Gaming PC Build...dont hate me

[ECGadget]

Are you getting the NZXT 630 or the 810? Either way, I would add extra fans on that if possible. Keeping components as cool as possible whilst pushing them is key to a smooth experience and one that lasts a long time!

 

[Saidur_Ali]

thanks... im seriously behind on the times it seems.


ive updates the top page to reflect the parts list we have at the moment.

open to change still if needed. we've got about 5 days before i go ahead and order everything at once...

If you can wait longer then I would suggest getting Intel Skylake i5-6600K with Z170 motherboard. Rumour is it will launch on 5th August, remains to be seen if it will be correct and how good availability will be. Also would get Windows 10 which comes out on the 29th this month, Microsoft may do promotional pricing again.

 

[MrF1]

Are you getting the NZXT 630 or the 810? Either way, I would add extra fans on that if possible. Keeping components as cool as possible whilst pushing them is key to a smooth experience and one that lasts a long time!

i changed it to the 630.

If you can wait longer then I would suggest getting Intel Skylake i5-6600K with Z170 motherboard. Rumour is it will launch on 5th August, remains to be seen if it will be correct and how good availability will be. Also would get Windows 10 which comes out on the 29th this month, Microsoft may do promotional pricing again.

thanks. will have a look into that

 

[Korza]

If you can wait longer then I would suggest getting Intel Skylake i5-6600K with Z170 motherboard. Rumour is it will launch on 5th August, remains to be seen if it will be correct and how good availability will be. Also would get Windows 10 which comes out on the 29th this month, Microsoft may do promotional pricing again.

That's not really very good advice to be giving since the 6600k is very much an unknown quantity (and isn't guaranteed to come out anytime soon) and will more than likely be priced higher at launch than the currently available CPUs. My recommendation would be to stick with either a 4690k or go AMD and get a FX-8350 for less (and on paper get better performance).

 

[Saidur_Ali]

That's not really very good advice to be giving since the 6600k is very much an unknown quantity (and isn't guaranteed to come out anytime soon) and will more than likely be priced higher at launch than the currently available CPUs. My recommendation would be to stick with either a 4690k or go AMD and get a FX-8350 for less (and on paper get better performance).

It is successor of 4690K so should have better IPC and performance per watt. The Z170 motherboards will support USB3.1 and more faster M.2 connectors which is great for SSDs that are seriously fast like Samsung SM951 (2.1GBps).

Intel usually price things really well at launch and it doesn't move much for duration of product. For example I imagine a year ago price for 4690K is similar to now and also 4670K 2 years ago. Think personally it is good advice to consider given why invest in something that isn't much different than what was available two years ago for a similar price. Should also help resale value while keeping outlay similar.

Regarding FX-8350, think he would suffer a CPU bottleneck as on paper and actual performance, it is much slower unless game is heavily multi-threaded. Also power consumption increase will be huge. Might as well get an old 2600K, that will use less power and out perform any AMD CPU.

 

[Korza]

It is successor of 4690K so should have better IPC and performance per watt. The Z170 motherboards will support USB3.1 and more faster M.2 connectors which is great for SSDs that are seriously fast like Samsung SM951 (2.1GBps).

Intel usually price things really well at launch and it doesn't move much for duration of product. For example I imagine a year ago price for 4690K is similar to now and also 4670K 2 years ago. Think personally it is good advice to consider given why invest in something that isn't much different than what was available two years ago for a similar price. Should also help resale value while keeping outlay similar.

The problem is there is no solid release date or performance data for it yet. Its a refresh of the current CPUs so its not going to be a huge improvement in terms of performance. Might as well tell to wait for Zen to come out, that won't be too far away.

Regarding FX-8350, think he would suffer a CPU bottleneck as on paper and actual performance, it is much slower unless game is heavily multi-threaded. Also power consumption increase will be huge. Might as well get an old 2600K, that will use less power and out perform any AMD CPU.

I can say that the FX-8350 doesn't bottleneck (I have one paired with a GTX970) and keeps up with most i5/i7 rigs without issue. It has better performance-per-dollar than what Intel offers. And power consumption isn't that big of a deal these days.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

The problem is there is no solid release date or performance data for it yet. Its a refresh of the current CPUs so its not going to be a huge improvement in terms of performance. Might as well tell to wait for Zen to come out, that won't be too far away.

