Right. Building a PC thread.

[Treblaine]

Well, I have my Xbox 360 for pretty much all of my AAA games.

Realise that PC games almost as standard cost about $10-15 less than on console without having to resort to pre-owned and getting strung by online-codes (and kinda leaving the game makers in the lurch).

For example Deus Ex HR is only $29/£20 on steam as standard.
LA Noire is only $20 on steam as standard.
Arkham City is only $29 (includes all the extra content normally lost trying to buy cheap pre-owned).
Hitman Absolution is $45 to pre-order.
FEAR 3 is right now only $8.

I'd suggest going with AMD bulldozer (4 core will do easily) for your CPU. Only bother with Intel CPU for any advantage if you want to spend TWICE as much for (generously) only 10% extra performance. It's an elite chipset. AMD is a workhorse.

HD 6850 is a good GPU for PC and AMAZING compared to console gaming capability (even Wii U).

I'd suggest a large HDD, large than you'd need as once the HDD starts filling larger than 60% it starts to get exponentially slower till it is full then you get the page file (virtual memory, i.e. medium term memory) gets too small and EVERYTHING slows down. 500GB definitely. 1TB if you really need it though consider having a separate media drive so C drive main drive for all your games then a larger slower media drive.

You don't need a blu-ray drive. Get a DVD drive and don't spend more than $20.

Oh, Windows 7 64-bit. Don't bother with Vista and don't worry about Win-8.

 

[Zakarath]

Well, I built this rig last year on a budget of around $800 dollars:
AMD Phenom X4 3.2 Ghz Quad-core processor (~$130) (Black Edition, OC'ed it up to 4.0 GHz, haven't pushed it farther since only default cooler)
Radeon 6850 Video Card (~$165)
Seagate 1TB HD (~$60)
8GB RAM ~$60
some Gigabyte motherboard ~$120
550W Power Supply ~$50
64bit Win7 $100
Case ~$50
DVD drive $20
Keyboard ~$20

Didn't need a monitor.

Still runs just about everything at around max settings at 1920x1080 res; Honestly I'd say spending much more than I did on a gaming rig may be a little overkill unless you really don't care about the money.

Also, Logitech MX518 mouse is best mouse.

 

[Whateveralot]

$1500? I don't know all that much about PCs but you could build a damn good PC for far less than that.

Indeed. I'm getting a top of the line PC for a similar amount. You could get away with spending 600-700, maybe a 1000 if you're getting a retail windows 7 and office. Plus:

Get a SSD drive. 80GB should be plenty. Install Windows on this drive. Your PC will boot within 10 seconds (if you've bought a fast SSD; I recommend a OCZ Vertex 3 or Kingston HyperX).

As for processors: Start here. Choose a motherboard after that. Graphics card after that. The rest doesn't really matter. Oh and make sure your power supply matches or exceeds your graphics cards' requirements.

I suggest combining an Intell I-series processor (i5 should be sufficient) with a nVidia graphics card. It's slightly more expensive than AMD + Ati, but it's overall received as more stable products (however a lot of people would disagree on this. It's kind of a console war thing, for PC builders).

Oh and, if you want silence, throw away the stock cpu cooler straight away and buy yourself another, more silent fan. Good luck!

 

[Treblaine]

Well, I have my Xbox 360 for pretty much all of my AAA games.

Realise that PC games almost as standard cost about $10-15 less than on console without having to resort to pre-owned and getting strung by online-codes (and kinda leaving the game makers in the lurch).

For example Deus Ex HR is only $29/£20 on steam as standard.
LA Noire is only $20 on steam as standard.
Arkham City is only $29 (includes all the extra content normally lost trying to buy cheap pre-owned).
Hitman Absolution is $45 to pre-order.
FEAR 3 is right now only $8.

I'd suggest going with AMD bulldozer (4 core will do easily) for your CPU. Only bother with Intel CPU for any advantage if you want to spend TWICE as much for (generously) only 10% extra performance. It's an elite chipset. AMD is a workhorse.

HD 6850 is a good GPU for PC and AMAZING compared to console gaming capability (even Wii U).

I'd suggest a large HDD, large than you'd need as once the HDD starts filling larger than 60% it starts to get exponentially slower till it is full then you get the page file (virtual memory, i.e. medium term memory) gets too small and EVERYTHING slows down. 500GB definitely. 1TB if you really need it though consider having a separate media drive so C drive main drive for all your games then a larger slower media drive.

You don't need a blu-ray drive. Get a DVD drive and don't spend more than $20.

Oh, Windows 7 64-bit. Don't bother with Vista and don't worry about Win-8.

