 980 said to be released "soon". But down the line we do not know any release date, nor do we know how many months it takes until they come out approximately.

Another problem exists with the processor I will get - the Core i5 3,5 Ghz. I have the fear this processor might be bottlenecking my GTX 970 if I buy one. And if that is the case, what use is it to have the GTX 970 over the - say 770 or 960 if it is bottlenecked by the processor?

So my questions are:

- Would my processor (i5 4690k 3,5 Ghz) bottleneck my GTX 970?
- If yes, is there still an advantage to buy the GTX 970 over the GTX 960?
- What card would you recommend to me that can give me top-graphics at my resolution (1680x1050) for 1 or 2 years and hold a total of at least 4 years?
- In case I would get a new monitor with 1920x1080 would you recommend the same card as in the question above, and if not which one would you recommend?
- Do you think VRAM requirements will go beyond 3.5 GB in the future or even above 4 GB and what is the best thing to do about it so I do not have to buy a new card in 1 or 2 years?


I am glad for all recommendations, advice and ideas regarding my dilemma. Thanks in advance.

 

[sidspyker]

No that processor won't bottleneck your GPU, it's more than enough(unless you go SLI, then that's a different matter.). I'm actually getting the same one sometime this month.

 

[tahirahmed]

So my questions are:

- Would my processor (i5 4690k 3,5 Ghz) bottleneck my GTX 970?
- If yes, is there still an advantage to buy the GTX 970 over the GTX 960?
- What card would you recommend to me that can give me top-graphics at my resolution (1680x1050) for 1 or 2 years and hold a total of at least 4 years?
- In case I would get a new monitor with 1920x1080 would you recommend the same card as in the question above, and if not which one would you recommend?
- Do you think VRAM requirements will go beyond 3.5 GB in the future or even above 4 GB and what is the best thing to do about it so I do not have to buy a new card in 1 or 2 years?


I am glad for all recommendations, advice and ideas regarding my dilemma. Thanks in advance.

1) You're really underestimating core i5 4690k, it's not going to bottleneck anything. Even with my 980 SLI I have crossed 140 fps in Crysis 3 without any bottlenecks. In Dragon Age Inquisition I can cross 105 fps with no trouble so you're more than safe with a single card.

2) GTX 970 is more future proof than 960 in several ways, even if it has 3.5 GB fast ram and 0.5 slow it's much more than 2 GB of GTX 960 and above all 128 bit is not good enough if you're looking to survive for several years. Avoid 960 if you want to crank every game. My advice is to wait for AMD 300 series (if you change your mind about AMD) or pick 980. If you can't get both of these then 970 is your best bet atm (even though I don't recommend it because of segmented memory).

3) A 970 or 980 can handle anything on max settings at 1920x1080p though things can change with The Witcher 3 lol.

4) The vram requirements will certainly go up as we'll see more crazy textures like Shadow of Mordor or a game that is terribly optimized but in the end it all comes down to your resolution, if you're staying with 1920x1080p then 4 GB is good enough because even Shadow of Mordor doesn't eat 4 GB if you play it at 1080p but if you're going for higher resolutions then 4 GB might prove insufficient with some games. For now 4 GB is good enough and will stay like that for several years if you stick with 1080p.

You can even play at 1440p with 4 GB without any issue, that's what I am doing right now. Since my 2x 980s are real overkill for 1920x1080 monitor I use DSR to render them at 2160x1440 and then down sample to my native resolution.

 

[sidspyker]

Speaking of, the thing with the last 512MB of RAM is that in some games it seems to have a weird drop effect while in others(SoM) it doesn't so it's not really easy to say that's an issue, it seems very game specific.

 

[tahirahmed]

Speaking of, the thing with the last 512MB of RAM is that in some games it seems to have a weird drop effect while in others(SoM) it doesn't so it's not really easy to say that's an issue, it seems very game specific.

Yes that's right but with a high end GPU like 970 I would like to be certain that it will perform well in most of the games if not all. This asynchronous memory performance makes it kind of unpredictable.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Thanks for the fast advise guys, I guess I'll go with the gtx 970 then, since I REALLY can not afford a 980 since I have other expensive hobbies as well.
Maybe I'll have to sell the 970 in a few years and get an upgrade but at least all is good atm.

I think TW3 will also not use more than 3GB Vram considering CDPR are very good in PC optimization and the games requirements seem to indicate 2GB cards can play it as well. So I'm fine with that. All I want is the maximum graphical fidelity my budget allows me to have and that for at least 2 years and then the card should hold another 3 years.