15% IPC gain seems likely. Release might be a week or two after OP wanted to buy initially the 4690K. Big difference waiting over a year for something that will probably be inferior to what Intel already have now and waiting couple of weeks extra for similar amount to get something probably billions of dollars have been invested on for last two years to achieve.

I can say that the FX-8350 doesn't bottleneck (I have one paired with a GTX970) and keeps up with most i5/i7 rigs without issue. It has better performance-per-dollar than what Intel offers. And power consumption isn't that big of a deal these days.

I have seen many cases it will bottleneck, even AMD don't want to use their processors.

I do think power consumption is a bigger deal these days than before. I also prefer less heat when playing driving games, rather room not turn into a sauna. Do think AMD CPUs are quite pricey given how dated they are relative to Intel.

 

[Pseudopod]

Power consumption matters less the further north you go, I guess .

 

[Techy]

The problem is there is no solid release date or performance data for it yet. Its a refresh of the current CPUs so its not going to be a huge improvement in terms of performance. Might as well tell to wait for Zen to come out, that won't be too far away.

Zen won't release until 2016, which is quite a long time from now. If the OP is patient enough to wait until then he can. But honestly waiting will take forever in terms of technology. Might as well get the i5 now because it can handle any game you throw at it with no bottlenecks.

I can say that the FX-8350 doesn't bottleneck (I have one paired with a GTX970) and keeps up with most i5/i7 rigs without issue. It has better performance-per-dollar than what Intel offers. And power consumption isn't that big of a deal these days.

The problem with the 8350 is that there's nothing to upgrade to. They only thing you can upgrade to is the 9590, but it's just an overclocked 8350 that eats up a lot of power and expends a lot of heat.

 

[MrF1]

im the OP aren't i?... i feel so insignificant hahaha

im not gonna wait till 2016.
I want this thing up and running in the next month or so...

i think we have a good list.
RAM can always be updated later as i have 4 modules

its just vital the motherboard/PU/GPU and CPU are going to do their job now and for the next 4-5 years.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

im the OP aren't i?... i feel so insignificant hahaha

im not gonna wait till 2016.
I want this thing up and running in the next month or so...

i think we have a good list.
RAM can always be updated later as i have 4 modules

its just vital the motherboard/PU/GPU and CPU are going to do their job now and for the next 4-5 years.

Might as well get Skylake next month if it releases then, i7 6700K if you can stretch your budget. Haswell architecture is over two years old now. The IPC gain should be beneficial for racing games especially if you are going to keep it for that long.

GPU will probably be biggest bottleneck for triple monitor gaming and think it will be good idea to upgrade next year if pricing is really competitive for Nvidia Pascal as that seems like it will be a big leap in performance.

 

[ECGadget]

Agree with @Saidur_Ali it will be worth it to wait a month for Skylake, I have a Haswell chip and they are getting on a little. When I was looking my build originally I was going to get an Ivy Bridge chip, and decided to wait for a Haswell and it was worth the wait just for that better performance and power consumption! However, that being said there is nothing wrong with a Haswell chip and it will certainly keep you going for quite a few years!

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Agree with @Saidur_Ali it will be worth it to wait a month for Skylake, I have a Haswell chip and they are getting on a little. When I was looking my build originally I was going to get an Ivy Bridge chip, and decided to wait for a Haswell and it was worth the wait just for that better performance and power consumption! However, that being said there is nothing wrong with a Haswell chip and it will certainly keep you going for quite a few years!

I built my Haswell PC in 2013 but mainly due to getting case I wanted quite cheap. Plan on upgrading to Skylake soon to lower power consumption and heat so keep cooler while driving.

Shame that Broadwell availability for 5675C and 5775C is not very good worldwide and also is pricey due to having a powerful GPU. Skylake should have better availability as that seems to be what Intel and its partners are planning for most and should be cheaper due to not having as powerful GPU as Broadwell desktop. You can already see motherboards coming out for it, can keep the brand the same but just get the Z170 variant.

 

[Techy]

Might as well get Skylake next month if it releases then, i7 6700K if you can stretch your budget. Haswell architecture is over two years old now. The IPC gain should be beneficial for racing games especially if you are going to keep it for that long.

GPU will probably be biggest bottleneck for triple monitor gaming and think it will be good idea to upgrade next year if pricing is really competitive for Nvidia Pascal as that seems like it will be a big leap in performance.

