Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Finals Parts List - Cost $999.37

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 9, 2012 12:33:25 PM

About half of the parts were purchased from Microcenter. The CPU and Motherboard were $280 combined at Microcenter. At newegg those two together would have been $365. There's not a single mail-in-rebate I have to deal with amongst these parts either. I signed up for that 2-day shipping program at Newegg so hopefully I get all the rest of this stuff Friday or Saturday. I've since cancelled that 2-day shipping program so it doesn't auto-renew me for $80.


Case: Cooler Master HAF 912
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Power Supply: SeaSonic 620W
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

CPU: Intel i5 3570K
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

RAM: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-PC1600
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

SSD: Samsung 830 Series 128GB SSD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Video Card: HIS IceQ Turbo 7950
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Optical Drive: Samsung OEM Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If anyone sees a really stupid thing I've done please let me know. I can still return anything unopened.
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2012 1:02:03 PM

great build but gigabyte gtx 670 is $400 and beats 7950 with a good margin.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:11:52 PM

You Graphics Card, it seriously clashes with your motherboard color scheme, Blue PCB GPU and Black PCB board!!! going to look ugly in your awesome case, try going for a GPU with a Black PCB, i would spend a bit more to get it to look great.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 9, 2012 1:17:49 PM

hellfire24 said:
great build but gigabyte gtx 670 is $400 and beats 7950 with a good margin.


For my purposes the performance of the AMD cards destroys the NVidia cards currently. I'm going to be running iRacing which is currently a DX9 based racing sim. The current NVidia performance just does not match up unfortunately.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:19:21 PM

renny1994 said:
You Graphics Card, it seriously clashes with your motherboard color scheme, Blue PCB GPU and Black PCB board!!! going to look ugly in your awesome case, try going for a GPU with a Black PCB, i would spend a bit more to get it to look great.



If there was a side window on the case that would be important to me. With no side window I'm thinking no big deal.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:24:23 PM

ncasolo said:
If there was a side window on the case that would be important to me. With no side window I'm thinking no big deal.
Got a point there, but still you've got a case with a black interior, Black Mobo, Black Ram, then Suddenly Blue Card.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:29:27 PM

i would go for something like this (http://216.52.208.185/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)
it may have a slow core clock, but i am sure with a huge cooler like that, you can probably clock it up past 900 no problem. and not only that, theres a mail in rebate, saving you $20. Oh and it has a 3year warranty, 1 more than the HIS card.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 1:31:36 PM

hellfire24 said:
great build but gigabyte gtx 670 is $400 and beats 7950 with a good margin.

7970>GTX 670 and 680. Problem solved.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:32:00 PM

renny1994 said:
Got a point there, but still you've got a case with a black interior, Black Mobo, Black Ram, then Suddenly Blue Card.


Well black and blue is probably appropriate as i beat the crap out of all my opponents leaving them feeling bruised and beaten.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:33:37 PM

ncasolo said:
Well black and blue is probably appropriate as i beat the crap out of all my opponents leaving them feeling bruised and beaten.

consider this than (http://216.52.208.185/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)
it may have a slow core clock, but i am sure with a huge cooler like that, you can probably clock it up past 900 no problem. and not only that, theres a mail in rebate, saving you $20. Oh and it has a 3year warranty, 1 more than the HIS card.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:35:03 PM

nekulturny said:
7970>GTX 670 and 680. Problem solved.


Couldn't find what I would consider a quality 7970 to squeeze into my budget. I actually went about $50 more on the Video card than I intended to due to some unexpected savings in other areas. Like paying $90 for a $135 motherboard.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 1:36:32 PM

Understandable.
The 7950 will serve you well. I would suggest Sapphire brand if you can afford it, they do the best AMD cards.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 1:53:34 PM

renny1994 said:
consider this than (http://216.52.208.185/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...)
it may have a slow core clock, but i am sure with a huge cooler like that, you can probably clock it up past 900 no problem. and not only that, theres a mail in rebate, saving you $20. Oh and it has a 3year warranty, 1 more than the HIS card.


