First ever PC build-opinions would be amazing :)

[soupdragon1234]

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.

 

At 1080p @ 60fps there shouldn't be any trouble, at least if my R9 390 + i5 4590k is anything to by and its a similar (better) spec to the GTX 970. At 1440p its beyond its comfort zone but at 1080p it handled everything ok (RealVision + just about everything I could throw at it)

 

 

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.

 

I'd agree with the IPS over TN at least as far as colour and viewing angle is concerned (I can't bear TN panels personally) and the response time is decent for IPS (I wouldn't settle for >4ms myself). If you can stretch to a larger screen @ similar spec and resolution though I'd suggest you do so as I suspect that you'll grow tired of such a small screen after a while, or at least I would.

 

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.

 

There is nonetheless a noticeable difference between IPS and TN, IPS panels have much better colour reproduction and far wider viewing angles the only real advantage TN panels have today over IPS is faster response times and a lower asking price, TN typically 1ms or better and IPS 4ms at best. FPS gamers claim to be able to tell the difference but personally I wonder if its placebo. Whether any of this matters to the OP is another matter entirely but judging by his post above I'd say it does. And having just bought an Acer 34" 4ms IPS Freesync model myself I guess I'll just have to wait and see what their customer service is like if and when I need it, lol.

Edited November 26, 2015 by soupdragon1234

[StormUndomiel]

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.

 

Trust me when I say that I definitely won't be upgrading gpus that soon,it'll take me atleast a year,probably much more. After doing even more reading,I'm fairly sure that this gpu will give me near 980 performance (even with the vram issue),so I may even be able to skip the 980s altogether. I actually only have the next few months of time to spend on the build,and I won't be able to save up for a 980 in that span of time,so I'll stick with the 970 :) Also,after research I prefer Nvidia over AMD personally,but I'll still keep looking into things. Considering the panel,I see what you mean about them essentially being on the same field now,in a way,but I might as well shoot for the one that is 'supposed' to give me what I'm looking for :) I have found another monitor that I will be getting,its an HP and fits all my requirements,so I'm good there. When it comes to cpu cooler,I've been under the belief that the stock cooler,while not being the absolute best,can still do somewhat okay,so I'll still look for one,but it just won't be high up on the list. Right now I'm just trying to get all the necessary parts,and then I'll work on the extras :) Thanks again!

Edited November 26, 2015 by StormUndomiel

[obobski]

 

 

At 1080p @ 60fps there shouldn't be any trouble, at least if my R9 390 + i5 4590k is anything to by and its a similar (better) spec to the GTX 970. At 1440p its beyond its comfort zone but at 1080p it handled everything ok (RealVision + just about everything I could throw at it)

 

I'd agree with the IPS over TN at least as far as colour and viewing angle is concerned (I can't bear TN panels personally) and the response time is decent for IPS (I wouldn't settle for >4ms myself). If you can stretch to a larger screen @ similar spec and resolution though I'd suggest you do so as I suspect that you'll grow tired of such a small screen after a while, or at least I would.

 

There is nonetheless a noticeable difference between IPS and TN, IPS panels have much better colour reproduction and far wider viewing angles the only real advantage TN panels have today over IPS is faster response times and a lower asking price, TN typically 1ms or better and IPS 4ms at best. FPS gamers claim to be able to tell the difference but personally I wonder if its placebo. Whether any of this matters to the OP is another matter entirely but judging by his post above I'd say it does. And having just bought an Acer 34" 4ms IPS Freesync model myself I guess I'll just have to wait and see what their customer service is like if and when I need it, lol.

 

 

- My 290X has no issues with Skyrim either, even with mods, but its really tough to nail down wrt modding. I'm thinking of Oblivion in the past when I say this; I built a machine in 2008 with a 4870X2 that could run base Oblivion at 2560x1600 and still achieve 60+ FPS, but with the "right" cocktail of mods, it could drop down to under 20 FPS at 1080p - nothing to do with the base game or a deficiency in the hardware as much as overwhelming what the engine can do. I haven't seen that with Skyrim personally, but I'm sure such a thing is still plausible.

 

- On the IPS vs TN - 1ms is EXCEPTIONAL for any monitor, and should not be considered typical (#s from manufacturers are always pure lies) - most modern monitors are achieving (real world) 5-8ms, and very high end/high speed (>120Hz) TN panels can get into that 1-2ms range (but that isn't common - TOTL BenQ XL-series can hit around 2ms, which is not "typical" or "standard" of "TN monitors"). Contemporary IPS panels do no worse than average-cabbage TN in terms of being fast enough not to ghost/blur (again the myth of IPS being "dog slow" is outdated, as I'm sure you can probably attest to from personal experience) - viewing angle is not universally awful on TN, again older monitors have it worse than newer ones. Like I said previously, I'm not advocating one or the other, because both have improved significantly since the myth-making period of the late 1990s (but the myths largely refuse to die). I would just get whatever suits your resolution/size/budget from a decent manufacturer, and if you want higher refresh rates that's also a consideration (Skyrim will not run nicely >60 FPS though, so bear that in mind too).

