Hey guys, my first thread was a fail so i added my build on this one to be judged by the geniuses here. Pretty much im looking to use this soley for gaming purposes. Id like to be able to run demanding games on Ultra settings. This is a first time build for me, so i have lots to learn. I have some newbie questions. I don't know what would benefit the gaming more, a great CPU or an amazing graphics card? Also, i heard i should get an SSD for the OS/my most played games and then get a secondary drive that is 500gb-1tb for extra space/a backup. My last question is about MOBOs. Should i save money on a decent one or spend money on a great one? Any tips/critiquing/opinions on my ideas/questions would be greatly appreciated!
Approximate Purchase Date: 10 days from now
Budget Range: 1600-1800 after rebates
System Usage from Most to Least Important: gaming, surfing the internet, movies
Parts Not Required: keyboard, mouse, monitor, speakers
-If you can find a Gtx 680, definitely go for that.
-Will you wait for Ivy bridge CPUs with pcie 3.0 native? ( due out in a week or two). -----There is no reason to splurge hundreds of bucks for a mobo, find a sweet spot, $150-250, and go for it.
-Your asrock motherboard is great.
-Is there any reason you are using a 1600x1200 monitor instead of a 1920x1080?
-If you're just gaming, no need to get dominator 2000 Ram. Save yourself money, and get G skill or Vengeance 1600mhz ram. You won't notice the difference, and you certainly wont notice it in games.
-I would recommend a Corsair AX850 for the PSU.
-2700K? I'd go for a 2500k/IVY bridge. Save some money unless u need the 2700k.
-Good choice on everything else tho.
GTX 580 is a poor choice for over $350-$380 unless it's a 3GB version. Get the 680 or the 7950 instead and overclock. You don't save money up front, but you get more performance and lower power usage (at least at stock on both cards, although even overclocking them significantly shouldn't raise power usage beyond that of the 580 anyway unless you changed the voltage of the video cards and that is not recommended despite it giving higher overclocks because it trades stability and longevity for higher short term performance), so the costs should even out or even be in favor of the 680 or 7950 over about a year or so at stock, maybe closer to two to three years if overclocked.
The quad core i7s are only significantly faster than the i5s if you are using all eight of their threads. No game uses eight threads, so get either the i5-2500K or wait for Ivy Bridge and get the i5-3570K. As of right now, the i5-2550K is also an option, but it lacks an IGP and if something goes wrong withyour video cards, I think it would be better to have something that could at least let you troubleshoot or use the computer for non-gaming purpose (such as replacing the faulty video card), so I would skip it.
PCIe 3.0 will not effect the performance of anything unless you have four high end GPUs running on a single x16 connection. Otherwise, the PCIe ports have more than enough bandwidth and are not a performance bottleneck.
PCIe 3.0 is more of a future proofing thing for gamers. It is much more important for professional usage such as for compute performance and for connecting very high speed PCIe SSDs that are too fast for a PCIe 2.0 x8 connection, among a few other reasons. Gamers only need to worry about it if they intend to have four GPUs on x16 connections (IE x4 per card if four graphics cards at one GPU per card or x8 per card with two dual GPU cards).
Instead of a 500GB hard drive for $80, why not get a 2TB for only about $30 to $50 more? Up to about 50% increased cost will get you four times more capacity. That is, if you think it would be helpful. If you intend to have copies of all of your DVD/Blu-Ray movies and a music library on your computer, then a larger hard drive would be helpful. If you want to have a lot of large games, then at least going to a 1TB makes sense because many games are over 30GB to 50GB each.
ok guys, im going to go ahead and wait for the new processors. they said its coming in late April but if they push it past June i cant wait. thank you for the advice, very helpful and it will save me hundreds. maybe by the time ivy bridge is out, everything else will drop in price a little also.
Ivy is out, it's not as good as we thought it would be and doesn't overclock (performance wise) any better than Sandy. However, the HD 4000 is something to consider even if you're not using it for your display (maybe you could also use it for quick sync or something else down the road, it's a possibility and it's almost twice as fast as the HD 3000). Ivy also uses a lot less power (even though it's a little hotter, this is a different problem and seems to be because Intel used thermal paste instead of solder to connect the IHS to the CPU die. Thermal paste is a much poorer conductor of heat than most solders. This seems to be the biggest problem with Ivy's high temps.
I'd get the i5-3570K, but unlike what we thought, it won't make much of a performance difference. Oh well, it's HD 4000 didn't disappoint. I stand by my graphics choice, except now the 7970 is cheaper than the GTX 680 (the 680 is still rarely ever in stock and when it is, it's only one to three models and you might not want what is in stock). The 7950 is still roughly identical to the 7970 in performance when overclocked, but now it's also cheaper than it was before, so it's your call.
It seems that although waiting for Ivy didn't offer much more performance, but it did save you money, so congratulations.