I gave that card some serious consideration. It is probably 6 months past the recall so I'm sure that issue is resolved. Ultimately the Tom's Hardware review results from those 2 cards swayed my vote to the HIS card.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2012 2:11:52 PM

nekulturny said:
7970>GTX 670 and 680. Problem solved.


not really! 680 holds well against 7970 on native resolutions.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 2:13:19 PM

hellfire24 said:
not really! 680 holds well against 7970 on native resolutions.

:non:  Holds well, but still inferior, and more expensive. Why pay more for the lesser product?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-e...

Don't worry, I won't take em, you can have all of the GTX 680s for yourself. lol

Sapphire 7970 GHZ edition $469

GTX 680 Asus $540
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

BTW, newegg is messing up today. They seem to be updating their site.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 2:34:31 PM

I've created I think 5 threads trying to narrow down parts for this build. Intel is dominating the CPU market and nobody has told me to go AMD (I would have rather gone AMD), but I think this is now the 3rd thread that has had a bit of an argument about video cards where it appears neither party even cares what the other party says.

I wonder what would happen if I said everyone just needs to realize AMD is the best bang for your buck right now and nothing else is even remotely worth considering because it'll end up in the trash.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 2:41:04 PM

You'd start an argument of epic proportions. :lol: 

Its true, in terms of gaming CPUs, Intel dominates the market.

I can't speak for everyone else here, but I'm not here to win a popularity contest. My goal is to help you find something that fits your budget constraints that you'll be happy with. I understand that you and others I attempt to help are here looking for sound advice on how to invest hundreds (and in some cases thousands of dollars) of your money. In the end, I can type until my fingers go numb, its your money and its you that has to be happy with the end-result.

Now, I will say on the topic of video cards. I think a lot of people assume that because AMD is lacking in the CPU department, that this means their video cards are inferior as well. This simply is not true. For months now, AMD has beaten Nvidia's GTX 5 series at nearly every price point. And this is so far to a degree still unchanged with Nvidia's GTX 6 series releases.

Now, if you want my candid opinion about whether to get a GTX 670 or a 7950. I say you'll be very happy with either one. Both of the rigs in my sig are running Nvidia cards, almost every computer I've bought in the last 12 years has had an Nvidia card in it. So, as far as my bias on video cards, I have none. I'm doing my best to call it as I see it.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2012 2:46:05 PM

nekulturny said:
:non:  Holds well, but still inferior, and more expensive. Why pay more for the lesser product?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-e...

Don't worry, I won't take em, you can have all of the GTX 680s for yourself. lol

Sapphire 7970 GHZ edition $469

GTX 680 Asus $540
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

BTW, newegg is messing up today. They seem to be updating their site.


OC vs stock? not fair!
the bad thing is that AMD has *killed* the overclocking potential of the original 7970,once overclocked,680 will easily beat 7970(maybe 3GB will help 7970 on ultra high resolutions) the main reason for backing up 680 is -
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 2:57:48 PM

I'm not sure how that thread really backs up your point though.

AMD hasn't killed th overclocking potential of the original 7970. The merely reserve the better binned chips for the GHZ editions, and Toxic. I agree the Toxic is a ripoff, I wouldn't consider it either. The GHZ editions however, are still priced cheaper than the GTX 680s.

I also don't really understand your comment about GTX 680 SLi > any single 7970. Well of course lol, its 2 GPUs vs 1. The Vram is irrelevant. But what about Crossfire 7970 GHZ editions against SLi GTX 680s? Which btw, a single GTX 690 is 2 GTX 680s in one card. If one 7970 GHZ edition can outperform a GTX 680, what do you think the result of a 2 vs 2 fight would be?

As far as Mal's links. BF3 is optimized for Nvidia cards, I know this, nor do I dispute it.

This is the whole article he cherry picked screenshots from:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/42489-sapphire-r...

I don't know what nonsense he was talking about by saying "Main games", as if somehow Batman, Alien vs Predator, weren't "mainstream" games.