Waiting for Skylake isn't a terrible decision. But in terms of gaming it'll most likely be a small performance increase compared to Haswell (though I can't call it as Skylake hasn't been tested yet in games). Honestly the GPU matters more since triple monitor gaming is more taxing on the GPU side.

im the OP aren't i?... i feel so insignificant hahaha

im not gonna wait till 2016.
I want this thing up and running in the next month or so...

i think we have a good list.
RAM can always be updated later as i have 4 modules

its just vital the motherboard/PU/GPU and CPU are going to do their job now and for the next 4-5 years.

Whoops sorry about that.

Haswell chips aren't gonna become a bottleneck anytime soon.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Waiting for Skylake isn't a terrible decision. But in terms of gaming it'll most likely be a small performance increase compared to Haswell (though I can't call it as Skylake hasn't been tested yet in games). Honestly the GPU matters more since triple monitor gaming is more taxing on the GPU side.

Less chance of hitting high CPU occupancy in games like Assetto Corsa with the IPC gain. Also faster I/O which is good for future proofing for 4-5 years, lower power consumption and heat is also a good advantage. Will be even better if it is same price or lower and wait maybe only two weeks away before being available to purchase.

GPU value above the 970 starts diminishing and not possible to wait longer so that is problem in recommending something better. Big revolution seems next year which is exciting, if you spend big now you will likely lose a lot so best to get the 970 for now.

 

[Techy]

Less chance of hitting high CPU occupancy in games like Assetto Corsa with the IPC gain. Also faster I/O which is good for future proofing for 4-5 years, lower power consumption and heat is also a good advantage. Will be even better if it is same price or lower and wait maybe only two weeks away before being available to purchase.

GPU value above the 970 starts diminishing and not possible to wait longer so that is problem in recommending something better. Big revolution seems next year which is exciting, if you spend big now you will likely lose a lot so best to get the 970 for now.

I can see the advantages. But let's wait and see if Skylake can yield good results. Either way it's up to @MrF1 to wait for Skylake.

Yeah, the 970 is enough for now. Maybe the 980Ti / Fury X for higher res gaming.

 

[sesselpupser]

I reckon you'd get 4-5 years out of Haswell no problem - I say that as someone who has a 2500K from 2011 that's still doing the business in another PC - but you'd get more out of Skylake for sure. It looks like DirectX 12's MultiAdapter feature will enable integrated GPUs to work alongside graphics cards so it would make sense to wait a little and get a stronger iGPU for that reason... If that actually works it'll be a nice boost.

In any case, I built a PC in May and even I'm almost kicking myself for not waiting to see what Skylake is like (even though I wasn't in a position to spend any more than I did - I had to wait another month to buy RAM and I've only just ordered the SSD (because I salvaged an old one)), so even though I think an i5 4690K will be good enough for the OP's needs it does seem reckless to not wait just a couple of weeks given that it's likely Intel are going to show off Skylake at GamesCom which starts in the first week of August.

 

[MrF1]

ok may wait then..

Is there any connection between Skylake and Skynet.. #robots #triplescreenattacks lol

 

[MrF1]

current build specs make price $1800 on PCCASEGEAR



Minister will not approve

 

[suv139]

That RMI psu, while its good, is most likely overpriced, I would recommend the Evga G2 750 watt psu, its the best psu in AU you can buy for its price.

 

[TiZzla]

Stay away from AMD cpu's, they work fine with well optimised games but with games that only use 2 cores they struggle due to the poor single core performance. Have been using a FX 6300 for a few years now, finally upgrading to a new system with i5 4690 + 970.

Also make sure you are 100% happy with the Motherboard you choose, it's the one thing you can't change easily or without buying a new copy of windows

 

[20832]

Stay away from Gigabyte motherboards! The lower the price, the worse they're in terms of quality. My Gigabyte Z97X - SOC died after just 4 months, and that's already a "premium" motherboard geared towards OC.

If you don't want to spend a lot, maybe look into some Z97 offering from ]MSI or ASRock. If you can afford to spend a little more, maybe go for an ASUS motherboard, which still are the best in terms of quality, but you'll have to pay a slight premium for it.

 

[Ialyrn]

Stay away from AMD cpu's, they work fine with well optimised games but with games that only use 2 cores they struggle due to the poor single core performance. Have been using a FX 6300 for a few years now, finally upgrading to a new system with i5 4690 + 970.

