Help me build my new gaming PC

[thethird]

So since coming december is my birthday I decided to throw myself a big present and build a computer. I am inexperienced with building computers but I should be able to get a hold of it, I'm not alien to opening machinery and mounting things even if I haven't done it since college.

I'm quite at a loss as for which parts to buy but after looking thoroughly through choosemypc, logicalincrements and pcpartpicker

I'm pretty happy with: https://es.pcpartpicker.com/user/Kaelha/saved/#view=RxLRsY

I worry in particular about the motherboard, they more or less look the same to me, I think that should be enough but should I go a bit higher with it? Is there any newbie mystake I'm making? Some advice?

Current plan is to buy components on cyber monday, even if it's not that big here in Spain, although I might want to buy the video card before, as it is currently on sale.

[Seerow]

For the motherboard, I'm literally right in the middle of building my own PC, and I went with the Asus z170-A. It would require some rebuilding, since it has a new PC socket (1151 instead of 1150) for the 6th generation intel processors. It also uses DDR4 RAM instead of DDR3. But if you're happy with the processor/RAM you already have, the motherboard you got is fine.

Also, the k series intel processors are unlocked for overclocking, and generally don't come with a heat sink (and even if they did, if you plan on doing any overclocking you'd want an aftermarket heatsink anyway), so make sure to get a good heat sink for your build. If you don't plan on overclocking, you can probably find a comparable processor for like 25% less.

[thethird]

Thanks for the reply :smallsmile:

I don't plan on overclocking right of the bat, but I will probably do it sometime down the line, the plan is when that time comes review my machine and most likely buy a heat sink.

I'm happy with the processor and ram, shouldn't that last me for a while? I mean if I'm buying obviously outdated stuff let me know. :smalleek:

Still I'm considering switching to a MSI Z97 Gaming 5 after a couple of friends complaining about the previous one.

[wumpus]

I have no clue about the Spanish market, so stuck to the pcpartpicker under the "Spain" tab.

Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor - Looks straightforward enough.
MSI Z97-GAMING 5 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard - I'm not the one to ask about motherboards, but no red flags.
G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory - big, fast, and low price. Can't beat that.
Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive - Doesn't seem to be showing up, but the Crucial BX100 is. I guess it will all change on Monday.
- Note: SSD drives seem to be the only thing still driven by Moore's law. If there was one thing I would expect to upgrade in a few years it would be the SSD.
Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive: OK, this one I can't agree with:
- Seagates are the drive most commonly distrusted brand.
- There is a Hitachi 2T for 5 euros more. http://www.amazon.es/dp/B004Q3QMA4/?tag=pcp02-21
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE
- Look at es.pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-video-card-r9290dc24gd5 100 Euros less, mostly the same power.
- No idea if AMD can keep up with the drivers. They seem to keep laying off workers.
- the AMD uses 300W to the 970s 150W. Might get a bit hot in Spain.
Fractal Design Define R5 w/Window (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case
- 8 3.5" bays and you go with the 1T Seagate? This has RAID5 written all over it. Maybe you aren't buying it for the bays, but still.
Enermax REVOLUTION X't 730W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply
- There's little reason to use a 730W power supply on a <300W computer.
- Can't help you at all with the Spanish power supply market. I'd recommend a Corsair, but it looks like they don't ship to Spain. Brands matter in power supplies (less so elsewhere).
- Keep this if you buy the AMD listed above.

[thethird]

I have no clue about the Spanish market, so stuck to the pcpartpicker under the "Spain" tab.

Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor - Looks straightforward enough.
MSI Z97-GAMING 5 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard - I'm not the one to ask about motherboards, but no red flags.
G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory - big, fast, and low price. Can't beat that.
Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive - Doesn't seem to be showing up, but the Crucial BX100 is. I guess it will all change on Monday.

- Note: SSD drives seem to be the only thing still driven by Moore's law. If there was one thing I would expect to upgrade in a few years it would be the SSD.

Thanks for the reply, yeah I've got no much clue about the spanish market either. :smalltongue:

The SSD I got that one because a friend insisted that samsung ones were good, and I found it at another online store that pcpartpicker doesn't seem to refer to.


Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive: OK, this one I can't agree with:
- Seagates are the drive most commonly distrusted brand.
- There is a Hitachi 2T for 5 euros more. http://www.amazon.es/dp/B004Q3QMA4/?tag=pcp02-21

Yay! Thanks for that, I'm unfamiliar with red flags and didn't find any review that seemed particularly troubling. Changing it.


Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE
- Look at es.pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-video-card-r9290dc24gd5 100 Euros less, mostly the same power.
- No idea if AMD can keep up with the drivers. They seem to keep laying off workers.
- the AMD uses 300W to the 970s 150W. Might get a bit hot in Spain.

Mh... I would rather keep the wattage low, it gets hot over here. I also feel like going with nvidia, even if it's a bit more expensive (it goes with the new assassin's creed too, which I will eventually buy)


Fractal Design Define R5 w/Window (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case
- 8 3.5" bays and you go with the 1T Seagate? This has RAID5 written all over it. Maybe you aren't buying it for the bays, but still.
Enermax REVOLUTION X't 730W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply
- There's little reason to use a 730W power supply on a <300W computer.
- Can't help you at all with the Spanish power supply market. I'd recommend a Corsair, but it looks like they don't ship to Spain. Brands matter in power supplies (less so elsewhere).
- Keep this if you buy the AMD listed above.

Could you link me to a RAID5 case? I don't seem to be able to find them.

Corsair does ship to spain, what W should I get?

[LokeyITP]

An SSD longevity test to look at if it's slightly dated: http://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-casualties-on-the-way-to-a-petabyte The brand return rates between Seagate and WD don't differ that much AFAIK.

You said you checked out logicalincrements so guess you're looking pretty high end, which I don't know that much about, but you probably want at least 600W power supply. Watch out for the main consumer lines, you want a very solid power supply (a power supply that dies can take a lot of other things with it). I think the higher end corsairs are ok, not entirely sure as I've always used FSP. Get at least 1.5x the wattage of your max draw from vid + cpu + mobo + anything else in the box that draws comparable power (most other stuff like ram or drives is low wattage compared to these).

[wumpus]

The listed case can store 8 3.5" drives. RAID is merely an acronym for combining lots of drives into one (more reliable) drive. If you don't want a ton of storage, don't bother. It just seemed like an odd feature to have on the case you happened to pick.

I'd probably drop down to about 600W (assuming that power supplies were any cheaper at 600W vs. 730W), and easily take a 500W over a 730W. My best guess as to how to spec a power supply is to try and figure out typical [heavy] usage and double that. Even more important is to be clearly higher than any total possible usage spike. The video card should consume ~150W (tops should be 200W, even if overclocked). CPU should be 88W (a lot more if overclocked). Hard drives might pull 10-15W, the motherboard not much more. If there isn't much of a price difference don't bother (and hope the gold qualification can deal with all the inefficiencies of low power loads).

Note that the site for Seagate vs. Western Digital is about SSDs. I suggested changing the old fashioned spinning hard drive (I'd think the extra terrabyte would justify the deal, but if your old drive had empty space, there's no reason to pay for more empty space).

[factotum]

My best guess as to how to spec a power supply is to try and figure out typical [heavy] usage and double that. Even more important is to be clearly higher than any total possible usage spike.

Just a note: the PSUs in computers are typically most efficient at around 70% load. If you run them higher or lower than that you end up wasting more power, so if you can arrange for typical heavy load to use 70% of the available power you'll end up paying a bit less for your electricity in the long run.

[thethird]

Thanks guys! I do in fact have empty space at my current hard disk, which will be salvaged into my new computer once the laptop finally dies.

A friend suggested upgrading the graphic card, but going to a 980 is really expensive (almost twice as much the price of the current one), would it be worth it? At what point should I be considering there are flash offers going on now due to black friday and I'm keeping track of possible offers. If nothing interesting pops up I'll have time on monday to buy the rest.

[tyckspoon]

A friend suggested upgrading the graphic card, but going to a 980 is really expensive (almost twice as much the price of the current one), would it be worth it? At what point should I be considering there are flash offers going on now due to black friday and I'm keeping track of possible offers. If nothing interesting pops up I'll have time on monday to buy the rest.

