Looking for opinions of gaming pc?

SnazzyClown · May 28, 2012

i am attempting my first build of a gaming computer, i play almost any form of games but some of the higher spec ones will be bf3, diablo 3, gta, and Call Of Duty 4. how will this components list work as a whole?

Operating System: MS Windows 7 64-bit SP1

CPU: Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000

RAM: Kingston ValueRAM 2 GB (1x2 GB Module) 1333MHz

MOBO: MSI P67A-G43 (B3)

Graphics Card: XFX ATI Radeon HD 5770 1 GB

Hard Drive: WD Caviar Blue 500 GB

Optical Drive:
Asus - 90-D40FJV-UBN10- Internal DVD-Writer

Power Source: Antec VP-450 450W ATX 12V v2.3 Power Supply

jim45682 · May 28, 2012

Needs more ram, i would get at least 4gb, graphic card will work but at lower settings so its meh. PSU is the bare minimum required to run chosen graphics card, you would have zero headroom for extras down the road, and besides i am not a fan of multi rail PSU's, go for something in the 600w continuous range with 34 or more amps on a single 12v rail imo

SnazzyClown · May 28, 2012

i have changed the RAM to G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB and the psu to Diablotek DA Series 600-Watt, any suggestions for a better graphics card? under 200 would be nice

aznshinobi · May 28, 2012

Looks decent. But yeah, you should probably get at least 4. Board is unessary.

Please fill this out.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261222-31-build-advice

Check out the $650 guide here.
http://www.squidoo.com/electronicandmore
The PSU choice, is VERY questionable. Diablotek isn't even close to decent.

jim45682 · May 28, 2012

For PSU go for Antec, Corsair, Seasonic, or XFX with my personal suggestion being something from Corsair.
For graphics, under $200 a solid performer from AMD that will run about any new game out there would be:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121418
If Nvidia is your preference then for under $200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121446
Though if I were going with the Nvidia I would put a few more dollars together to get at least this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121425

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

coper210 · May 28, 2012

you need more ram and a better graphics card and processor, Just a new build in general.

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

I agree, I dunno how limited his budget is without filling out that form though, but Battlefield 3 in particular isn't gonna work out too well on that system, and for online playing the i3 may or may not show its inherent limitation of being a dual core.

jim45682 · May 28, 2012

nekulturny :

This is a respectable gaming system, though in this particular instance the PSU will be taxed to its limits, $9 more and you gain some headroom for OCing if you wish

Power- Corsair CX600 $69
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139028

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

Maybe, Honestly I think 500 is enough, at least going by this:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/13/amd-phenom-ii-x4-980-black-edition/7

@4.3GHZ w/ a 5870 video card it was drawing 331 watts at the wall. Now its true this definitely has no headroom if you wanted to crossfire a 2nd 6870 at a later date.

jim45682 · May 28, 2012

nekulturny :

I always go by the manufacturers suggestions, AMD claims a minimum 500w PSU for the 6870, with a suggested 600w or higher, always better to have the extra and not need it than to need it and not have it, and for $9 more it is more than worth it.

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

No doubt. Hey, do you really think I needed 750 watts for a single 550 TI? :lol:

jim45682 · May 28, 2012

nekulturny :

550 TI is minimum 400W according to here:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-550ti/specifications

aznshinobi · May 28, 2012

^ Nvidia and AMD always overstate the actual power supply needed. The 6870 has been shown to be able to run on a CX430 w/ an i5 2400/3450 just fine.

With that said, nekult. I disagree with your build. Mainly because for only slightly more, the i5 3450 mops floor with AMD chips in every bench. Even after overclocking AMD chips simply cannot keep up. Normally CPU doesn't matter a whole lot in gaming, specially for frames. But SB seems to edge out in most games.
i5 2400 vs AMD 975
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=435
Keep in mind, the 975 is clocked higher than the 965 and is @ 3.6ghz which is generally how much you'd be able to overclock on a stock cooler.

