$1500 computer build. Need help. - Hardware & Software

Hello, I'm having a friend build me a computer, but I wanna compare his list of parts to what Facepunch has to offer. I don't have my friends list yet but hopefully soon. I have a $1500 budget and I wanna future proof it a little and will put a bit more money if needed. Thanks in advance

I'd say something to this effect: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1CkDC[/url] assuming the purpose is gaming.

Yes it's for gaming and emailing

[QUOTE=flayne;42148358]I'd say something to this effect: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1CkDC[/url] assuming the purpose is gaming.[/QUOTE] Unless you're going to be using multiple monitors for gaming there's not much point at all getting the GTX 780. The 760 has probably got the best price to performance ratio and you're saving $450. So even if you need to upgrade in a year or two it will still be cheaper than the 780 all together and much more powerful.

[QUOTE=Sivics;42152483]Unless you're going to be using multiple monitors for gaming there's not much point at all getting the GTX 780. The 760 has probably got the best price to performance ratio and you're saving $450. So even if you need to upgrade in a year or two it will still be cheaper than the 780 all together and much more powerful.[/QUOTE] I'd agree the 780 is overkill for a single monitor, but downgrading to a 760 for a high-end gaming system? Go for a decent 770, as the extra performance of the 780 won't be something you'll notice on a single 1920x1080 screen I've modified flayne's suggestion to reflect my suggestion with [URL="http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1CunK"]a gigabyte 770 and a bigger 500GB samsung 840 EVO SSD[/URL] that's still under budget. If you'd rather want to save money then get [URL="http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1Cun2"]the 128GB 840 Pro model that flayne suggested.[/URL]

Ok. This all sounds good. I have two questions. Would having 2 770 have differences in performance and having to pick different parts? And what is the difference between an intel core i-5 and i-7?

[QUOTE=Repulse`;42152952]Ok. This all sounds good. I have two questions. Would having 2 770 have differences in performance and having to pick different parts? And what is the difference between an intel core i-5 and i-7?[/QUOTE] The intel core i7 has technology called "hyperthreading" that makes it possible for a single core to run two threads(processing workloads, pretty much). This won't make any difference in games, so unless you're planning to do significant amounts of compiling, rendering and multi-core workloads there's no reason to get it Getting two 770's requires you to put them in SLI, which requires the necessary power supply wattage and a motherboard that supports it. That build has both, so it shouldn't be an issue. Putting two 770's in SLI will make both of them perform at the speed of the slowest card of the bunch, so if you've got identical cards it won't matter. However, i would strongly advise against SLI due to bad first and second-hand experiences with it. Dual-GPU solutions usually have more stuttering and performance bugs, giving you a little more FPS at the loss of fluidity in some games and doing absolutely nothing but giving you slowdowns in games that don't support it. You're far better off getting flayne's 780 build if you plan on gaming on 3 monitors at the same time, and if you're just going to game on a single monitor, it's not going to matter so there's no reason to waste money and time on 2 770's in SLI or a 780.

But with the 780 I could run 2 monitors?

[QUOTE=Repulse`;42154601]But with the 780 I could run 2 monitors?[/QUOTE] You could run 3 without an issue You could run 2 fine on a single 770 too, but a dual-monitor setup is usually not to prefer because of the way the center of the screen is covered by bezels There's nothing really stopping you from running (if i remember the number correctly) 4-5 monitors off of a single graphics card, it's just that performance is going to be bad unless you begin turning down settings

Ahhhhhh ok. Im not really the most computer tech knowledgeable person, but I thank you guys for answering my questions. I honestly would be happy just playing games on one monitor.

Ok i got my friends list. [quote]Case: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811352020[/url] Motherboard: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130677[/url] CPU: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284[/url] Graphics Card: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130921[/url] Power Supply: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153161[/url] RAM(2 of these): [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231488[/url] And with the shitload of money I saved you, you can get a fucking 40 inch LED 120 hz monitor, same one I have: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889234067[/url] The total with the god damn huge TV is $1,454.93 This machine has two times the processing power then the other CPU you had picked out, and the processor is a hundred bucks cheaper. You don't really need the TV as a monitor, it's sort of a deluxe item, but if you have the desk space, it's a lot of fun to have. If you just want a normal monitor, let me know and I'll dig around for something. However, a nice monitor will probably cost the same as the TV. Let me know if you have any questions. Oh whoops, forgot the HDD: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136792[/url] You don't really need a solid state, they're very expensive and still impractical, as you can't really store much besides your operating system on there. It just becomes something you have to keep managing. [/quote] Thoughts?