Also make sure you are 100% happy with the Motherboard you choose, it's the one thing you can't change easily or without buying a new copy of windows

I wouldn't recommend someone to go with an AMD FX CPU at the moment, and sure, they are not as strong per core as an intel CPU. but that is a load of bull that you just came out with. I have an FX4300 quad core in my system, and I play everything from GTA V, Skyrim, Fallout, Assetto Corsa, Pcars, battlefield, and so much more. The vast majority of them are running with ultra graphical settings, and I have not yet come across any video game new or old that my system can not play at 1080p 60fps. In total, myself and my boyfriend have around 500 pc games.

Stay away from Gigabyte motherboards! The lower the price, the worse they're in terms of quality. My Gigabyte Z97X - SOC died after just 4 months, and that's already a "premium" motherboard geared towards OC.

If you don't want to spend a lot, maybe look into some Z97 offering from ]MSI or ASRock. If you can afford to spend a little more, maybe go for an ASUS motherboard, which still are the best in terms of quality, but you'll have to pay a slight premium for it.

There is nothing wrong with gigabyte motherboards, or any of their branded hardware. You just lost the silicon lottery is all. With how much of this hardware each vendor makes, there are bound to be a few bad ones in each batch. I have friends who never go with Asus for the exact same reason you wont touch Gigabyte, I have personally had an MSI motherboard fail on me.

 

[20832]

There is nothing wrong with gigabyte motherboards, or any of their branded hardware. You just lost the silicon lottery is all. With how much of this hardware each vendor makes, there are bound to be a few bad ones in each batch. I have friends who never go with Asus for the exact same reason you wont touch Gigabyte, I have personally had an MSI motherboard fail on me.

I didn't say I wouldn't want to touch Gigabyte, their GPU's are excellent, my old Gigabyte GTX660 is still running strong in my dad's PC, but in terms of their motherboards I've heard from multiple people and even PC vendors, that they had bad motherboards and bad experiences with Gigabyte, in particular with the SOC series, which all had the same problems I had. My local vendor even went so far to ban all Gigabyte products from their shop, since they had so many issues with Gigabyte motherboard and having to RMA them. So, instead of just "a bad badge" and losing "the silicon lottery", I think that Gigabyte has a minor quality control issue. And I'm sorry, if I pay 215€/235$ for a motherboard, I think that I can expect quality, especially with Overclocking oriented boards, that demand stability and the highest quality components.

I'm not going to say, that all Gigabyte boards are bad, some might be very good, but in terms of quality (control) Gigabyte lacks quite a bit, even compared to their cheaper competition from MSI or ASRock, the latter having stepped up their game significantly over the years.

 

[Ialyrn]

I didn't say I wouldn't want to touch Gigabyte, their GPU's are excellent, my old Gigabyte GTX660 is still running strong in my dad's PC, but in terms of their motherboards I've heard from multiple people and even PC vendors, that they had bad motherboards and bad experiences with Gigabyte, in particular with the SOC series, which all had the same problems I had. My local vendor even went so far to ban all Gigabyte products from their shop, since they had so many issues with Gigabyte motherboard and having to RMA them. So, instead of just "a bad badge" and losing "the silicon lottery", I think that Gigabyte has a minor quality control issue. And I'm sorry, if I pay 215€/235$ for a motherboard, I think that I can expect quality, especially with Overclocking oriented boards, that demand stability and the highest quality components.

I'm not going to say, that all Gigabyte boards are bad, some might be very good, but in terms of quality (control) Gigabyte lacks quite a bit, even compared to their cheaper competition from MSI or ASRock, the latter having stepped up their game significantly over the years.

You can find horror stories all over the net, and all say the same thing as your message. You just have to change the name of the manufacturer.

 

[20832]

You can find horror stories all over the net, and all say the same thing as your message. You just have to change the name of the manufacturer.

That's true, but still: Considering the price point of this motherboard, it simply did not meet my expectations and died prematurealy after just 4 months. And then this board didn't even do, what it's advertised for: Overclocking.

I wasn't able to dial in even a mild overclock of 4GHz on my CPU, while my CPU is able to hit 4.7GHz @ 1.35V or 4.5GHz @ 1.3V, I wasn't able to enable XMP for my memory. And all of this for a board that costs well over 200$? No, thank you!

