|
Ill update this in a day or two, busy. But as for operating systems, I think its pretty clear what the answer is for that for the budget builder. On the other hand, all operating systems are great today, so linux is fine. If you want to pay for an os, w7 and snow leopard are great too. I don't really think it matters what os you use, as when you play starcraft it won't matter. It really doesn't matter in general, things like rainmeter and themes can make an os feel like another.
Ill add more pics, address OS, ad a bit more cleaning, for one noting that my board has the same electrolytic capacitors in the pic of the blown capacitors so its completely possible your motherboard has them too (they are very common) and that good quality mobos arrent necessarily more expensive (usually bthe issue is that so called top end boards are designed poorly).
And yea I address mice and monitors. Most people already have them and its beyond this thread. The idea that this thread completely helps someone and then they are left totally lost because they have no idea how to get a keyboard is ludicrous. You need to do a lot of research to buy a pc, and this guide is meant to filll gaps other guides fail in (practicality). I assume my readers have seen a pc building guide and are dissapointed how they all say the same useless blather. This guide is meant to help people on how to select parts, and rebates and other countries and rich people would be helped by this guide too as its about learning how to judge what you need go look for and what's worth extra money and what's not.
|
I really appreciate your contribution! It's really hard to ask people about the most "cost effective" parts since the most common response is something like, "Personally, I'd spend a bit more on this because for a few more cash, you'll get a much better deal." It may be true, but it's a deal worth not taking when all I want is to play starcraft 2 and nothing more! It seems that it's degrading to talk about "older" generation parts whenever I check tomshardware, anandtech, and even on tl.
Anyway, would you mind posting a tl;dr version of your specs? Thanks
|
I understand you've learned alot since you began, but this guide is a bit presumptuous considering your level of experience. It's a great effort, I'm not criticizing that, but you need to understand how odd it is seeing you ask for help just a month ago, and then the next you are writing a guide.
Personally, the hyperbole against purchasing Intel processors is misplaced. If you work for a living, then spending another $60-$80 is maybe another 3 hours at work. Seriously - not a big deal. TBH, this guide may apply to someone working on a high school internship, or first year college (maybe), but once you have a real job, is cutting corners as severely as you did going to be appropriate for everyone? IMO, no. I would try to revise the anti-rich rhetoric out of your guide, or at least tone it down.
I mean at one point you were considering a recertified HD. Seriously, you would put your data/OS, all at risk, to save a little money?
|
A+ for effort, but this thread is extremely misleading. A $350 will not play SC2 at max settings... and will struggle even at medium in most cases.
From the benchmarks you linked (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,2728-8.html) you can see that the CPUs tested are barely passable at Medium settings and 1024 resolution.
Bump that up to Ultra and 1080p and you're looking at an average framerate under 20, with a minimum under 10. I'm not sure how you're used to gaming, but playing under 30 FPS is just a bad experience.
To put things into perspective I have a 4.5GHz Phenom II X6 and a Radeon 5890 and my framerate doesn't have any room for error in larger 2v2 or 3v3 battles. Sure, the max framerate is over 200... but what matters are the low and average (moreso the low in SC2, since that's what you'll have during fights).
If you're using a small 17 inch monitor and only play matches that end well before 200/200 battles... then sure, a budget computer would be fine. Otherwise, it just doesn't work. Not to mention you'll be replacing it a year down the road when Diablo III or Guild Wars 2 or <insert game you're waiting for> comes out and you realize you can only play it on low.
|
I really appreciate this man, this is a great guide and all your hardwork is definitely going to have a great effect on my life! You rock man! <3
|
On March 18 2011 10:35 mav451 wrote:
Personally, the hyperbole against purchasing Intel processors is misplaced. If you work for a living, then spending another $60-$80 is maybe another 3 hours at work. Seriously - not a big deal. TBH, this guide may apply to someone working on a high school internship, or first year college (maybe), but once you have a real job, is cutting corners as severely as you did going to be appropriate for everyone? IMO, no. I would try to revise the anti-rich rhetoric out of your guide, or at least tone it down.
i5-2500k setups are about $360-$370 and i7-2600k are about $100 more than that. AMD CPUs and motherboards are often less than $100 each
Intel has the most powerful CPUs and i5s are definitely worth the price but they don't belong in the same sentence as "budget"
|
On March 18 2011 11:26 Serejai wrote:
A+ for effort, but this thread is extremely misleading. A $350 will not play SC2 at max settings... and will struggle even at medium in most cases.
