EPTComputer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 599
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
739
Bearded Elder29905 Posts
| ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
original specs: HD7950, 3570k(no OC), corsair dominator 16GB@1866MHz, corsair tx850 and maximus V formula mobo(last 2 were gifts, sounded like big overkill to me at the time but whatever) upgrading GPU is a given, but what about ram and cpu? Guessing my cpu is gonna hold up if i venture into OCing? I'm looking to be able to play games at mostly full settings at 1080p and a 144hz monitor, so as for gpu im guessing I need to look at GTX970/R9 390. Could stretch to 390x, but then im hesitant to upgrade other components. I don't need super high fps for other than CSGO, so i'd settle for 60+ with most AAA/single player games I read up some on the new nvidia cards coming out, and it sounds like I'd definitely be well off waiting for the 1070 right? gonna be painful if i have to wait more than a few weeks so dunno, feel free to convince me | ||
|
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
Given how the benchmarks go, and how close it is to the release date, it's definitely worth it to wait for the GTX1070, even if it takes 1 month. you will be paying roughly the same cost of the gtx970, but for so much performance improve. if you really really cant wait, I guess 2nd hand option is better than buying a new 970 at this time | ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
On May 20 2016 04:15 bluegarfield wrote: your CPU and RAM should be fine for now. Given how the benchmarks go, and how close it is to the release date, it's definitely worth it to wait for the GTX1070, even if it takes 1 month. you will be paying roughly the same cost of the gtx970, but for so much performance improve. if you really really cant wait, I guess 2nd hand option is better than buying a new 970 at this time Alright. Got a couple tech news sources in norway claiming the 1070 will probably cost about 500USD. That still beats the existing stuff at the 500USD price range right? man i get so butthurt about prices on computer components in norway sometimes lol but yeah ty, i'll probably be waiting unless i magically happen to come across some sick deal | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Alright. Got a couple tech news sources in norway claiming the 1070 will probably cost about 500USD. They announced the price when they announced the 1070. It's $379 MSRP but they're charging $449 for the founders reference card which will be available on launch day IIRC. | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
Seeing as the MSRP is what, $50 higher for the 1070 compared to the 970, that also about makes up the difference in pricing between 970's in Europe vs. US. | ||
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
1200 EUR What is your monitor's native resolution? Currently 1080p - gonna upgrade later this year to 1440p What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? Playing everything - simple games like d3 and also games like witcher 3 or farcry stuff or sc2 What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? Streaming Do you intend to overclock? Yes, but just beginner friendly level of overclock Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire? maybe but probably not Do you need an operating system? no Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget? no If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. psu i ve had good experiences with bequite and bad ones with cougar. What country will you be buying your parts in? Germany If you have any retailer preferences, please specify. Mindfactory.de most likely - there is also hardwareversand.de but don't know which to pick, if one knows a good seller i would be all ears thou. I saw that the new gpus are just around the corner, could wait for it but would like to get an overall idea of how my rig could look like with my budget. could also buy now without gpu cuz i got a 970 in my old rig and buy the new gpu when they release. Appreciate your help. | ||
|
Duvon
Sweden2360 Posts
On May 17 2016 19:23 Firkraag8 wrote: You'll want the latest USB in this case 3.1 I guess, otherwise it's all the same mostly. For processor get a Skylake for sure, 6600k should last you a long time and is very fast. I would replace your PSU considering the age of your system, I threw together a little upgrade that should be fine in all regards: + Show Spoiler + You will want to upgrade the GPU at a later date too depending on which R9 you actually have.. After reading more and looking around a bit it looks like this is what I'll get, since the 6700k is on sale. But should I still get the same MB in that case? Since I spent a few extra on the CPU and memory, will the MB be the first (of those three) to fall again? After trying to navigate the motherboard jungle I think a MSI Z170A GAMING PRO should fit my desires better, mostly because the higher memory frequency max (for future upgrades) and more UBS 3.1 ports. | ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
They all support high memory frequency but if your budget is now much higher than the one you gave me then go ahead with the 6700k etc. | ||
|
Duvon
Sweden2360 Posts