I disagree, intel provides major gains in games and using less power to boot. And the 2500K is only about $20 more (EDIT $10, after wolfram's post with the price match) and will last longer due to being more powerful and overclocking better. On air both reach around 4.5 Ghz easily yet intel boasts more performance per clock.

Look below, the gains in games are a shitload more than 10%, hell in Dawn of War II it is over a 60% gain.

Spoiler

I mean, the phenom beats the bulldozer cores in some games. I wouldn't use AMD unless you go phenom or wait for piledriver and steamroller which are still in the distance.

The OP has plenty of cash hence why an i5-2500K with a 670 is in the current build.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

You only looked at the lower resolution.

At higher resolution (like 1920x1200) that you really WOULD play these games at they i5/i7 equalise with the Bulldozer like with Metro 2033.

Yeah, where I look i5 2500k is looking to be much more expensive.

One reason I am liking AMD is their sockets are well supported, intel introduce new sockets with no backwards compatibility too often, meaning a whole new system build rather than a simple CPU upgrade.

OP may have plenty of cash but he shouldn't feel he has to spend it all. I certainly don't wan anyone reading this who does NOT have $1500 in the bank to think that is the only way to build a gaming PC. Also with AMD upgrades will mean replacing the whole motherboard less often. I don't think overclocking is to be considered that seriously with someone who is new to PC gaming, and how if you are going to OC you want to go into advanced cooling.

No need to overcomplicate this nor overspend.

 

[Wolfram23]

Bulldozer earned the name Faildozer for a reason. The problem might be Windows needing an update to treat the core modules like it does with hyper threading, but it doesn't matter because it's not doing that. So instead of allocating new threads to new core modules, it just assignes them in sequence and every 2nd thread bottlenecks the prior one as they share resources. It's not a stupid design, it's a stupid implementation.

Given that an FX 8150 and an i5 2500k are the same price, there is zero reason to get the FX. On top of that, the 2500k is clocked at 3.1ghz and easily hits 4.5ghz, while the 8150 is at 3.6ghz and pretty much tops out around the same 4.5ghz area. Given that clock for clock the 2500k is faster, plus you're boosting it by more, it leaves the 8150 in the dust.

The only advantage to the 8150 is extreme multitasking like video encoding - except, oh, right, Quick Sync. Nevermind, Intel beats even high end video cards when it comes to encoding.

I do like AMD's socket compatibility. I think that's great. I think the Phenom II CPUs were awesome and especially being able to unlock X2 and X3 cores with a little luck, it was great. But Intel took a couple steps up with their first and second gen i cores, while the AMD FX cores were a side-grade at best.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

You only looked at the lower resolution.

At higher resolution (like 1920x1200) that you really WOULD play these games at they i5/i7 equalise with the Bulldozer like with Metro 2033.

Yeah, where I look i5 2500k is looking to be much more expensive.

One reason I am liking AMD is their sockets are well supported, intel introduce new sockets with no backwards compatibility too often, meaning a whole new system build rather than a simple CPU upgrade.

OP may have plenty of cash but he shouldn't feel he has to spend it all. I certainly don't wan anyone reading this who does NOT have $1500 in the bank to think that is the only way to build a gaming PC. Also with AMD upgrades will mean replacing the whole motherboard less often. I don't think overclocking is to be considered that seriously with someone who is new to PC gaming, and how if you are going to OC you want to go into advanced cooling.

No need to overcomplicate this nor overspend.

I don't really care where you look, Wolfram found the 2500K for $209 and the FX-8150 is $199 on newegg, it's not a big increase, Bulldozer probably would cost more anyway due to energy bills (especially if you OC'd it which makes the FX chips power consumption increase hugely). It makes sense for the OP to spend $10 more and get a much better chip. It doesn't matter about sockets if the OP won't be needing a new CPU for at least 4-5 years, probably more knowing his needs.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10

At 4.8Ghz the bloody system was using 586W while the 2500K at 5Ghz was using 311W. Even if you don't OC the FX chip still uses 82W more.

To overclock the i5 you increase the multiplier and maybe increase the Vcore but probably not. Anyone could do it. It's not like the old i5's where you would mess with the bclk which would overclock your RAM amongst other things.


At high-res the games become GPU dependent hence why the chips become closer together. The thing is, it shows that when the CPU matters more intel blows away AMD and for the long term intel will be a better match.

http://www.bestdirect.ca/products/232639/Intel/BX80623I52500K/

I clicked through and it's now $242

"Bulldozer probably would cost more anyway due to energy bills"

the source you cite suggest bulldozer has lower price consumption. and any difference there is is a couple hundred watts when it is only 10 cent per kilowatt hour at the most.

