Global Conflict

TheYonderGod wrote:

Necromancer wrote: You won't be able to fit an old memory on new Mobo.

DDR3 has been around for like 4 generations. Will definitely be on the next gen too, and possibly even the next.

Either way, CPU+Mobo+RAM is like half the cost of an entire computer.

Plus you're assuming I'm interested in buying the newly released mobos immediately when they'd be incompatible.
Thanks for that partpicker YonderGod!
Are there any other CPUs I can look at though? Pretty sure I'll settle with an i5 but still.
Also, I'm having difficulty navigating through their SSDrives.. I would like more storage on the EVO
EDIT: I downed on the RAM and added the case. Shouldn't I also get a CPU cooler? (http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu-coole ... 6&w=1&qq=1)
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2ltRy

Róka wrote:

TheYonderGod wrote:

Necromancer wrote: You won't be able to fit an old memory on new Mobo.

DDR3 has been around for like 4 generations. Will definitely be on the next gen too, and possibly even the next.

Either way, CPU+Mobo+RAM is like half the cost of an entire computer.

Plus you're assuming I'm interested in buying the newly released mobos immediately when they'd be incompatible.
Thanks for that partpicker YonderGod!
Are there any other CPUs I can look at though? Pretty sure I'll settle with an i5 but still.
Also, I'm having difficulty navigating through their SSDrives.. I would like more storage on the EVO
EDIT: I downed on the RAM and added the case. Shouldn't I also get a CPU cooler? (http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu-coole ... 6&w=1&qq=1)
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2ltRy

You could get a 3770k, but that adds another $100 over your budget.

Yes, get a CPU cooler. I'd recommend the Hyper 212+ (or 212 Evo, whichever is cheaper) unless you want to spend a lot more for a CM Glacer 240L (personally I'd rather spend this extra money on a GPU upgrade)


Also I thought you already had that case? A $200 case is wayyyyyyyyyy too much for a $1000 max budget. A $50 case will work just fine.

this is what i came up with , just made this so you could see what it'd look like with the new cpu
also this is made for overclocking, if you wont do it , no reason to buy this, also no ssd
: i agree with yonder, with a shittier case you could add a lot more bang

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2lD1a

Well, the case is meant for more room for upgrades and cooling, liquid and manual fans (I live in the deep-south Texas and even with AC my computers overheat like a b*tch).
And like I said I can go a little over, but I'll post back when I have another set-up picked out from what you guys said

EDIT: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2m5sB

3570k vs 4670k and 1600mhz vs 1866mhz ram, is a verrrrrry little, if any, difference. 760 vs 770 is pretty big difference. Save the money on the CPU+mobo and RAM and get a better GPU. Edit: I guess it's only a $7 difference for the RAM, so nevermind on that)
It's not a horrible idea to get a decent case for future upgrades, but there are plenty of very good cases for under $200.
I'd look at the NZXT Switch 810, Corsair 750D, or pretty much anything here: http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/case/#t=4 ... 63&sort=a8


Oh and if you're planning on water cooling it, get a reference GPU.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2mc3a

TheYonderGod wrote:760 vs 770 is pretty big difference.

this ^^

GTX760 is yesterdays card. not worth buying IMO.
its one step lower then the R9 280x/GTX770 in the hierarchy tree.
I'm a bit skeptical about that, but there are claims that 2GB is not enough for ultra textures in BF4 and near future games, causing stuttering. I'm skeptical cus my 5850 has 1GB and i can manage with medium-. And 770 2GB ultra gameplay i saw looks fine. Maybe someone else can provide an input about it. if not, don't take it for granted, but maybe you should look for the 4GB variation if you want to run Ultra (not sure if you can squeeze a decent amount of FPS to play on Ultra with GTX770 anyway... it needs to be silky smooth after all for good experience).

Necromancer wrote:

TheYonderGod wrote:760 vs 770 is pretty big difference.

this ^^

GTX760 is yesterdays card. not worth buying IMO.
its one step lower then the R9 280x/GTX770 in the hierarchy tree.
I'm a bit skeptical about that, but there are claims that 2GB is not enough for ultra textures in BF4 and near future games, causing stuttering. I'm skeptical cus my 5850 has 1GB and i can manage with medium-. And 770 2GB ultra gameplay i saw looks fine. Maybe someone else can provide an input about it. if not, don't take it for granted, but maybe you should look for the 4GB variation if you want to run Ultra (not sure if you can squeeze a decent amount of FPS to play on Ultra with GTX770 anyway... it needs to be silky smooth after all for good experience).

resolution is a big factor here.
Many reviews test now higher resolutions than 1080p and then 2GB wont cut it anymore for max. texture settings in the upcoming games. Ultra BF4 textures with 1080p could be already at the limit with 2Gb.
This is also somewhat map depended.

