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.
On June 07 2016 15:08 Loser777 wrote: I haven't kept up with the mobile GPU scene at all; what's the bare minimum that will do playable 1080p (>40fps in 1v1 with a reasonable number of units) in Legacy of the Void on Low or Medium settings?
940M? R5 M330?
940m would be grand, steer clear of AMD on laptops for last generation GPUs.
That said, the 10xxm series GPUs should have a huge leap in performance / watt even when compared to the 9 series.
I'm currently using a i3-4150 and a 960. I am planning to upgrade to 1070 when the aftermarket versions are released. Would upgrading to an i5-6600 be a reasonable choice aswell ? Worried that old processor would be a bottleneck. 1080p gaming on medium-high settings
Alright, just checking in: I bought a B75M Plus motherboard (1155 socket), and everything works smoothly for now! I'll buy a 1070 when it comes out and I'll be set.
On June 09 2016 01:05 mantequilla wrote: If it isn't bottlenecking you now, I'd be surprised if it does after the upgrade (with the same games).
A 1070 is like ~2.5x faster than a 960 (quick guess) which means 2.5x more FPS on the same graphical settings which is again like 2.5x harder on the CPU
if you're increasing some graphics settings and resolution rather than increasing FPS, you don't dramatically increase CPU demand but increasing FPS does dramatically increase CPU demand
6600 would be a decent upgrade, but it would be a bigger upgrade for the games that scale to more than a few cores well. 6600k + OC would be much stronger for most CPU heavy games.
On June 09 2016 01:05 mantequilla wrote: If it isn't bottlenecking you now, I'd be surprised if it does after the upgrade (with the same games).
A 1070 is like ~2.5x faster than a 960 (quick guess) which means 2.5x more FPS on the same graphical settings which is again like 2.5x harder on the CPU
if you're increasing some graphics settings and resolution rather than increasing FPS, you don't dramatically increase CPU demand but increasing FPS does dramatically increase CPU demand
6600 would be a decent upgrade, but it would be a bigger upgrade for the games that scale to more than a few cores well. 6600k + OC would be much stronger for most CPU heavy games.
My concern is that I am building in the smallest possible micro ITX case I can find pretty much, I need to be able to take the case with we as a carry on when I fly. Not sure I can properly cool an overclock in such a small case. It would be a lot more expensive with an OC capable mobo aswell
On June 09 2016 01:05 mantequilla wrote: If it isn't bottlenecking you now, I'd be surprised if it does after the upgrade (with the same games).
A 1070 is like ~2.5x faster than a 960 (quick guess) which means 2.5x more FPS on the same graphical settings which is again like 2.5x harder on the CPU
if you're increasing some graphics settings and resolution rather than increasing FPS, you don't dramatically increase CPU demand but increasing FPS does dramatically increase CPU demand
6600 would be a decent upgrade, but it would be a bigger upgrade for the games that scale to more than a few cores well. 6600k + OC would be much stronger for most CPU heavy games.
My concern is that I am building in the smallest possible micro ITX case I can find pretty much, I need to be able to take the case with we as a carry on when I fly. Not sure I can properly cool an overclock in such a small case. It would be a lot more expensive with an OC capable mobo aswell
That complicates things but i'm sure that a lower OC like 4.2ghz would be quite easy to cool and the RAM side of z170 (running 3000+mhz instead of stuck at 2133) makes quite a big difference too without really affecting temps. Less cost efficient but doable if you want the performance for those games. Which games are you thinking about playing the most or which do you care about performance more on?
I'd love to hear if you were able to take one as carry-on. My Lian Li PC TU100 was rejected for security reasons.
Despite your guys' advice, I bought a GTX 970 now. The upgrade from my 950 cost me 70 Euros, and I wanted it now rather later. Especially since I don't really have money to spare for a 1440p monitor and since my case needs an ITX sized GPU.
I bet I will regret that at some point, but 170 for a 970 was just too juicy to pass on.
On June 09 2016 04:38 DickMcFanny wrote: You mean Mini ITX? Or Micro ATX?
I'd love to hear if you were able to take one as carry-on. My Lian Li PC TU100 was rejected for security reasons.
