Critic my build: VIdeo Editing/Gaming

Get another HDD so that you can render from one drive and save to the other, this keeps one drive from trying to read and write at the same time, which slows you down.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/vJhFvK

Edit: I changed the monitor
You would not be able to utilize the 144hz especially with the card you chose, this monitor is called a IPS which is amazing for video editing and also has a very low response time. its 60hz which means 60 fps cap but any higher is truly a waste.
The monitor added also support 1440p which will work amazing with the card listed.

There is quite a few changes made, one being the mobo, cpu and the ram. I swapped it to a MOBO that supports M.2 for a SSD that I added for much faster photoshop and such applications along with the ddr4 2133 mhz ram 2x8gb 16gb total. which can be OC if you want or even more added, that takes care of all your video editing and streaming and anything else
The mobo also has the internet connection for killer gaming and much more. The GPU will be able to handle alot of games especially paired with the ram boot ssd on m.2.
You want that extra 2gb of dedicated. it does cost more but this right here is performance at its best, A great PC for all the needs you could want. and the capabilities can go even higher if you OC. you can even support ddr4 3000+ ram. the HDD is left for storage while a 240g SSD for System files, and your video editing programs.


CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($254.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z170XP-SLI ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($117.89 @ OutletPC)

Memory: Crucial 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($71.40 @ SuperBiiz)

Storage: Sandisk SSD PLUS 240GB 2.5"
Solid State Drive ($59.99 @ Amazon)

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($39.10 @ SuperBiiz)

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 380 4GB PCS+ Video Card ($159.99 @ Newegg)

Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Monitor: BenQ GW2765HT 60Hz 27.0" Monitor ($321.99 @ NCIX US)

Other: Ze Case ($65.99)

Total: $1132.32

Edit:Changed CPU for more of your liking. This build here will do everything you ever wanted and more. please take it into consideration.

I think for video editing and gaming a Xeon / GTX 970 would do a better job than an i5.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($227.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($71.40 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($61.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial BX100 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($59.99 @ Micro Center)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($39.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card ($303.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Deepcool TESSERACT SW ATX Mid Tower Case ($30.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX TS 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($52.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Monitor: Asus PB278Q 60Hz 27.0" Monitor ($399.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1262.91
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-28 09:20 EST-0500

I would get no matter what a 4+dedicated gb GPU, like the 8g r90x is pretty cheap and amazing, just uses 33 amps on the 12v rail. also the gtx 970 ti if you are interested in nvidia. either will work, it just has to be a good enough one to have a display port and be able to handle 144mhz. basically your playing games at double the gpu levels needed as oithers, 60hz is easy for a card to render, 144mhz it has to be fast, and it has to have a fast CPU to back it up or else you end up with screen tearing and all kinds of issues. 120mhz would be better then 144mhz, a 120mhz IPS screen, also you will get a clearer and sharper image on 1080p then you will 1440p. it will also run smoother.

Dont let me forget to add in, Sorry Nvidia, but when it comes to picking a GPU, alot of the newer amd like the r390 and the fury series demolish the benchmarks vs the rival card at higher resolutions. Such as the r9 390 has 1000 more shaders units then the GTX 970 its equivalent. each has its perks but for your purpose I recommend a r9 390x 8gb. I recommend going with MSI aswell because the card runs hot and MSI has a great cooling system in place for the specific card.

Definitely get an IPS monitor

Xeon for editing and 970 for gaming is a great combination. i5 and gtx 960 would still work well, and be a lot cheaper

If prefer samsung evo 250Gb SSD

I would also like to add, I just had a previous discussion with one individual who was looking for a more photoshop oriented build, but most are along the same lines with just a few pieces changed can make the perfect pc for you. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2876833/photoshop-build-500.html

You do understand that the Nvidia GTX 970 and the AMD R9 390 are completely different GPUs based on different architectures right? So having more shaders is meaningless. In fact the 390 is an average of 3% faster than the 970 while requiring a 650w power supply vs a 450w power supply needed for the 970.

The 390X is 3% slower than the GTX 980 by the way and the 980 Ti is 4% faster than the Fury X. The Nvidia cards are also better overclockers. It really helps when you know what you are talking about when trying to tell those things to others...

http://www.techspot.com/review/1075-best-graphics-cards-2015/page7.html


Also the EVGA 500B you recommended is exactly what you would expect from a $30 power supply. Avoid it.

No <mod edit> they are 2 completely different architectures, that's what makes the GPU's different is the micro architecture....
As for I don't know what I am talking about, the R9 390 8gb and the GTX 970 4gb, lets go ahead and take a closer look shall we, and confirm if your "3%" is even close to accurate.

The R9 390 advantages over the 970.
1. Twice the memory
2. More then 50% better floating-point performance
3. 896 more shader units, also known as Cuda cores for Nvidia
4. more then 15-20% higher pixel rates
5. over 50 more texture mapping units
6. a 512 Bit memory bus vs 256 bit. So twice the Bandwidth

the advantage of the 970 is
around 15% higher clock memory speed, which is how fast the memory can be read/written to.
And the TDP values are significantly lower.

