Is there anything horribly wrong with this PC build? (NEW AND IMPROVED.)

[VanQ]

If I remember correctly, the GTX 700 series tends to have a lot of heat dispersion issues and is a poor performer for its price point. It may be worthwile to spend a little bit extra on a 900 series card. They're using the latest nVidia architecture and are a far better priceerformance ratio than the series that came before it. It is also the first card that will properly support DirectX 12, which will probably be a must for PC games in the coming years.

As always, when it comes to building a PC, never build a PC that's good for "now". Always consider future-proofing. A year from now it's very likely that the 700 series won't be able to aptly play games at low-medium settings with a decent frame rate. Then again, it still outperforms all current consoles by a large margin. So if it's "good enough" in that respect then I have nothing more to say.

A final note, it's always entirely possible to simply swap out the 700 series for a later series further down the line. And by then the 900 series will likely be a lot cheaper. A benefit unique to PCs.

(Also, yes, before anyone mentions it, I know I could build it myself for the comparatively low price of the loose change I found under the couch and an enthusiastic handjob, but knowing myself I'm not about to try that. I want something nice and prebuilt that works out of the box. Maybe I'll cut my teeth by upgrading it myself.)

Excuse the edited quote, but this is your thread so I imagine you'll see this anyway. If you're buying this pre-built from a specialty PC store like umart (or whatever your local equivalent is) you can probably go into the store and ask them to change certain parts for a small additional fee. If you're buying it from a general electronics store, you may want to consider going to an actual PC specialties shop to have them build a custom PC specifically for your needs. The staff will likely be able to help you build a custom PC for much cheaper and without the spyware and bloatware that store bought PCs come pre-packaged with.

 

[fix-the-spade]

- ASUS GTX-770 Graphics Card.

How much is the 770 costing you?

Over here a 770 is about the same as a 960, but the 960 will have DX12 support and uses a good chunk less power for the same performance (lower temps too). Assuming the cost is similar it's an easy way to make your machine run cooler and be more future proofed.

Also, is the 4690 a 4690k or a non k? If it's the non-k then there's little point in a z97 board as it won't overclock, non k chips have a lower resale value if that matters to you.

 

[laggyteabag]

Didn't they phase out the 770 just after the 970 came out? That could mean that you could get a pretty good deal on one. The 770 is a very good GPU, and it will get you places, buuuuuuuut, if you were willing to spend a little more money, I second the comment about getting a 970. It is a very good card for it's price, and quite the powerhouse.

The Internet disagrees. The butthurt people have for NVIDIA against the 970 is hilarious. I can't say from experience because I don't own one, but the card starts to shit the bed when using 4GB of VRAM, and seems to be capped at 3.5GB of VRAM.

Relevant video:

Meh. Here I am playing Dragon Age Inquisition on Ultra/1080p at anywhere between 60-100 FPS. From what I have seen, the GTX 970 is still a powerhouse, and it can even beat out the R9 290X in most cases. Besides, looking at performance charts on the internet, the only time in which the GTX 970 is using more than 3.5GB VRAM is in 4K, and even so, it still has a very respectable FPS. As far as I am concerned, the whole "The GTX 970 only has 3.5GB of VRAM so it is shit now" thing has been blown way out of proportion. It is still a great GPU for the asking price, and one hell of an overclocker. I would still recommend it to anyone who is looking for a new GPU.

[small]NVidia advertising it as 4GB was still a shady move though.[/small]

 

[fix-the-spade]

The Internet disagrees. The butthurt people have for NVIDIA against the 970 is hilarious. I can't say from experience because I don't own one, but the card starts to shit the bed when using 4GB of VRAM, and seems to be capped at 3.5GB of VRAM.

It's not as bad as the interwebs says it is. The last 500MB of memory is partitioned for reasons to do with the memory controller, you only need it for running massive resolutions or super sampling (or if you're running a benchmark that arbitrarily locks use at 100%), in both cases if you're doing that you probably ought to buy a 980 (or two) anyway.

