First ever PC build-opinions would be amazing :)

[StormUndomiel]

Hey everyone! I'd like to get some opinions on this build that I've planned, and opinions would be lovely before Nov 30th (specifically for the case and hard disk, to catch a few discounts!).Sorry if this post becomes extremely long!

 

Build

 

Intel Core i5 4590 3.3Ghz Quad-Core Processor

MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition ATX LGA1150 Motherboard

Kingston HyperX Fury White 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory

Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

EVGA Geforce GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 Video Card

NZXT Phantom 240 ATX Mid Tower Case

Corsair CSM 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi Modular ATX Power Supply

Acer R240HY bidx 60hz 23.8" Monitor

Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical

Mouse

 

Now that you've seen the build,I'll specify what I'm trying to go for. Firstly,I have a budget of around $950,give or take 5-10 dollars-If you want to recommend a different part,please try to keep it close price-wise to what I already have,since on pcpartpicker this build currently comes up to $942. Also,I'd appreciate if you could keep it in the white and black theme,based around the case. I want a build that can play most,if not all games,at 1080p with high to ultra settings (which I believe this 970 should do but again,opinions :laugh: ) Skyrim is the main reason I wanted to build a pc,will this run it at ultra with 100-200 mods and an enb? Also,would any of these parts be considered 'outdated' or 'silly' with eachother? Just because everything works together,doesn't mean they're the best choices :laugh:

 

I appreciate any and every opinion I get,thanks in advance!

Edited November 26, 2015 by StormUndomiel

[mark5916]

For that price, inclusive Monitor not bad.

 

However i have a Skylake configuration for you, if you are intrerested for.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Yppbbv

Edited November 25, 2015 by mark5916

[obobski]

I wouldn't bother with Skylake - it's not worth the extra cost, especially for gaming (where performance differences can amount to a BLISTERING 1% - http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16).

 

As far as the build as proposed in the first post: overall not a bad machine, spec-wise. I'm not a fan of MSI motherboards (their warranty/support policies in my experience are draconian and reliability is not best-ever IME) - personally I'd go with Asus or ASRock, but if you're more comfortable with MSI, go with MSI. The GTX 970 has the memory bug, so you should at least be cognizant of that; personally I wouldn't "vote with my wallet" for a gimped product. EVGA would be my first choice for a GeForce card though. I'd also dump the Acer monitor - again, support/warranty being the biggest problem, and I'd instead go Asus, NEC, Hannstar, LG, BenQ, etc (basically anything not Acer Group and all of their hard-earned class action lawsuits). On the PSU, it did decently for JonnyGuru reviews: http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story&reid=366 you may look around at competitors though, perhaps you can do better price-wise (I honestly don't know - I haven't kept up on the latest-and-greatest in mid-range PSUs in years). I'd also step up to the i5-4690 and end the discussion on CPU performance (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7963/the-intel-haswell-refresh-review-core-i7-4790-i5-4690-and-i3-4360-tested/9), and throw an after-market CPU cooler on there (because the Intel one will get noisy and I don't like that - Thermalright is always my first choice, but considering budget I'd look at Zalman (they've had some awesome deals on Newegg recently), Cooler Master, and Arctic).

 

Otherwise pretty solid build, and it should do fine with many games. I don't think you'll get anyone to swear to "run at full max ultra at 9999999 FPS with 200+ mods and ENB in Skyrim" though - that's way too variable and unpredictable. I *can* tell you that my Core 2 Quad Q9550 (which is slower than any CPU discussed here) and GTX 660SC (which is slower than the 970) will run vanilla (at least mostly, as far as graphics go) Skyrim on Ultra with FXAA (turning on MSAA will incur some lagginess at a few parts), so I don't think you'd have any problems with a newer CPU and a newer GPU running the vanilla game on Ultra, but when you're talking "and like 200 mods and ENB" that's another story entirely. You may grind the game to a halt with all of that, no matter *what* computer its run on, or it may work perfectly. There are no guarantees there. As far as "other games" I think you'd be mostly fine as well (again, that C2Q/GTX 660 system being a pretty versatile setup even with newer DX10/11 games, and what you're proposing here is capable of besting it). My biggest piece of advice here is to learn to accept lowering settings off of "full max ultra at 4K with 50,000 mods and ENBs forcing 8K textures for everything all the time at at least 62,000 FPS" - you'll save yourself a lot of money and hassle over time. That said, with a more recent machine (even the Core 2 Quad I've mentioned), you shouldn't have trouble running many newer games (and tons of older games) on (or near) max settings at 1080p or lower, but again I wouldn't take this as a guarantee across the board "it will always be consistent like this" - if you want that surety, buy an Xbox.