The bottom line is, at least as I interpreted the benches in their entirely breaks down to this:

Price to performance:

GTX 670 has a better price to performance ratio than a 7970
7970 has a better price to performance ratio than a GTX 680 (yes, even when its overclocked)
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2012 3:06:36 PM

nekulturny said:
I'm not sure how that thread really backs up your point though.

AMD hasn't killed th overclocking potential of the original 7970. The merely reserve the better binned chips for the GHZ editions, and Toxic. I agree the Toxic is a ripoff, I wouldn't consider it either. The GHZ editions however, are still priced cheaper than the GTX 680s.

I also don't really understand your comment about GTX 680 SLi > any single 7970. Well of course lol, its 2 GPUs vs 1. The Vram is irrelevant. But what about Crossfire 7970 GHZ editions against SLi GTX 680s? Which btw, a single GTX 690 is 2 GTX 680s in one card. If one 7970 GHZ edition can outperform a GTX 680, what do you think the result of a 2 vs 2 fight would be?

As far as Mal's links. BF3 is optimized for Nvidia cards, I know this, nor do I dispute it.

This is the whole article he cherry picked screenshots from:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/42489-sapphire-r...

I don't know what nonsense he was talking about by saying "Main games", as if somehow Batman, Alien vs Predator, weren't "mainstream" games.

The bottom line is, at least as I interpreted the benches in their entirely breaks down to this:

Price to performance:

GTX 670 has a better price to performance ratio than a 7970
7970 has a better price to performance ratio than a GTX 680 (yes, even when its overclocked)


the main point is that the 7970 GHZ is just the factory overclocked version of 7970.if nvidia does the same thing,680 will beat 7970.i just want to clear the point that-
overclocked 680>overclocked 7970.
here's something interesting-
Quote:
Through all of our gameplay testing the ASUS GeForce GTX 680 DirectCU II TOP lead the field. ASUS is one of the first companies to do away with weak factory overclocks and delivered a video card with some real muscle in its stock operating frequencies. We found that the ASUS GeForce GTX 680 DC II TOP had a noticeable performance advantage compared to both the reference GeForce GTX 680 and the Radeon HD 7970. Not only that, it drew less power during testing and was much cooler and quieter than both video cards.

source-
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/21/asus_geforce_...
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 3:11:08 PM

Great build and great choice of Microcenter for the combo. Best prices if you can go to one of their stores.

One note: Ram 1600? - you may be able to get a faster set if you do some shopping.

You'll love the MOBO and CPU !

Good luck !
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 3:16:57 PM

hellfire24 said:
t just want to clear the point that-
overclocked 680>overclocked 7970.
here's something interesting-
Quote:
Through all of our gameplay testing the ASUS GeForce GTX 680 DirectCU II TOP lead the field. ASUS is one of the first companies to do away with weak factory overclocks and delivered a video card with some real muscle in its stock operating frequencies. We found that the ASUS GeForce GTX 680 DC II TOP had a noticeable performance advantage compared to both the reference GeForce GTX 680 and the Radeon HD 7970. Not only that, it drew less power during testing and was much cooler and quieter than both video cards.

source-
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/21/asus_geforce_...


Theres a couple things you missed in this article:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/21/asus_geforce_...

Pay attention to the driver version used to bench the 7970. They used Cataylst 12.4. 12.7 is the current version, and it is the one responsible for making the standard 7970 as well as the GHZ editions outperform the GTX 680s and 670s. If HardOCP didn't re-run the benches with 12.7 Cataylist, their results are not accurate comparrisons to the 7970 reference, GHZ editions, nor OC'd cards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-...

Also, from your link:

Quote:
The ASUS GeForce GTX 680 DirectCU II TOP is currently out-of-stock at Newegg due to demand, but usually sells for $539.99.


The Sapphire GHZ edition 7970 is $470 from Newegg. Now, if you have a bench with an overclocked 680 with its most current drivers against 7970s running Catalyst 12.7 drivers, I would interested in seeing them. The Hexus article btw, did indeed run Catalyst 12.7, so those are more accurate.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/42489-sapphire-r...

Quote:
he main point is that the 7970 GHZ is just the factory overclocked version of 7970.if nvidia does the same thing,680 will beat 7970.