Thing is, I really don't know what to expect from nextgen considering a lot of people have been surprised by a llot of requirements of games these days.
So my only fear is that consoles might use more memory (5 - 6 GB of Vram) for games and games will require that much if you want to play it in high settings.
Of course I know 6GB on consoles =/= 6GB on PC. After all Vram is mainly used for textures and we still have out 8GB (or more) system RAM to use. A good developer will adjust the game for PC so it uses system RAM for things Vram might not HAVE to handle, but bad ports come around more than ever.

So I just cross my fingers and hope all works out. To be honest I am already over budget a little bit.

 

[sidspyker]

It's a time of uncertainty but you can't exactly do something out of the ordinary and hope it works, it's only going to incrementally improve hence just build a system and don't worry.

As for worrying over GPUs that 'may' come out with more memory - there's always something better on the horizon, if you wait for that temptation you'll never actually end up building your system.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

It's a time of uncertainty but you can't exactly do something out of the ordinary and hope it works, it's only going to incrementally improve hence just build a system and don't worry.

As for worrying over GPUs that 'may' come out with more memory - there's always something better on the horizon, if you wait for that temptation you'll never actually end up building your system.

Figured as much....

Thanks for all the help.

Btw, should I really consider switching from 1680x1050 (22") to 1920x1080 (24"), is there even a big difference?
I mean how does a 22" with 1680x1050 hold up against a 24" with 1920x1080 in terms of pixel density, graphical fidelity, etc.

Is it even WORTH upgrading?
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 2233 atm with 16:10 and 1680x1050, max. refresh rate is 120 Hz, Contrast of 20.000:1, etc. Is my monitor out of date? (I think it's an LCD monitor)

I have no idea how it would hold up against more modern monitors, or if it would even be worth upgrading.
Any advice?
And if yes, what would you recommend (possibly within the 200 - 300 € range)?

 

[tahirahmed]

Well personally I never get too ambitious about monitors, I just want solid performance on my resolution rather than a big resolution with average performance. Of course bigger resolution is better but it's never on my priority list. The reason I went with two GTX 980s is because I want to play TW3 in full eye candy at 1080p and if I think my cards have more muscle to handle bigger resolutions I just crank up MSAA or use DSR and get better image quality.

Although 1080p is the starting standard of HD, I don't think you'll feel big difference if you switch to 24''. It's better to stick with your monitor right now and buy a Gsync monitor later on when they get cheaper, that will be a better investment.

 

[Blasko23]

So like many other people here I'm going to need to upgrade my PC for Witcher 3. Currently I have:

i5 2500k
GTX 560TI
4gb ram

So far I'm planning on upgrading to a GTX 970, and getting 4gb more of ram for a total of 8gb. Do you guys think my CPU will bottleneck the 970? Should I get a new one or just over clock it? It's currently only at stock speed at 3.3 Ghz

 

[GuyNwah]

So like many other people here I'm going to need to upgrade my PC for Witcher 3. Currently I have:

i5 2500k
GTX 560TI
4gb ram

So far I'm planning on upgrading to a GTX 970, and getting 4gb more of ram for a total of 8gb. Do you guys think my CPU will bottleneck the 970? Should I get a new one or just over clock it? It's currently only at stock speed at 3.3 Ghz

Overclocking sure wouldn't hurt. But that's a powerful CPU. Any Core i5, Core i7, or Xeon Sandy Bridge or later is at the head of the pack when it comes to memory handling. I wouldn't think of replacing it, not short of an actual demonstration that showed it to be inadequate.

What it doesn't have is PCI-e 3.0. This limits you to a single high-performance graphics card; SLI would make the PCI-e bus limiting.

 

[volsung]

Let's talk about bottlenecks since it has come up more than once and there are gamer myths around.

Bottlenecking means taking a large number of something and only outputing a smaller amount with a FIXED MAXIMUM. This means that regardless of how much more you produce, the output doesn't increase. Like a big jug and a small bottle both with the same neck size.

In computational performance, as a general rule if you add computing resources and they are all used efficiently, performance (FLOPS or FPS) should increase according to some function, usually non linear. Resources that affect performance in computers include the CPU, buses, memory, hard drives, etc.

In order to say a CPU bottlenecks a GPU we would need proof that performance remains constant with increasingly better GPUs, under the same circumstances.

Older CPUs may not be as fast as more recent ones but they can certainly handle a modern video card and you'll definitely notice much improved performance. Modern CPUs probably have much faster memory management and result in a few extra frames or whatever, but most older enthusiast CPUs certainly do NOT bottleneck modern GPUs. It's not a bad idea to OC to squeeze a little more though.