Want to build the best gaming computer I can for $2600

[hellokitty[hk]]

I've heard of the Essence being a very nice card, too bad they don't have a PCIe-x1 version, and that if you want 5.1 surround sound you need to use S/PDIF. I had the X-530s before I blew out the left channel twice, those were great speakers. I heard the 540s weren't as good (looked cooler though), but only by a small margin.

ASUS Xonar Essence STX Virtual 7.1 Channels PCI Express x1 Interface 124 dB SNR / Headphone AMP Card

 

[madboyv1]

derp, that's what I get for not doing a search myself first.

The 5.1 surround sound comment is still accurate, however, since "virtual 7.1 surround" does not count.

 

[insanewhitekid]

Hey red unlock the fps bud. Klepto, if you are playing games, creative is also very good. If you are going for games you want a card that supports LEGIT EAX support.

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

Longer you mean, but I digress.

When choosing hardware I usually weigh performance, features, reported reliability, and efficiency higher than price (though price is important of course). Additional benefits (such as longer warranty) come as an extra bonus, and should not necessarily be a deciding factor.*

In my opinion the extra 2 years does not make a big difference. It has been my experience that every hard drive I've ever owned has lasted significantly longer than the average 3 year warranty period (I have drives over a decade old that still work just fine). In fact, I have given away more drives because I did not need them anymore than I have thrown out/destroyed drives because of failure.

Plus both 3 years and 5 years is a long LONG time in the computer world, by then platter drives for the average joe might be dying off with SSD taking center stage. Platter Drives might be 2-3 (or 5+ if Toshiba gets to the point of producing bit-patterned based drives at a consumer price) times the capacity for the same price, who knows.

I guess I'm just really lucky with my drives.



*A drive that runs cooler and more efficiently should in theory last longer, which is what I'm getting at.

Point taken. I've taken a liking to the SpinPoint series as well, and I'm actually considering buying one myself, along with a new HD 6850.

As for the ST vs the STX, the ST is the better card, having higher-quality hardware compared to the STX.

 

[klepto12]

guys thanks for all your help i want some killer speakers with this setup and i think you have helped me out now to wait on the money and bask in the new computer im going to build.

 

[insanewhitekid]

Klepto, if you are going all out. I would wait for the sandy bridge. leaked info from Japan, that the new processor is running at 5Ghz cool and stable. The retail maybe expensive at first, but hey, maybe by then you'll have 3k saved up

 

[klepto12]

that sounds good but sandy bridge is the replacement for i5 cpus and will not be top of the line also i think a top end i7 system will still offer great performance for a couple years to come if you look at what im running now its a huge step up.

 

[klepto12]

guys i have been doing a lot of reading and i dont think i like the corsair force ssd very much it seems to get a lot of bad reviews and seems to have problems would getting a good old intel ssd be better?

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

My own search has revealed that the latest Force 2.0 firmware has solved the BSOD issues. So don't worry about it IMHO. There are no other issues with the Force drives that I know of.

 

[Polah]

Got to disagree with getting a 980X. It's an immensely powerful processor, granted, but this is a PC that'll be primarily used for gaming. A lot of people tend to forget that the vast majority of games only really use two cores maximum. Games like Crysis or Metro 2033 that are really intensive might use more, but it's mainly down to GPU.

Not to mention the $950 pricepoint. Paying that kind of money for a load of extra processing power that won't really be used by even the most intensive games is pretty wasteful, I think.

Instead, get an i7-950 or a 960 and invest the saved money ($650 or $400, respectively) in a Radeon 6970, which I reckon will outperform the GTX580, or perhaps Crossfire'd 6870s.

Preferably,you could just not spend the money at all. I don't see how a single GTX580 or Radeon 6870 couldn't handle the most intensive games, I know the 4870 can handle Crysis pretty much maxed so the 6870, more powerful and two generations ahead should have no trouble. Not to mention the fact that when a single 6870 does become a bit dated, in several years time, you can just throw in another and be good to go.

People tend to forget that games don't use masses of processing power the likes of the 980X can provide and that's it's mostly down to graphics processing power. There is really little need to ever spend more than $1000 on a gaming PC.

However, out of entire builds submitted, if you'd rather just have a list of components would be Rage_3k_moiz' on the first page.

 

[hellokitty[hk]]

the vast majority of games only really use two cores maximum

Except...they don't.

 

[red1776]

Except...they don't.