 

- As far as "can tell the difference" - there's a subtle difference on my BenQ running at 144Hz + backlight strobe vs "conventional" 60Hz in terms of how fluid/clean motion is; if you've ever gamed on a CRT vs your LCD its kind of like that. There's just a "sharpness" to movement. It isn't worth getting in a fight over or anything. Let's not misappropriate biomedical concepts (e.g. "placebo") to the discussion. As far as Acer's customer service, they will very likely just hang up on you and/or not take your calls (based on my experience) - the class action lawsuits haven't happened arbitrarily and such.

 

 

 

 

Trust me when I say that I definitely won't be upgrading gpus that soon,it'll take me atleast a year,probably much more. After doing even more reading,I'm fairly sure that this gpu will give me near 980 performance (even with the vram issue),so I may even be able to skip the 980s altogether. I actually only have the next few months of time to spend on the build,and I won't be able to save up for a 980 in that span of time,so I'll stick with the 970 :smile: Also,after research I prefer Nvidia over AMD personally,but I'll still keep looking into things. Considering the panel,I see what you mean about them essentially being on the same field now,in a way,but I might as well shoot for the one that is 'supposed' to give me what I'm looking for :smile: I have found another monitor that I will be getting,its an HP and fits all my requirements,so I'm good there. When it comes to cpu cooler,I've been under the belief that the stock cooler,while not being the absolute best,can still do somewhat okay,so I'll still look for one,but it just won't be high up on the list. Right now I'm just trying to get all the necessary parts,and then I'll work on the extras :smile: Thanks again!

 

 

 

I would largely agree with the 980 being overpriced/not worth it in the grand scheme of things too, but if that's the card you wanted, that's why I'd wait. As far as the 900 series in general, in addition to the memory bug, you might also want to read about nVidia's lies about DX12 support (again, I'm not trying to take one side or the other, I'm trying to advocate for informed decision-making). It's a mess, to say the least.

 

As far as the monitor goes - I haven't bought an HP monitor in probably 15 years, but the last one I bought still works, for whatever that's worth. :). Again I'm not trying to "steer" you into IPS or TN; get whatever is the best for your overall applications vs fixating on a single variable is my only point.

 

On the CPU cooler - the stock cooler can generally "get by" but given the price and performance of even a midling aftermarket cooler, I'd say its worth the $20-30 to both quiet the machine down and run the CPU cooler. Depending on how good/bad your case's airflow and ventilation is (this doesn't just mean "oh I have 7 fans its perfect" - intelligent placement of 2 good fans can best poor placement of 10 cheap fans), the stock cooler may fare better or worse than "get by" but keep in mind any better sink will experience the same benefits but perform better in either case (if that makes sense). Essentially I wouldn't regard a quality cooler here as an "extra" especially if you're after lots of long gaming sessions.

Edited November 26, 2015 by obobski

[StormUndomiel]

 

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.

 

At 1080p @ 60fps there shouldn't be any trouble, at least if my R9 390 + i5 4590k is anything to by and its a similar (better) spec to the GTX 970. At 1440p its beyond its comfort zone but at 1080p it handled everything ok (RealVision + just about everything I could throw at it)

 

 

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.

 

I'd agree with the IPS over TN at least as far as colour and viewing angle is concerned (I can't bear TN panels personally) and the response time is decent for IPS (I wouldn't settle for >4ms myself). If you can stretch to a larger screen @ similar spec and resolution though I'd suggest you do so as I suspect that you'll grow tired of such a small screen after a while, or at least I would.

 

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.

 

There is nonetheless a noticeable difference between IPS and TN, IPS panels have much better colour reproduction and far wider viewing angles the only real advantage TN panels have today over IPS is faster response times and a lower asking price, TN typically 1ms or better and IPS 4ms at best. FPS gamers claim to be able to tell the difference but personally I wonder if its placebo. Whether any of this matters to the OP is another matter entirely but judging by his post above I'd say it does. And having just bought an Acer 34" 4ms IPS Freesync model myself I guess I'll just have to wait and see what their customer service is like if and when I need it, lol.