Not unless you're also planning to get a monitor that supports a resolution in excess of 1920x1080. The 970 you have selected should be good for practically anything up to 25x1440 (I don't remember the actual number there) or multiple monitors spanning a widescreen format of x1080. Heck, if you're sticking with 1920x1080 the 970 is probably significant overkill, especially if you aren't a details-hound or chasing frame rates so high you can't identify any practical difference in how the game runs.

[thethird]

Shiny!

The 970 will be more than enough to play the current top tier games then? I'm building this to last for a few years and while I don't really want to throw 600 euros at a new card I want even less to throw them after realizing that my 970 is outdated (and I've already spent 300).

[Flickerdart]

25x1440 (I don't remember the actual number there)
2560x1440. It's easy to remember because it's just a doubling of 1280x720 (720p, what used to pass for HD, which is why 2560x1440 is QHD (quad HD)). 5K (which Dell and Apple are putting into their newest top-end things but nobody else needs) is another doubling of that, to 5120x2880.

[halfeye]

2560x1440. It's easy to remember because it's just a doubling of 1280x720 (720p, what used to pass for HD, which is why 2560x1440 is QHD (quad HD)). 5K (which Dell and Apple are putting into their newest top-end things but nobody else needs) is another doubling of that, to 5120x2880.
On the other hand, UHD is here now for relatively reasonable money, and you probably need a 980ti for that, and will need even more for whatever follows. There are 1080p camcorders, there are UHD camcorders (only 30 fps so far), and very little if anything in between, which suggests to me that UHD is for consumers this time around (but it probably is turtles all the way down).

[Flickerdart]

4K/UHD is...sort of pointless right now. QHD technology is pretty mature, it's just not a spectacular jump over 1080P.

Really, what you want depends on your monitor size if you intend to use the machine outside of gaming at all, because scaling by anything other than doublings is poorly handled by most software that can handle it at all. For anything in the 17-20 inch range, 4K is perfect because you just get double the sharpness of a 1080P screen without changing anything's size. For laptops, QHD is better because you're doing the same thing with 720P. If you don't intend to double sharpness but want 1:1 pixels, QHD is best up until pretty stupid sizes (like 30 inch godlike megapanels) simply because everything would be too small on 4K.

[halfeye]

4K/UHD is...sort of pointless right now. QHD technology is pretty mature, it's just not a spectacular jump over 1080P.

UHD is technically pointless, but kind of pretty. There are people who are prepared to argue your ears off that 4k is never less than 4096 * 2160 pixels.

Myself, I had 1600 *1200 pixels since the year 2000, then went to 1920 * 1200 because I didn't want to lose any screen depth. UHD is now in the position 1080p was in six to ten years ago, all the marketing men are lining up to fight over their model of 3840 * 2160 pixels versus everyone else's. If you remmember how that went, first 1080p was barely available, but quite moderately priced, now it's the cheap option; you can get 1600 * 1200 pixels, sometimes, but you'll pay three times what you'll pay for 1080p, for more or less exactly the same number of pixels, and 1920 * 1200 is about twice the price of 1080p. From my POV, UHD has enoiugh depth, I'd take more if I could get it but I don't need it, and extra width is just stupid people fighting over movies that I barely watch.


Really, what you want depends on your monitor size if you intend to use the machine outside of gaming at all, because scaling by anything other than doublings is poorly handled by most software that can handle it at all. For anything in the 17-20 inch range, 4K is perfect because you just get double the sharpness of a 1080P screen without changing anything's size. For laptops, QHD is better because you're doing the same thing with 720P. If you don't intend to double sharpness but want 1:1 pixels, QHD is best up until pretty stupid sizes (like 30 inch godlike megapanels) simply because everything would be too small on 4K.

If you bought QHD years ago, no need to change. If you're buying up from 1080p or so (or less), then UHD is a pretty compelling option at 28 inches at the moment, it's almost the same price as QHD and it's noticably nicer.

[Flickerdart]

From my POV, UHD has enoiugh depth, I'd take more if I could get it but I don't need it, and extra width is just stupid people fighting over movies that I barely watch.
Have you ever considered going multi-monitor vertical? Either 3 identical vertical panels, or a horizontal panel and then a vertical panel of the right size next to it. If you're after depth, it seems like that would be an excellent and cheap solution for you.

[factotum]

If you remmember how that went, first 1080p was barely available, but quite moderately priced, now it's the cheap option; you can get 1600 * 1200 pixels, sometimes, but you'll pay three times what you'll pay for 1080p, for more or less exactly the same number of pixels, and 1920 * 1200 is about twice the price of 1080p.

