Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Opinions wanted: ASUS ROG Series laptop vs. Desktop Gaming build?

Last response: in Laptops & Notebooks
Share
March 6, 2014 12:12:18 PM

I'm currently running an AMD FX-8120 and GTX 560ti desktop with 8gb of RAM. The games I play most right now are World of Warcraft and Battlefield 3/4. It handles WoW decently on Ultra settings though I have to back them off a bit during raiding. Battlefield 3 is playable for the most part, but it has serious issues with Battlefield 4 on anything above low settings.

I've been doing an insane amount of research over the last 2 weeks trying to come up with an upgrade solution, with the goal of being able to play other current/future games like Crysis 3, TitanFall, etc. and not having to worry about upgrading for at least another 3-4 years. Also, I'd be passing the current system to my wife, so I'd like to avoid re-using parts.

I've done all the usual comparisons (AMD Vs. Intel, AMD Vs. Nvidia, etc.) and have come up with 2 solutions that I feel are adequate, working within with a ~$1500 budget.

Option 1: ASUS ROG series laptop
http://tinyurl.com/lmlvzjo
-Intel Core i7-4700HQ 2.4GHz
-17.3" Full HD Display
-16GB DDR3
-750GB HDD
-3GB Nvidia GTX770M
- Blu-Ray
120gb SSD: http://tinyurl.com/kpqr9kt ($89.99)
Total: $1489.98

Option 2: Desktop build
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: NZXT Kraken X60 98.3 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($119.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V PRO ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($143.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: A-Data XPG SX900 256GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($139.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 770 2GB Video Card ($329.99 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Phantom 530 (White) ATX Full Tower Case ($114.99 @ Newegg)
Case Fan: NZXT Air Flow Series 83.6 CFM 140mm Fan ($13.01 @ Amazon)
Case Fan: NZXT Air Flow Series 83.6 CFM 140mm Fan ($13.01 @ Amazon)
Case Fan: NZXT Air Flow Series 83.6 CFM 140mm Fan ($13.01 @ Amazon)
Case Fan: NZXT FZ-200mm LED 103.0 CFM 200mm Fan ($17.99 @ Mwave)
Power Supply: NZXT HALE82 V2 700W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.98 @ OutletPC)
Keyboard: Cooler Master Storm QuickFire Ultimate Wired Gaming Keyboard ($109.99 @ NCIX US)
Mouse: Logitech G600 MMO Gaming Mouse Wired Laser Mouse ($62.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1488.89
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-03-06 14:43 EST-0500)

I realize I could (slightly) improve the desktop build by going with a core i5 4670k and an appropriate motherboard, but if I go this route, I'm going to be OCD about aesthetics. I'm choosing to go with a white/black/blue component theme, enhanced by replacing the stock case fans with blue LED ones.

Pros and Cons

I understand that "gaming" laptops generally aren't as good as a desktop. But on the other hand, I'm taking a few things into consideration:

-Cost: Both options are within my budget and the difference between the two is negligible. (A paltry $1.09!)
-Portability: A laptop has obvious advantages here. I don't travel a lot but when I do it would be nice to have the option of taking my computer with me. I could also use it in my recliner, on the couch, at the kitchen table, or even in bed if I wanted to.
-Cable management: No wires hanging everywhere with a laptop.
-Desktop Replacement: I can easily put this laptop on one of the shelves above my desk and connect my monitor, keyboard and mouse to it, hiding the wires behind a vertical support.
-Performance: The laptop is worlds better than what I'm using right now, but the desktop allows me to get my feet wet in overclocking, which I would be new to.
-Warranty: The laptop comes with a 1 year parts and labor warranty. If I build my own computer and mess something up, that's coming out of my pocket. (I've built many but let's face it, sometimes "stuff" happens!)
-Upgrading: Laptops don't have much in the way of upgrade paths, save for adding memory and an SSD. However, the LGA 1155 socket is a dead path so it's somewhat of a tie here.

I guess it all comes down to deciding whether or not I want to sacrifice a portion of performance for the option of portability. Watching this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2WutUyvs0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygrwlf6pMwo&list=PLFA3F5... make me want to believe I won't really be missing much in the way of performance either way.

