PC build thread

[emwearz]

I am taking a new job so I am planning to finally update everything in my system in the next few months. The Q6600 is finally long in tooth and will spend the rest of his days running a pinball machine.

So here is the plan, Id like to keep the budget around $500, but I dont need a PSU, GPU, or Windows key - all still available from previous builds. PSU is a Corsair 1kw (HX series), it is six years old, but has under 10 hours on it. GPU is a 4gig PNY 960, Windows will be 7 Pro 64bit or 10. My monitor is 720p and wont be updated for atleast three more years. Case will be Rosewill RSV-L4000 - I figure everything else is rack mounted might aswell keep the trend.

My thoughts right now are:
Mobo - MSI Z170-A
CPU - i5 6600
Ram - 16gig DDR4 -Gskill Ripsaw V series
SSD - 500gig SSD - SAMSUNG 850 evo

And I come in at alittle ($50ish) over budget, which is acceptable.

You could get a i5 6400 for a little less and use a bios with non-k overclocking (of which very recent revision of updates from MSI still feature). I have my 6400 @ 4.5GHZ (Runs fine at 4.8ghz, but don't like the bump in voltage/temps). Could probably come very close to your budget.

http://overclocking.guide/updated-msi-z ... -new-bios/

If you don't plan on overclocking at all, I would drop back a chipset (to H170) from the Z170 as you wont be using those features anyhow.

[fastbilly1]

Thanks for the tips emwearz. Dropping the board and the chip down to those levels puts me at my budget. The moment I have my new job secured, I am ordering it all.

[Xeogred]

So do you guys think the RX480 could max out current and upcoming games?

[isiolia]

So do you guys think the RX480 could max out current and upcoming games?

It seems like it'll be able to manage 1080p/60 at high/max settings for most things, but I don't think it'll hold up through 1440p, and no single card yet manages consistent 60fps+ at 4k.

[Xeogred]

So do you guys think the RX480 could max out current and upcoming games?

It seems like it'll be able to manage 1080p/60 at high/max settings for most things, but I don't think it'll hold up through 1440p, and no single card yet manages consistent 60fps+ at 4k.

Guess I'll wait for the specs to drop for Dishonored 2 and Deus Ex Mankind Divided. I'm wondering if I should just stick with PC from here on for most FPS's in general, but if the PS4 releases of these can hit that buttery smooth 60 frames like Doom 4 did, I'd maybe be okay with those versions.

I just wonder how those two will do with my current 7950 3GB and if it would be better than PS4 releases.

Hard to say, lol.

[wclem]

I currently have an AMD FX 8320 8 core CPU. I am thinking of moving over to Intel. Where would I have to be on an Intel chip to see a noticeable upgrade from the AMD. This PC is for media and gaming. We watch Netflix and I use steam on it.

I know a lot more about AMD than I do Intel. I also have no hands on with Intel since I got my first one, 166 mhz Pentium LOL. It was my first build!

[isiolia]

I currently have an AMD FX 8320 8 core CPU. I am thinking of moving over to Intel. Where would I have to be on an Intel chip to see a noticeable upgrade from the AMD.

Kind of depends on workload, or in turn, where your current rig isn't quite cutting it and prompting an upgrade.

In terms of testing, far as I've seen, very nearly any current Intel CPU will handily beat that out for per-core performance...or really most anything back through 2010, maybe farther. AMD has just not been competitive in that area. Instead, they've offered more physical cores for the money, favoring highly threaded workloads. Intel, on the other hand, has tended to stick to fewer, albeit far more powerful CPU cores, outside of their very high end offerings.

Generally speaking though, most games favor Intel's strategy, though there are exceptions (Battlefield 4, for instance, scales very well on AMD CPUs, and your 8320 beats out most Intel CPUs for it). Additionally, of course, plenty of games wind up being GPU limited as well. High end cards/setups need better CPU performance to feed 'em, but low or midrange cards tend to be the bottleneck themselves.