From the benchmarks you linked (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon-geforce,2728-8.html) you can see that the CPUs tested are barely passable at Medium settings and 1024 resolution.
It's true that Starcraft 2 can be really CPU intensive, but for 1v1 and single player it should run fine. That benchmark brought even an i7 to it's knees, it doesn't really represent performance in normal games
Bump that up to Ultra and 1080p and you're looking at an average framerate under 20, with a minimum under 10. I'm not sure how you're used to gaming, but playing under 30 FPS is just a bad experience.
To put things into perspective I have a 4.5GHz Phenom II X6 and a Radeon 5890 and my framerate doesn't have any room for error in larger 2v2 or 3v3 battles. Sure, the max framerate is over 200... but what matters are the low and average (moreso the low in SC2, since that's what you'll have during fights)
If you're using a small 17 inch monitor and only play matches that end well before 200/200 battles... then sure, a budget computer would be fine. Otherwise, it just doesn't work. Not to mention you'll be replacing it a year down the road when Diablo III or Guild Wars 2 or <insert game you're waiting for> comes out and you realize you can only play it on low.
I doubt increasing the graphics settings or would add much load to the CPU. Like the OP mentioned,
the GTX 460 768mb is more than enough for SC2, even at 1920x1200
|
You are referencing MC's famous $99 CPU with free mobo deal. While it's a not a bad budget start, you need to recognize the kind of mobos you are getting with $99. If you want something even remotely comparable to the Intel offerings, those are farther down and start at $139 and go up to $199. Those are with the PhIIX2's or the fake PhII X4 840. I say fake, b/c it is basically a renamed Propus, as it has no L3-cache. If you want to do substantial CPU-NB OCing though, you will want a Thuban, and those mobo combos start at $209 and go up to $269.
If you really believe you can OC a X6 on those cheap mATX boards, be my guest, but if you want performance even remotely competitive with Intel, you need to spend good money. And that's just to compete with the 2009 Lynnfields, not the 2011 Sandybridge.
|
Mav41, first off I want to thank you for reading the guide!
But first off, all the information I post is correct, and can you say yourself that you knew everything I said and learned nothing? Secondly, sure you can buy an i7. But this guide is about how to make a smart buying decision. Unless it is for professional use, buying an i7 is not a smart decision. Does that mean people who buy it are dumb? Not at all, some people buy lambos when they only need a civic. But the key element is that guide will tell the minimum for buying a pc to not jst to play sc2, but any game. So if you buy any higher, you can take solace you'll be fine. You want a phenom and wonder how it'll play sc2 - it'll play sc2 perfectly.
As for a recertified HDD it will be dead on arrival or not, it won't just die on you. You can RMA it.
I really think your criticisms are judgemental and ill placed.
Serejai, you can read the thread I posted. I assume you are just callkng me a liar because I built a 350 pc and I play on everything maxed, and I also know my system is actually too strong (my gpu is bottlenecked and my cppu has a very high minimum fps)
Mav41 I don't know what MC build is. I am not talking about the best system in the world, I am talking about what works. I also even say phenoms have better nb oc benefits, and even mention some phenoms are fake phenoms. Why couldn't you PM these nasty things you are saying? I find it irritating that you are implying buying such a system is bad and won't perform sc2 or any game out today, or that people need to spend money. I gave the information people need to build a good system, as mabny times 'high end' isn't so, and many times its not costly to build a quality part. Just as we know Dells are horrible because it is a bunch of components with the word Dell slapped on, I also know that many PC parts are the same thing (antec earthwatts are actually rebranded, motherboards are PCB capacitors and transistors put together, etc).
|
I just built a custom PC and I took the time not just to learn about every part, but about every competitve part on the market today. If I knew that the guide you wrote was so much better and informa... oh wait.
