<$800 Build for a friend

[newn]

Please read the description before posting!

Well, he wanted a sub-$700 PC, but he said that he can go for up $800.

He's got a 1080p monitor, so 1920x1080 is his resolution.

He, just like me, wants to buy only motherboard, CPU, VGA and memory.

He's also from Europe, not from the US (don't ask for the specifics, the stores aren't in English anyway).

He is willing to overclock, but he isn't willing to buy water cooling or something. He is, however, considering to buy some fancier heatsink in the future, but that may happen in a year, knowing him.

Extra: He wants to know (because of my influence...) if that PC will run the latest games on >50FPS.

Here's my current thoughts:

ASUS Geforce 660 Ti - $400
Intel 3470 - $200
Memory (Crutial-something) - $60
Motherboard (Maybe something from MSI or ASRock or ASUS, not sure yet) - $120

Total - $780

 

[Deemo13]

The i5-3470 is not going to be able to overclock. If you want to overclock, I would go with the 3570K. A good, low priced heatsink is the CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO.

That 660Ti is very very expensive. How much are the Radeons where you are from?

 

[newn]

But would the overclock help in gaming? I mean, without water cooling, you can't overclock much. If it's 2FPS, it ain't worth it in my opinion.

7950's the same price as 660 Ti - $400.

 

[Deemo13]

Who says without water cooling you can't overclock? My H60 watercooler is pretty bad. It barely even out-does my old Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus. The 212 EVO would be even better.

You can even overclock with the stock cooler if you so desire and the temperatures are within range, but its definitely not recommended.

Overclocking is a matter of preference. I like to overclock my 2500K, but my next computer will most likely not have an overclocking setup.

 

[newn]

Well, personally I don't see anything wrong with overclocking, if it's beneficial. If not, I don't see a reason for him to buy the costlier CPU, because the only thing he's gonna do is game.

As for Radeon cards, do they support PhysX? I've heard there's problems with that, and as far as I know, PhysX is quite impressive. Not confident on this info though.

 

[combine1237]

I do think a 7950 would be a better card than a 660 ti, but I am no expert.

Hiearchy chart.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

660 ti review.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-benchmark-review,3279.html

 

[newn]

Yea, I've read that. I've always favored Geforce cards, I've read a lot about ATI's problems. I think they were mostly related to 6000s cards, and some other series. So yea, my argument is irrational - I haven't gathered more information about it.

It is, indeed better. I'm just wondering about the PhysX now.

 

[Deemo13]

Well, most of AMD's problems came from the very few people that had problems with the drivers and whatnot and they were just very loud about it.

I've used 4xxx, 5xxx, and 6xxx series of all sorts, and I've only had problems with my 6950, which was user caused.

I do not believe there are many problems that are not user sourced.

Some believe Physx is a marketing term. It is only used in certain games. The most modern game that uses it is Borderlands 2.

Though Borderlands 2 is awesome with Physx, I don't think its worth it if you're buying a lower-end Nvidia card. Higher end is more worth it.

I'd rather have raw power in the low end as opposed to pretty features.

 

[newn]

Well I prefer features, but seems like it has a big hit on FPS then. Gotta ask him...

Anyway, let's go back to picking out the parts. I'm going to bed now.

 

[Deemo13]

Then again, the 660Ti would be a good choice if the resolution is low and your friend does not like to play with AA on all the way.

 

[newn]

I asked my friend... He wants the best graphics quality possible. He wants to crank up every setting to the maximum.

 

[Deemo13]

He's definitely going to want a Radeon then to be honest.