Rate a mid-power PC build

[Delta2501]

Hello everyone, I was looking to put together a medium-cost PC, ideally something that'll run new games at medium settings for 4+ years, and someone on the GameFAQs hardware board very kindly referred me to this build:

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/1GLel

If anyone can't see the link, the parts are:
CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+ Motherboard
Memory: Patriot Viper 3 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card
Case: NZXT Source 210 Elite (White) ATX Mid Tower Case
Power Supply: Corsair CX 500W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer

I don't really have any prior experience of choosing parts or building a PC so any thoughts or advice about this build, possible problems or things to improve (I wouldn't mind spending another £100, £200 at a push, unless what I've got looks completely terrible) would be very much appreciated. I was considering an Nvidia GTX 660 Ti as an alternative for the graphics card but I don't know how much difference that makes or if an AMD would be a better match for the AMD CPU.

If this isn't the right place to ask this or if there are other good places to seek advice I'd really like to know that too.

Thank you for your time.

 

[AWAR]

-snip

This looks like nice build. If you are willing to spend a bit more, get an FX-8320 instead. As for the graphics card, get a 7950 or 660ti. They perform similarly, just get whichever is cheaper.

 

[Delta2501]

-snip

This looks like nice build. If you are willing to spend a bit more, get an FX-8320 instead. As for the graphics card, get a 7950 or 660ti. They perform similarly, just get whichever is cheaper.

Thanks, that's very useful. While I think oh it, are there different types of cards with the same basic model number? I saw one place that was selling a more expensive 3gig version of the 660 Ti but most only had 2gig, and there were several variants on the 2gig Ti.

 

[Nomad]

-snip

This looks like nice build. If you are willing to spend a bit more, get an FX-8320 instead. As for the graphics card, get a 7950 or 660ti. They perform similarly, just get whichever is cheaper.

Thanks, that's very useful. While I think oh it, are there different types of cards with the same basic model number? I saw one place that was selling a more expensive 3gig version of the 660 Ti but most only had 2gig, and there were several variants on the 2gig Ti.

2GB vs 3GB will not make any difference in your case. Additional memory is only beneficial if it's actually being used. If it's not, then it's just dead weight. With a medium-powered gaming PC, you're not going to be using more than 2GB anyway. If the cost difference is negligible, by all means, get the 3GB version just because. If there's any sort of significant difference, however, I'd go with the 2GB version.

With regards to the various variants of the graphics card, what you're seeing is probably a variety of manufacturers. AMD and Nvidia don't actually manufacture and sell their cards themselves, they just sell the license and blueprints to various manufacturers. These are often given the freedom to tweak the design and specifications of the cards to a certain degree, the most notable being the cooling solution.

Variants with reference design cooling should generally be avoided, because they tend to run hot and loud. The reference design is the closed variant [http://www.techjailbreak.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GTX-660-Ti.jpg] seen on this picture. If you're going to run with only a single card, then you want an open cooling design instead. Barring significant overclocking, all of these are pretty much functionally identical. Get the cheapest one. If the price difference is negligible, I would recommend a gigabyte or MSI card, because their cooling solutions tend to run a little cooler and quieter than the others (and their designs for the 660 ti are no exceptions). The ASUS DC2 cooling variant is also very good, but it takes up more physical space than the others and they tend to be more expensive.

Apart from different cooling solutions, the various manufacturers also tend to tweak the clock speeds a little. You can easily adjust this yourself with free software such as MSI Afterburner, however, so don't spend any extra money because of a slightly higher factory clock. Again, though, if you can get a higher factory clock for a negligible price difference, go for it - because this often also implies slightly higher PCB quality. That's mostly a significant factor when you're planning extensive overclocking, though, and it's still very hit-or-miss.

That said, you should probably get a GTX 760 instead of a GTX 660 ti. They should be pretty identical in terms of pricing, and the 760 is basically the current-generation replacement of the 660 ti. Everything else I said still applies for the 760.

 

[Delta2501]

That's really informative, thanks again. I'll look into the 760 too, I wasn't really sure what the next model up was since I'd heard the Ti was an improvement over the normal 660.

 

[Delta2501]

I spoke to someone else who recommended getting a small SSD drive for the operating system and better memory (faster and/or 16Gig rather than 8). Any thoughts on that suggestion?

 

[AWAR]

I spoke to someone else who recommended getting a small SSD drive for the operating system and better memory (faster and/or 16Gig rather than 8). Any thoughts on that suggestion?

I wouldn't recommend an SSD unless the rest of the hardware is top notch. As you may know SSDs are good for eliminating loading times and moving files quickly but don't increase FPS. As for memory, current games never use more than 1-2 gigs anyway. even those that require a minimum of 6 gigs. Faster memory has fairly negligible effects in performance too, unless you are an experienced user willing to tweak bios values and overclock don't bother.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

One thing on MSI mobos.... and which I just learned myself to my chagrin.

Don't boot them up with any external HDDs plugged in until you've gotten into the BIOS and disabled booting from USB HDDs and monkeyed about with the boot order or they tend to not boot up. No POST, no BIOS, nothing.

On the other hand, *I* should have known better than to do a first boot up with anything but the bare essentials hooked up.

*gives benediction to Google*

I was having a bad day.

 

[Total LOLige]

Looks like a solid rig to me(I'm no expert though) but if you've got some extra clams to spend it might be worth getting a higher wattage PSU. It'll give you some room to maneuver, so to speak, in case you want to add better cooling and stuff in future. Better to have too much juice than too little.