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

The i5-3450 is currently priced at 199.99, the Phenom II 965 is priced at $120, Thats a $80 dollar price difference, I'm sorry, but when we're talking about a 600 dollar system build, I wouldn't consider 80 dollars to be "slight".

The Phenom II 965 can have the multiplier set to 18.5x giving it the same settings as the identical 980 model, as both CPUs ship with the same stock cooler, effectively making the clock speed 3.7GHZ.

Lets say for the purpose of a reasonable discussion (God, it would be nice to actually have a reasonable discussion with someone about this for once on these forums, don't let me down) for the record, I own a system with an i5-2400 paired with a GTX 460 video card (its my boyfriend's computer).

Between that system and the one in my signature, both systems perform the same in games with no noticeable difference in gameplay. I will stipulate there is a difference on paper, however, again, owning both system, I cannot say that one "mops the floor" with the other.

The link you gave, which I have seen before BTW, doesn't really cover a lot of information.

This one has a little bit more info.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=362

Now, 60FPS is the limit of a typical computer monitor, any CPU that can hit that limit in a game is "golden". Although in terms of smooth gameplay, 40FPS is more than sufficient for a fluid experience.

Now if we want to discuss your article, I assume its your article (which I did read and find very informative, but I'd like to show you this:

Originally, The FX series CPUs were slammed by most review sites, and for good reason, initially they were far too expensive for the performance they offered at stock speeds. Which matters greatly for 90-95% of all computer users out there as the number of people who overclock is still relatively low, however, based on this very comprehensive article, its clear that the FX series really can "come alive" when you overclock. (And lets face it, anybody in the Homebuilders section should be considering it)

Newegg now offers the FX-8120 for $170 dollars, in my opinion, priced exactly where it should be on the hierarchy.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benchmark-results

aznshinobi · May 28, 2012

Nekul, I was referring to our end build totals.

My $650 on my site is @ $671. Yours sits at $635. A $36 difference.

I had the 955 clocked at 3.6GHZ with a stock cooler, that was the highest I could push with reasonable temps. I understand AMD has other models that are stock clocked higher but you have to keep in mind. Every chip is different. Not all overclock to the same clock as easy as the other.

I understand what you mean with running something decently. AMD's chips are decent. I don't disagree. But with the upgrade path, Intel just is a better option. With AM3+, certainly you can upgrade to the FX-8150 from an AMD 965. But still, the 8150 is a terrible upgrade. Barely improving in most benches and overclocks hot with low efficiency. This is opposed to Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge the i5 2500K of the same price is an upgrade path that could overclock with much better efficiency and performs pretty much dominates in gaming.

From 40 FPS to 60 FPS, I believe that statement is false. I once ran CSS and tried seeing what others saw by capping my FPS 40, It is very noticeably slower than 60 FPS. Slower meaning you can tell there's a difference and a slight lag.

Ultimately, the choice is up to OP. I would just say that with the i5 3450 the OP can be doing productivity apps with better speed. (CS5 & Video Editing/Recording) I started out thinking I was just going to game, but after awhile I got in to productivity and the 955 @ 3.6ghz just wasn't cutting it anymore.

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

Azn,

Fair enough on the price, but my build used more expensive RAM than yours, one could use the RAM you picked, which cuts the cost more. Also, my build includes 18 dollars for an optical drive, yours does not. I also added 10 dollars to the total with a factory overclocked 6870. This changes the price gap between our builds.

As far as the 955, if yours was using the C2 stepping instead of the C3 stepping, then that could be a factor, the C2 stepping 955s did run hotter than C3s. I know for a fact that my C3 stepping can run at 3.7GHZ on the stock cooler as I have done so with my 975, prior to installing the HyperN520, but also remember ever CPU is different in terms of their tolerances, as you pointed out.