What are your opinions? Should I just enjoy the simplicity of ordering the laptop and being able to play with it right out of the box without spending 2 hours putting it together, or is the performance loss going to be much more than I realize?
March 6, 2014 12:22:51 PM

desktop, it will always be more powerful, plus you never know whats coming down the line at least with desktop you'll be able to upgrade gpu and overclock
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 2:09:47 PM

You could easily build a desktop for under $900 that has an I5-4670k and a gtx 770, which would be a lot better than the laptop (roughly 2x better http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-770M-vs-GeForce-GTX...) gpu. You would still have $600 left in your budget so that you could get a much slimmer, more portable laptop or even hybrid that would be better for trips or what have you. I actually went the gaming laptop route and I wish i had gotten the gaming desktop + cheap laptop route because of heat issues of gaming with laptop plus inability to upgrade.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b D Laptop
March 6, 2014 2:25:51 PM

whip up a desktop gtx 770 build for gaming and get an I3 or slim ultra book for work
Get a system configurator to build it for you so you don't have to bother? If you know where to look some will do it for like $50 so it just comes pre-assembled.
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 3:09:25 PM

Sharphawk1234 said:
You could easily build a desktop for under $900 that has an I5-4670k and a gtx 770, which would be a lot better than the laptop (roughly 2x better http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-770M-vs-GeForce-GTX...) gpu. You would still have $600 left in your budget so that you could get a much slimmer, more portable laptop or even hybrid that would be better for trips or what have you. I actually went the gaming laptop route and I wish i had gotten the gaming desktop + cheap laptop route because of heat issues of gaming with laptop plus inability to upgrade.


I'm not saying it can't be done, but the CPU and GPU (cheapest GTX 770 available, mind you) alone come to about $540. That would leave $360 for case, mobo, memory, PSU.. I'd have to go with the stock CPU fan and bottom of the line components to build an i5 4670k/GTX 770 system for under $900. If I were to put more money into the desktop, then my split budget forces me into an even cheaper laptop. I doubt I'd be happy with either if I tried to get both.
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 5:44:49 PM

It may seem that way, but just remember a gaming laptop is kind of in the middle of the two purposes it serves, its not as portable and handy as a lighter laptop, and is not nearly as good as a gaming desktop. I can see the appeal to the gaming laptop, as I actually got one, but just remember the 770m already struggles with next gen games now let alone in a year or two when developers begin to max out the potential of next gen consoles. Its your money, but I think If your spending $1500 on a gaming rig, it should be able to max out everything for at least a year or two, with the possibility of upgrading later if needed.
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 5:50:17 PM

I know this is more than $900 but there quality parts and its very overclockable, leaving you with about 500 or so for a laptop if youre still considering this route.http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/partlist/ Case comes with 3 fans
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 5:58:33 PM

Sharphawk1234 said:
It may seem that way, but just remember a gaming laptop is kind of in the middle of the two purposes it serves, its not as portable and handy as a lighter laptop, and is not nearly as good as a gaming desktop. I can see the appeal to the gaming laptop, as I actually got one, but just remember the 770m already struggles with next gen games now let alone in a year or two when developers begin to max out the potential of next gen consoles. Its your money, but I think If your spending $1500 on a gaming rig, it should be able to max out everything for at least a year or two, with the possibility of upgrading later if needed.


I took a second look at the link you posted, and you are right. I must have been thinking of a different card I had compared to the GTX 770. The desktop is looking like the better option by far now.
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 6:00:26 PM

Sharphawk1234 said:
I know this is more than $900 but there quality parts and its very overclockable, leaving you with about 500 or so for a laptop if youre still considering this route.http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/partlist/ Case comes with 3 fans


I followed this link, but it just takes me to a blank loadout. I'd be interested to see what you've put together if you wouldn't mind checking the link though.
m
0
l

Best solution

March 6, 2014 6:08:09 PM

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/35qEh see if this one works. I think you spent a bit too much money on your case at this price point, you may not like the look of the one I included but something under $80 is probably more resonable especially since you added 4 fans in your build. I also went with the coolermaster instead of the water cooling system because for $30 it should be more than enough cooling even if you do a reasonably high oc. Ram was a bit cheaper on mine though you could go with yours if you so choose.
Share
March 6, 2014 6:18:32 PM

Sharphawk1234 said:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/35qEh see if this one works. I think you spent a bit too much money on your case at this price point, you may not like the look of the one I included but something under $80 is probably more resonable especially since you added 4 fans in your build. I also went with the coolermaster instead of the water cooling system because for $30 it should be more than enough cooling even if you do a reasonably high oc. Ram was a bit cheaper on mine though you could go with yours if you so choose.


