The 'Build Me A PC' Thread

[MahrinSkel]

I don't know about anyone else, but I typically have my tablet in my lap or on a table, and it's just over 3 feet from my eyes. If I want to see something better, I pinch-zoom, I don't get it closer to my eyes.

Like I said, it's tradeoffs, do you want outdated hardware under a high-rez screen? Since he's specifying Lollipop, I am guessing not. But that's probably enough for this slapfight.

--Dave

[Trippy]

The Galaxy Tab A is a newer model compared to the k1 but it's a significantly slower device. The k1 runs Lollipop too.

[Sky]

My main complaint with my Galaxy 12.1 is that several key apps are blocked (Office, X-Com), I'm guessing due to poor performance. It's an amazing tablet for media and gaming, hopefully they kick up the horsepower in future versions. While I was down with my foot in a cast it snuck into being a pretty essential device around the house.

[schild]

Android continues to be an absolute dog in the tablet arena. I gloss over anything tablet+android related and it depresses me a bit.

I am so happy the Google Fi sim works in the iPad Mini 2.

[MrHat]

I am so happy the Google Fi sim works in the iPad Mini 2.

Oh shit, that's pretty nice.  Just looking at all this Google Fi stuff now.  Seems pretty great and priced right if you find yourself in WiFi most of the time.

[schild]

I am so happy the Google Fi sim works in the iPad Mini 2.

Oh shit, that's pretty nice.  Just looking at all this Google Fi stuff now.  Seems pretty great and priced right if you find yourself in WiFi most of the time.

It's 2015. So, all of the time? The service has been amazing.

[Jade Falcon]

I've been tossing around the idea of a new pc,In the past I usually just pick and choose from lists you all have posted in this thread but it's seeming like things  haven't changed as clearly as they used too.I'm currently running an I7 2600k at 3.4ghz, is there a big gain going to a newer version of something at the same processor speed? I'm seeing recommendations for things like an i-5 4690 at 3.5 but too me the clock speeds all look basically the same, does the new architecture make a big difference?

Aside from that I'm running 8 gigs of ram and a Radeon R7 200 series.Am I just better off upping the ram to 16gigs and going to a newer R9 380 or 390 instead?

[Trippy]

Skylake is a more efficient architecture compared to Sandy Bridge so you can see an improvement in performance assuming the CPUs are running at the same clock depending on the game, resolution, quality settings, GPU, time of days, phase of the moon, etc. as you can see in these benchmarks.

However going from, say, an R7 265 to an R9 290x or 390 will give a much larger improvement assuming you aren't running at some minimalistic resolution.

Going from 8 GB to 16 GB RAM may or may not help. It depends on how much crap you have running at the same time you are running your games.

[Jade Falcon]

Thanks Trippy, Looking at that I'm not gaining much with a cpu upgrade at this time and running nothing in the background usually so won't worry about the ram boost. Leaves  me with some extra cash I can throw on the video card upgrade to get me what I'm looking for.

[KallDrexx]

So about monitors....

Since i had to give up one of my desktop monitors to use at work (company I started with some colleagues, not enough investment yet to justify the company buying us hardware) and my wife needs a new monitor, I've been trying to think of what to do about my home gaming/work PC.  I don't like the idea of just having one 1920x1200 (24") monitor, since when I"m browsing or doing work on it viewing two things at once sucks, 1920 just isn't enough space for side by side.  So I was thinking of giving my monitor to my wife and buying a new one for myself.  I'm looking at two options:

29" 21:9 1080p Ultrawide and a 27" 16:9 1440p.

Both have enough horizontal space to do side by side setups properly.  The extra vertical space of the 1440p would be a nice addition I think, but it comes at the cost of less wide physically.

For gaming, both will probably tax my Nvidia 660 pretty hard I'm sure, though I've been thinking of upgrading to a 970 (or AMD equivalent), but I'm also seeing mixed results on how well a 970 can power 1440p for games.  

Thoughts?