Despite your guys' advice, I bought a GTX 970 now. The upgrade from my 950 cost me 70 Euros, and I wanted it now rather later. Especially since I don't really have money to spare for a 1440p monitor and since my case needs an ITX sized GPU.
I bet I will regret that at some point, but 170 for a 970 was just too juicy to pass on.
Mini ITX. I take it in a sports bag and stuff some clothes around it. I've taken it as a carry on when going to/from the UK 4 times since I am Swedish but study in Scotland. No issues except needing to take it out of the bag at the xray. My current case is a Silverstone SG05
On June 09 2016 01:05 mantequilla wrote: If it isn't bottlenecking you now, I'd be surprised if it does after the upgrade (with the same games).
A 1070 is like ~2.5x faster than a 960 (quick guess) which means 2.5x more FPS on the same graphical settings which is again like 2.5x harder on the CPU
if you're increasing some graphics settings and resolution rather than increasing FPS, you don't dramatically increase CPU demand but increasing FPS does dramatically increase CPU demand
6600 would be a decent upgrade, but it would be a bigger upgrade for the games that scale to more than a few cores well. 6600k + OC would be much stronger for most CPU heavy games.
My concern is that I am building in the smallest possible micro ITX case I can find pretty much, I need to be able to take the case with we as a carry on when I fly. Not sure I can properly cool an overclock in such a small case. It would be a lot more expensive with an OC capable mobo aswell
That complicates things but i'm sure that a lower OC like 4.2ghz would be quite easy to cool and the RAM side of z170 (running 3000+mhz instead of stuck at 2133) makes quite a big difference too without really affecting temps. Less cost efficient but doable if you want the performance for those games. Which games are you thinking about playing the most or which do you care about performance more on?
Well, I play a lot of CS GO which is easy to run but having a very high and stable framerate just feels so much better. The main reason is that I like to dive into Triple A stuff every now and then, stuff like Witcher 3 and Battlefield 1 when it comes out. Needing to stay above 144 fps is a priority because of 144hz monitors etc.
On another note, would a 450w PSU be adequate to run a 6600 and 1070 with 16 gigs of DDR4 and one SSD/ one HDD
On June 09 2016 01:05 mantequilla wrote: If it isn't bottlenecking you now, I'd be surprised if it does after the upgrade (with the same games).
A 1070 is like ~2.5x faster than a 960 (quick guess) which means 2.5x more FPS on the same graphical settings which is again like 2.5x harder on the CPU
if you're increasing some graphics settings and resolution rather than increasing FPS, you don't dramatically increase CPU demand but increasing FPS does dramatically increase CPU demand
6600 would be a decent upgrade, but it would be a bigger upgrade for the games that scale to more than a few cores well. 6600k + OC would be much stronger for most CPU heavy games.
My concern is that I am building in the smallest possible micro ITX case I can find pretty much, I need to be able to take the case with we as a carry on when I fly. Not sure I can properly cool an overclock in such a small case. It would be a lot more expensive with an OC capable mobo aswell
That complicates things but i'm sure that a lower OC like 4.2ghz would be quite easy to cool and the RAM side of z170 (running 3000+mhz instead of stuck at 2133) makes quite a big difference too without really affecting temps. Less cost efficient but doable if you want the performance for those games. Which games are you thinking about playing the most or which do you care about performance more on?
Well, I play a lot of CS GO which is easy to run but having a very high and stable framerate just feels so much better. The main reason is that I like to dive into Triple A stuff every now and then, stuff like Witcher 3 and Battlefield 1 when it comes out. Needing to stay above 144 fps is a priority because of 144hz monitors etc.
On another note, would a 450w PSU be adequate to run a 6600 and 1070 with 16 gigs of DDR4 and one SSD/ one HDD
That's big enough to be comfortable even with an OC'd 6600k and OC'd 1070. Just to note, 2x8GB of ddr4 is generally better than 4x4GB to achieve 16GB total
If I'm going to be playing mostly 4x games and RPGs (not a fan of FPS games at all), what am I looking at versus most of the other people posting on this thread? I'm still waiting for larger capacity SSDs to fall farther in price before buying a new rig. I'm just looking for a ballpark in terms of specs. What can I tweak if I don't need cutting edge FPS graphics?