Why couldn't you just PM me? I feel some of these comments are quite judgemental. I would appreciate if you concentrated on the content and technical details instead of berating me because of my background or that I don't spend money indiscriminately and irrationally. All of todays processord are good quality, even celeron. Saving money on a processor will just lower fps, not be something as drastic as saying cutting corners would imply. An Athlon x3 will play all ultra settings with no problem save for maybe, MAYBE the most ridiculius custom maps. Going for more power will only be unnecessary and yield no noticeable performance increase in general, and if you choose to do so you will take solace from this guide knowing your good. An athlin x2 will be okay, an x3 will be no problem ever.
|
I have a 1 gig 4850 and it is not nearly powerful enough to play on high at 1920 x 1080 with a playable framerate, ultra is out of the question. keep in mind that a "playable" framerate to me is above 30fps no matter what is happening on the screen, though i would prefer 60 to keep up with the refresh rate. It runs great on medium though and personally i don't notice the lower graphics since i'm too focused on everything else that is going on.
|
On March 18 2011 18:01 Belial88 wrote:
Mav41, first off I want to thank you for reading the guide!
But first off, all the information I post is correct, and can you say yourself that you knew everything I said and learned nothing? Secondly, sure you can buy an i7. But this guide is about how to make a smart buying decision. Unless it is for professional use, buying an i7 is not a smart decision. Does that mean people who buy it are dumb? Not at all, some people buy lambos when they only need a civic. But the key element is that guide will tell the minimum for buying a pc to not jst to play sc2, but any game. So if you buy any higher, you can take solace you'll be fine. You want a phenom and wonder how it'll play sc2 - it'll play sc2 perfectly.
I never said to buy an i7, maybe others did? I use an i5 myself, so why would I recommend an i7 for others? I've been talking about PC hardware for almost 9 years now, so it does make me roll my eyes when I see a car analogy for the 100,000th time.
As for a recertified HDD it will be dead on arrival or not, it won't just die on you. You can RMA it.
I really think your criticisms are judgemental and ill placed.
I am giving tough love b/c I see a little of myself in these posts. I actually wrote a guide in my sophmore year of college. I thought I knew everything after building my first PC. In 2003, that was a Tbred-B 2100+ on a nForce2 mobo. I thought I knew everything about overclocking, but I never actually published the guide. I did write it for my Technical Writing class, and after showing it to my friend, later found out he plagiarized the whole thing from me...but that's a story for another time...
Mav41 I don't know what MC build is. I am not talking about the best system in the world, I am talking about what works. I also even say phenoms have better nb oc benefits, and even mention some phenoms are fake phenoms. Why couldn't you PM these nasty things you are saying? I find it irritating that you are implying buying such a system is bad and won't perform sc2 or any game out today, or that people need to spend money. I gave the information people need to build a good system, as mabny times 'high end' isn't so, and many times its not costly to build a quality part. Just as we know Dells are horrible because it is a bunch of components with the word Dell slapped on, I also know that many PC parts are the same thing (antec earthwatts are actually rebranded, motherboards are PCB capacitors and transistors put together, etc).
The $99 MC build I talk about is in response to Aduromors post, where he was discussing prices of comparable builds.
I find it rather ironic that you are implying that my post was nasty, when your guide is the one that contains inciteful rhetoric. All I am suggesting is that you to tone it down. Do you really think i5/i7 owners are gonna read your guide and not be at least a little offended?
This is what you posted, so you know what I'm referring to:
At the moment, all of the Intel Sandy Bridge processors are complete overkill, as well as overpriced, so there is no reason to get them unless you plan to build a PC and then live in a cave, jobless, for more than 5 years, but at the same time buying the newest games.