Would you (or anyone here who stays up to date with tech trends and development) guess if there's a noticeable lifetime difference between what you set up and what I've scrambled? Half a year? a year? a few months? Lifetime as in before newly released stuff won't operate on either system. Edit: feels like a silly question now that I've asked it and that I should go for the cheaper system. I'll try to write down the total differences hmm. + Show Spoiler [differences] + CPU 6700 has higher MEGAHz, but I5 can be comparatively OC'd more. 6700 has 4 more (hyper?)threads, 8 instead of 4. 6700 has 2mb larger L3 cache (not very important from what I gather since it's 2 steps away from the processor?). Motherboard MSI one has 3,6GHz max mem speed over 3,466GHz (small difference at glance, but the build mechanics of 3n00 and 3n66 memory systems seem to differ a little, the latter being more expensive?). MSI has Optical Sound output. MSI has more PCIE slots but no PCI slots. MSI has a SATA-express slot. MSI has no USB 3.0 slots but as many more 3.1 instead. MSI has SLI possibilities. Memory as above. Might get the 3,2GHz in any case, the price difference was very small. Price 6700+MSI: 4600kr ~550$ 6600+ASUS: 3550 ~425$ | ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
| ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6169 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On May 21 2016 01:32 felisconcolori wrote: The performance gains don't seem to be as intense from generation to generation; mostly power usage seems to be dropping. But I could very well be very very wrong. CPU's are mostly getting smaller cores and more cores, but that hasn't been available in the consumer market. GPU's are advancing very quickly still. Increasing efficiency while keeping the same power usage (a 580 and a 980ti can both use 300w with decent clock speeds) means that a 3x gain in efficiency quite literally translates to a 3x gain in performance. 4 years of GPU advancement - http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1722?vs=1714 Recent game devs have not been pushing PC graphics very hard, anticipating that people buying hardware above a certain level of performance* will use high resolutions or high framerates instead of developing more intensive graphics settings. *right now this level is about midrange of last gen, the 970, most popular GPU on the steam hardware survey. This is like 2.5x slower than a 1080. | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6169 Posts
Not sure about the efficient translating directly to performance, though - a 580 utilizing 3x less power is still going to perform as a 580. I do understand what you're saying though - the amount of power utilized is enabling 3x the performance alongside further die-shrinking and allowing more performance packed into the same power budget. Then again, I haven't noticed the performance capabilities of systems in part because I don't run anything that really stresses the rig I built based upon the thread's past recommendation in 2013. As you say, game makers aren't really trying to push the bleeding edge of the envelope out and a lot of games are not as intensive. (I can still force my CPU to work while my GPU takes a nap with builds in KSP though.) | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
allowing more performance packed into the same power budget. A 680, 970 and 1070 all use similar amounts of power really, you can look at this: http://i.imgur.com/i5pWtli.png all of these gens have GPU's at the 100w, 200w, 300w power levels | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
I know AMD said their Polaris cards were going to be aimed at the mid-range of graphics cards, but what is mid-range? Does that mean it'll have lower specs than a 970, or roughly the same? Is 970 considered mid-range and the 980 and 980ti are high, or are they all high and things like the 960 are considered mid-range? Any idea when new Polaris information is coming out? I might wait for Polaris if it's going to be cheaper than a used 970 for similar or better specs, but I'm not sure I want to go lower than 970 performance. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
I think the main reason for not buying a 970 to keep for 3+ years is just the performance level. A lot of people have jumped on 970's for 1080p60 in the last year-and-three-quarters for it to be the most popular GPU on steam hardware survey, but a 970 wasn't near flagship performance even for last gen. A 1080 is about twice as fast and it wouldn't be a surprise to see a GPU in 6 months or a year that has 3 times the performance of a 970. VRAM standards are rising too, this gen will have 8GB on more midrange level cards and 16GB on flagships while the 970 has 3.5GB | ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On May 22 2016 18:36 Craton wrote: Are there even meaningful gains from having more RAM (than 3.5GB) for 1080p@60? I don't remember that resolution using that much. More than one AAA game around the 970/980 launch exceeded 3.5GB @1080p, it's become a bit more common in the time since. Not particularly meaningful at the moment, but you do have to turn down settings like texture res sometimes and VRAM generally becomes a much bigger limiter over time. Some ~3 years ago people were arguing if there were significant benefits for having over 2GB on 1080p while bf4 and a few other games were pushing that limit | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://inetimg.se/img/tiny/forum-divider.png)