Isn't that what the Asus Top 680 is? I'm not going to speculate about what Nvidia could or should do, if they haven't done it or announced plans to do so lol.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2012 4:12:52 PM

i agree that 7970 is more bang for buck in comparison to 680.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 4:13:53 PM

And I agree the 670 is more bang for buck than 7970. Isn't it nice when people can be agreeable? :lol: 
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2012 4:18:01 PM

our agreement has nothing to do with real world performance lol.personally i think AMD is doing a great job with their drivers.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 4:21:36 PM

odiervr said:
Great build and great choice of Microcenter for the combo. Best prices if you can go to one of their stores.

One note: Ram 1600? - you may be able to get a faster set if you do some shopping.

You'll love the MOBO and CPU !

Good luck !


I asked a question on the memory section of this message board. I was either given a load of crap or a lot of really good information.

Apparently the Ivy Bridge chips won't really utilize any memory faster than DDR3-1600. Yes there is some better 1600 RAM out there, but RAM was a budget area even if you can get a bit more without spending much more. You'll notice the title of the thread said I spent $999.37. I really wanted to come in under $1000 so pretty much just about any additional money would have pushed me over on that. Ultimately I spent about $45 on the RAM.

The newegg shell shocker is an ivy bridge chip and Z77 motherboard... the RAM bundled with it? DDR3-1600. Add to that the fact that 4 or 5 of the recommendations I received for RAM were 1600 and I think I got it right. Given the price I probably would have gone 1866 or even higher, but my understanding is that it made no sense to do so.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 4:24:17 PM

hellfire24 said:
our agreement has nothing to do with real world performance lol.personally i think AMD is doing a great job with their drivers.


Funny you should say that because the iRacing hardware forum (iRacing being why I'm building my PC) has a few people describing problems with 12.6 and 12.7 drivers that are going back to 12.4.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 4:44:17 PM

ncasolo said:
I asked a question on the memory section of this message board. I was either given a load of crap or a lot of really good information.

Apparently the Ivy Bridge chips won't really utilize any memory faster than DDR3-1600. Yes there is some better 1600 RAM out there, but RAM was a budget area even if you can get a bit more without spending much more. You'll notice the title of the thread said I spent $999.37. I really wanted to come in under $1000 so pretty much just about any additional money would have pushed me over on that. Ultimately I spent about $45 on the RAM.

The newegg shell shocker is an ivy bridge chip and Z77 motherboard... the RAM bundled with it? DDR3-1600. Add to that the fact that 4 or 5 of the recommendations I received for RAM were 1600 and I think I got it right. Given the price I probably would have gone 1866 or even higher, but my understanding is that it made no sense to do so.

You were given correct advice initially, per se. By default, I believe Ivy Bridge runs RAM at 1333mhz, just like Phenom IIs and Sandy Bridge. The speed on a RAM module you buy is the maximum number the manufacturer guarentees the RAM to run stable at. It may run higher or lower depending on how its clocked. Ivy Bridge does support up to 2800mhz RAM speed apparently. However, the question that comes into play is, do you really need to run RAM that fast? The answer is no.

This article is a bit outdated, using DDR2 RAM, but the finding are still consistent today with DDR3.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-speed-tests,180...

ncasolo said:
Funny you should say that because the iRacing hardware forum (iRacing being why I'm building my PC) has a few people describing problems with 12.6 and 12.7 drivers that are going back to 12.4.


Do you have the links? Honestly, this is something I have been looking into myself. People have been saying for years that AMD has "horrible drivers" yada yada. I've been a member of this forum for hell almost a year now. I must have asked a dozen times now to ask people who make the claim to offer evidence that Nvidia's driver support team is any worse than AMD's. I've always come up empty handed. Both of them are guilty of releasing cards that while architecturally may be sound, but the software side of things still being an on-going process. You see this with Windows too, (Windows Update). To a degree this is necessary, because new games come out all the time and something might be iffy with the video cards drivers on the new game that requires a patch. This happens with both Nvidia and AMD, but I've seen no evidence that any of them are any worse or better than the other. I chalk that up to the assumptions I mentioned earlier that people who assume that because AMD's CPU department is lacking, their graphics card must be as well. (A little fanboyism mixed in with old wive's tales)
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 5:00:33 PM