It does tank frame rates, but only in specific scenarios.

I also think Nividia should really mark the 970 as 3.5GB instead of 4GB though since it represents a truer picture of performance.

 

[Zhukov]

As for the GPU, AMD R9 290 is better and I think it's about the same price as the GTX 770. Price to performance, R9 290 is the best 1440p/4k card on the market right now. It comes with 4Gb of VRAM.

Yeeeaah... I'm actually trying to stay away from AMD. They might be awesome, I wouldn't know, but what I do know is that damn near every time I've had trouble getting a game to run it's come down to the AMD GPU. If I had a penny for every time I went looking for fixes and came across, "Oh, the game just has issues with AMD graphics cards, hopefully they'll patch it," then this new PC would already be bought and paid for.

As always, when it comes to building a PC, never build a PC that's good for "now". Always consider future-proofing. A year from now it's very likely that the 700 series won't be able to aptly play games at low-medium settings with a decent frame rate. Then again, it still outperforms all current consoles by a large margin. So if it's "good enough" in that respect then I have nothing more to say.

A year from now?

Given that, at least for the moment, game tech is largely coupled to console generations, I find that a wee bit hard to believe.

I take your point on "future proofing" though. I'll see what they charge for a GTX970.

Excuse the edited quote, but this is your thread so I imagine you'll see this anyway. If you're buying this pre-built from a specialty PC store like umart (or whatever your local equivalent is) you can probably go into the store and ask them to change certain parts for a small additional fee. If you're buying it from a general electronics store, you may want to consider going to an actual PC specialties shop to have them build a custom PC specifically for your needs. The staff will likely be able to help you build a custom PC for much cheaper and without the spyware and bloatware that store bought PCs come pre-packaged with.

They're a custom PC joint. They sell components and peripherals and do builds for those not inclined to do the building themselves, like me.

So they'll throw in whatever I ask for, assuming they can source it and I can pay for it. They'll even use parts I provide myself, but won't give a warranty on any build that includes components they didn't provide, which is fair enough.

How much is the 770 costing you?

*grits teeth*

$440.

Is this the part where you tell me I could get it elsewhere for a wink and a smile?

I looked around and the going price in Australia seems to range from about $380-450.

 

[fix-the-spade]

*grits teeth*

$440.

Is this the part where you tell me I could get it elsewhere for a wink and a smile?

I looked around and the going price in Australia seems to range from about $380-450.

I would love to tell you that, but sadly Nvidia cards are expensive everywhere.

That's about the going rate for a GTX960 too, like I said before if you're paying the same anyway the new 960 is a better card than the 770. It's no faster, but quieter, more efficient and it supports DX12.

Of course a 970 would be even better...

 

[sanquin]

Why? RAM has little to no effect on gaming for PCs, RAM is the least of the concerns with this build.
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Hardware/How_much_RAM_do_I_really_need_for_gaming/

The price is way to high for that performance.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+770&id=2531#price

Right, when you game in a void 4GB is enough. But how many other programs do you have running on your computer? Open up your task manager and see how many you can count. All of those use bits of that 4GB you would have. While there are also already games that use 4GB. So the game would run less optimally, the more programs you have running. Secondly, this is probably a PC meant to last for a while. How long do you think it will take for games to use more than 4GB? RAM is cheap, so you might as well buy 8GB now, and be set for a while, rather than getting 4GB and having to buy another set of RAM the moment a game comes out that you want to play which uses more than 4GB.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Yeeeaah... I'm actually trying to stay away from AMD. They might be awesome, I wouldn't know, but what I do know is that damn near every time I've had trouble getting a game to run it's come down to the AMD GPU. If I had a penny for every time I went looking for fixes and came across, "Oh, the game just has issues with AMD graphics cards, hopefully they'll patch it," then this new PC would already be bought and paid for.

It's your money. But I wouldn't pay $440 for a GTX 770 unless my life depended on it. How do people in Australia survive anyway? Nevermind all the poisonous animals and insects, even the prices are out to get you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It comes with a 2TB conventional HDD as well.