[StormUndomiel]

For that price, inclusive Monitor not bad.

 

However i have a Skylake configuration for you, if you are intrerested for.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Yppbbv

 

That's not bad looking,I'll take a look into it,thanks!

 

I wouldn't bother with Skylake - it's not worth the extra cost, especially for gaming (where performance differences can amount to a BLISTERING 1% - http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16).

 

As far as the build as proposed in the first post: overall not a bad machine, spec-wise. I'm not a fan of MSI motherboards (their warranty/support policies in my experience are draconian and reliability is not best-ever IME) - personally I'd go with Asus or ASRock, but if you're more comfortable with MSI, go with MSI. The GTX 970 has the memory bug, so you should at least be cognizant of that; personally I wouldn't "vote with my wallet" for a gimped product. EVGA would be my first choice for a GeForce card though. I'd also dump the Acer monitor - again, support/warranty being the biggest problem, and I'd instead go Asus, NEC, Hannstar, LG, BenQ, etc (basically anything not Acer Group and all of their hard-earned class action lawsuits). On the PSU, it did decently for JonnyGuru reviews: http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story&reid=366 you may look around at competitors though, perhaps you can do better price-wise (I honestly don't know - I haven't kept up on the latest-and-greatest in mid-range PSUs in years). I'd also step up to the i5-4690 and end the discussion on CPU performance (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7963/the-intel-haswell-refresh-review-core-i7-4790-i5-4690-and-i3-4360-tested/9), and throw an after-market CPU cooler on there (because the Intel one will get noisy and I don't like that - Thermalright is always my first choice, but considering budget I'd look at Zalman (they've had some awesome deals on Newegg recently), Cooler Master, and Arctic).

 

Otherwise pretty solid build, and it should do fine with many games. I don't think you'll get anyone to swear to "run at full max ultra at 9999999 FPS with 200+ mods and ENB in Skyrim" though - that's way too variable and unpredictable. I *can* tell you that my Core 2 Quad Q9550 (which is slower than any CPU discussed here) and GTX 660SC (which is slower than the 970) will run vanilla (at least mostly, as far as graphics go) Skyrim on Ultra with FXAA (turning on MSAA will incur some lagginess at a few parts), so I don't think you'd have any problems with a newer CPU and a newer GPU running the vanilla game on Ultra, but when you're talking "and like 200 mods and ENB" that's another story entirely. You may grind the game to a halt with all of that, no matter *what* computer its run on, or it may work perfectly. There are no guarantees there. As far as "other games" I think you'd be mostly fine as well (again, that C2Q/GTX 660 system being a pretty versatile setup even with newer DX10/11 games, and what you're proposing here is capable of besting it). My biggest piece of advice here is to learn to accept lowering settings off of "full max ultra at 4K with 50,000 mods and ENBs forcing 8K textures for everything all the time at at least 62,000 FPS" - you'll save yourself a lot of money and hassle over time. That said, with a more recent machine (even the Core 2 Quad I've mentioned), you shouldn't have trouble running many newer games (and tons of older games) on (or near) max settings at 1080p or lower, but again I wouldn't take this as a guarantee across the board "it will always be consistent like this" - if you want that surety, buy an Xbox.

 

Ahh,thanks for all the solid input :smile: The MSI motherboard fit into my price range and aesthetic look,and from reading I believe they are still quite good for gaming overall? I'm always searching around for different parts though,I'll take your word on Asus and ASRock. I do understand the the 970 has memory issues,but overall it still gives great performance from what I've seen,so I'm willing to take the risk. Later,once I save up,I'll probably upgrade to a 980 or 980ti and get past that 3.5GB barrier. When it comes to the monitor,my bro and I agreed that an IPS 1080p -with sim bezels for aesthetic- would be ideal,IPS especially since I draw more enjoyment from better visuals than faster gameplay (I don't even play faster games like Battlefield,CS:GO,etc),so a TN would be somewhat wasted on me there. Any recommendations for another monitor like this,1080p IPS 24"? Again,I'll definitely look around myself,but I appreciate any and all help.Thanks for the psu review,I'll probably keep it.I may be able to squeeze in an i5 4690,but the after market cooler will have to sit on hold till I can save up some more (it helps that I'm pretty tolerant to noise,I'll be able to handle a loud cpu for a while atleast).