don't listen to your friend, he has no idea what he's doing AMD performs a lot worse than intel at a price point that isn't that much cheaper, and uses a lot more power, so there's no reason to buy their CPU's for high end computers when you have a 1500$ budget. "This machine has two times the processing power then the other CPU you had picked out" is a lie, as AMD's FX does not have 8 cores, only 4, and even though it has more GHz it performs a lot worse due to architecture. To put it into perspective, intel's budget i3's sometimes outperform AMD's best FX processors and other times are even when it comes to gaming. I have no idea what he's talking about when it comes to SSD's as 128GB is fine for tons of programs and the 500GB EVO can replace your drives outright. There's no managing involved short of not keeping huge media files like movies on it. Plus, giving away the ridiculous improvement SSD's give(the biggest upgrade on most modern systems) is dumb. [sp]Fun fact: I don't use harddrives anymore as SSD's are far superior in every way except archiving and videos and today's SSD's aren't that expensive[/sp] As for the monitor, i have never heard of that company and it appears unreliable, it's using a forced dynamic contrast which just adds horrible input lag and the panel on it is prone to completely break. Plus, a 40" monitor is ridiculously big and 1080p on a 40" will look like arse if you don't sit metres away from it. [editline]13th September 2013[/editline] Oh god he even put a 1000W thermaltake powersupply on that list :suicide:

Ok. So I'll go with Flynns build, if thats is what you guys recomend? Also another question. What about a internet conection point?

[QUOTE=Repulse`;42175999]Ok. So I'll go with Flynns build, if thats is what you guys recomend? Also another question. What about a internet conection point?[/QUOTE] Go with one of the modifications i made to his that has a 770 instead of a 780 Best: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1CunK[/url] Cheapest: [url]http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1Cun2[/url] The real difference between these two is the SSD, one having around 4x the storage space and being faster, the other one being cheaper What do you mean about an internet connection point? The motherboard has a port for an ethernet cable built in, but there's no wireless [editline]13th September 2013[/editline] I can't really recommend anything to connect to wireless networks because the wireless adapters i can find in norway aren't being sold internationally so i don't have much experience I've had one that has the same chipset and drivers as [URL="http://www.tp-link.us/products/details/?categoryid=2164&model=TL-WDN3200#spec"]this[/URL], and i've had perfect signal and reliability with it. I guess that could be worth a shot

Get a 7970 instead of a 770. It's both $100 cheaper and on average faster. I recommend Gigabyte's for the cooling.

[QUOTE=flayne;42204415]Get a 7970 instead of a 770. It's both $100 cheaper and on average faster. I recommend Gigabyte's for the cooling.[/QUOTE] Plus you get free games usually.

I say this here and there, but I've been researching differences in hard drives, and 1TB enterprise drives on the whole last longer and the faster than desktop consumer grade. They're meant for servers running 24/7, and are rated to last 5 years with full use. If you've going for a high-end PC, I'd say another $50 for a drive isn't so bad. [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178291[/url] On the other hand, if you saved money somewhere along the line and could afford two desktop hard drives and a RAID card, running 2 drives in RAID 1 would essentially make your computer hard drives run sort of like high-use servers run, maybe faster than an enterprise drive (? cringe@advice). I'd still bet on an enterprise drive though as that would be cheaper than this option and more reliable than both options Just keep in mind hard drives are what store and access all of your data, so it plays a fair role. Just random quotes I found desktop [QUOTE]HDTune4.6 Pro reports of MAX MB/s 125-ish and MIN MB/s 65-ish. Access times sub 13ms. This is the standard Benchmark reports. Burst Speeds up to 185MB/s on Sata3 Controller.[/QUOTE] enterprise [QUOTE]175MB/sec sustained transfer rate[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Duze;42292342]I say this here and there, but I've been researching differences in hard drives, and 1TB enterprise drives on the whole last longer and the faster than desktop consumer grade. They're meant for servers running 24/7, and are rated to last 5 years with full use. If you've going for a high-end PC, I'd say another $50 for a drive isn't so bad. [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178291[/url] On the other hand, if you saved money somewhere along the line and could afford two desktop hard drives and a RAID card, running 2 drives in RAID 1 would essentially make your computer hard drives run sort of like high-use servers run, maybe faster than an enterprise drive (? cringe@advice). I'd still bet on an enterprise drive though as that would be cheaper than this option and more reliable than both options Just keep in mind hard drives are what store and access all of your data, so it plays a fair role. Just random quotes I found desktop enterprise[/QUOTE] The SSD already accomplishes the purpose of lasting longer and being faster; there's no point in spending the extra on the HDD.

Oh there is an SSD in that list, hot damn. I still think some extra oomph over a couple years makes a difference, but hey. The differences may be over-hyped, though.