Building custom PC-would appreciate input

G

Greynth_sl

shitlord
17
0
So I've decided to build a custom PC sometime towards the end of the month/early January and would like some input. I have come up with two builds after doing extensive research from many different sources, but I like to get as much feedback as possible before I pull the trigger.

My budget is +/- $1000. The first build is Intel-based, and the second is AMD-based.

Intel build:

PCPartPicker part list/Price breakdown by merchant/Benchmarks

CPU:Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor($239.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler:Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard:Gigabyte GA-Z87-HD3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard($114.99 @ Newegg)
Memory:G.Skill Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory($76.99 @ Newegg)
Storage:Kingston HyperX 3K 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk($89.00 @ Amazon)
Storage:Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive($59.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card:Gigabyte GeForce GTX 770 2GB Video Card($339.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Wireless Network Adapter:Asus PCE-N10 802.11b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter($16.70 @ SuperBiiz)
Case:Antec Three Hundred Two ATX Mid Tower Case($46.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply:Corsair CX 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply($52.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive:Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer($19.98 @ OutletPC)
Total:$1067.57
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-10 22:36 EST-0500)

AMD build:

PCPartPicker part list/Price breakdown by merchant/Benchmarks

CPU:AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor($149.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler:Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard:Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard($114.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory:G.Skill Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory($76.99 @ Newegg)
Storage:Kingston HyperX 3K 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk($89.00 @ Amazon)
Storage:Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive($59.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card:Gigabyte GeForce GTX 770 2GB Video Card($339.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Wireless Network Adapter:Asus PCE-N10 802.11b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter($16.70 @ SuperBiiz)
Case:Antec Three Hundred Two ATX Mid Tower Case($46.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply:Corsair Builder 750W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply($69.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive:Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer($19.98 @ OutletPC)
Total:$1010.57
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-10 22:36 EST-0500)

Any input is greatly appreciated, and feel free to critique where you may see fit. Thanks!
 
Kovaks

Kovaks

Mr. Poopybutthole
2,354
3,142
There is a ton of discussion on amd cpus for gaming in the desktop computers thread. But yea consensus is don't go amd for games. Everything else looks good, personally i would go up in wattage for the psu, 770 has a min of 600 and i like to be safe for future proofing, but that might just be me. I would also bump the ssd to 256gb since they are so cheep now, they show up on slick deals all the time.

This is all based on the intel picks i skipped over the amd one.
 
Noodleface

Noodleface

A Mod Real Quick
37,961
14,508
Don't get AMD for gaming at all.

Just for measure, the latest intel processors have roughly 2.3-2.5 billion transistors with the AMD bulldozer rocking about 1.2 billion. While that's basically greek for everyone, it tells us the relative complexity of each chip. Additionally, we have this comparison of top-tier in each architecture:

Page 3 - AMD vs. Intel, the ultimate gaming showdown: 5GHz FX-9590 vs. i7-4960X | ExtremeTech
One of the concerns that's been raised by readers in the past is that we hadn't given AMD's FX platform a fair shake in gaming tests. With the FX-9590 shipping, it seemed a good time to revisit that question. Now that we've put two systems through their paces in single and dual-GPU configurations, we've got a much better feel for how AMD and Intel compare at the highest end. Across all the titles we tested, the FX-9590 is on average 5% slower than the Ivy Bridge-E 4960X in terms of fps when using the HD 7990, and 4% slower when using the R9 290X.

The gap in frame latency times is a little larger. If we include Battlefield 3 - the one title where the FX-9590 was a full 24% slower than the Ivy Bridge system - then the average frame time for the FX-9590 is 7% slower than Ivy Bridge when using the HD 7990 and 8% slower when running the R9 290X. If we remove BF3 from the calculation (the difference between a 16ms and 20ms frame time being almost invisible), than the gap falls to just 3%. In this case, that more accurately reflects the subjective experience of using the two platforms. The 4960X and FX-9590 "feel" more similar when playing on a single GPU than when using the dual-GPU card.
Click to expand...
I think you'll get by with AMD, but they've proven they cannot compete with Intel at all when it comes to gaming processors. They have like half the transistor count of Intel chips and completely different architectures and it just isn't worth going AMD ever.
 
G

Greynth_sl

shitlord
17
0
Noodleface_sl said:
Don't get AMD for gaming at all.

Just for measure, the latest intel processors have roughly 2.3-2.5 billion transistors with the AMD bulldozer rocking about 1.2 billion. While that's basically greek for everyone, it tells us the relative complexity of each chip. Additionally, we have this comparison of top-tier in each architecture:

Page 3 - AMD vs. Intel, the ultimate gaming showdown: 5GHz FX-9590 vs. i7-4960X | ExtremeTech


I think you'll get by with AMD, but they've proven they cannot compete with Intel at all when it comes to gaming processors. They have like half the transistor count of Intel chips and completely different architectures and it just isn't worth going AMD ever.
Click to expand...
But this comparison deals with the highest end of each brand of CPU. I'm only interested in the mid-high end models aka FX-8320/50 & i5 4670k
 
mkopec

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,406
37,495
Intell shits all over AMD regarding per core performance. It does not matter if you take the low end i3 vs whatever the fuck AMD has or high end and everything in between. You choosing AMD for a game machine just says you have done shit all for research on the matter.


AnandTech | Bench - CPU
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
AMD is only superior to Intel in software that can actually take advantage of 6 or 8 cores. Games cannot do this. Do no buy an AMD processor for gaming.
 