That link worked, thank you. This looks like a good build, I saved it as a new parts list. The only thing I would change is the case really, as red is my least favorite color. I switched it out for this one: http://tinyurl.com/kxh4otu

Looks really good other than that though. Thanks again!
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 6:57:06 PM

Sharphawk1234 said:
This is actually the case I ment to pick for you its what im going to use in my upcoming build http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CO7Ao8...


That is a nice looking case. Sort of reminds me of the Antec Nine Hundred which I have now. I love the air flow in this case, but I really like how the newer cases have improved the HDD cages by turning them so the drive interface faces the rear of the case. So much easier to get a clean wiring job done.

Well I've gone and done it now. I went on another reading spree and am now considering an AMD FX 8350 again. /headexplode
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 7:14:56 PM

Lmao trust me your not alone I literally did exactly what you just did last week. What I came up with in my readings is that although the i5 more expensive, it is a lot more future proof over the fx 8320, especially in single threaded applications. Bottom line is the fx 8320 is a better value because its cheaper, but you'll get a little less performance and lets say if you changed your gpu in 3 years to a gtx 900 series, it may bottleneck your whole system while the i5 most likey would not, especially overclocked. You can really go either way on this one, but for me I would just rather pay a little more now for the intel and not have to worry about my cpu bottle necking my next gpu, plus getting a bit of a performance boost.
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 7:17:26 PM

A desktop would probably be the better option here. This is because you can upgrade anything you want in the desktop down the road, and it will last longer then the laptop.
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 9:25:21 PM

Sharphawk1234 said:
Lmao trust me your not alone I literally did exactly what you just did last week. What I came up with in my readings is that although the i5 more expensive, it is a lot more future proof over the fx 8320, especially in single threaded applications. Bottom line is the fx 8320 is a better value because its cheaper, but you'll get a little less performance and lets say if you changed your gpu in 3 years to a gtx 900 series, it may bottleneck your whole system while the i5 most likey would not, especially overclocked. You can really go either way on this one, but for me I would just rather pay a little more now for the intel and not have to worry about my cpu bottle necking my next gpu, plus getting a bit of a performance boost.


See, this was my line of thinking as well. Yes, the Intel's performance would probably be slightly better in most current games but I've come across a few benchmarks that show the FX 8350 pulling ahead of the core i5 in some recent games (Battlefield 4, Crysis 3). I've also read tons and tons of forum posts from people who run the FX 8350 and are very happy with it.

My gut tells me to at least entertain the idea of going the budget-friendly AMD route for three reasons:

-Either CPU will run current and future games for at least a few years. That's a plain fact whether you are an Intel or AMD kind of person. One may deliver a slight FPS boost over the other from game to game, but I play at 1080p on a 60Hz monitor right now, so anything above 60 FPS is lost on me anyhow. I think anything that gives me at least 40-50 FPS would suffice, and there's no doubt the FX 8350 will do that when paired with a decent GPU.

-Seeing AMD CPUs and GPUs in consoles makes me think that going forward it's going to be common that games are optimized to get full usage out of those extra cores. This just seems like common sense. I admittedly don't know much about how the console/PC game development unfolds across platforms, but I would assume that there's a significant amount of work that has to be done in order to optimize a game for both types of CPUs. Why not just optimize the game for multicore CPUs and be done? In this regard I think maybe we'd start to see a more uniform experience across all platforms, which is currently not the case as I understand it.

-By the time either CPU would bottleneck a current or near future GPU, other upgrades would likely be necessary as well. We can speculate now but the reality is 3-4 years down the road, AM3+/LGA 1150 slots may/will probably both be dead and spending extra right now to "future proof" a system would be wasted. Even if the LGA 1150 socket isn't "dead," a current LGA 1150 motherboard will most likely have to be replaced anyhow. http://www.techpowerup.com/189617/intel-9-series-chipse...