Yeah, but the reason for those price differences is a simple one: TV resolutions. 1920x1080 is a common HD TV resolution, which means the panels which support it are made in the millions for flatscreen TVs--it doesn't take much effort to adapt such a panel for computer monitor use. The same isn't true of 1600x1200 or 1920x1200, which is why those options are more expensive. I think it'll be a while before you get the same economies of scale for 4k or whatever monitors, because it takes a lot more broadcast bandwidth to accommodate TV at that resolution and the bandwidth simply isn't available on terrestrial or satellite channels--only cable TV could realistically allow such a huge increase in bandwidth requirements.

[halfeye]

Yeah, but the reason for those price differences is a simple one: TV resolutions. 1920x1080 is a common HD TV resolution, which means the panels which support it are made in the millions for flatscreen TVs--it doesn't take much effort to adapt such a panel for computer monitor use. The same isn't true of 1600x1200 or 1920x1200, which is why those options are more expensive. I think it'll be a while before you get the same economies of scale for 4k or whatever monitors, because it takes a lot more broadcast bandwidth to accommodate TV at that resolution and the bandwidth simply isn't available on terrestrial or satellite channels--only cable TV could realistically allow such a huge increase in bandwidth requirements.
Well yeah, but did you ever hear of a QHD TV?

Ignoring TV, because I do, at this point UHD is a better deal than QHD, and the difference in value is only going to get bigger.

If you already have it, QHD is enough at least till 8k, and maybe even then, but if you're buying in new now, UHD is clearly a lot more pixels per unit of currency.

[wumpus]

I've noticed plenty of 4k TVs out, and the reasonably priced ones inevitably operate at 30Hz (with a possible exception listed in a black friday ad. Not sure if mistake, bait and switch, or they are finally come down in price). From what I understand, this tends to make even mouse movements iffy (for some people. I'm one of the ones who will crank the graphics options up until I get a slideshow, and then keep it there). Of course, you might need a 980ti or more expensive to get 60Hz on the latest games.

A related question is dealing with virtual reality. Occulus should ship next year, and is going to require at minimum something like OP's GTX970. On the other hand, since it puts *nearly* the same image on both eyes, SLI should roughly double framerate (ignoring the issues of loading data in and out). OP's motherboard and powersupply (assuming he doesn't follow my advice and buy a smaller one) will handle a second 970.

[Flickerdart]

Actually, refresh rate is another good point - HDMI can only do 4K at 60Hz IIRC, but 2560 can do 144Hz (because more Hz = more better, obvs).

[halfeye]

Actually, refresh rate is another good point - HDMI can only do 4K at 60Hz IIRC, but 2560 can do 144Hz (because more Hz = more better, obvs).
HDMI is rubbish, and DVi is worse for UHD, you need Display Port 1.2 or better.

HDMI is rubbish because as a standard, HDMI 2.0 only mandates the same specifications as HDMI 1.4, any other features from HDMI 2.0 are allowed, but not mandated, and have to be advertised on the packaging and promotion of the product as well as the declaration of HDMI 2.0 compliance. Which is to say, if all it says on the packaging is HDMI 2.0, you're not guaranteed by that statement that you've got anything more than what you would be guaranteed with HDMI 1.4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison


Version comparison

Note that a given product may choose to implement a subset of the given HDMI version. Certain features such as deep color and xvYCC are optional.[123]

<edit> The Wikipedia entry for HDMI has changed, now it's not so clear that as a standard it's broken, but having optional parts seems bad to me.

[thethird]

A related question is dealing with virtual reality. Occulus should ship next year, and is going to require at minimum something like OP's GTX970. On the other hand, since it puts *nearly* the same image on both eyes, SLI should roughly double framerate (ignoring the issues of loading data in and out). OP's motherboard and powersupply (assuming he doesn't follow my advice and buy a smaller one) will handle a second 970.

It's not a big difference in price and the ease of upscaling is always nice to have. Still I don't know what I will end buying because it will heavily fluctuate due to sales in this coming days.