______

All I did was sharing my experience with my Gigabyte board, in hopes that OP will consider it and be forewarned about the potential quality (control) issues with Gigabyte motherboards and stated alternatives, that cost less, about the same or a little more, from brands which I 100% trust and I personally have experience with.

 

[Ialyrn]

That's true, but still: Considering the price point of this motherboard, it simply did not meet my expectations and died prematurealy after just 4 months. And then this board didn't even do, what it's advertised for: Overclocking.

I wasn't able to dial in even a mild overclock of 4GHz on my CPU, while my CPU is able to hit 4.7GHz @ 1.35V or 4.5GHz @ 1.3V, I wasn't able to enable XMP for my memory. And all of this for a board that costs well over 200$? No, thank you!

______

All I did was sharing my experience with my Gigabyte board, in hopes that OP will consider it and be forewarned about the potential quality (control) issues with Gigabyte motherboards and stated alternatives, that cost less, about the same or a little more, from brands which I 100% trust and I personally have experience with.

Are you sure you was using an unlocked CPU at the time, such as a K series Intel cpu, or an AMD black edition CPU? With a motherboard with overclocking options, that shvould be the only reason why they wouldn't show up.

 

[20832]

Are you sure you was using an unlocked CPU at the time, such as a K series Intel cpu, or an AMD black edition CPU? With a motherboard with overclocking options, that shvould be the only reason why they wouldn't show up.

I'm using a 4690k, I'm no "noob" to the whole hardware thing, otherwise I'd probably stray away from Overclocking, since it's still considered a more advanced task.

The 4.7GHz overclock was varified on multiple boards, including the MSI Gaming 5 board I linked in an earlier post. While the 4.7GHz OC is by no means a 24/7 OC, because 1.35V is really pushing it, but every board handled the overclock without any errors after a 6 hours stress test, which I always do, if I'm overclocking. The only board, which funily was the only advertised overclocking board I used, that had any sort of stability issues, was my Z97X - SOC. The hardware configuration was always the same with my EVGA GTX960 and my Crucial Ballistix Tactical 1866MHz RAM, and it was the only board that had any type of issues in terms of stability. It wouldn't accept any form of overclocking, not even a mild overclock of about 4GHz with Auto voltage nor manually adjusted voltage. With XMP enabled it wouldn't start and instantly wanted to restore the default BIOS. I even tried the other, more performance oriented BIOS and it intruduced the same issues, over and over again.

 

[dr_slump]

15% IPC gain seems likely.

Unlikely

Plan on upgrading to Skylake soon to lower power consumption and heat so keep cooler while driving.

If they do it the same way as with Broadwell CPUs and in case Skylake won't be significantly more efficient than Broadwell, then a 6600K and 6700K (the ones you suggested just a few posts above) will run hotter than the Devils Canyon CPUs.

Shame that Broadwell availability for 5675C and 5775C is not very good worldwide and also is pricey due to having a powerful GPU.

Broadwell is absolutely uninteresting for somebody who wants to build a new PC.

...not having as powerful GPU as Broadwell desktop.

Together with Skylake, Intel will be introducing the GT4e graphics (expected to come for desktop at a later stage), which will offer a significant performance boost over the existing GT3e solution. At the same time the iGPUs will be of the 9th gen, although that's most likely just minor and less important changes.
Because of this, saying Skylake will generally feature worse iGPUs is wrong.

 

[TiZzla]

I wouldn't recommend someone to go with an AMD FX CPU at the moment, and sure, they are not as strong per core as an intel CPU. but that is a load of bull that you just came out with. I have an FX4300 quad core in my system, and I play everything from GTA V, Skyrim, Fallout, Assetto Corsa, Pcars, battlefield, and so much more. The vast majority of them are running with ultra graphical settings, and I have not yet come across any video game new or old that my system can not play at 1080p 60fps. In total, myself and my boyfriend have around 500 pc games.

What is a load of bull? I was just saying that it's fine for well optimised games but lots of games only use 2 cores which is where the AMD cpu's will struggle. I've had both a FX 4100 and my current FX 6300 in my PC and the 4100 struggled to play Battlefield 3 with 64 players. The 6300 plays Battlefield 4 with 64 players but all cores are nearly maxxed out and it does cause some frame drops when things get crazy.

However in an un-optimised game like Heroes & Generals for example my fps drops from 60+ to around 20 fps when the server fills up because the game is not using all cores, it bottlenecks my GPU massively in these games.