Okay, so for whatever reason, my receipt for my current computer specs doesn't have specifics on my HDD or PSU but here's the basic:
"Power Supply 800 Watt - Standard (I'm 98% sure it's this because of the model number: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6817342033
Primary Hard Drive 2 TB HARD DRIVE -- 64M Cache, 7200rpm, 6.0Gb/s - Single Drive" (HDD shouldn't really be dependent).

So here are the two "extremes" (out of what you guys haven given me) excluding the video card (which by what you have said is a 770 4GB):
- Cheapest: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2muOa
- Highest: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2mv1j
And the total difference without video cards only comes out to $52.04

Looking at the differences between a 4GB and 2GB GTX770, 4GB is generally $50 more than 2GB (I cross-checked for each choice and manufacturer on the partslists), so in that case it would be worth it to go the cheapest route and use that $52.04 on getting the 4GB, right?
And if the 4GB, which one?: http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/video-car ... =a7&r=4096

4GB vs 2GB, ok this is how it is!
2GB cards = fast memory
4GB cards = slower memory

If you are playing in 1080p you will never need more than 2GB RAM, you can find that in any hardware forum. BF4 is the exception since there is a huge memory leak in it so it really doesn't matter what card you use until it's fixed.
Over 2GB RAM is used for 4K screens and if you get that screen you need a better graphics card or SLI anyway.
IMO 4GB is just a waste of money and performance!

I remade your last post Roka and edited some parts. If you don't like Asus graphics, then go for MSI but you have to go for the Twin Frozr in that case.
I noticed the card you had picked had the retail cooling, you don't want that if you have the computer in the same room as the screen, very noisy. The Asus DCU II cooling is one of the best on the market, shared with MSI's Twin Frozr.
In the 2-3 weeks I've had my card I've never even heard the fans on it, and then I have my case open atm.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2mAWU

Get on TS some day I can explain more.
I've been building PCs since 1997.

I'll try to be on tomorrow at SBT +7
If not then, then before the battleday on Saturday

knorren wrote:4GB vs 2GB, ok this is how it is!
2GB cards = fast memory
4GB cards = slower memory

This is (was?) true only for some cards. Some manufactures try to reduce their cost and sell more, but slower memory.
You can get 4GB memory cards with the same memory as the 2GB versions.

It has been true that 2GB is sufficient for 1080p in the past years, but it slowly changes:
E.g. The crysis 2 High-res texture patch that came out needed more than 2GB for 1080p.
7850 3GB was performing clearly better than 7850 2GB.
(http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/0 ... b-review/6)

For most future games it wont matter, but some games will reach over the old 2GB@1080p is fine rule of thump.

Jokerle wrote: This is (was?) true only for some cards. Some manufactures try to reduce their cost and sell more, but slower memory.
You can get 4GB memory cards with the same memory as the 2GB versions.

It has been true that 2GB is sufficient for 1080p in the past years, but it slowly changes:
E.g. The crysis 2 High-res texture patch that came out needed more than 2GB for 1080p.
7850 3GB was performing clearly better than 7850 2GB.
(http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/0 ... b-review/6)

For most future games it wont matter, but some games will reach over the old 2GB@1080p is fine rule of thump.

Maybe because the benchmark test you are linking to are showing 7850 2GB and 7950 3GB, not the same card with different size of memory but actually a totally different and faster card!
Anyway, I played Crysis 2 on my old GTX570 without any problem and steady fps, in ultra 1080p and that card only had 1.5GB of memory.

When we get to those games that require more than 2GB of memory (except BF4 which has an error already explained) we will need better graphic cards anyway.

But sure, if you want 1 fps more, then pay 60USD and get the 4GB version, I wouldn't and I didn't.
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770- ... -tested/3/

knorren wrote: Maybe because the benchmark test you are linking to are showing 7850 2GB and 7950 3GB

I guess I need more coffee in the morning

knorren wrote:4GB vs 2GB, ok this is how it is!
2GB cards = fast memory
4GB cards = slower memory

im not seeing any cards where that is the case, can you show me some me some ?

e: you also changed the case, the one thing he was adamant on

knorren wrote: When we get to those games that require more than 2GB of memory (except BF4 which has an error already explained) we will need better graphic cards anyway.

But sure, if you want 1 fps more, then pay 60USD and get the 4GB version, I wouldn't and I didn't.
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770- ... -tested/3/

Well, I also play ArmA, and other games that are actually more demanding than BF4
and

o1oo1 wrote:im not seeing any cards where that is the case, can you show me some me some ?

e: you also changed the case, the one thing he was adamant on