Replacing PC, want input on specs Please

[ArielFetters]

Great link, and it reinforces what I'd been thinking. So now I'm thinking, if I can afford it, go with an Intel chipset. The problem is affording it

[jess19]

I'm going to echo some sentiments that others have brought up already.

 

Regarding the CPU: If you are absolutely dead set on future proofing (within reason), then an intel 4670k is probably the best mainstream gaming cpu you can get right now. I'm ignoring i7's b/c they're probably overkill, and the higher prices don't provide enough value in relation to their gains over high end i5's. I personally use AMD chips at the moment but intel chips just perform better right now, and the price points are close enough where the value is still good.

 

Regarding the GPU: I'm not really following the logic of getting two 1GB 650 TI's right now. You'd be spending around $300 on cards that really aren't THAT great now, let alone for the future. For $300, you could get a 4GB GTX 760 which would outperform a 650 SLI setup while giving you an additional 2 GB of ram to work with, and it would be less stressful on your system.

 

Regarding your budget: Your $1200-$1400 budget is wayyyyy more than enough to get the consensus best "mainstream" high-end parts right now. You just might want to think about using portions of the budget more efficiently -- as in, I'm not sure why you'd get 2 separate 64gb SSDs when you could just get a single, larger SSD that would cost less than the 2 64gb drives together. Same reasoning applies to the GPU -- why get 2 "average" GPUs when a single stronger GPU would cost less/same? A single GPU setup (like the GTX 760) is surely powerful enough to run the games you're playing at the settings you want, and  would still leave you with an open slot for a future SLI setup as well. 16gb ram isn't necessary at this point either, but if it's a difference of $10-$20 to go from 8gb to 16gb, then go for it.

 

In summation:

 

1) Get a single, stronger GPU instead of 2 "average" GPUs.

2) Get a single, larger SSD instead of 2 smaller ones.

3) Get 8gb ram instead of 16gb, but if the price points are close enough, then go for 16gb.

 

This will save you a lot of money, and leave you with options down the road for upgrades. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spikes]

+1 for all the above.

 

2 cards with 1GB each is still 1 GB total. Too low for modern times, example Skyrim modded, let alone for future. Even 2 GB isn't cutting it nowdays.

[MajinCry]

Hoo-boy. The ignorance is rife amongst this thread. I swear, some of the stuff mentioned here rivals Tomshardware's trolls.

 

 

First things first: Future proofing. It's utterly impossible; anybody who says otherwise is either gravely mistaken or a liar. Neither of which should be listened to. There are folks here saying "If you want futureproofing, intel". But guess what? The next generation of consoles will be using eight core AMD CPUs, and already we have games that are making heavy use of multithreading. Recommending an intel quad core at this point in time, would be the equivalent of advocating an intel dual core in 2008; where quad core games are emerging and dual cores are being strangled.

 

Don't get me wrong; as a quad core, intel's flagship 2500k is around 10% faster than the 8350 when comparing each core at similar clock speeds and using a program/game that uses a compiler which generates the fastest supported code no matter if the AMD CPU does not have the "GenuineIntel" cpuid string. This difference can surmount to (at best) a 40% increase over the 8350 in a game/program making use of only four threads.

 

But if you want to play Battlefield 4 (a game programmed around the eight-core AMD APU's that also have a customized 7850/7870 in them), for example, you're going to want those eight threads.

 

And most of the performance in games comes from intel's somewhat superior single threading capabilities, which improve framerates in DirectX9 (and under) games due to draw calls being made on one thread only. If you are to compare a similar AMD and intel processor with each other in a game that utilizes a multithreaded renderer...You're not going to see any difference unless the CPU is drawing the particles and/or shadows. And even then, it isn't going to be night and day. Far from it, actually.