nekulturny said:
You were given correct advice initially, per se. By default, I believe Ivy Bridge runs RAM at 1333mhz, just like Phenom IIs and Sandy Bridge. The speed on a RAM module you buy is the maximum number the manufacturer guarentees the RAM to run stable at. It may run higher or lower depending on how its clocked. Ivy Bridge does support up to 2800mhz RAM speed apparently. However, the question that comes into play is, do you really need to run RAM that fast? The answer is no.

This article is a bit outdated, using DDR2 RAM, but the finding are still consistent today with DDR3.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-speed-tests,180...



Do you have the links? Honestly, this is something I have been looking into myself. People have been saying for years that AMD has "horrible drivers" yada yada. I've been a member of this forum for hell almost a year now. I must have asked a dozen times now to ask people who make the claim to offer evidence that Nvidia's driver support team is any worse than AMD's. I've always come up empty handed. Both of them are guilty of releasing cards that while architecturally may be sound, but the software side of things still being an on-going process. You see this with Windows too, (Windows Update). To a degree this is necessary, because new games come out all the time and something might be iffy with the video cards drivers on the new game that requires a patch. This happens with both Nvidia and AMD, but I've seen no evidence that any of them are any worse or better than the other. I chalk that up to the assumptions I mentioned earlier that people who assume that because AMD's CPU department is lacking, their graphics card must be as well. (A little fanboyism mixed in with old wive's tales)



I could provide you links but without an iRacing membership you won't be able to read the threads. iRacing is apparently utilizing the DX9 engine right now and I'm guessing the newer drivers are more focused on DX11 performance (for obvious reasons). The NVidia cards perform poorly on iRacing and the suspicion is because their drivers don't work as well with DX9 as the AMD cards. Eventually iRacing will work out the bugs with the 12.6 and 12.7 drivers (as they believe the issue is with them not with the drivers). However, for the time being someone who just installed a 7970 was told he might want to try the 12.4 drivers instead of the 12.6 that came with the card.

When I was asking on that forum GTX 670 or AMD someone said he was loving his GTX670 and how he was getting 90-120 fps all the time on 3 screens. His resolution was x1200 and mine was x1080. My jaw nearly hit the floor because I'm getting 90-120 fps across 3 screens from a 1GB 5870. I don't have the graphics maxed out, but I have most things on at most tracks. Spa and Suzuka being the exception to that.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 5:06:11 PM

I see. I hate forums that don't let you see whats going on without membership.

I honestly don't know about the game or enough to know about the problems with DX9 vs 11 from card to card. But I will say about the guy loving his 90-120FPS, thats nice to hear. But one thing you should know is that most computer monitors run at 60hz. (there are some that run 120hz, but they generally cost well over $400). 60hz=60FPS, this means that no matter how many FPS your video card sends to the monitor, you'll never see more than 60 of em. So while the performance difference may be benchmarkable, it isn't really anything beyond being "on paper". Hell, did you know when you watch a movie on a big screen at a movie theater, you're only watching it at 24FPS? Now video games are a little bit difference since they're more interactive, so you do want more FPS, but 60 is still the magic number.

I only mention that because, you might be able to play your game just fine with something even cheaper than both the 670 or the 7950.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2012 5:18:46 PM

nekulturny said:
But one thing you should know is that most computer monitors run at 60hz. (there are some that run 120hz, but they generally cost well over $400). 60hz=60FPS, this means that no matter how many FPS your video card sends to the monitor, you'll never see more than 60 of em. So while the performance difference may be benchmarkable, it isn't really anything beyond being "on paper". Hell, did you know when you watch a movie on a big screen at a movie theater, you're only watching it at 24FPS? Now video games are a little bit difference since they're more interactive, so you do want more FPS, but 60 is still the magic number.

I only mention that because, you might be able to play your game just fine with something even cheaper than both the 670 or the 7950.