I keep going further and further down this rabbit hole LOL. What makes it tough is that it's so easy to get caught up in the AMD/Intel fanboi war, so doing research on them both requires a lot of effort in trying to determine the signal to noise ratio.
m
0
l
March 6, 2014 9:42:18 PM

JC038 said:
Sharphawk1234 said:
Lmao trust me your not alone I literally did exactly what you just did last week. What I came up with in my readings is that although the i5 more expensive, it is a lot more future proof over the fx 8320, especially in single threaded applications. Bottom line is the fx 8320 is a better value because its cheaper, but you'll get a little less performance and lets say if you changed your gpu in 3 years to a gtx 900 series, it may bottleneck your whole system while the i5 most likey would not, especially overclocked. You can really go either way on this one, but for me I would just rather pay a little more now for the intel and not have to worry about my cpu bottle necking my next gpu, plus getting a bit of a performance boost.


See, this was my line of thinking as well. Yes, the Intel's performance would probably be slightly better in most current games but I've come across a few benchmarks that show the FX 8350 pulling ahead in some recent games (Battlefield 4, Crysis 3). I've also read tons and tons of forum posts from people who run the FX 8350 and are very happy with it.

My gut tells me to at least entertain the idea of going the budget-friendly AMD route for three reasons:

-Either CPU will run current and future games for at least a few years. That's a plain fact whether you are an Intel or AMD kind of person. One may deliver a slight FPS boost over the other from game to game, but I play at 1080p on a 60Hz monitor right now, so anything above 60 FPS is lost on me anyhow. I think anything that gives me at least 40-50 FPS would suffice, and there's no doubt the FX 8350 will do that when paired with a decent GPU.

-Seeing AMD CPUs and GPUs in consoles makes me think that going forward it's going to be common that games are optimized to get full usage out of those extra cores. This just seems like common sense. I admittedly don't know much about how the console/PC game development unfolds across platforms, but I would assume that there's a significant amount of work that has to be done in order to optimize a game for both single-core and multicore CPUs. Why not just optimize the game for multicore CPUs and be done? In this regard I think maybe we'd start to see a more uniform experience across all platforms, which is currently not the case as I understand it.

-By the time either CPU would bottleneck a current or near future GPU, other upgrades would likely be necessary as well. We can speculate now but the reality is 3-4 years down the road, AM3+/LGA 1150 slots may/will probably both be dead and spending extra right now to "future proof" a system would be wasted.

I keep going further and further down this rabbit hole LOL. What makes it tough is that it's so easy to get caught up in the AMD/Intel fanboi war, so doing research on them both requires a lot of effort in trying to determine the signal to noise ratio.


You make some good points in the direction for the fx line. One thing that kind of swayed me in the direction of intel was the fact that amd will no longer be making the fx line, so support will definitely decline and the ability to reuse the motherboard for a new cpu will be absent if that was done. Honestly if you chose either you would be happy but it seems like the 8350 may be better for your needs due to the price disparity. Something else that may help you adopt AMD, the 8320 is basically the 8350 but underclocked, so if youre already planning to overclock, you can just overclock the 8320 to the levels of the 8350, saving you a few bucks. What made me kind of want intel a bit more is just how old the fx 8300s are getting, they came out 2 years ago. I know the cpu progression has slowed down a bit but for me in a new system I just wouldnt really want to put an already "old" technology into my build. Also if you can wait a bit if youre still on the fence, intels refreshed lineup is coming soon and although huge gains are not apparent, some new cpus should help the price points a bit. Nevertheless, I think you'll be happy with either one
m
0
l
March 7, 2014 8:32:35 AM

Sharphawk1234 said:
You make some good points in the direction for the fx line. One thing that kind of swayed me in the direction of intel was the fact that amd will no longer be making the fx line, so support will definitely decline and the ability to reuse the motherboard for a new cpu will be absent if that was done.

I edited my post above to include a link. The same thing is likely happening with the Intel camp. Current LGA 1150 motherboards won't be able to use the Broadwell chips.

Sharphawk1234 said:

Honestly if you chose either you would be happy but it seems like the 8350 may be better for your needs due to the price disparity. Something else that may help you adopt AMD, the 8320 is basically the 8350 but underclocked, so if youre already planning to overclock, you can just overclock the 8320 to the levels of the 8350, saving you a few bucks.