 

 

Thanks for everything you said,I really appreciate it :)

 

 

 

 

At 1080p @ 60fps there shouldn't be any trouble, at least if my R9 390 + i5 4590k is anything to by and its a similar (better) spec to the GTX 970. At 1440p its beyond its comfort zone but at 1080p it handled everything ok (RealVision + just about everything I could throw at it)

 

I'd agree with the IPS over TN at least as far as colour and viewing angle is concerned (I can't bear TN panels personally) and the response time is decent for IPS (I wouldn't settle for >4ms myself). If you can stretch to a larger screen @ similar spec and resolution though I'd suggest you do so as I suspect that you'll grow tired of such a small screen after a while, or at least I would.

 

There is nonetheless a noticeable difference between IPS and TN, IPS panels have much better colour reproduction and far wider viewing angles the only real advantage TN panels have today over IPS is faster response times and a lower asking price, TN typically 1ms or better and IPS 4ms at best. FPS gamers claim to be able to tell the difference but personally I wonder if its placebo. Whether any of this matters to the OP is another matter entirely but judging by his post above I'd say it does. And having just bought an Acer 34" 4ms IPS Freesync model myself I guess I'll just have to wait and see what their customer service is like if and when I need it, lol.

 

 

- My 290X has no issues with Skyrim either, even with mods, but its really tough to nail down wrt modding. I'm thinking of Oblivion in the past when I say this; I built a machine in 2008 with a 4870X2 that could run base Oblivion at 2560x1600 and still achieve 60+ FPS, but with the "right" cocktail of mods, it could drop down to under 20 FPS at 1080p - nothing to do with the base game or a deficiency in the hardware as much as overwhelming what the engine can do. I haven't seen that with Skyrim personally, but I'm sure such a thing is still plausible.

 

- On the IPS vs TN - 1ms is EXCEPTIONAL for any monitor, and should not be considered typical (#s from manufacturers are always pure lies) - most modern monitors are achieving (real world) 5-8ms, and very high end/high speed (>120Hz) TN panels can get into that 1-2ms range (but that isn't common - TOTL BenQ XL-series can hit around 2ms, which is not "typical" or "standard" of "TN monitors"). Contemporary IPS panels do no worse than average-cabbage TN in terms of being fast enough not to ghost/blur (again the myth of IPS being "dog slow" is outdated, as I'm sure you can probably attest to from personal experience) - viewing angle is not universally awful on TN, again older monitors have it worse than newer ones. Like I said previously, I'm not advocating one or the other, because both have improved significantly since the myth-making period of the late 1990s (but the myths largely refuse to die). I would just get whatever suits your resolution/size/budget from a decent manufacturer, and if you want higher refresh rates that's also a consideration (Skyrim will not run nicely >60 FPS though, so bear that in mind too).

 

- As far as "can tell the difference" - there's a subtle difference on my BenQ running at 144Hz + backlight strobe vs "conventional" 60Hz in terms of how fluid/clean motion is; if you've ever gamed on a CRT vs your LCD its kind of like that. There's just a "sharpness" to movement. It isn't worth getting in a fight over or anything. Let's not misappropriate biomedical concepts (e.g. "placebo") to the discussion. As far as Acer's customer service, they will very likely just hang up on you and/or not take your calls (based on my experience) - the class action lawsuits haven't happened arbitrarily and such.

 

 

 

 

Trust me when I say that I definitely won't be upgrading gpus that soon,it'll take me atleast a year,probably much more. After doing even more reading,I'm fairly sure that this gpu will give me near 980 performance (even with the vram issue),so I may even be able to skip the 980s altogether. I actually only have the next few months of time to spend on the build,and I won't be able to save up for a 980 in that span of time,so I'll stick with the 970 :smile: Also,after research I prefer Nvidia over AMD personally,but I'll still keep looking into things. Considering the panel,I see what you mean about them essentially being on the same field now,in a way,but I might as well shoot for the one that is 'supposed' to give me what I'm looking for :smile: I have found another monitor that I will be getting,its an HP and fits all my requirements,so I'm good there. When it comes to cpu cooler,I've been under the belief that the stock cooler,while not being the absolute best,can still do somewhat okay,so I'll still look for one,but it just won't be high up on the list. Right now I'm just trying to get all the necessary parts,and then I'll work on the extras :smile: Thanks again!

 

 

 

I would largely agree with the 980 being overpriced/not worth it in the grand scheme of things too, but if that's the card you wanted, that's why I'd wait. As far as the 900 series in general, in addition to the memory bug, you might also want to read about nVidia's lies about DX12 support (again, I'm not trying to take one side or the other, I'm trying to advocate for informed decision-making). It's a mess, to say the least.