You can get the 600W version of the PSU you currently have on amazon for £14 more(may be cheaper elsewhere): http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00ALYOTTI/ref=nosim

 

[Delta2501]

I think I might go for the Nvidia GTX 760, seems a decent next step up. Would the same CPU and Motherboard be okay or would you want an intel one instead of an AMD? Would that motherboard bottleneck the graphics card too much making a better one a good purchase?

Also, 760 is DX11 so I was thinking Window 8 might work better, or does it not make much difference?

Thanks again.

 

[Nomad]

I spoke to someone else who recommended getting a small SSD drive for the operating system and better memory (faster and/or 16Gig rather than 8). Any thoughts on that suggestion?

If you don't mind the extra cost, get an SSD. It will make an enormous difference for your general user experience. It will basically eliminate all the minor loading times that you are used to with an HDD, and make your system feel a lot more responsive even in your day-to-day desktop use. Here is an example [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izwZWOY4_60] of the difference in responsiveness. It might also not be as relevant for a desktop computer as it is for a laptop, but SSDs are also a lot more resilient to shock and damage than an HDD since they lack moving parts. They also have a lot longer lifetimes, and are a heck of a lot more reliable. If you plan on getting an SSD, get a Samsung 840, as those are at the top in both performance and reliability. The latter is more important when judging SSDs, since the differences in performance is generally measured in milliseconds or microseconds. Any SSD, from any generation, will run circles around any HDD.

Faster RAM will make absolutely no difference whatsoever for you. Faster RAM for a normal user has one purpose and one purpose only, and that's to lessen the limitation on overclocking your processor that it might pose in certain circumstances. But even that is only relevant if you're planning on very extensive overclocking. More RAM will only make a difference if you plan on using more RAM. RAM that is not being allocated is dead weight. You can have 8GB RAM or 64GB RAM, and it will make absolutely no difference if all you're using is 5GB. When it comes to the amount of RAM necessary - if you don't know that you will be needing additional RAM, you probably won't. For gaming purposes, 8GB is more than enough.

I think I might go for the Nvidia GTX 760, seems a decent next step up. Would the same CPU and Motherboard be okay or would you want an intel one instead of an AMD? Would that motherboard bottleneck the graphics card too much making a better one a good purchase?

Also, 760 is DX11 so I was thinking Window 8 might work better, or does it not make much difference?

Thanks again.

Any PCI-E graphics card will fit into any PCI-E motherboard. Today, that means any graphics card will fit into any motherboard. Which motherboard you pick matters very little unless you're planning on running with multiple graphics cards (SLI/CF) and/or planning extensive overclocking. Just make sure it has the correct CPU socket, and that you have enough USB ports and whatnot for your purposes.

DirectX 11 can be run on Windows 7. Windows 8 is newer, and therefore arguably a better choice if costs are equal, since it will stay in support for a longer time. It has some annoying design choices, mainly with the metro interface, that can take some getting used to, however.

 

[Delta2501]

Hello again,

Thank you all for the responses. This is what I'm now proposing to go ahead with:

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/208OW

Changes are the GTX 760 Graphics Card and the 120GB Samsung SSD for the operating system. I've also added in the cost of Windows 8 (standard), taking it to just over £700 GB (though I'll look for cheaper prices as well when I get to buying parts).

Can you see any major problems or does it look about right? I'm a little reluctant to spend this much so I don't think I'd want to add any more unless it would make a dramatic improvement, or unless savings can be made elsewhere.

Thanks again.

 

[AWAR]

Looks fine to me.

 

[Nomad]

Hello again,

Thank you all for the responses. This is what I'm now proposing to go ahead with:

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/208OW

Changes are the GTX 760 Graphics Card and the 120GB Samsung SSD for the operating system. I've also added in the cost of Windows 8 (standard), taking it to just over £700 GB (though I'll look for cheaper prices as well when I get to buying parts).

Can you see any major problems or does it look about right? I'm a little reluctant to spend this much so I don't think I'd want to add any more unless it would make a dramatic improvement, or unless savings can be made elsewhere.

Thanks again.

Yep, looks good.
The motherboard you picked has a reputation of being a little hit-and-miss (some of them seem to just decide to keel over and die after a few months, and some people have also had issues getting them to work properly in the first place as well), but that's nothing unusual with the cheaper motherboards.
Most people's bad experiences might also be tied to them using an FX-83**-processor with it, which is fine according to the specifications but not recommended by MSI (as the 83-series exceed their listed TDP in some conditions, which this board cannot handle). As you're getting a 6300, you're clear on that count, at least.

Note also, by the way, that (as Total LOLige said) you don't have a lot of headroom with regards to your PSU. The FX series is rather thirsty, so your setup should draw somewhere around 350-400W of power under full load. This is no issue with your build, as the same condition applies to power that applies to memory - leftovers don't do you any good. However, it does mean you probably shouldn't plan on being able to easily upgrade your setup to any significant degree. (getting a better processor means having to get a better motherboard, since the next step up would be the FX-83**-series, while getting 760 SLI or a thirstier graphics card will strain your PSU - especially after it's been running for a few years).

Basically, any significant upgrade is likely to cause a domino-effect where you just need to keep replacing stuff. That said, this is also a net positive for your current setup - it's pretty well balanced, you haven't overspent on any component that's just going to sit and twiddle its thumbs to no use.