My biggest concern (like everyone who posts here asking for advice I'm sure) is that I just don't want to pay a premium for a small percentage of performance. What's making this so rough for me is I don't have a way of testing one way or another. I don't know anyone with an i7 3770k/4770k, or an i5 3570k/4670k or AMD 8320/8350 so I'm going into this kind of relying on what I read online.

In the end, I'm okay with paying a little more if I'm going to be happy with what I end up with. I guess my main problem at this point is just deciding what I'll be happy with.

Sharphawk1234 said:

What made me kind of want intel a bit more is just how old the fx 8300s are getting, they came out 2 years ago. I know the cpu progression has slowed down a bit but for me in a new system I just wouldnt really want to put an already "old" technology into my build. Also if you can wait a bit if youre still on the fence, intels refreshed lineup is coming soon and although huge gains are not apparent, some new cpus should help the price points a bit. Nevertheless, I think you'll be happy with either one


I hadn't thought about that to be honest. That makes sense. And considering the link in my post above, I'm guessing both current socket paths are likely to be dead or revised by the time I'm shopping for upgrades again so I may as well go with what's currently performing well, and worry about the future when it gets here. After playing with PCPartpicker a little bit more, going with AMD would only end up saving me about $100 anyway.
m
0
l
March 7, 2014 8:44:15 AM

JC038 said:
Sharphawk1234 said:
You make some good points in the direction for the fx line. One thing that kind of swayed me in the direction of intel was the fact that amd will no longer be making the fx line, so support will definitely decline and the ability to reuse the motherboard for a new cpu will be absent if that was done.

I edited my post above to include a link. The same thing is likely happening with the Intel camp. Current LGA 1150 motherboards won't be able to use the Broadwell chips.

Sharphawk1234 said:

Honestly if you chose either you would be happy but it seems like the 8350 may be better for your needs due to the price disparity. Something else that may help you adopt AMD, the 8320 is basically the 8350 but underclocked, so if youre already planning to overclock, you can just overclock the 8320 to the levels of the 8350, saving you a few bucks.


My biggest concern (like everyone who posts here asking for advice I'm sure) is that I just don't want to pay a premium for a small percentage of performance. What's making this so rough for me is I don't have a way of testing one way or another. I don't know anyone with an i7 3770k/4770k, or an i5 3570k/4670k or AMD 8320/8350 so I'm going into this kind of relying on what I read online.

In the end, I'm okay with paying a little more if I'm going to be happy with what I end up with. I guess my main problem at this point is just deciding what I'll be happy with.

Sharphawk1234 said:

What made me kind of want intel a bit more is just how old the fx 8300s are getting, they came out 2 years ago. I know the cpu progression has slowed down a bit but for me in a new system I just wouldnt really want to put an already "old" technology into my build. Also if you can wait a bit if youre still on the fence, intels refreshed lineup is coming soon and although huge gains are not apparent, some new cpus should help the price points a bit. Nevertheless, I think you'll be happy with either one


I hadn't thought about that to be honest. That makes sense. And considering the link in my post above, I'm guessing both current socket paths are likely to be dead or revised by the time I'm shopping for upgrades again so I may as well go with what's currently performing well, and worry about the future when it gets here. After playing with PCPartpicker a little bit more, going with AMD would only end up saving me about $100 anyway.

Well $100 isnt anything to snaff at especially since you still would need to buy a laptop, buying a $500 laptop over a $400 one can provide a significant boost, assuming your're still on the same budget. Especially with the article that you just posted showing that the future intels will not be able to run on current mobos makes more of a direction in amds lineup, as a need for an almost complete upgrade after 3-4 years is now present on both sides. I flip flop all the time supporting amds or intels cpu but bottom line you can save $100 and at most would lose 5-10 fps in worst case scenario, but that would be well over 60fps anyway. Its good to research and try to see which one is better but at the end of the day a decision ha to be made and with whichever you pick youll be giving up something that the other side offered, potenttial performance, or potential money wasted.

m
0
l
March 7, 2014 10:12:43 AM

Sharphawk1234 said:
Well $100 isnt anything to snaff at especially since you still would need to buy a laptop, buying a $500 laptop over a $400 one can provide a significant boost, assuming your're still on the same budget. Especially with the article that you just posted showing that the future intels will not be able to run on current mobos makes more of a direction in amds lineup, as a need for an almost complete upgrade after 3-4 years is now present on both sides. I flip flop all the time supporting amds or intels cpu but bottom line you can save $100 and at most would lose 5-10 fps in worst case scenario, but that would be well over 60fps anyway. Its good to research and try to see which one is better but at the end of the day a decision ha to be made and with whichever you pick youll be giving up something that the other side offered, potenttial performance, or potential money wasted.