The good news is that building a budget PC will yield amazing results these days, being able to play Crysis 2 at max settings, and that spending three times as much won't even get you twice the performance boost. For this reason, we will not talk about Intel or what the best of the best is, as quite simply, it is stupid to buy an i7 today.
|
Belial, you say there's no point at all to owning an i7, in a guide on the TL forums? Look at the top-right of any TL site page, and what do you see? Live User Streams.
You claim a $400 computer can play any game on max settings? 5 bucks says you haven't heard of Metro 2033.
Now the premise behind your guide is admirable, but you seem to be a bit too personally invested in the subject. I felt like my PC had kicked your dog or something while reading it. Also, I can't really agree with a few of the places you look at saving money.
DVD drive? Not truly essential anymore, but if you can't afford much PC, you probably can't afford the bandwidth to get all content digital, either.
OS? Come on, emulation from Linux is finicky, unsupported, and for a lot of higher end games, requires expensive licenses to get up-to-date compatibility.
Display? Unless you suggest getting a CRT at a yard sale for 5 bucks, you REALLY should include it in your total budget needed, even a low end LCD is going to add a reasonable percentage of that small of a budget.
Edit for typo.
|
5930 Posts
Remember, buying a PC is about buying what you need, not what is the best 'value'.
If value is FPS per $$$, AMD wins hands down. Unfortunately, that doesn't take into account the importance of maintaining a high, steady FPS. And unfortunately for us, most current AMD options only sit within the merely adequate category. They're not bad but they're a lot more limited than the Intel options in capability.
Sandy Bridge isn't overpriced for what you get, CPU processing power is exceptionally important especially in many tasks, its why people buy them in the first place. A computer doesn't just play games, it does "work" too!
Few facts you might have not considered:
1) Current AMD processors are not good (more like fucking terrible) for CPU intensive games like Arma II, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Civilization 5, Mount and Blade, and basically every single 3X game out there.
2) Many programs show favoritism to current Intel processors. Adobe CS has, from recent memory, always been optimised for Intel and will simply run better no matter the situation. Console emulators, like Dolphin, support instruction sets that AMD processors do not use and thus require heavy overclocks to achieve what Intel can do on stock.
3) People want a computer that you build and forget. Your proposal doesn't do that.
This is why it is extremely important people specify what they want to use their computer for when they request a build. A i7 980x is a terrible processor for everyone but for a vehicle simulator fanatic, its possibly the best value processor on the market right now since it lets him do what he wants well; similarly mum and dad who just want to web browse should just get a cheap AMD build or a prebuilt from Dell.
The old Athlon II X4 build is a nice budget build and one I've generally suggested to people who web browse and do some light gaming (is this the purpose of your budget computer?) but make no mistake, the minute you want it to run CPU intensive tasks you better hope you are a tolerant person because you're going to see the limitations of it very quickly (hint: try running late game Civilization 5 on it, it is not remotely playable; I know because it isn't on my i5 750).
|
On March 18 2011 18:01 Belial88 wrote:
Serejai, you can read the thread I posted. I assume you are just callkng me a liar because I built a 350 pc and I play on everything maxed, and I also know my system is actually too strong (my gpu is bottlenecked and my cppu has a very high minimum fps)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859-8.html
The CPU you suggested has substantially less power than the X4 645 (and your GPU falls quite short of the 480 used in those tests, too) and the 645 doesn't even give playable framerates on Ultra.
I'm not calling you a liar, as your computer will certainly run the game on Ultra. However, it will not run it at acceptable framerates above Medium, and will need to be upgraded a year from now to handle new games. It's not a solid investment when you can spend $150 more and get something with twice the performance and three times the lifespan.