 

As far as the monitor goes - I haven't bought an HP monitor in probably 15 years, but the last one I bought still works, for whatever that's worth. :smile:. Again I'm not trying to "steer" you into IPS or TN; get whatever is the best for your overall applications vs fixating on a single variable is my only point.

 

On the CPU cooler - the stock cooler can generally "get by" but given the price and performance of even a midling aftermarket cooler, I'd say its worth the $20-30 to both quiet the machine down and run the CPU cooler. Depending on how good/bad your case's airflow and ventilation is (this doesn't just mean "oh I have 7 fans its perfect" - intelligent placement of 2 good fans can best poor placement of 10 cheap fans), the stock cooler may fare better or worse than "get by" but keep in mind any better sink will experience the same benefits but perform better in either case (if that makes sense). Essentially I wouldn't regard a quality cooler here as an "extra" especially if you're after lots of long gaming sessions.

 

 

I'll keep doing my reading,no worries! And point taken with the CPU cooler,very much still looking into it :) Oh,and for all concerned,I would be a "she" ahaha :D Thanks again,you've been amazingly helpful!

[zodicus5]

in the 1st post with the build you have a non k skew processor with a overclock board (aka any z board) either up to the k series I5 or get a h97 board. no point in getting a OC board with a locked cpu or vice versa.

[StormUndomiel]

in the 1st post with the build you have a non k skew processor with a overclock board (aka any z board) either up to the k series I5 or get a h97 board. no point in getting a OC board with a locked cpu or vice versa.

 

Thanks for pointing that out,I managed to avoid that by getting a 4690k instead :D

[SilverBarK]

only one comment on your build, is this: Do look at ssd drives as they are now much better then they were. I m using one for my os and try to keep it clean from any other downloads. Even mods. i m using a samsung 840 which comes with checkers as well. keep it clean and dont download stuff to it and you should not have a problem and have a very fast machine. mine takes 40 secs to boot up and into my log in screen for my users. Os only the disk is 250 gig large. But, if in the future i upgrade my system which should be next year. I ll upgrade to a 250 ssd for the os and a 500 gig for the games only i ve already got a 3 TFLop for stuff. , and 3 other 80 gig older drives with a spare. well have fun hope this has been helpful. probably late though. oh well. get fallout 4 its a blast.

[StormUndomiel]

only one comment on your build, is this: Do look at ssd drives as they are now much better then they were. I m using one for my os and try to keep it clean from any other downloads. Even mods. i m using a samsung 840 which comes with checkers as well. keep it clean and dont download stuff to it and you should not have a problem and have a very fast machine. mine takes 40 secs to boot up and into my log in screen for my users. Os only the disk is 250 gig large. But, if in the future i upgrade my system which should be next year. I ll upgrade to a 250 ssd for the os and a 500 gig for the games only i ve already got a 3 TFLop for stuff. , and 3 other 80 gig older drives with a spare. well have fun hope this has been helpful. probably late though. oh well. get fallout 4 its a blast.

 

Ahaha,never too late :D I'm looking at SSDs too,thought I'd be fine with a HDD,but keep seeing the benefits of SSDs everywhere :) and yes,I'll grab Fallout 4!

[obobski]

only one comment on your build, is this: Do look at ssd drives as they are now much better then they were. I m using one for my os and try to keep it clean from any other downloads. Even mods. i m using a samsung 840 which comes with checkers as well. keep it clean and dont download stuff to it and you should not have a problem and have a very fast machine. mine takes 40 secs to boot up and into my log in screen for my users. Os only the disk is 250 gig large. But, if in the future i upgrade my system which should be next year. I ll upgrade to a 250 ssd for the os and a 500 gig for the games only i ve already got a 3 TFLop for stuff. , and 3 other 80 gig older drives with a spare. well have fun hope this has been helpful. probably late though. oh well. get fallout 4 its a blast.

 

The "OS drive" thing does nothing for games or otherwise performance - "boot up speed" is kind of a useless performance metric too (because it doesn't actually reflect the machine's computational performance or abilities; the fastest booting machines I've ever worked on are also usually the slowest (e.g. an Apple IIe will boot to a working state almost instantly; my dual and quad socket workstations and servers will usually take a few minutes - guess which one is faster)).

 

Overall SSDs are not a magic bullet - they increase read/write speed and reduce access latency, which can improve performance for tasks that are bound by those constraints, but otherwise they have no benefit (e.g. they won't improve frame-rates, they won't improve download speeds from the web, etc). And running one "just for the OS" makes even less sense imho, because none of your applications are going to benefit from it (as their data is not contained within it).