No I agree, $100 is nothing to sneeze at. But I don't still need to buy a laptop. The portability is what was initially swaying me to consider that option if I was able to get decent gaming performance out of it, but I'm clearly not. My wife has a laptop that I could use if I ever needed one, but it doesn't play games.

I'm right there with you on the flip-flopping. Right now I'm flopped back to Intel though, and I think this is where I'll stay. I got caught up in the debate so deep that I completely overlooked the fact that I'm running an AMD system right now, and have never been particularly happy with it. It's always been much slower than I expected. I didn't do my proper research before building it. I just saw 8 cores with a higher clock speed than my other 4-core options at the time and thought "Well that surely must be faster!" and bought it.

Windows 7 takes a very long time to boot up. From the time I hit the power button to the time where I can start actually using the computer is almost 4 minutes. I have tried anything I can think of to get it running quicker but I've had little in the way of success. I run Ccleaner almost daily. I have Defrag run weekly. I run Comodo firewall, have up-to-date virus definitions, etc.. I have tried disabling as many things from the startup process as I can, as well as un-parking all the cores and it shaved off maybe 20 seconds. With 8GB of RAM and a 7200RPM HDD, that seems very long to me.

I just used a stopwatch to time my wife's laptop with an older core i5 in it. It boots up in 1 minute 42 seconds.
m
0
l
March 7, 2014 12:40:41 PM

The processor may have some impact for the starting taking so long but the majority of it goes on the hard drive, I don't know if its fair to compare one processors start up time compared to another when there's different hard drives being used and different data to load. 4 minutes is really long tho, but my laptop that im currently using is a gaming laptop with a 2 year old i7 and my load up time is about 3 minutes or so depending on the day. Im not saying that the intel wouldnt be faster for the day to day processes, I just dont know if looking at the boot time is the best way because that's mostly the hard drive that's being worked to access the data. Since youre no longer getting the laptop tho I think you can be a little more justified putting the extra 100 into this build since it wouldn't be taking away from the laptop now that your not getting one. Since your now set on Intel I would say go ahead and shoot if youre ready to buy, I would rather have a little less money than be saying to myself i wish I gotten the better cpu down the road. Since youre going to run ssd tho, I dont think youll notice your computer being "slow" even if you had a fx 6300 haha. p.s. If you get the fx 8320/8350 you can get a 500 gb ssd with the 100 you saved if you need more storage than 256.
m
0
l
March 8, 2014 4:46:37 AM

Sharphawk1234 said:
The processor may have some impact for the starting taking so long but the majority of it goes on the hard drive, I don't know if its fair to compare one processors start up time compared to another when there's different hard drives being used and different data to load. 4 minutes is really long tho, but my laptop that im currently using is a gaming laptop with a 2 year old i7 and my load up time is about 3 minutes or so depending on the day. Im not saying that the intel wouldnt be faster for the day to day processes, I just dont know if looking at the boot time is the best way because that's mostly the hard drive that's being worked to access the data. Since youre no longer getting the laptop tho I think you can be a little more justified putting the extra 100 into this build since it wouldn't be taking away from the laptop now that your not getting one. Since your now set on Intel I would say go ahead and shoot if youre ready to buy, I would rather have a little less money than be saying to myself i wish I gotten the better cpu down the road. Since youre going to run ssd tho, I dont think youll notice your computer being "slow" even if you had a fx 6300 haha. p.s. If you get the fx 8320/8350 you can get a 500 gb ssd with the 100 you saved if you need more storage than 256.

I agree, I know there's a lot of variables involved on a per-system basis. I'm just kind of awestruck at the difference between the two. I thought my desktop had the better setup (8 cores w/ higher clock speed, double the RAM, faster HDD) but her laptop runs circles around it on pretty much everything but games.