[thethird]

Well some early bird offers came up. https://es.pcpartpicker.com/user/Kaelha/saved/#view=RxLRsY


I'd probably drop down to about 600W (assuming that power supplies were any cheaper at 600W vs. 730W), and easily take a 500W over a 730W. My best guess as to how to spec a power supply is to try and figure out typical [heavy] usage and double that. Even more important is to be clearly higher than any total possible usage spike. The video card should consume ~150W (tops should be 200W, even if overclocked). CPU should be 88W (a lot more if overclocked). Hard drives might pull 10-15W, the motherboard not much more. If there isn't much of a price difference don't bother (and hope the gold qualification can deal with all the inefficiencies of low power loads).

I ended buying a platimax 600W for the power source, while it was a bit more expensive it was more efficient, and according to reviews better made.

[thracian]

Speaking specifically to the case, I actually chose that case for a build that had zero mechanical hard drives. Took the drives cages out, actually. It's just a really, really nice case. Of all the cases I've built in, the Define R5 is easily my favourite.

Apart from that, my main question is if there is a reason you're going for an i7 instead of an i5? For general use and single-GPU gaming, there is often only a negligible difference between the two.

[thethird]

Some of the calculations I need to do for work take a long time with my current rig, while the computer is not intended for work, I thought that an i7 might help alleviate that.

The parts are now bought and should get here by tomorrow at the latest (the gpu, cpu, and extra fans haven't arrived yet). Right now I'm reading the motherboard manual as a preparation for the mounting and installation, along with whaching several video tutorials on the matter. Any particularly useful bit of intel to look for?

[thracian]

Paying attention to how to connect front panel stuff like power and reset buttons is important, as is paying attention to which RAM slots you use (if using fewer than all of them). Make sure the little arrow on the CPU socket lines up with the arrow on the CPU itself, and put the CPU in straight down, to avoid bending pins.

From my own first time building I PC, I remember that both inserting RAM and pressing down the arm to lock down the CPU socket cover took way more force than I thought it would, so don't worry too much about that.

[halfeye]

From my own first time building I PC, I remember that both inserting RAM and pressing down the arm to lock down the CPU socket cover took way more force than I thought it would, so don't worry too much about that.

With recent Intel CPUs, there's a little nut sort of thing that the CPU cover has to go under before you close it, and then it doesn't take that much force.

[thethird]

Speaking specifically to the case, I actually chose that case for a build that had zero mechanical hard drives. Took the drives cages out, actually. It's just a really, really nice case. Of all the cases I've built in, the Define R5 is easily my favourite.

Two questions about the case then :smallsmile:

First where I need to install the motherboard there are the usual holes to put the standoffs to protect the motherboard but there is an already installed one, which appears to be metallic and connected to the case. I assume this is fine and won't fry my motherboard.

Second I bought an extra case fan, a noctua, nf a-14 and I bought a fan for the cpu an hyper evo 212. The current plan is to install the a-14 at the front under the one already installed and the 212 pulling air from the intake to the exhaust. But... just making sure, would that be the best idea? Or perhaps should I replace the exhaust fan at the back and replace it with a-14?

[factotum]

First where I need to install the motherboard there are the usual holes to put the standoffs to protect the motherboard but there is an already installed one, which appears to be metallic and connected to the case. I assume this is fine and won't fry my motherboard.


You shouldn't make any such assumption. If that standoff happens to be where one of the motherboard mounting screws goes, then that's good. If it's not, remove it; you *will* short out your motherboard and possibly damage a lot of expensive kit if you leave it there.

[thethird]

Well the hardware is up and running. The software though is giving me trouble.

I don't have a dvd reader and booting windows from a usb is proving terribly complicated

[Seerow]

Well the hardware is up and running. The software though is giving me trouble.

I don't have a dvd reader and booting windows from a usb is proving terribly complicated

I actually blew the 20 bucks on a dvd reader for that exact purpose. I've never had a good experience trying to make windows bootable via usb stick.

[factotum]

I actually blew the 20 bucks on a dvd reader for that exact purpose. I've never had a good experience trying to make windows bootable via usb stick.

And if you don't want to spoil the lines of your machine by fitting an internal DVD reader you can get USB-attached ones for a similar sort of price, though whether those would work better than the USB stick is anyone's guess.

[Flickerdart]

I installed 8.1 off an external DVD reader, worked like a charm.

[thethird]

I succeeded on making it bootable from the usb yay!