Solved

Need advice New Build - video Editing/Gaming Computer ~900$

Approximate Purchase Date: 1-2 Weeks

Budget Range: 800-900 (hard Cap at 920) Before Shipping & Rebates

System Usage from Most to Least Important: Gaming (WoW, BF4. Arma 3, GTA V. etc.), Video Editing/Rendering + possible multitasking while doing the first Two.

Are you buying a monitor: No

Do you need to buy OS: No

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: Newegg & Amazon (possibly Tigerdirect or any new suggested sites with reasonable shipping to Hawaii)

Location: United States/ Hawaii

Parts Preferences: Intel unless convinced AMD can do better at Both Tasks

Overclocking: Not likely

SLI or Crossfire: No

Your Monitor Resolution:1920x1080 or 1920x1200

Additional Comments: Building a computer for a friend of mine, aside from the listed above he does request a Windowed Case.
Also im not sure if an Xeon CPU would be great or if i should go with an i7 or i5.
User wants to Max out his Games @1080p or at least run the listed games on ultra
He will be upgrading from a MacBook Pro (2011 or 2012) and has complained about slow Rendering/editing times.
At this point nothing from the Macbook will be salvaged.
Will need the following items:
Case, Power Supply, CPU, Motherboard, RAM, HDD (SSD if i can fit that into the build for OS) or if a Hybrid drive would be recommended,
also unsure if I'll need an aftermarket CPU Cooler
Will be obtaining an OEM key from someone so that isn't part of the budget
Overall Less he spends atm the better as my friend does want to side money for a keyboard/mouse upgrade but he is willing to spend an upwards of 900-920 if needed.
9 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about advice build video editing gaming computer 900
  1. Here is something I thought might be a good mix. I figured there wouldn't be overclocking, but it should still have a nice look at it. I don't think you need an aftermarket CPU Cooler for this yet. I also tried and put a GTX 970 in there. Thats the best GPU you can get in your budget. You could go with a R9-280X or R9-290 and save a bit of money as well. Hopefully this gives you a good idea or is what you are looking for.

    http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nXkZGX
  2. HertzKnight said:
    Here is something I thought might be a good mix. I figured there wouldn't be overclocking, but it should still have a nice look at it. I don't think you need an aftermarket CPU Cooler for this yet. I also tried and put a GTX 970 in there. Thats the best GPU you can get in your budget. You could go with a R9-280X or R9-290 and save a bit of money as well. Hopefully this gives you a good idea or is what you are looking for.

    http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nXkZGX


    i like it hertz!, would this build need an i7 is what i'm wondering (for video edits and such) im not completely familiar with edit builds which is why i wondered if i should use an i7 (with possibly asking for a budget increase) or the possibility of using an Intel Xeon Processor which i do see in other builds
  3. Best answer
    You're going to get plenty of recommendations involving the largest GPUs that can be shoehorned into the budget. So I'll offer a different approach for consideration that is built based on the understanding that performance does not originate with the GPU.

    Changes in GPU rendering performance will manifest as differences in visual quality once adjusted to the desired FPS. Point being, GTX660 or GTX980, both play all the same games, and can even play them at the same FPS. The difference is that the GTX980 will do so with 3X the visual detail (resolution etc).

    Refer to this video for an example of the inverse relationship between visual quality an FPS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R7ZYQtnMcY
    Skip to 9 minutes 26 seconds. Notice what he does to the visual quality settings.... then watch the resulting performance even in some semi-congested battle.

    He's having no problems getting what most people would consider good FPS (~60) at nice looking visual quality settings (mostly ultra) on a GTX660 in BF4 while recording. Granted the GPU is overclocked a touch, but honestly that's less than a 5-10% advantage over what most non-reference cards will be doing anyway.

    Note: The E3 in the system below has the exact same performance as an i7-4770 (same as used in the video demonstration shared above). In BF4 and games like it, which is very compute intensive, the hard limits of FPS are in fact set by the CPU not the GPU.

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($248.98 @ SuperBiiz)
    Motherboard: Gigabyte G1.SNIPER H6 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($109.99 @ Amazon)
    Memory: Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($144.99 @ Newegg)
    Storage: Sandisk Ultra II 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($94.99 @ NCIX US)
    Storage: Western Digital WD Purple 1TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($62.99 @ Directron)
    Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 660 2GB Video Card ($134.99 @ Amazon)
    Case: Corsair SPEC-02 ATX Mid Tower Case ($55.99 @ Amazon)
    Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 450W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($54.99 @ Amazon)
    Total: $907.91
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-18 04:48 EST-0500

    The above build can play any game, and is well suited to video editing in most editors with prosumer or consumer grade footage. (typically 50Mbps or less, hardware compressed by the camera). If you think you need a $250+ GPU to play games, think again.
  4. mdocod said:
    You're going to get plenty of recommendations involving the largest GPUs that can be shoehorned into the budget. So I'll offer a different approach for consideration that is built based on the understanding that performance does not originate with the GPU.