And actually on the SSD, I have mixed thoughts. Right now, I went the reverse and put a smaller, but much faster Samsung 840 Pro 128 GB on my parts list. Reason being, I really only plan to put Windows 8.1, Battlefield 4 and World of Warcraft on it. From what I've read, installing most games on an SSD versus HDD doesn't really have a huge impact other than shortening loading times. Those would be the only 2 games I'd be concerned about in that regard (for now.)
m
0
l
March 8, 2014 1:33:30 PM

JC038 said:
Sharphawk1234 said:
The processor may have some impact for the starting taking so long but the majority of it goes on the hard drive, I don't know if its fair to compare one processors start up time compared to another when there's different hard drives being used and different data to load. 4 minutes is really long tho, but my laptop that im currently using is a gaming laptop with a 2 year old i7 and my load up time is about 3 minutes or so depending on the day. Im not saying that the intel wouldnt be faster for the day to day processes, I just dont know if looking at the boot time is the best way because that's mostly the hard drive that's being worked to access the data. Since youre no longer getting the laptop tho I think you can be a little more justified putting the extra 100 into this build since it wouldn't be taking away from the laptop now that your not getting one. Since your now set on Intel I would say go ahead and shoot if youre ready to buy, I would rather have a little less money than be saying to myself i wish I gotten the better cpu down the road. Since youre going to run ssd tho, I dont think youll notice your computer being "slow" even if you had a fx 6300 haha. p.s. If you get the fx 8320/8350 you can get a 500 gb ssd with the 100 you saved if you need more storage than 256.

I agree, I know there's a lot of variables involved on a per-system basis. I'm just kind of awestruck at the difference between the two. I thought my desktop had the better setup (8 cores w/ higher clock speed, double the RAM, faster HDD) but her laptop runs circles around it on pretty much everything but games.

And actually on the SSD, I have mixed thoughts. Right now, I went the reverse and put a smaller, but much faster Samsung 840 Pro 128 GB on my parts list. Reason being, I really only plan to put Windows 8.1, Battlefield 4 and World of Warcraft on it. From what I've read, installing most games on an SSD versus HDD doesn't really have a huge impact other than shortening loading times. Those would be the only 2 games I'd be concerned about in that regard (for now.)

Im not sure why her laptop is so much faster maybe it has a lot less data on the drive?
128 gb should be enough but just keep in mind although you're only putting 2 games on now you may want to put another on later and it would start to get filled, especially with new games taking up ridiculous sizes(titanfall is 48gb installed!) you would have to shuffle files around maybe more than you would like to. Also keep in mind that the more a ssd is filled, the slower it will perform. However, whichever you pick your build is going to be lightning fast and should destroy your wife's even boot time.

m
0
l
March 9, 2014 1:53:29 AM

Sharphawk1234 said:
Im not sure why her laptop is so much faster maybe it has a lot less data on the drive? 128 gb should be enough but just keep in mind although you're only putting 2 games on now you may want to put another on later and it would start to get filled, especially with new games taking up ridiculous sizes(titanfall is 48gb installed!) you would have to shuffle files around maybe more than you would like to. Also keep in mind that the more a ssd is filled, the slower it will perform. However, whichever you pick your build is going to be lightning fast and should destroy your wife's even boot time.

That could be a good argument to buy a bigger SSD. I don't think I'd mind the shuffling around much, but if having more on the drive is going to impede its performance, I may have to consider a bigger one. For less than $20 more I can get the 250 GB Samsung EVO non-Pro series. Seems like a no brainer there.
m
0
l
March 9, 2014 8:25:32 AM

JC038 said:
Sharphawk1234 said:
Im not sure why her laptop is so much faster maybe it has a lot less data on the drive? 128 gb should be enough but just keep in mind although you're only putting 2 games on now you may want to put another on later and it would start to get filled, especially with new games taking up ridiculous sizes(titanfall is 48gb installed!) you would have to shuffle files around maybe more than you would like to. Also keep in mind that the more a ssd is filled, the slower it will perform. However, whichever you pick your build is going to be lightning fast and should destroy your wife's even boot time.

That could be a good argument to buy a bigger SSD. I don't think I'd mind the shuffling around much, but if having more on the drive is going to impede its performance, I may have to consider a bigger one. For less than $20 more I can get the 250 GB Samsung EVO non-Pro series. Seems like a no brainer there.