I mean, a month ago you were asking for help building your first computer. I've been working in IT for ten years and probably have more custom built computers in this room alone than you've ever used. I simply feel, despite how much research you've done, a month of experience isn't enough to qualify you for giving advice to people - especially when said advice is rather misleading and would cause issues down the road with new games.
Also, the parts you mentioned in your op come out to around $450 on Newegg - not $350, or even remotely close to $250. That's even with cutting corners, like a $30 motherboard (which is strongly not recommended).
As I said, $500 is about the minimum for a respectable gaming computer, and you're still not going to max out any new games with it. Telling people $350 when the computer you mentioned in the op is $450 and still can't max it out is a bit misleading in my opinion.
Again, I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, and I'm glad you put in the effort to make this thread and try to help people who are looking to build something. I just feel that a lot of your recommendations are incorrect based on personal experience.
|
On March 19 2011 00:41 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +Remember, buying a PC is about buying what you need, not what is the best 'value'. If value is FPS per $$$, AMD wins hands down. Unfortunately, that doesn't take into account the importance of maintaining a high, steady FPS. And unfortunately for us, most current AMD options only sit within the merely adequate category. They're not bad but they're a lot more limited than the Intel options in capability. Sandy Bridge isn't overpriced for what you get, CPU processing power is exceptionally important especially in many tasks, its why people buy them in the first place. A computer doesn't just play games, it does "work" too! Few facts you might have not considered: 1) Current AMD processors are not good (more like fucking terrible) for CPU intensive games like Arma II, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Civilization 5, Mount and Blade, and basically every single 3X game out there. 2) Many programs show favoritism to current Intel processors. Adobe CS has, from recent memory, always been optimised for Intel and will simply run better no matter the situation. Console emulators, like Dolphin, support instruction sets that AMD processors do not use and thus require heavy overclocks to achieve what Intel can do on stock. 3) People want a computer that you build and forget. Your proposal doesn't do that. This is why it is extremely important people specify what they want to use their computer for when they request a build. A i7 980x is a terrible processor for everyone but for a vehicle simulator fanatic, its possibly the best value processor on the market right now since it lets him do what he wants well; similarly mum and dad who just want to web browse should just get a cheap AMD build or a prebuilt from Dell. The old Athlon II X4 build is a nice budget build and one I've generally suggested to people who web browse and do some light gaming ( is this the purpose of your budget computer?) but make no mistake, the minute you want it to run CPU intensive tasks you better hope you are a tolerant person because you're going to see the limitations of it very quickly (hint: try running late game Civilization 5 on it, it is not remotely playable; I know because it isn't on my i5 750).
Civilization 5 runs like crap on everything, I checked my CPU usage on it once and it was only using one core....
|
Here's a good tl;dr for the OP. Go here and select your price range. Find a combo that fits your system requirements. Find an OS, keyboard, mouse, and display from their respective sections, and add them to the cart as well.
|
On March 19 2011 01:10 Coriolis wrote:
Civilization 5 runs like crap on everything, I checked my CPU usage on it once and it was only using one core....
The techspot review shows that the game continues to scale on an overclocked Nehalem. Note they emphasized that both i5 and i7's showed similar performance. This is to quell "but it's an i7" rant that would probably follow.
http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-performance/page11.html
Even at 4Ghz, it is still showing gains, and that's at 4x AA! So drop that to 0x AA (which is my preferred image quality setting) and chances are you will see an even greater benefit. The same logic applies that lower resolutions would also show bigger jumps as you OC.
Remember, again, that your GPU must already be satisfactory for your desired resolution _and_ quality settings before you move on to CPU-scaling. Even at the lowest resolution, 1440x900, it implies you need at minimum a 460. At a mainstream resolution, like 1920x1200, that minimum card is closer to a card between the 460/470. And just to throw it out there, even my GTX260 is unfit for this game.
|
|
|
Sounds reasonably solid to me. You might want to go with a bit more PSU to begin with, just for the sake of room to work with, adding fans, drives, or if you upgrade video cards, or if you use your computer for a lot of non-stop hours, to add longevity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
