I'll be using this mainly for photography, drawing and video editing, professionally. Although I'd like to boot up a game now and again, and play it with good performance.
I'm still looking for an excellent monitor, which is the most important aspect for this build. Remember, I might end up with a 4k display, in which case I'd like the computer to be powerful enough to effectively utilize the full resolution for at least five years without upgrading any components. I also want it to be silent and look professional in case clients visit.
Cabinet: Fractal Design Define R5 black
Power supply: Cooler Master G650M, 650W PSU.
Processor: Intel Core i5-4690K
Motherboard: ASUS Z97-P, socket-1150
DDR3: HyperX Fury DDR3 1600MHz 16GB Red 2x8GB
Graphics card: ZOTAC GeForce GTX 970 4GB
SSD: Crucial BX100 250GB 2.5" SSD
HDD: WD Desktop Green 2TB SATA 6Gb/s, (SATA 3.0)
Monitor: BenQ 32" 4K LED BL3201PT
EDIT: I'd also like reliable components. I'm no fan of building and maintaining computers, and mainly do this to save some cash.
For video editing might wanna get 16GB Ram. Don't get me wrong, 8GB is enough, but you fill them real fast with programs like After Effects.
Also a storage HDD would be good.
Also the BX series is sacrificing pretty much any SSD feature while only saving $10 tops. Go with an MX.
Both noted. I do work almost exclusively directly off external drives and flash drives, so I don't know about getting more storage.
I'm not that tech savvy, what's the advantage of getting an MX-series over BX?
The MX200 is almost $100 more than the BX100.
EDIT: Changed the OP to updated build.
[QUOTE=mac338;47372772]The MX200 is almost $100 more than the BX100.
EDIT: Changed the OP to updated build.[/QUOTE]
Levelog was suggesting the MX[B]100[/B], not MX[B]200[/B].
I personally can't really recommend one over the other, they both offer what you'd expect from an SSD and the MX series is faster in some areas, BX in others: [url]http://www.storagereview.com/crucial_bx100_ssd_review[/url]
As for your hard drive: The Green series is rather slow and less reliable than Red. I'd recommend you go with the latter - costs $10-$20 more, but you'll also get an extra year of warranty.
If you want a silent and reliable build, I don't see the point in getting an overclockable processor. Getting the non-K version and a H97 motherboard could save you some money there, which you could put towards a more quiet cooler.
Thanks for good info. Since the non-K costs almost the same as the K; is the overclockable version louder even if it's not overclocked? Because I figured it's nice having the option to overclock when I game on a 4k monitor in resolutions over 1080p.
Nope, they're pretty much equivalent in every way you'd care about, except for the ability to overclock. If you want that then sure, go for it, but by overclocking, you always sacrifice some reliability (the risk of breaking anything is very low if you do it responsibly, but it's still there).
Either way, your system will be quiet but not silent even when idle, and it'll obviously get louder with heavy workloads, but it shouldn't get loud enough to bother you (or your clients) and better cooling is always something you can add later.
[editline]22nd March 2015[/editline]
For 4K gaming, your CPU will probably do you fine for the foreseeable future even without overclocking, but a single GTX 970 will already only barely get you 60 FPS on High/Ultra in most games (and for some, anything over 30/45 is out of reach with current hardware). It's an okay choice for now, but you'll definitely have to upgrade that within the next five years.
Yeah, but that's alright. I don't know where I'll be with gaming in five years anyway, I don't game that much. The main thing is that it should be able to handle a creative workload, and I can always upgrade down the road. I'll probably play most games at 2k resolution anyway. And I'll stick with the K so I can overclock if I should feel like it.
Thanks guys, super helpful stuff!
Sorry, I forgot to respond. The issue with the BX is that it has many things cut from it. No thermal throttling, SLC caching, hardware based encryption, and some other internal failsafes. It also uses a bit of an inferior controller.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.