 

Looking at the PCs capabilities,I completely understand what you mean about it being unpredictable. No one can say I'll get a guranteed anything,but if you can look at these part and have an idea that I'll probably be able to run things well,then thats enough for me :smile: I also should have specified more,when I say '100-200 mods and an enb',I'm giving myself a wide margin to work with. When I actually get everything and start modding,I may not even get 50 mods,or maybe I'll go above and beyond 200. I get that its not just about the PC,its about the mods too,everything has to work harmoniously. However,just as I said above,if you can look at the build and think "that could probably run fine",then I'm good. I am a visuals person,but if I have to turn a few things down in the end,I'll do it. I'm definitely not one of those people who needs 60 fps all the time,as nice as it may be;40-50 fps seems quite playable in my opinion (although 30 seems a little low). And no worries,I already own an Xbox :tongue: Thanks again for all your help!

[obobski]

Too much has been made of "for gaming" in marketing hardware in recent years - there is no such thing as a motherboard that's "built for gaming" vs "built for some other purpose" - point being I wouldn't get too sucked into that.

 

On the GeForce, if you're going to buy a 980 down the line, I'd save the money and buy it all right now - it is NOT worth the $500-$1000 upgrade over the 970 performance-wise; I'm not saying 980 is bad I'm saying it makes no fiscal sense to buy the 970 with the intention of buying the next-up model in a month or three for all that extra dough. Just save your ~$300-400 (that you'd spend on the 970) and go after the 980. I'd also strongly suggest looking at AMD, like the R9 290/390 series, which don't have a memory bug.

 

I wouldn't at all get worked up over "IPS vs TN" - again it's worrying about a single-variable minituae and trying to extrapolate that to define everything about a monitor's capabilities. TN does not mean "fast" nor does IPS mean "slow" nor do either of them, by themselves, mean "good visuals" or "bad visuals." 15-20 years ago this very broadly (in an over-generalized manner) made sense as early Hitachi IPS panels were among the first 8-bit LCDs on the market, but usually had response times in the 50-60ms range, while early TN panels were often 6-bit LCDs but offered somewhat better response times (still awful by modern standards but "better"). Modern TN mointors are 8-bit, just like their IPS counterparts, and its safe to assume 1000:1 contrast is pretty much standard (any claims of billion-to-one is generally pure nonsense), and modern IPS panels have much better response times. It's far too over-generalized to say "oh well I need TN I play Battlefield" vs "oh well I play Skyrim I need IPS" - of course marketeers will tell you otherwise. I'd still suggest going with another manufacturer than Acer.

 

 

The CPU cooler point isn't just about noise, its also about cooling performance; honestly I'd give a look at third-party coolers, you might be surprised how affordable an upgrade actually is.

[rajeshgupta1234]

its very amazing point

[rajeshgupta1234]

its very crazy build pc if you need any type of computer technical support so come here to resolve problems http://www.techealthexperts.com

[mark5916]

However Skylake and DDR4 will be the new tomorrow if you wanna go with an Intel CPU, so for a new PC build - i would suggest you to consider that option as well. :wink:

Edited November 26, 2015 by mark5916

[obobski]

However Skylake and DDR4 will be the new tomorrow if you wanna go with an Intel CPU, so for a new PC build - i would suggest you to consider that option as well. :wink:

 

What do you mean by "new tomorrow"? Intel has not allowed for in-place CPU upgrades on a common platform for years (and is not "bringing it back" with Skylake; Kaby Lake will require all new motherboards too), and there's no significant appreciable performance gain for Skylake to justify the added expense. When "the next gen" of Intel CPUs comes out, they'll require new motherboards either way, and given how stagnant Skylake's performance is, I'd say save your money and go with Haswell and DDR3, and if Kaby Lake is a nice performance gain, you can always upgrade then, or continue to wait until they release something worthwhile (e.g. Cannonlake or beyond).

[mark5916]

> and if Kaby Lake is a nice performance gain, you can always upgrade then, or continue to wait until they release something worthwhile (e.g. Cannonlake or beyond). <

 

Either way, if he goes with the Haswell or Skylake or he wanna upgrade if a new processor comes out in the future, as it seems the performace will be almost equal. (more or less)

 

The thing is, some people don't wanna upgrade every few years to a new platform (chipset inclusive processor). You make a buy and stick with that as long as you can.

 

From this perspective as the Skylake platform is newer (for good or worse) there is no need for a quick upgrade in the future.

 

With Haswell we don't know for how long Intel willl support that processor. On a new build you always go with the lastest one, as long as it lasts.

 

You would do the same thing with an Automobil, i guess...

Edited November 26, 2015 by mark5916