In regards to the upgrade path, not really considering that next year Intel will be going with Haswell on the LGA 1150 socket, which will not be backward compatible with the current 1155.

In terms of FX CPUs, the same logic applies as it did with Phenom II 965 vs 980s, there is no reason to buy the more expensive 8150 when the 8120 is the same CPU, and clearly based on that link I provided, under overclocking conditions, the 8120 can step right up to the 2500k in everything (including gaming), in some cases, it even beat the 2500k.

As far as overclocking is concerned, Ivy Bridge is currently not very well liked for the heat it generates when overclocked. Those chips offer almost no performance over Sandy, cost more and run hot as hell for the trouble. As far as efficiency, no doubt the Bulldozers get awful power hungry. Although, its not particularly a concern of mine. If I buy a 2012 Ford Mustang because I want muscle, obviously how much gas it guzzles is not a high priority. Since you brought it up however, when you're talking about productivity such as video editing, this is where the review sites don't dispute the 8 threads of the Bulldozer come in handy.

AS far as 40 vs 60FPS, maybe you pay more attention to detail than I, but I can't tell a difference personally, neither can my boyfriend (who is by far more into serious gaming than myself).

At any rate, I'm glad theres at least someone on this forum who can discuss things reasonably. lol

jim45682 · May 28, 2012

Intel runs this better, AMD can compete....Look, quick and dirty, i am running a 955 BE @3.8 and a GTX 670, but even when I had the 6850 in there I could play most games on high or close to high 1920x1080 and have playable framerates. At the time when I bought my 955 the sandy's were brand new and cost way more in price per performance. Not to mention that Intel was notoriously difficult to clock (the K series did not exist yet) and very easy to screw up where the AMD's could be abused and keep on ticking.

Would I like to have a good sandy or ivy? sure, but will my current computer play all the same games without shelling out the extra cash? yep. Just like with graphics cards, Radeon had the best edge for years, now Nvidia is pulling ahead, same with Intel vs AMD there will always be proponents for each side, just give it as your opinion and let ppl decide for themselves

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

I'd point out the only reason I'm using a 975 instead of a 965 was because at the time I wasn't aware that they were the same CPUs. I'm currently an IT student, I learn something new all the time, this forum believe it or not has helped.

Although, based on that article I linked to, if I were building my rig today (I built this one in February), I'd would have gotten the 8120 at $170 with a cheap liquid cooler like a Corsair H60, it should be sufficient for 4.5GHZ, would be about 10 bucks more than an i5-2500K with no aftermarket cooling.

But I digress, you're right Jim, my only goal here and Azn's is only to help. We aren't the ones who have to be happy with our investments.

aznshinobi · May 28, 2012

Exactly the thing, in the end it is the OPs choice.

As for the C3 and C2, my 955 was a C3 stepping. I made sure of that.

Would have to say the H60 is a terrible value cooler. All the Hydro series are honestly. The Hyper 212 Evo/A50/A70 can perform close to an H50-H60 on the load temps of an overclocked SB. The only thing I'd say the closed loops are nice for is minimizing mess (I suppose) and looked (again this is person to person).
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1581/5/
All the mentioned air coolers are roughly $20-$40 cheaper.

nekulturny · May 28, 2012

Good to know, see what I mean about learning stuff every day? LOL. I was thinking about dropping the next gen Bulldozer 8 core onto my Sabertooth when it comes out and getting a better cooler than the Hyper520.

aznshinobi · May 28, 2012

Hyper 520 is pretty competent cooler. The FX-8xxx though... They generate a lot of heat after an OC... Which is why I think they suck. Even after a die-shrink temps are still close to the Phenom/Stars Arch OC'd temps.

jim45682 · May 28, 2012

My Scythe Mugen 3 cooler has me pretty impressed, took my 955 OC to 3.8 from 55c full load with a hyper 212 down to around 45c at full load.

Looking for opinions of gaming pc?

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Share this page