    Changes in GPU rendering performance will manifest as differences in visual quality once adjusted to the desired FPS. Point being, GTX660 or GTX980, both play all the same games, and can even play them at the same FPS. The difference is that the GTX980 will do so with 3X the visual detail (resolution etc).

    Refer to this video for an example of the inverse relationship between visual quality an FPS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R7ZYQtnMcY
    Skip to 9 minutes 26 seconds. Notice what he does to the visual quality settings.... then watch the resulting performance even in some semi-congested battle.

    He's having no problems getting what most people would consider good FPS (~60) at nice looking visual quality settings (mostly ultra) on a GTX660 in BF4 while recording. Granted the GPU is overclocked a touch, but honestly that's less than a 5-10% advantage over what most non-reference cards will be doing anyway.

    Note: The E3 in the system below has the exact same performance as an i7-4770 (same as used in the video demonstration shared above). In BF4 and games like it, which is very compute intensive, the hard limits of FPS are in fact set by the CPU not the GPU.

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($248.98 @ SuperBiiz)
    Motherboard: Gigabyte G1.SNIPER H6 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($109.99 @ Amazon)
    Memory: Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($144.99 @ Newegg)
    Storage: Sandisk Ultra II 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($94.99 @ NCIX US)
    Storage: Western Digital WD Purple 1TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($62.99 @ Directron)
    Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 660 2GB Video Card ($134.99 @ Amazon)
    Case: Corsair SPEC-02 ATX Mid Tower Case ($55.99 @ Amazon)
    Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 450W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($54.99 @ Amazon)
    Total: $907.91
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-18 04:48 EST-0500

    The above build can play any game, and is well suited to video editing in most editors with prosumer or consumer grade footage. (typically 50Mbps or less, hardware compressed by the camera). If you think you need a $250+ GPU to play games, think again.


    appreciate that point of view! will definitely consider your build or the build hertz made, will show my bud these and see what he wants for sure.
    any more setups will be appreciated but thanks so far @ mdocod & Hertzknight
  5. I haven't really tried out the Xeon's yet. I believe that Xeon's aren't as good for gaming, but great for servers and applications. Though you could get rid of the SSD/moving around a few other things and maybe get a cheap i7 for rendering.

    I disagree on the GTX 660 though. I don't think its worthwhile for gaming. It is no where near as good as a GTX 980. According to the benchmark's I seen, I could not recommend getting a GTX660 (even in SLI).
  6. Video editing will benefit from more cores and powerful GPU for games.

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
    Motherboard: Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($104.98 @ SuperBiiz)
    Memory: Kingston Fury Black Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($139.99 @ Amazon)
    Storage: Crucial MX100 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($69.93 @ Amazon)
    Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.99 @ Directron)
    Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($222.00 @ Newegg)
    Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ Amazon)
    Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Newegg)
    Total: $893.85
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-18 09:07 EST-0500
  7. HertzKnight said:
    I haven't really tried out the Xeon's yet. I believe that Xeon's aren't as good for gaming, but great for servers and applications. Though you could get rid of the SSD/moving around a few other things and maybe get a cheap i7 for rendering.


    The E3-1231V3 is a 3.4GHZ quad core hyperthreaded Haswell.
    The i7-4770 is a 3.4GHZ quad core hyperthreaded Haswell.

    See the similarity?

    They are the same CPU, being sold to different markets with different features enabled/disabled. The E3 has the ECC memory support flag on, with the iGPU flag off. Performance wise, when paired with equal dGPUs, they are identical.

    Isuzu Rodeos are better at herding cattle and Honda Passports are better at getting through customs right?

    I would advise turning off intuition, it tends to be very misleading when working with computer hardware.

    Quote:
    I disagree on the GTX 660 though. I don't think its worthwhile for gaming. It is no where near as good as a GTX 980. According to the benchmark's I seen, I could not recommend getting a GTX660 (even in SLI).


    If you live in a bubble that forces all games to run at fixed visual quality settings (a GPU benchmarking environment), then yes, a GTX980 is 3X "faster" than the GTX660. Using FPS as a yardstick to compare GPUs all being configured to run the same GPU bound sequence at the same visual quality settings is not representative of how we use GPUs in the real world. As soon as you pop the benchmark bubble, you're in a world where visual quality and FPS are inversely adjustable, and nearly any GPU can deliver good FPS but at different visual quality settings.