I don't think the OP nor manyu PC gamers are that interested in overclocking, considering they'd have to keep an eye out for stability and overheating that they probably don't want to have to deal with.

 

[Alpha Maeko]

My computer easily costs $1500 total... not sure, though. It's been along time since I've really added any of it up. Too many upgrades that weren't accounted for.

However, Intel has been making good strides towards affordability with things like the second generation i5 processor. I just happen to be an AMD fanboy who's got the Phenom X6 1100.

I would recommend a build to you that costs about $1000 based on the AMD AM3+ platform (I just created a wishlist on Newegg, but then realized you're from LRR land), but I changed my mind after seeing Matthew94's i5 build.

It's a good recommendation, though I would've gone with the 7750 for the video card, seeing as it's the highest performance video card available that doesn't require any external power cables (like the 4-Pin and 6-Pin cables that come with your power supply. If your card needs one or more of those, it's more likely to be a power guzzler and will raise the bar for your minimum wattage on your PSU.)

 

[Zipa]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

You only looked at the lower resolution.

At higher resolution (like 1920x1200) that you really WOULD play these games at they i5/i7 equalise with the Bulldozer like with Metro 2033.

Yeah, where I look i5 2500k is looking to be much more expensive.

One reason I am liking AMD is their sockets are well supported, intel introduce new sockets with no backwards compatibility too often, meaning a whole new system build rather than a simple CPU upgrade.

OP may have plenty of cash but he shouldn't feel he has to spend it all. I certainly don't wan anyone reading this who does NOT have $1500 in the bank to think that is the only way to build a gaming PC. Also with AMD upgrades will mean replacing the whole motherboard less often. I don't think overclocking is to be considered that seriously with someone who is new to PC gaming, and how if you are going to OC you want to go into advanced cooling.

No need to overcomplicate this nor overspend.

I don't really care where you look, Wolfram found the 2500K for $209 and the FX-8150 is $199 on newegg, it's not a big increase, Bulldozer probably would cost more anyway due to energy bills (especially if you OC'd it which makes the FX chips power consumption increase hugely). It makes sense for the OP to spend $10 more and get a much better chip. It doesn't matter about sockets if the OP won't be needing a new CPU for at least 4-5 years, probably more knowing his needs.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10

At 4.8Ghz the bloody system was using 586W while the 2500K at 5Ghz was using 311W. Even if you don't OC the FX chip still uses 82W more.

To overclock the i5 you increase the multiplier and maybe increase the Vcore but probably not. Anyone could do it. It's not like the old i5's where you would mess with the bclk which would overclock your RAM amongst other things.


At high-res the games become GPU dependent hence why the chips become closer together. The thing is, it shows that when the CPU matters more intel blows away AMD and for the long term intel will be a better match.

http://www.bestdirect.ca/products/232639/Intel/BX80623I52500K/

I clicked through and it's now $242

"Bulldozer probably would cost more anyway due to energy bills"

the source you cite suggest bulldozer has lower price consumption. and any difference there is is a couple hundred watts when it is only 10 cent per kilowatt hour at the most.

I don't think the OP nor manyu PC gamers are that interested in overclocking, considering they'd have to keep an eye out for stability and overheating that they probably don't want to have to deal with.

Tbh the OP could just stick to the Phenom IIs, they run cool fast and stable and they do them in six core variants if you want fast multitasking. Only downside with them is the stock coolers suck ass, make sure you get something better (personally id recommend the corsair H80, they are very efficient and quiet )

Plus Phenom II boards and CPUs are generally cheaper overall.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.bestdirect.ca/products/232639/Intel/BX80623I52500K/

I clicked through and it's now $242

"Bulldozer probably would cost more anyway due to energy bills"

the source you cite suggest bulldozer has lower price consumption. and any difference there is is a couple hundred watts when it is only 10 cent per kilowatt hour at the most.

I don't think the OP nor manyu PC gamers are that interested in overclocking, considering they'd have to keep an eye out for stability and overheating that they probably don't want to have to deal with.

My original post was based on it being $20 more through newegg and I still said it was good value.

Lower price consumption? What?

If you meant power then it uses about 4W less at idle, at load it uses 80W more and like I said, over 200W more if you overclock. I don't care if "the average person isn't interested", it's not hard to do and will add years to the chip and in that respect the i5 overclocks much more (as Wolfram says, the i5 has a much lower base frequency) and I showed how they both top out at around the same level.

You cannot dismiss a valid point because "the op may not do it". It probably take more work to set up windows than it does to OC the 2500K.

