Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 137963	2014-09-15 22:36:00	What computer should I build?	lostsoul62 (16011)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1384033	2014-09-15 22:36:00	I'm an average user and like to play games like Rage so if I build an i7 that would cost me $1500 or an i3 that would cost me $500 and put them side by side, will I be able to tell the difference? If so what would be the cheapest computer build that I couldn't tell the difference? I think that most people that build their own system will spend twice as much money for a 10% gain but that's something I want to avoid.	lostsoul62 (16011)
1384034	2014-09-15 22:40:00	On a gaming computer the important item is the Graphic card (not onboard Graphics), as that will be doing most of the work. Generally an i5 would be more than enough, no need to go to i7's.	wainuitech (129)
1384035	2014-09-16 01:04:00	I'd recommend these two articles as a reference: www.tomshardware.com www.tomshardware.com The i3 is surprisingly good at gaming and from personal experience often impossible to notice the difference from an i5, i7 in games. However more and more games are using 4 threads now that quad core is basically the norm. For this reason most would suggest an i5 as the best option going forward. I had an i3/ GTX 760 as a backup to my i7 / R9 290 gaming rig. On paper there's no comparison, in practice you could not notice much difference most of the time. I have an i7 because I wanted one, there is currently no reason to go above i5 for gaming. I'd say, Entry level @ 1080P - very good gaming and medium to ultra settings depending on the game i3, GTX 750Ti or R7 260X, 4-8 GB RAM Mid range @ 1080P - ultra setting on most games, high on the rest i5, GTX 760 or R9 270/ 270X, 8-16GB RAM High end @ 1080P, everything maxed all the time :) i5 or i7, GTX 770/780 or better or R9 280X, 290 or better, 8-16GB RAM Going any higher is best left for those who want multi monitor or super high res gaming and are prepared to pay a premium for it, the mid range option is where the best bang for buck lies and if you want to spend a little more bump the graphics card up a notch to a 770 or 280X and it will game as good as anything else on a 1080P monitor. I prefer Nvidia cards myself but the AMD options give better performance/ price so on a budget make more sense.	dugimodo (138)
1384036	2014-09-16 05:21:00	I'm an average user and like to play games like Rage so if I build an i7 that would cost me $1500 or an i3 that would cost me $500 and put them side by side, will I be able to tell the difference? . The single most important component for gaming is the GPU, not the CPU. I would choose an i5 - i3 is lacking, i7 more expensive, and then a DECENT GPU. See here for the ranking chart. www.tomshardware.com Top line = best, bottom line = worst. Taking into account budget you'd look at say, lines 3, 4 or 5. The higher the better.	pctek (84)
1384037	2014-09-16 09:55:00	The higher the better. Yes but to a point, for single monitor gaming at 1080P or lower anything over a 770 is not really needed and anything over a 780 complete overkill and a waste of money. Yes you could call buying a 780Ti or a titan "future proofing" but honestly by the time one of the cheaper cards is struggling you could then buy the new equivalent and still have spent less. A 770 is between 33 & 50% of the price of a 780 Ti - $450 vs $1150 for 1 EVGA model of each at computerlouge for example. I'd personally aim at the 770, 780, or the AMD equivalents (which are cheaper) with an i5 and 8 Gb of RAM An i3 will play pretty much any older or current game at decent frame rates but there have been specs quoted for upcoming titles which require an i5 or better and will not play on an i3 and that will just get more common over time.	dugimodo (138)
1384038	2014-09-16 20:01:00	Yes but to a point, for single monitor gaming at 1080P or lower anything over a 770 is not really needed . Depends what games you play for one. And how, I like to have all the settings on max, no loss of pretty - and keep the framerate up too. I did spend a few years with mid range cards, adjusting settings on cards as new games came along.....never again.	pctek (84)
1384039	2014-09-17 02:51:00	Spend 3x your CPU value on your GPU, and the GPU will still be the bottleneck. Good rough rule of thumb :)	Chilling_Silence (9)
1384040	2014-09-17 04:47:00	Yes but to a point, for single monitor gaming at 1080P or lower anything over a 770 is not really needed and anything over a 780 complete overkill and a waste of money . I'd personally aim at the 770, 780, or the AMD equivalents (which are cheaper) with an i5 and 8 Gb of RAM . Have just finished Putting together a machine with those specs . i5 4460 (3 . 2Ghz) 8GB HyperX RAM ASUS GTX 770 GA-B85M-D3H Motherboard Windows 8 . 1 If the start-up speed is anything to go by, it will be quite interesting (trying it out tomorrow with the owners games) Even with an Antivirus installed and a standard HDD (non SSD) from completely off to fully up and running 11 seconds ( had to time it twice - thought It was wrong) :) I want I want :D	wainuitech (129)
1384041	2014-09-17 05:20:00	Have just finished Putting together a machine with those specs. i5 4460 (3.2Ghz) 8GB HyperX RAM ASUS GTX 770 GA-B85M-D3H Motherboard Windows 8.1 If the start-up speed is anything to go by, it will be quite interesting (trying it out tomorrow with the owners games) Run 3DMark on it, that will Benchmark it.	pctek (84)
1384042	2014-09-17 05:52:00	Run 3DMark on it, that will Benchmark it. Actually went to do that - Slight problem -- Nod32 stopped it dead :( got something to do with the fact it detects Ask.com malware bundled. I actually went to try it on this PC first to see what it would get, went to install (Only thing installed on this yesterday) and ......... 5925	wainuitech (129)
1 2