Gathering parts for a gaming pc need your opinion

[Dan3345]

Hey back again i've been reading your suggestions and changed some parts around. The only parts im not exactly sure on are the Power supply, Motherboard and the GPU (a gpu that could run bf3 at max ) so guys feel free to express your opinion but just try to keep in mind when suggesting im trying to keep it around $1350 $1400 being the max and I must thankyou all for your suggestions they have been of great help to me and appreciate all of you guys for helping a noob like me.

 

Cpu: intel core i5 2500k (3.3ghz) $204

 

Motherboard: ASrock pro3 gen3 atx intel Z68 DDR3 1066 intel $104

 

Video card: xfx r7970 black edition $450

 

Case: cooler master haf atx mid tower case $99

 

PSU: corsair enthusiast TX V2 series 750w modular 80+ bronze $114

 

RAM: G-skill 8gb ripjaw x-series DDR3 1333 MHz $43

 

CPU Fan: cooler master hyper evo 212. $31

 

HDD: western digital black 500gb $96

 

Optical drive: asus 24xDVD-RW $21

 

Operating system: windows home premium 64 bit $96

 

Total: $1260

 

I would change the PSU for this one. Its a little more money at $150 but at 850 watts it gives you some headroom for addons you may want to make in the future. With intel chips and new gen video cards the efficiency you can expect is insane. So under load you may expect to only get up to about 680 watts, but its always good to have room for the PSU to breathe.

 

I have a 950 watt PSU, but my computer only chugs 780watts even with two video cards. The tech of today is very efficient.

 

Good choice on intel by the way.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Dan3345

[FMod]

I would change the PSU for this one. Its a little more money at $150 but at 850 watts it gives you some headroom for addons you may want to make in the future.

I don't really see the point. RS850 has poor ripple suppression, +12V and especially +5V and +3.3V ripple is barely within the permitted range. It's built by Enhance, a variable-mediocre quality builder, versus Seasonic for TX750V2.

Since his PC components will actually consume less than 350W, I don't see a reason to pay $40 more for a lower quality power supply that will never be loaded to a level where the difference in rated power affects anything.

[AlexxEG]

I would've switch the GPU for a GTX 670. It's cheaper (some of them atleast) and better Edited May 25, 2012 by Alexx378

[Dan3345]

I would change the PSU for this one. Its a little more money at $150 but at 850 watts it gives you some headroom for addons you may want to make in the future.

I don't really see the point. RS850 has poor ripple suppression, +12V and especially +5V and +3.3V ripple is barely within the permitted range. It's built by Enhance, a variable-mediocre quality builder, versus Seasonic for TX750V2.

Since his PC components will actually consume less than 350W, I don't see a reason to pay $40 more for a lower quality power supply that will never be loaded to a level where the difference in rated power affects anything.

I see your point. I was just suggesting he buy one with more wattage period. My thinking is, even if he won't need it now he may want it later on.

[FMod]

I see your point. I was just suggesting he buy one with more wattage period. My thinking is, even if he won't need it now he may want it later on.

I see. But there's really very little need today for a 850W power supply. Most PCs draw under 300W, even OP's configuration should stay under 350W without overclocking.

And PSU are not all equal at every given power, some are better than others.

 

 

 

Alexx378 :

It's a narrow margin, but at resolutions of 1080p and higher (and why else would you buy a $450 card?) 670 is a little slower than 7970 stock and considerably slower than factory-overclocked 7970, as most of them are.

 

At 2560x1600 or playing stereo-3D, 7970's advantage increases. It also increases if you have multiple displays and will keep increasing in future games as they consume more VRAM, since 7970 has more RAM and a faster 384-bit RAM bus. And 670 is very tricky to overclock due to turbo boost, with its cooling system further adding insult to injury. 7970 overclocks very well, very easily, and comes with the power supply and the cooling system to handle it.

 

While I wouldn't call anyone a fool for buying a 670, the one to consider replacing 7970 with is 680, but not 670.