^ second HK's remark. I have been benching game/core activity since I started building machines, and the current crop of games look a lot like this

https://www.techspot.com/gallery/member-galleries/p4089-bc2-half-dozen.html
https://www.techspot.com/gallery/member-galleries/p4092-f1-2010-cpu-usage.html

also found that LP2 uses 6 cores, and a vast majority of them use 3-4 cores. not only this, but multi core game code (4+) is where its heading in a hurry.

, I know the 4870 can handle Crysis pretty much maxed

maybe at 1024 x 768

 

[Polah]

^ second HK's remark. I have been benching game/core activity since I started building machines, and the current crop of games look a lot like this

also found that LP2 uses 6 cores, and a vast majority of them use 3-4 cores. not only this, but multi core game code (4+) is where its heading in a hurry.



maybe at 1024 x 768

1920x1080, actually.

As for core usage, the two games I usually play, Starcraft II and Heroes of Newerth, run at around 25-30% on each core, with 4 cores and ran at about 40% on my previous dual core setup. I'm yet to see any game that would really necessitate >4 cores. My point wasn't that games use only two or three cores and then the remaining cores it unused, it was that it's not really necessary to have a hexa-core for gaming, or indeed to ever pay $950 for a processor.

 

[hellokitty[hk]]

Starcraft II is just stupid; Heroes of Newerth isn't exactly recent.
Of course it's not necessary, having an expensive graphics card isn't necessary either. But it's nice . It has an extra 4MB of L3.
I disagree with buying it too, but meh.

 

[klepto12]

no i think im just going to buy the i7 950 and a gtx 580 or 6970 which ever i decide on but the thing is i never have a chance to build a really nice gaming rig and while i have the chance im going to.

 

[red1776]

, I know the 4870 can handle Crysis pretty much maxed

maybe at 1024 x 768

1920x1080, actually.

So to buy your statement that the (your?) 4780 will run Crysis "maxed" out @ 1920 x 1080, one has to believe that your definition of "run" is about 15 FPS,...or , you have a magical 4870, or your definition of "maxed out" is ....well ...medium, because all the benchmarks that came out looked like these (see below)

Here it gets 21 average on HIGH settings...not very high settings (which i assume is required for "maxed out"?)....no?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-radeon-hd4800-games_5.html#sect1

Here it is getting 40 FPS at 1920x1080 on Medium settings

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_hd4870/7.htm

and here we have the nastiest of the 4870's the OC'd Sapphire Toxic getting 18 FPS on very high.settings

I built computers during the "Crysis" computer update wave, and benched the same results.

was that it's not really necessary to have a hexa-core for gaming, or indeed to ever pay $950 for a processor.

That's subjective and up to the values of him or her making the purchase.

. I'm yet to see any game that would really necessitate >4 cores

Then your not paying attention, did you look at the BC2 Cpu activity I posted?
and go read the review on Techspot regarding MOH....it needs 4 cores They are not the only ones, and it is rapidly moving in that direction. This time next year you will be hard pressed to find a game, well a major title , that will not need/use 4+ cores.
and to it, The name of the thread " I want to build the best gaming computer I can"...would certainly imply that he can play the games that use 6 cores now....and be ready for the games in the near future that will.

 

[LNCPapa]

Here are a few games that do take advantage of more than 2 cores.
UT3 (due to helper threads)
Lost Planet: EC (have to enable concurrent option)
GRAW2
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (a little bit)
Crysis (up to the third core anyway)
GTA4
World in Conflict
Dragon Age
FarCry 2 (a little bit)
Mafia II
BC2
MoH
Civ V
and more that I can't remember or am too lazy to look up. Also keep in mind that having more cores can have an effect on your minimum frame rate even though it might not affect your maximum rate. Future games will most likely start taking advantage of multi core CPUs - look at the Steam statistics to see how many of the players there have Quad or more CPUs today (and that's just Steam.)

 

[klepto12]

ok guys quick question will the corsair HX 850 power my system if i decided to get two GTX 570's in sli? i would be OC the cpu and the video cards.

 

[Rage_3K_Moiz]

It would. Even heavily OCed, that system wouldn't draw more than 700-750W at peak.

 

[klepto12]

hmmm thanks Moiz i just used the antec psu calculator and it said around 801 watts at 90% load but that was with 2 gtx 580s i just didnt know if it was good to run the psu at that high of wattage for a long period of time.