G

Greynth_sl

shitlord
17
0
mkopec_sl said:
Intell shits all over AMD regarding per core performance. It does not matter if you take the low end i3 vs whatever the fuck AMD has or high end and everything in between. You choosing AMD for a game machine just says you have done shit all for research on the matter.


AnandTech | Bench - CPU
Click to expand...
Take a deep breath; I haven't bought anything yet. That's why I'm asking for feedback. Reading is pretty important nowadays FYI.
 
Jovec

Jovec

?
738
284
Greynth_sl said:
Take a deep breath; I haven't bought anything yet. That's why I'm asking for feedback. Reading is pretty important nowadays FYI.
Click to expand...
It's hard to recommend the AMD FX line for a new build. For gaming, Blizzard games are heavily Intel biased. For others, AMD performance is adequate (and sometimes quite high) but is also typically way below Intel on minimum frame rate (even when average is close). AMD's power numbers are also ..iffy ...and even at stock have been known to draw more than 125w (or throttle) and you may want to consider more cooler than the Hyper 212 (negating some of the cost savings).

For non-gaming, Intel doesn't unlock the VT-d extensions on the K series, nor TSX, while AMD will at least give you their version of VT-d (though it's not needed for running basic VMs). Intel does give you an IGP which is always useful (GPU goes down, GPU RMA, have video when you sell one GPU to buy another, more options for the CPU's second life (HTPC, pass down to family, etc)). I can't recall if AMD offers hardware AES encryption either (if you plan drive encryption), but Intel does.

Given the (lack of) price difference, AMD just doesn't make much sense for a pure gaming rig. If the AMD rig was coming in at $200, $150, or even $100 cheaper and that allowed you to bump up the video card, it would be a much more compelling choice.
 
G

Greynth_sl

shitlord
17
0
Jovec_sl said:
It's hard to recommend the AMD FX line for a new build. For gaming, Blizzard games are heavily Intel biased. For others, AMD performance is adequate (and sometimes quite high) but is also typically way below Intel on minimum frame rate (even when average is close). AMD's power numbers are also ..iffy ...and even at stock have been known to draw more than 125w (or throttle) and you may want to consider more cooler than the Hyper 212 (negating some of the cost savings).

For non-gaming, Intel doesn't unlock the VT-d extensions on the K series, nor TSX, while AMD will at least give you their version of VT-d (though it's not needed for running basic VMs). Intel does give you an IGP which is always useful (GPU goes down, GPU RMA, have video when you sell one GPU to buy another, more options for the CPU's second life (HTPC, pass down to family, etc)). I can't recall if AMD offers hardware AES encryption either (if you plan drive encryption), but Intel does.

Given the (lack of) price difference, AMD just doesn't make much sense for a pure gaming rig. If the AMD rig was coming in at $200, $150, or even $100 cheaper and that allowed you to bump up the video card, it would be a much more compelling choice.
Click to expand...
Alright then, say I go with the i5-4670k, I'm assuming the gigabyte 770 is adequate? Or should I consider the Asus R9 280x for the 3gb VRAM despite the price difference.
 
Ichu

Ichu

Molten Core Raider
845
278
Why the asus card? It's significantly more expensive than the other manufacturers.
 
G

Greynth_sl

shitlord
17
0
Ichu_sl said:
Why the asus card? It's significantly more expensive than the other manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. On Newegg, yes, but not everywhere. The only trouble would be to atually get a hold of one at the moment. Why the 280x? It has 3gb VRAM, the Direcu ii cooling system, and its performance is very similar to that of the 770.
 
mkopec

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,406
37,495
What resolution are you running? 1080p? You dont need all that vram if you are not running multiple displays.

If its 1080p all you need is one of the below for price vs performance...

AMD Radeon 7870 Ghz Edition
Geforce GTX 660
Radeon r9 270x
GTX 760
Radeon 7950

Higher than 1920x1200, Multiple Screen Gaming, E-peen:
Radeon 7950
GTX 670
GTX 770
Radeon r9 280x
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
The sabertooth Z77 is so fucking sexy. i saw that and i wanted to buy one.
rrr_img_52899.jpg
 
Noodleface

Noodleface

A Mod Real Quick
37,961
14,508
Greynth_sl said:
But this comparison deals with the highest end of each brand of CPU. I'm only interested in the mid-high end models aka FX-8320/50 & i5 4670k
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, my point was that even from the top down it's the same comparison. Others put it more eloquently than I though.
 
B

blehh_sl

shitlord
27
0
I'd def go i5 like everyone says. As far as video card is concerned either a 770, 7970 or a 280x would do really well at 1080p. Anything less than that and you'll start to drop below 60fps in a lot of games at 1080p.
 
A

antha124

Lord Nagafen Raider
70
31
Isn't Mantle going to change things as far as the cpu/gpu goes? I still wouldn't recommend a amd cpu right now, i got an i5 just recently myself.
 
L

Lenardo

Vyemm Raider
3,567
2,474
mantle will change stuff only if the dev's use it.


for high end gaming, intel is the only game in town, the new amd kaveri apu's are much better than the older line.

personally i go mid tier due to budget constraints- ie about 500 dollars(excluding windows 7 which i just xfer over), and i put about 30% of the budget to video card.(ie about 150)
 
L

Luthair

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,247
85
People are overstating the case for Intel processors over AMD for gaming. For the most part games haven't been CPU bound in a long time and users won't notice a difference between mid-to-high end processors from either manufacturer.

That said, as much as I would like to promote AMD (so we continue to have competition driving down prices) for mid-to-high processors you should buy Intel as it will be faster and run cooler. For low end systems and HTPCs the AMD A10-7xxx series is probably a better buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.