[MahrinSkel]

Go with the Ultra Wide. Have you used one before? I got so used to and fond of the extra width on my 29" AOC that when I needed a second monitor for docking the laptop at another location, I bought the 25" version of the LG you're looking at. I never did side-by side on 16:9 monitors, it just wasn't enough space (especially for toolbars) unless it was on two different monitors that were *actually* side by side. With the 21:9 I do it all the time and love it.

The ultrawide is about 30% more pixels than normal 1080P, I've found that it rarely makes a big difference in performance (graphics frames wise) when gaming, and the extra FOV in games that allow it is great. For those that have a 90 degree vertical fustrum, it makes the horizontal angle 210, which maps well to normal vision and helps with immersion (as well as peripheral vision). For the games that force horizontal fustrum and reduce vertical, I just reconfigure for 1080P with black bars. 1440P, on the other hand, is twice the pixels and no benefit but a more detailed view that may or may not get really used (and sometimes reduces fonts and UI in very annoying ways).

--Dave

[KallDrexx]

No I haven't used one before.  They definitely seem compelling though.

I guess the lack of vertical pixels isn't that bad, since Windows DPI scaling probably makes it irrelevant (as with just using the zoom settings in chrome/visual studio).

[MahrinSkel]

If/when really big monitors become the standard, 1440P or 4K will probably come with it. But for the desktop environment, where you're 2-3 feet from your monitor, 27" is already pushing the limit of usable and it really isn't gaining that much from 1440P. I can see it for artists that really do care about tiny differences at the pixel level, but even there I expect they'd rather jump all the way to 4K.

Otherwise, you're really talking about jumping all the way to 'wall display' grade, and what you'd want is a big 4K TV (which the video cards really aren't ready for). For PC gaming and ordinary productivity tasks, 1080x2560 beats 1440x2560 (and 1440x3440 34" ultrawides do exist, although now you're talking nearly a grand worth of monitor and nearly as many pixels as 4K). The one caveat: You may want to get some "4K Ready" cables, they don't cost much more and the ultrawides push lower grade HDMI to the limit (DisplayPort has enough room for 2 daisy-chained 1080 ultrawides).

--Dave

[apocrypha]

I am running a 970 at 1440p and it's fine, although we may play different kinds of games and have different definitions of fine ofc.

[KallDrexx]

MahrinSkel, have you seen many games not support 21:9 well?

I am running a 970 at 1440p and it's fine, although we may play different kinds of games and have different definitions of fine ofc.

Honestly, I"m not picky about performance, I just want games to run smooth and look ok with little knob turning.  The fact that I stream a lot of games from my desktop to my PC (via Nvidia Gamestream) should show I"m quite tolerable of a little lag and skips :P.

[apocrypha]

Should be fine then, the 970 is at a really sweet price:performance spot right now.

Personally I love 1440p. When I run a game in 1080p for recording etc then I really miss all the extra pixels. However I do have 2 monitors so I never have a need to have apps side by side. If I only had 1 monitor then I think ultrawide would be awesome.

[KallDrexx]

Ended up purchasing the 21:9 monitor.  Even though it's 1080p I figured it would be fine with the vertical pixels (that's what my laptop is and coding on that is fine) and the more screenshots of games in that aspect ratio I saw the more intriguing it became.

[KallDrexx]

This FOV is glorious, at least in testing it out with Dishonoured. 

I did lose about an inch (or maybe a tiny tiny bit less) of screen space, but I"m really digging the aspect ratio and no bezelling. 

[Furiously]

YouTube sucks on it. Other than that I'm really enjoying mine. Hulu and Netflix also can be disappointing with aspect ratios. But the screen itself is glorious.

[MahrinSkel]

Most of you have probably seen this, but here's an imgur gallery detailing the upgrade of a 486 DX2/66 Aptiva to an i7 6700k (WARNING: Huge images take forever to load). Essentially just a custom case conversion, but damn....





Coolest bit is a 128GB SD Card inside a 3.5" floppy, with the reader looking like the appropriate drive.