There is no benefit to using bulldozer except if you need 8 cores (which the OP and most do not) or if you will be upgrading your CPU often (which the OP won't need to with the i5). There is a reason professional reviewers slated Bulldozer across the board and why AMD had to do a price cut on it. It isn't worth it for the vast majority of desktop users.

Come on matthew, you know I mean low power consumption. I just want to see your maths, how many hundreds of thousands of hours of high intensity gaming would they have to spend (remember to deduct the lower cost of idle power) before the power cost overtook the $50 price difference? And wouldn't it be easier having a slightly higher electricity bill than forking over an extra $50 right now. And there is still the issue of how AMD support their sockets for longer so you'll be able to upgrade your CPU without having to upgrade your motherboard.

I'm not completely dismissing overclocking, I'm saying it's inappropriate and likely unappealing for a novice P builder to try over-clocking.

8-cores do have a use as you can be very careless running multiple different applications together without slowdown. i7 is more for one very high intensity application like HD movie editing.

"There is a reason professional reviewers slated Bulldozer"

Yes, because it wasn't good at single focus professional applications which is not what the bulldozer cores targeted at but for much more general high performance needs.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

You only looked at the lower resolution.

At higher resolution (like 1920x1200) that you really WOULD play these games at they i5/i7 equalise with the Bulldozer like with Metro 2033.

Yeah, where I look i5 2500k is looking to be much more expensive.

One reason I am liking AMD is their sockets are well supported, intel introduce new sockets with no backwards compatibility too often, meaning a whole new system build rather than a simple CPU upgrade.

OP may have plenty of cash but he shouldn't feel he has to spend it all. I certainly don't wan anyone reading this who does NOT have $1500 in the bank to think that is the only way to build a gaming PC. Also with AMD upgrades will mean replacing the whole motherboard less often. I don't think overclocking is to be considered that seriously with someone who is new to PC gaming, and how if you are going to OC you want to go into advanced cooling.

No need to overcomplicate this nor overspend.

I don't really care where you look, Wolfram found the 2500K for $209 and the FX-8150 is $199 on newegg, it's not a big increase, Bulldozer probably would cost more anyway due to energy bills (especially if you OC'd it which makes the FX chips power consumption increase hugely). It makes sense for the OP to spend $10 more and get a much better chip. It doesn't matter about sockets if the OP won't be needing a new CPU for at least 4-5 years, probably more knowing his needs.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10

At 4.8Ghz the bloody system was using 586W while the 2500K at 5Ghz was using 311W. Even if you don't OC the FX chip still uses 82W more.

To overclock the i5 you increase the multiplier and maybe increase the Vcore but probably not. Anyone could do it. It's not like the old i5's where you would mess with the bclk which would overclock your RAM amongst other things.


At high-res the games become GPU dependent hence why the chips become closer together. The thing is, it shows that when the CPU matters more intel blows away AMD and for the long term intel will be a better match.

http://www.bestdirect.ca/products/232639/Intel/BX80623I52500K/

I clicked through and it's now $242

"Bulldozer probably would cost more anyway due to energy bills"

the source you cite suggest bulldozer has lower price consumption. and any difference there is is a couple hundred watts when it is only 10 cent per kilowatt hour at the most.

I don't think the OP nor manyu PC gamers are that interested in overclocking, considering they'd have to keep an eye out for stability and overheating that they probably don't want to have to deal with.

Tbh the OP could just stick to the Phenom IIs, they run cool fast and stable and they do them in six core variants if you want fast multitasking. Only downside with them is the stock coolers suck ass, make sure you get something better (personally id recommend the corsair H80, they are very efficient and quiet )

Plus Phenom II boards and CPUs are generally cheaper overall.

Yeah, just got for the more recent CPU socket (AM3+) and you'll be good for future upgrades, they run so cool you don't need amazing cooling. AMD stock cooling is definitely easier than the old LGA775 cooling to install.

Phenom II if you can find a good price but bulldozer isn't that bad.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah, just got for the more recent CPU socket (AM3+) and you'll be good for future upgrades, they run so cool you don't need amazing cooling. AMD stock cooling is definitely easier than the old LGA775 cooling to install.

Phenom II if you can find a good price but bulldozer isn't that bad.

The AMD stock cooler is the worst cooler I have ever installed. It uses a freaking seasaw which makes you have both parts down at the one time and took me a solid 40 minutes to install, it may just have been a shit cooler though. The other one only took me about 10 minutes.

For comparison it took me 1 minute to install the cooler on the new i5.

Two can use that gif. You ever installed an LGA 775 cooler?!???

[gif is only for humour, don't go mad]

PS: on the power thing you didn't factor the long term idling at 4W less power consumption or how it's easier to pay pennies over several years than an extra $50 right now (which IS the cost difference I can find).