Exactly. Now you should have plenty of space have fun with you new beast! Let me know when you put it together I would like to hear the performance of your rig.

m
0
l
March 9, 2014 8:26:40 AM

Wow, I was just looking over my PCPartpicker lists (I have 3 builds going there lol.. i5 3670k, 4570k and FX 8350 all with tweaks here and there,) and I paired the FX 8350 with an R9 280x GPU. When I added it to the list, it was going for less than the GTX 770 in the other builds but it has gone up by almost $150 since yesterday! What the what?!
m
0
l
March 9, 2014 8:33:59 AM

JC038 said:
Wow, I was just looking over my PCPartpicker lists (I have 3 builds going there lol.. i5 3670k, 4570k and FX 8350 all with tweaks here and there,) and I paired the FX 8350 with an R9 280x GPU. When I added it to the list, it was going for less than the GTX 770 in the other builds but it has gone up by almost $150 since yesterday! What the what?!

Thats crazy! Prices of amd cards have been scattered recently to say the least, but maybe a big promotion ended??

m
0
l
March 9, 2014 11:40:39 AM

Sharphawk1234 said:
Exactly. Now you should have plenty of space have fun with you new beast! Let me know when you put it together I would like to hear the performance of your rig.

Definitely! I will be taking pics during the build as well, I'll post them when it's all said and done. Won't be ordering the parts for a week and a half or so.

Thanks for all of your input, by the way. It really helps being able to bounce ideas back and forth with someone.

m
0
l
March 9, 2014 11:43:46 AM

JC038 said:
Sharphawk1234 said:
Exactly. Now you should have plenty of space have fun with you new beast! Let me know when you put it together I would like to hear the performance of your rig.

Definitely! I will be taking pics during the build as well, I'll post them when it's all said and done. Won't be ordering the parts for a week and a half or so.

Thanks for all of your input, by the way. It really helps being able to bounce ideas back and forth with someone.


Yeah definitely, it seemed like we shared pretty similar views too so that was helpful as well haha. No problem and happy gaming in 2 weeks with titanfall!

m
0
l
April 4, 2014 7:34:28 PM

So it took a little longer than planned thanks to spending a little time in the hospital with a kidney stone, but I finally got my rig built yesterday and man is it nice!

I went with the i5 4670K, Gigabye Z87X-UD3H, and Gigabyte GTX 770. Have spent most of the time configuring things the way I want them, so I haven't really tested her out in any games yet. Looking forward to doing that this weekend!
m
0
l
April 4, 2014 7:40:38 PM

JC038 said:
So it took a little longer than planned thanks to spending a little time in the hospital with a kidney stone, but I finally got my rig built yesterday and man is it nice!

I went with the i5 4670K, Gigabye Z87X-UD3H, and Gigabyte GTX 770. Have spent most of the time configuring things the way I want them, so I haven't really tested her out in any games yet. Looking forward to doing that this weekend!


Sorry to hear about your hospital trip. That build should be a beast for several years! Im doing a build soon I hope ill have enough funds for an intel and a beast nvidia like that.
m
0
l
April 10, 2014 6:03:51 AM

Sharphawk1234 said:
Sorry to hear about your hospital trip. That build should be a beast for several years! Im doing a build soon I hope ill have enough funds for an intel and a beast nvidia like that.


Yeah the hospital thing wasn't fun lol. Most painful thing I've ever been through.

So far I'm really enjoying the new rig. Getting an average of over 50 FPS in Battlefield 4 with most settings on ultra. It blows World of Warcraft right out of the water. I haven't picked up Titanfall yet but hopefully soon. Also hoping to get The Elder Scrolls online.

I'm going to try and get some benchmarks on it soon, I was going to do that last weekend and never got around to it.

I got ambitious and creative, so I took apart all my peripherals (Logitech G510 keyboard, Razer DeathAdder and Razer n52te) and spray painted the housings white to match the case :)  They all have blue lighting in them already, so they look so cool now with my black/white/blue LED case!

I also spray painted my desktop black, and I built a really nice monitor shelf for about $7 using a white 24" premade shelf, 4 PVC pipe couplings and some blue painter's tape.

I'll be taking pics of the new setup later today. I'll put a link in here so you can see it all.

EDIT: Here's a link to my Completed Build page on PCPartpicker. http://pcpartpicker.com/b/OME
m
0
l
!