The R9 390 has More pixels/per second rendering that the 970 by a long shot, the float-point is nearly double if not more than the gtx 970, meaning its doing calculations way faster (twice as fast) which results in better performance and less work for your CPU, lets not forget double the bandwidth, this may not be a necessity but it is better and makes up for the 15% decrease in memory clock speed. As for the 900 more shader units, Thats 900 more tiny stream processors rendering that game, making it perform way smoother and helping render those frames much faster, especially when it comes to lighting, Texturing and Rasterising, plus more while BARELY consuming any real resources for a great performance gain.

So in the end, the 15% clock speed is made up for when the GPU has direct parallel communication with the CPU to work on a rendering into a graphical , the GPU making up for the reduced frequencies with thousands of stream processors then using the shader cores and bitmap textures to turn this rendering into a 3d image which is then displayed on the output after fragmentation and clipping has been handled, Also considering that the Pixel rate and ROP are significantly higher this is going to result in faster frames generated, faster pixels being brough and new images being rendered more quickly then one with a lower pixel rate and lower amount of ROP. The r9 with a significantly higher GFLOPs (Floating point performance) It measures how many polygons or triangles it can calculate, draw and move around on the fly in a second. This is the "raw processing power" that we speak of in terms of a GPUs strength, the FLOPS are also reffered to as basically a performance ranking. So the higher your gflops rate, th e vectors get manipulated to draw whatever you see onscreen, so you're talking millions of vectors being added/multiplied per fraction of a second. Theoretically, the more FLOPS a GPU is capable of, the faster it can perform those operations and therefore it can render more frames quicker. and the 970 pales in comparison to the point performance of a 390.

The r390 is better period. It uses more power because its a monster card, it handles operations much faster than other cards and with greater accuracy, resulting in clearer pictures, better AA, and MUCH better performance at higher resolutions. such as 4k.

You can look up all the bench's you want and read any guides you want but when it comes down to it, the r390 outperforms the 970 especially when getting to higher resolutions.

to make it a little bit more clear.

@bailojustin -- please provide some documentation for your wall of text, i.e. either some benchmarks or real world performance test data. Your idle speculation is meaningless in that it may not actually translate into real performance, so where is the real data?

edit: forgot to mention that actual testing of data and statements is what separates science from religion. Perhaps you are making a spiritual argument for AMD?

And this is a family site, so watch your language. Thanks.

No <mod edit> they are 2 completely different architectures, that's what makes the GPU's different is the micro architecture....

Click to expand...

And yet you continue to compare the 2 cards directly. Something that can't be done since as you partially understand, they are 2 completely different architectures.

You also fail to mention that the 390 is a direct rebrand of the 290 with an additional 4GB of useless VRAM and a factory overclock so AMD can call it something new and charge more for it. The 390 preforms identically to the 290 at the same clocks proving the extra VRAM is useless. They even share the same BIOS revision.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/09/21/xfx_r9_390_double_dissipation_8gb_video_card_review/9#.Vls8L-JimBc

We actually proved this before:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-vapor-x-r9-290x-8gb,3977.html

290x but same thing. I remember seeing it and I always like doing more than needed VRAM (serves me well as did my 7970 for 4 years) but never jumped on it because I didn't like the power numbers.

The biggest thing he is missing is that CUDA cores and AMDs SPUs are not equal. That is why for the past, man I would say since the advent of SPUs over Pixel Pipelines and Texture Pipelines (man that makes me feel old) AMD has always had more SPUs than NVidia. The HD 2900XT had 320 SPUs and a 512bit memory interface yet the GTX 8800Ultra had only 128 CUDA cores and a 384bit memory interface. Yet the 8800 Ultra pantsed the HD 2900 XT. Even the 8800 GTS did:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2231

More SPUs means nothing if they are implemented differently and NVidia has not had more SPUs than AMD ever yet has still performed near or better.

The 390 like the 380 is just a rehash of the 7xxx series and as the 380 is pants at GPU compute I wouldn't expect the 390 to be any better so all the talk of how much faster it is at computational tasks is cobblers IMO.

The 290 and 290X were actually new MM. The 390 and 390X are the first rebrands of those particular cards. The other 3xx series cards on the other hand......

Numerous reviews have those cards trading blows with the winner being determined by the game being played from what I've seen so they are on equal footing to me.

The real question is how well they will do with the OP's editing software as some heavily favor cuda while others favor AMD & open gl. As a Video editor myself I only use Nvidia because thats where I get the biggest boost. FPS in a game means nothing but saving hours on a render...yeah.

My bad, they are rehashes of GCN 1.1 rather than GCN 1.0. So many rehashes get a bit difficult for an old fart like me to keep up with mate. If only they would produce some new GPU's, it would make things so much easier.

They need to work out the drivers first. Apparently the new Crimson drivers are killing cards.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/warning-new-amd-crimson-driver-is-heating-and-killing-gpus-users-report-496867.shtml

I wonder how the AMD fanbase is going to put a positive spin on this? :lol:

I love AMD and I am disappointed in them. Come on get it right the first time before killing everyone's card. thankfully I never downloaded crimson. I agree as well that the nvidia cards perform better at 3d applications like Photoshop and video editing. and the AMD cards are just straight gaming in my opinion. I would not mind some sli 970s or cf 390s all will perform exceptionally.