    Furthermore, in the real world, performance is also limited by the CPU because people play multi-player games that are compute intensive, while benchmarks are performed in single player repeatable test sequences that remove the effects of the CPU from the equation. The intelligent gamer will adjust visual quality settings to get a comfortable FPS no matter what GPU they are using, thus, the FPS differences between a $150 GPU and a $300 GPU that show up in a benchmark, will manifest as differences in visual quality in actual implementation. On the other hand, the performance differences of a CPU, can not be "adjusted" up or down inversely to anything (except efficiency, in the case of overclocking). The hard limits of performance are in fact dictated by the CPU.


    -------------


    Anonymous said:
    Video editing will benefit from more cores and powerful GPU for games.


    Core count is not a measure of execution resources, and without knowing specifically what software is being used an how, there is no way to speculate that a flagship GPU will have any advantage over a $100 GPU in video editing... In most cases, it WON'T.
  8. mdocod said:
    HertzKnight said:
    I haven't really tried out the Xeon's yet. I believe that Xeon's aren't as good for gaming, but great for servers and applications. Though you could get rid of the SSD/moving around a few other things and maybe get a cheap i7 for rendering.


    The E3-1231V3 is a 3.4GHZ quad core hyperthreaded Haswell.
    The i7-4770 is a 3.4GHZ quad core hyperthreaded Haswell.

    See the similarity?

    They are the same CPU, being sold to different markets with different features enabled/disabled. The E3 has the ECC memory support flag on, with the iGPU flag off. Performance wise, when paired with equal dGPUs, they are identical.

    Isuzu Rodeos are better at herding cattle and Honda Passports are better at getting through customs right?

    I would advise turning off intuition, it tends to be very misleading when working with computer hardware.

    Quote:
    I disagree on the GTX 660 though. I don't think its worthwhile for gaming. It is no where near as good as a GTX 980. According to the benchmark's I seen, I could not recommend getting a GTX660 (even in SLI).


    If you live in a bubble that forces all games to run at fixed visual quality settings (a GPU benchmarking environment), then yes, a GTX980 is 3X "faster" than the GTX660. Using FPS as a yardstick to compare GPUs all being configured to run the same GPU bound sequence at the same visual quality settings is not representative of how we use GPUs in the real world. As soon as you pop the benchmark bubble, you're in a world where visual quality and FPS are inversely adjustable, and nearly any GPU can deliver good FPS but at different visual quality settings.

    Furthermore, in the real world, performance is also limited by the CPU because people play multi-player games that are compute intensive, while benchmarks are performed in single player repeatable test sequences that remove the effects of the CPU from the equation. The intelligent gamer will adjust visual quality settings to get a comfortable FPS no matter what GPU they are using, thus, the FPS differences between a $150 GPU and a $300 GPU that show up in a benchmark, will manifest as differences in visual quality in actual implementation. On the other hand, the performance differences of a CPU, can not be "adjusted" up or down inversely to anything (except efficiency, in the case of overclocking). The hard limits of performance are in fact dictated by the CPU.


    -------------


    Anonymous said:
    Video editing will benefit from more cores and powerful GPU for games.


    Core count is not a measure of execution resources, and without knowing specifically what software is being used an how, there is no way to speculate that a flagship GPU will have any advantage over a $100 GPU in video editing... In most cases, it WON'T.


    at this point he is intrigued by the Xeon build and hes doing some side research about it (for both gaming and editing/rendering purposes)
    and actually atm is deciding on either a GTX 660/ 670/760/770 or the 970. May also be interested in buying my sapphire 7870 ghz edition as i was planning on upgrading my own build (im personally running a 2500k/z77 & the listed 7870) but im also not sure how my 7870 would do heh. hes looking that up.
  9. After my own research on the Xeon, I do agree it would be a good build. I will keep that in mind if I plan to build a PC that I want a nice CPU and don't plan to overclock. I normally go to the i5s like everyone else, mainly due to the fact that majority of games don't fully utilize Hyperthreading yet.

    I just want to confirm with mdocod that you are saying it will give you the same 60 fps, but with lower quality and resolution. I never stated that you can't get 60 fps on a GTX 660. I was alluding to that on the ultra settings you can get significantly better fps with a GTX 970. A GTX 660 will struggle to get all the extra visual features and higher resolution/quality on the newer games. If you don't want the extra visual features then its a good card. I prefer to pay the extra to play games with ultra settings on. If you want to play games at medium settings then you should go with a cheaper card and reallocate your budget.

    I still say that an i5 build with a GTX 970 is a better gaming build for the budget (I am fine in that "bubble"). If you want a Xeon for the hyperthreading, maybe go with a R9-280X or R9-290 (though you might need a better PSU) and get a bunch of free games while you are at it.
Ask a new question

Read More

Gaming Video Editing Intel