--Dave

[Merusk]

As someone who can't bring himself to discard his Aptiva case I find this awesome. (It was my first machine, and is now sitting in the basement with my rack of unused machines.)

[Chimpy]

Ahhh the ridiculousness of IBM front bezel plastics from the 1990s

[Teleku]

I've lately been working with certain government departments that have offices in the embassy to destroy their old PC's.  Several of which were Pentium 2's.   

God damn I forgot how armored cases in the 90's used to be. 

[Venkman]

It is time.

Division runs surprisingly well on this, until it freezes. And I don't even want to load up any VR benchmark tests.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz
Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 780i 3-way SLI (Socket 775)
8gb RAM
GeForce GTC 760
500gb SATA-II 7200rpm
Corsair H5O liquid cooling
Case: Antec Nine Hundred Two
CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W ATX12V / EPS12V

Trying to decide in what order to replace things.

Feels like mobo + CPU first VR test says it's my vidcard being all old (spoilered below). I'm open to recommendations. Money is some object but not restrictive.

Then I'd like to go SSD. But would SSD vastly improve the above rig, or would mobo+CPU go first?

I'm open to any recommendations.

[MahrinSkel]

The CPU is a little dated, but with that low a figure for CPU binding I'd replace the vidcard and see how that changes. CPU's haven't changed that much in per-core performance, and after 2 most gaming scenarios don't benefit from more.

SSD will improve any system, it's really no longer optional for gaming. Even if you need to replace the mobo and CPU, find about $90-100 for a 256gb SSD. Even if it means going cheap on the rest of the upgrade, it will be worth it.

--Dave

[Viin]

I picked up an EVGA GTX 960 for $190 on Newegg and it runs the Division just great. Too lazy to look it up, but make sure your mobo has a PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot.

[Venkman]

Ok thanks guys. I'll lean on GPU and SSD first.

Mahrin, thanks for the insights about the cores. Honestly I've been kind of surprised how much life I've gotten out of this CPU. But I probably shouldn't be given how much has shifted to the GPU.

Edit:

Combo offer: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE + Sandisk 480gb SSD for $477. Price looks good, but I don't know anything about SSD quality by brand.

Thoughts?

[Chimpy]

Sandisk drives are probably fine, I personally like Crucial drives.

And you can probably get similar if not better savings just by buying items separately than using Newegg's supercombos these days.

(Also, if you have Prime Amazon usually sells things at the same price as Newegg when it is on sale there and you get the free 2-day shipping)

[Venkman]

Sweet ok. Thanks.

[Trippy]

Which SanDisk drive is the bundle? Link doesn't work.

[Sky]

SSD will improve any system, it's really no longer optional for gaming.

Sure it is. No doubt my rig would run faster with one, but max settings on pretty much any game means SSD is still optional. The next piece I will add to the leapfrogging upgrade I've been running on this computer for 7 or 8 years now.

I would say the best thing anyone could add to their pc right now is a 970, those things chew through games.

[MahrinSkel]

Yeah, but he was already committed to the video card upgrade, and SSD is going to add more performance than an additional $100 on mobo+CPU even if it comes to that. Just reading the raw performance stats doesn't give you the experience of having really low load times, it really does make a big difference.

Imagine running your games and OS from a USB thumb drive. That is what HDD feels like after you've gone to SSD.

--Dave

[Sky]

I believe I was selective in my quote and response.

[Venkman]

Hehe.

Yea so I went with the 970 and the SSD noted above, but from Amazon Prime which was cheaper and faster. I'm sure something will melt when I get around to installing them this weekend.

Which reminds me of a technical question. To the other thread!

[Signe]

I got the 970, too, only it was the Asus not the Gigabyte.  I used to have the 760 but Black Desert blew it up.  The 970 is bausome.  Coupled with a new Corsair 750 watt power supply, I can run everything on super high mega supreme gfx and not a peep out of my computer.  I had forgot how nice it is to play a game or use software with a quiet computer.