+1,@OP,read this carefully^
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 5:41:57 PM

hellfire24 said:
+1,@OP,read this carefully^


The problem is the drop in FPS is definitely noticeable when I go from 120 into the 70s and 80s. I don't have 120hz monitors and I've heard what you just said before. There has to be some sort of stuttering that goes with the hit to FPS and the FPS is just the measurable benchmark that identifies when the issue starts and stops. The actual issue may not be FPS related, but the FPS drops when the issues I'm having starts.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 5:59:07 PM

ncasolo said:
The problem is the drop in FPS is definitely noticeable when I go from 120 into the 70s and 80s. I don't have 120hz monitors and I've heard what you just said before. There has to be some sort of stuttering that goes with the hit to FPS and the FPS is just the measurable benchmark that identifies when the issue starts and stops. The actual issue may not be FPS related, but the FPS drops when the issues I'm having starts.

That would be correct, something else is going on with the game. You said the game makers seem to think its something on their end. Possibly something to do with CPU usage causing the stuttering. The FPS drop might be a side effect, but not a causal factor.
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 6:39:46 PM

nekulturny said:
That would be correct, something else is going on with the game. You said the game makers seem to think its something on their end. Possibly something to do with CPU usage causing the stuttering. The FPS drop might be a side effect, but not a causal factor.


Which touches on another point. The CPU can be a serious limiting factor in iRacing and is the #1 reason why I upgraded. I have an AMD 955 BE @ 3.5ghz and I could put a new video card in my PC and see less than a 5% performance increase.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2012 6:53:39 PM

Well, have you considered getting a video card for starters and see if that improves things before pulling the trigger on the rest of the build?
m
0
l
August 9, 2012 7:13:28 PM

nekulturny said:
Well, have you considered getting a video card for starters and see if that improves things before pulling the trigger on the rest of the build?


Not really and for a couple reasons. I can put the current PC to good use or I have a couple people interested in buying it. Plus even before I started having some performance issues I wasn't running things maxed out. The new machine will let me turn up the settings.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 10, 2012 1:49:31 AM

Up to you, but I'd at least stick the new card in the rig and see if that changes anything, takes 5 minutes to swap a vid card in and out, why not?

I used to play Runescape heavily til I finally got tired of the masses of botters (they outnumber legit players like 8 to 1. But they had issues with the game for several months before they fixed it, didn't matter what rig you were running, people would post their specs on the forums, all kinds of hardcore gaming rigs that could easily max BF3 at any resolution, and yet this little single core Java game with chinsy graphics would bring the system to its knees.
m
0
l
August 10, 2012 10:53:47 AM

renny1994 said:
You Graphics Card, it seriously clashes with your motherboard color scheme, Blue PCB GPU and Black PCB board!!! going to look ugly in your awesome case, try going for a GPU with a Black PCB, i would spend a bit more to get it to look great.


Who the heck cares how the interior looks like? The build looks good, no need to change the GFX unless you want to.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 10, 2012 1:18:18 PM

Some people care about aesthetics...
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 10, 2012 5:00:34 PM

^....and some people focus on performance!
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 11, 2012 1:29:13 AM

hellfire24 said:
^....and some people focus on performance!

Quality, performance (that meets your needs) and aesthetics are nice. The latter should never be sacrificed for the former two, but its always nice to find something that has all 3.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 11, 2012 2:11:25 AM

nekulturny said:
but its always nice to find something that has all 3.

But it's expensive in most cases :/ 



m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b V Motherboard
August 11, 2012 2:14:41 AM

Depends on your tastes I guess. I think Sapphire and Zotac make nice video card color schemes. Love that Zotac bumblebee yellow, unfortunately, it does kinda clash with my Asus Sabertooth board, but my NZXT Phantom doesn't have a window on it, so it doesn't really matter. Zotac I think gets lost in obscurity because of the bigger companies that have been around longer like EVGA, Asus and MSI, but they actually make Nvidia cards very well.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
August 11, 2012 2:57:11 AM

for me,EVGA ftw and MSi twinfrozer cards are attractive.
m
0
l
!