Even then it's a tough call, 680 is a bit faster right now in standard conditions, but its lower theoreticals and greater rate of performance loss with increased settings indicate that it won't retain that position well as GCN drivers are improved and future games (or current games with high-res texture packs) put higher stress on the memory subsystem. 680's small performance edge comes from higher clocks with turbo boost, but it lacks the headroom for complex processing or high detail levels.

 

I would say if you don't use texture packs or heavily modded configurations, don't overclock, don't use or plan on using 2560x1440 (2560x1600), or stereo 3D, or multiple monitors, don't use or plan on using GPU computing applications, and don't plan on keeping your GPU for more than 18 months, then for equal money 680 is the better pick. If you only tick one of these boxes, pick the one that is cheaper. If more than one, 7970 is a better and more future-proof solution.

 

Every "or" counting as a separate box, but use the price of a non-reference 7970 as those are needed for low noise. That's 680 versus 7970.

Edited May 25, 2012 by FMod

[AlexxEG]

I see your point. I was just suggesting he buy one with more wattage period. My thinking is, even if he won't need it now he may want it later on.

I see. But there's really very little need today for a 850W power supply. Most PCs draw under 300W, even OP's configuration should stay under 350W without overclocking.

And PSU are not all equal at every given power, some are better than others.

 

 

 

Alexx378 :

It's a narrow margin, but at resolutions of 1080p and higher (and why else would you buy a $450 card?) 670 is a little slower than 7970 stock and considerably slower than factory-overclocked 7970, as most of them are.

 

At 2560x1600 or playing stereo-3D, 7970's advantage increases. It also increases if you have multiple displays and will keep increasing in future games as they consume more VRAM, since 7970 has more RAM and a faster 384-bit RAM bus. And 670 is very tricky to overclock due to turbo boost, with its cooling system further adding insult to injury. 7970 overclocks very well, very easily, and comes with the power supply and the cooling system to handle it.

 

While I wouldn't call anyone a fool for buying a 670, the one to consider replacing 7970 with is 680, but not 670.

Even then it's a tough call, 680 is a bit faster right now in standard conditions, but its lower theoreticals and greater rate of performance loss with increased settings indicate that it won't retain that position well as GCN drivers are improved and future games (or current games with high-res texture packs) put higher stress on the memory subsystem. 680's small performance edge comes from higher clocks with turbo boost, but it lacks the headroom for complex processing or high detail levels.

 

I would say if you don't use texture packs or heavily modded configurations, don't overclock, don't use or plan on using 2560x1440 (2560x1600), or stereo 3D, or multiple monitors, don't use or plan on using GPU computing applications, and don't plan on keeping your GPU for more than 18 months, then for equal money 680 is the better pick. If you only tick one of these boxes, pick the one that is cheaper. If more than one, 7970 is a better and more future-proof solution.

 

Every "or" counting as a separate box, but use the price of a non-reference 7970 as those are needed for low noise. That's 680 versus 7970.

 

Ohh, my bad. Double checked the site I saw the benchmarks and I think I looked at the 7950 rather then the 7970. Thank you for correcting me :)

[FMod]

The same still applies to 7950 vs 670 though, except with 670 you also have to get a non-reference or you're stuck with its PCB and cooler.

[AlexxEG]

From what I saw in the benchmarks, the 670 performed better then 7950 at 2560x1600 resolution.

[FMod]

Well, yes, it's not like it maps 1:1, just the principle that applies. 670 does relatively better. Depends on the game.

 

However 7950 is clocked very low (825 MHz) and it has the full VRM and cooling systems of 7970, so it's silly not to increase it to 1000 MHz, haven't heard of a single card that wouldn't do it, 1100+ is common.

At stock clock 670 does recovers positions somewhat, it's not as limited by its narrow memory bus and small amount as 680 is. If only NV didn't nerf its PCB and cooling so badly.

 

It's also where the difference lies. 670's weak spots are games like Witcher 2 and Metro 2033 which have severe framerate drop at high settings, while most titles that do well on 670-680 do well on both. It's still a cost issue though, at the moment.

[AlexxEG]

I see. I don't know much about the technical stuff, but I feel like I learned something from this, so thank you :)