The general sweet spot for Intel gaming is the i5 range. For the desktop lineup, this nearly always indicates four physical cores and no hyperthreading (there have been a handful of exceptions in the past, low power models and such, and mobile CPUs are different). You can always check http://ark.intel.com/ for feature comparisons.

For the past few generations, the suggested models have been the lowest end/only 'k' designated i5 in the lineup - i5 2500k, 3570k, 4670k, 6600k for overclocking potential (the k series have unlocked multipliers, a la Black series for AMD), or simply an i5 if you're sure you won't mess with that.

(Desktop) i3s are two physical cores with hyperthreading. Fine for lightly or not threaded applications, but more likely to fall behind AMD otherwise.

i7s, for the lower end socket, are still typically just four physical cores, plus hyperthreading. Typically overkill for gaming. You've also got the workstation socket ones, which can have higher core counts, but also much higher cost.


Again though, it'd really depend on what the rest of your systems is comprised of, what you're specifically doing with it, and what results you're looking for. While I'd say an i5 would easily do better for most applications these days, it still might not translate into a noticeable improvement.

[wclem]

I am gonna move over to an Nvidia card from my current R9 200 with 2 gb ram. I have not picked out the video card yet. I am thinking about the 250 dollar range give or take card offerings. I think I saw my current card still being sold around 100 bucks, wish I had paid that.

Last time I really put any effort into deciding on a CPU IBM was third in the market. I wish I could remember what they were calling that chip, my friend swore by them. Was it called Cirrus? I have pretty much been an AMD person since the early to mid 90's.

I know most of my gaming will fall to the GPU, so for the CPU I am hoping to hit a sweet spot where I can get a little more life from it later and see a reasonable performance increase now. Not that my 8320 is not plenty fast, combined with my SSD this pc meets my needs easily. I would like to upgrade to the point where maybe I can get 3-5 years of life from it, without buying the single most expensive CPU out there. I can probably squeeze three years out of this AMD truthfully. This is why I want to make sure whatever I buy I can justify by seeing at least a marginal improvement.

There was a time when I would have known all the little details and why each products was better or worse. Then I started collecting video games and my time went..........well, most of us here know LOL.

[isiolia]

Last time I really put any effort into deciding on a CPU IBM was third in the market. I wish I could remember what they were calling that chip, my friend swore by them. Was it called Cirrus? I have pretty much been an AMD person since the early to mid 90's.

Main other x86 competitor I can think of was Cyrix and the 6x86 line, which apparently IBM did market under their own name.
If you were building for Windows NT, then there also would have been a stretch where PowerPC and DEC Alpha CPUs were supported, though Windows 2000 dropped support for 'em.

A consideration, too, if looking at upgrading is how old a design your motherboard is (given how long AMD has used the socket type). Could be you'd benefit from better SATA, USB, and so on as well. It's also fairly common now to get an m.2 slot for potentially putting a yet faster SSD in.

Generally, the price range for the k series i5 is low/mid $200s, so it's not the most expensive thing by far. If you have a Microcenter nearby, more like $200 (they sell the 6600k for $199.99). It's typical for them to do low prices on at least some CPUs, but only in-store. They tend to do an additional discount if you buy a CPU and motherboard at the same time as well. So, if you have one around, it's likely worth the trip.

[wclem]

I actually have one within reasonable driving distance. It is actually where I got my current cpu/mobo. That store is dangerous for my bank account LOL.

My main problem is I lack any hands on with Intel chips. I dont want to go into an upgrade without knowing if I will receive anything over what I currently have. I have looked at the comparisons on other sites, but their bar graphs do little for me. Actually posted here because I have kept up with this thread and have some trust with the opinions stated here.

Here is a question: for the money would it be worth it to step up to the i7 over the i5? Or, would you go with the i5 and wait for price drops in a year or two on the i7?

I do apologize when I start thinking about old computers I get nostalgic. Makes me want to breakout my win 95 desktop and my old Thinkpad LOL. Goodtimes