The SSD they offered me was 250GB.

I've been happily juggling all my games on a 350GB partition for years now, so I'm sure I can happily make do with 250GB if I keep everything else on the HDD. My internet speed and download cap, while far from phenomenal, are good enough that I can uninstall and reinstall Steam games with relative freedom.

OS on the SSD. Almost everything else on the HDD. Very few if any games will see any kind of meaningful performance improvement being on an SSD, even games with exceptional amounts of loading. I slapped WoW on my SSD and the load times were identical. I just left it there because I had room and I was lazy.

Have 2 TB free for games is, well, it's luxurious. Just install whatever you want and don't worry about it. I only have a single TB, and I haven't deleted uninstalled a single game since the PC was new, and it isn't even half full.

On the subject of the 770, it is a good card, but as others have said if the price difference between it and the 970 isn't substantial, I'd go for the latter, for DX12 support if nothing else. If it is substantial, 770 is one of the better price/performance cards on the market.

PS - Don't leave the SSD out. It makes an enormous difference to boot time and OS speed. It just doesn't do much for games.

 

[Callate]

snip

An SSD is a Hard Drive with no moving parts, it's much faster than a traditional HDD, but also more expensive.

Ahh, ok.

This thing comes with a conventional 2TB HDD and a 250GB SSD.

So... I'm guessing the idea is that I install the OS and games on the SSD and dump everything else on the HDD?

Just a suggestion: Keep the OS and anything else that's loaded on boot (virus scanners, drivers, services like Steam, etc.) on the SSD, but keep everything else on the HDD. I got a 500 GB hard drive a while back on the premise that it would be sufficient for the games I've gotten through Steam, and, well, let's just say I've still been juggling and uninstalling for some time now.

The biggest difference with an SSD, to my knowledge, is what you see in boot time. For games, the difference is more likely to be a few seconds of load time here and there; it's kind of gravy.

 

[Zhukov]

Have 2 TB free for games is, well, it's luxurious. Just install whatever you want and don't worry about it. I only have a single TB, and I haven't deleted uninstalled a single game since the PC was new, and it isn't even half full.

That does sound awfully comfy.

I generally don't mind juggling HD space, but Jesus H. Christ some games are massive these day.

(Lookin' at you Bioshock Infinite, you and your 42 motherfucking gigabytes.)

 

[Zhukov]

*Casts Minor Thread Resurrection*

So I went back and made some changes to my perspective PC build.

It now includes a GTX970. Also downgraded the motherboard to a ASUS B85M-E.

Through some black magic of bargaining this will cost me overall less than the previous build.

I just wanted to know if there was anything horribly wrong with the B85M-E that I should know about. It's been around for a couple of years and poking about online didn't bring up any overriding complaints. From what I understand a motherboard doesn't really govern performance, it just needs to work.

The difference between this and the more expensive one is only about $80, so I don't mind swallowing the extra cost if there's a reason to justify it.

I shall now snip-quote several of the intelligent, charming and attractive people who posted in this thread in a blatant attempt to gain their expert attention:

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

 

[rgrekejin]

It now includes a GTX970. Also downgraded the motherboard to a ASUS B85M-E.

Through some black magic of bargaining this will cost me overall less than the previous build.

I just wanted to know if there was anything horribly wrong with the B85M-E that I should know about. It's been around for a couple of years and poking about online didn't bring up any overriding complaints. From what I understand a motherboard doesn't really govern performance, it just needs to work.

Nice! I have a GTX 970 - I've been quite pleased with it so far, and it's a great power-per-dollar value, even with the whole VRAM kerfuffle.

As far as the B85M-E goes, it looks alright to me. Here's the only thing I'd be concerned about:

It looks like the B85M-E only supports RAM with speeds of 1600, 1333 and 1066 Mhz. That's probably not an issue - almost all RAM today is 1600 Mhz, so that's probably what you have. But some performance brands have default speeds of 1866 or 2133 Mhz. Before you start, check to make sure your RAM is compatible.