Let's say I'm planning on playing something like Civ 6 on massive maps when it comes out. Do I go with a stronger CPU at the expense of GPU? What's a good tradeoff price wise?
Honestly, I don't think you'll regret spending money on a CPU, ever.
When in doubt, get the better CPU. Their resell value is worse, they're more complicated to upgrade, and they're a "hard bottleneck" compared to the GPU. If you GPU is sub-par, you just play with less fancy graphics. If your CPU is sub-par, you don't play at all.
So if you have any doubt, get the better CPU now and the better GPU later.
For an example, with a good CPU you might be able to run at 120fps but it'll drop to 25 if you go to max graphics.
With a bad CPU and good GPU, you may have a ceiling at like 50fps but you have that same 50fps on both lowest and max settings.
Sometimes the limits are quite large on one component so that even a bad CPU or GPU can give enough performance so it's all about the performance of the one component that can't run the game well (like CPU for starcraft 2)
Usually limits are GPU, but in the RTS/MMO genres and some other games it can be CPU. With "only" a dual core i3 (or "quad core" AMD) you're more likely to run into those limitations across a wider range of games when playing with a GPU like the 1070
I want to help my sister's BF build a computer. The sole purpose of the computer will be Video Editing (he bought a drone, loves shooting videos, etc.). Nothing professional, but he wants something of good quality.
A computer built with Video Editing as its main task is basically a computer with a strong CPU capable of multi-tasking + a powerful GPU right? In other words, I5 or I7 from Intel with a high end GPU.
Depends on the software and budget. Some methods will heavily use a GPU (but sometimes only one specific brand) and others won't use GPU really at all. For software that's very efficiently multithreaded the AMD fx series (like fx8320) is comparable to current gen i5's
On June 10 2016 05:20 Cyro wrote: Depends on the software and budget. Some methods will heavily use a GPU (but sometimes only one specific brand) and others won't use GPU really at all. For software that's very efficiently multithreaded the AMD fx series (like fx8320) is comparable to current gen i5's
The budget will be around 1.2k. He wants to be able to play with 4k eventually (record and edit). Is that remotely feasible? (The screen is not included in the budget : he has planned to spend 700$ ++ on the screen alone)
Looking quickly at the price on NCIX, I7 6700 is around 460$. So Mobo + CPU = already 600$ +, half of the budget.
I5 6600 is around 300. So mobo + cpu could be 450$, which would leave more space toward the rest of the system.
Other option would be buying a used PC on Kijiji or craiglist and add some components to it...
The 'best' computer in my region is this one... for about 800$. I added up the content and it seems ok-ish, not the best deal (considering its used).
If you're going past i5/fx8320 then the 5820k is a good choice
Depending on media storage amounts, a big high-performance SSD might be nice
I can't say very well how to split money on a build like this, it's best to figure out what software you want to use and ask some people that are very familar with it since it's so different across different software. Generally i think it's fine to spend a large % of your budget on mobo+CPU+RAM, though.
On June 09 2016 06:29 andrewlt wrote: If I'm going to be playing mostly 4x games and RPGs (not a fan of FPS games at all), what am I looking at versus most of the other people posting on this thread? I'm still waiting for larger capacity SSDs to fall farther in price before buying a new rig. I'm just looking for a ballpark in terms of specs. What can I tweak if I don't need cutting edge FPS graphics?
Let's say I'm planning on playing something like Civ 6 on massive maps when it comes out. Do I go with a stronger CPU at the expense of GPU? What's a good tradeoff price wise?
In turn-based 4x strategy games better CPU is definitely the priority cause it cuts down on the time it takes for the AI to resolve turns (especially w/ bigger maps, more opponents, later in the game). You need enough GPU power to make scrolling around the map smooth and pretty.
AI is usually reliant on single threaded performance so a higher clocked cpu is better than one with more cores. You will have to wait and see how Civ 6 benchmarks though
EPT