 

 

 

Second: AMD's FX modules are like Intel's HT-ing. No, no they are not. All intel does to implement hyperthreading, is duplicate a couple of parts in the processor to make the OS perceive there being two cores when there are in fact only one. This is to squeeze out any cycles that would otherwise be wasted due to being idle after carrying out commands and whatnot. The gains made by hyperthreading (in a program that utilizes multiple threads) is around 10% for each core. So if you were to get an i7, disable two of the cores so you would then have 2 cores and 2 hyperthreads, you will have (ideally) 220% of the performance of a single core. If you then enable all four cores but disable hyperthreading, you would have (again, ideally) 400% of the performance of a single core.

 

AMD's FX modules, on the other hand, are much closer to actual cores. An FX module consists of two CPU cores which share an FPU (floating point unit), L2 cache and possibly a few other minor parts. The cores in the FX module have independent integer units, however. Games make most use of the FPU rather than the integer units unless programmed with them specifically in mind. Which we will be seeing most (if not all) of the next generation of games doing, due to the XBoxOne and PS4 having four FX modules in them.

 

 

 

Third: NVidia performs better on weaker CPUs. That's complete and utter nonsense. You need only get, say, a pentium 4 and test it with a GTX 670 and an HD 7950. They will have the exact same framerates, supposing the game that is being tested does not have brand-specific optimizations (PhysX, for example, which offloads the physics calculations to an NVidia GPU, decreasing the load on the CPU in games. You can count these games using two hands).

 

 

 

Anyway, now that those are cleared up, you'd be best with making your own system, OP. That prebuilt is almost double what it would cost to make it yourself.

[FallenWarrior]

But if you want to play Battlefield 4 (a game programmed around the eight-core AMD APU's that also have a customized 7850/7870 in them), for example, you're going to want those eight threads.

 

Slightly off topic, but you really should check the recommended specs for Battlefield 4 before hand.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sweclockers.com%2Fnyhet%2F17561-battlefield-4-vill-ha-3-gb-grafikminne-och-fyrkarnig-processor&act=url

 

[MajinCry]

Ak. I was referencing an older specs sheet. Agh well, that's technology for you.

 

However, I suspect something is up with those minimum/recommended specs. I doubt that you would actually need a six core AMD processor, unless intel's compiler is being used. Case in point.

[Ruskii420Sama]

My Constructive input: Fuck AMD. Get an i7 3770k 3.5ghz

[BlueSkyMine]

Ak. I was referencing an older specs sheet. Agh well, that's technology for you.

 

However, I suspect something is up with those minimum/recommended specs. I doubt that you would actually need a six core AMD processor, unless intel's compiler is being used. Case in point.

 

People have been compiling performance from the BF4 Beta which shows some interesting data.

http://blog.logicalincrements.com/post/62937859037/building-a-pc-for-battlefield-4-beta-performance

 

My own rig managed to do alright albeit with everything on Low. Then again, getting 30fps at 1920x1080 on an AMD 965 and a 460SE I feel is an achievement.

 

Also, that main site is a pretty good starting point for building a PC.

 

http://www.logicalincrements.com/#infoSection

[ArielFetters]

I was going for dual video cards because as best I've been able to tell, they have higher framerates with extras on high (AA, SSAO, etc) than single cards. However I didn't know about the GTX 760, so that might alter my thinking (Pray I do not alter it further! *Point/wheeze*) As for true futureproofing, I know it's impossible, I'm just using the term because people will instantly know what I'm trying to do.

 

The $1,500 budget was when I was going to try to liquid cool everything. Since I'm just gonna go for normal air cooling and turning the case into a wind tunnel, that should drop the price bigtime.

 

Oh, and I'm going for dual SSD's to minimize stress on the system drive while keeping my speeds up. That way if my games drive fails from over-use, my system drive's still okay. 

[Rayblue]

My Constructive fanboyish input: Fuck AMD. Get an i7 3770k 3.5ghz

 

Fixed. I worked with both CPUs for years.

 

If you want to save a bundle and still have multi-core power, it's AMDs. Especially their APUs that can be mated to HD6000/HD7000 discretes.

 

If you don't mind blowing a hole in the pocket and wanting a full-on rocket, go for Intels.