PC build opinion

I have built this PC for wow, other mmo's and heavy games like battlefield. I want to run the highest graphics with max fps

Please let me know what you think

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3BMa2

I would change the memory to a brand with lifetime warranty like Corsair

Also your not going to be overclocking much with that TX3 but it is still much better then intel stock cooler.

Besides those things looks good.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3Cw6N

Changed CPU cooler, RAM dimms, GPU brand, added 20$ for lifetime installs of Windows.

This is nice!

Thanks =)

It's a good build. The only thing I'd say you should switch would be the processor. Games like watchdogs and the new lord of the rings are asking for an i7 3770k as the recommended.

Do not flat out trust official requirements especially from UBI. The performance differences between an i7 and i5 are slight with gaming.

@04dcarraher: Ya with currently released games. I guess I build my computer with the future in mind instead of today. Newer games are going to start being more demanding on these CPU's and an i5 IMO won't cut it at ultra in the next three years.

Nope , i7's are basically i5 with HT with extra cache. And with modern games that make full use of 8 threads shows the difference i5 and i7's are within 15% average.

Again. Current games. You said it yourself there is all ready a difference it's only going to get larger as modern games start using HT.

It's not really a good time to upgrade or build a new PC when a lot of new tech are coming out next year. Just me though.

@Kjranu: Ya it would most likely be best too wait to the full AMD and NVidia line drop this year and Gsync monitors are actually out. but waiting sucks when you can be gaming now.

Again there are already modern games that make use of HT and use 8 threads And the difference between i5 and i7 are slight. unless your running an i7 six core cpu then difference is much larger because there is two more real cpu cores Even still AMD's FX 8's barely match i5's with those games. Fact that they are suggesting an i7 or AMD equal with some of these new games is BS since FX's are much slower.

Also you wont see larger differences between them until direct x 12 comes out were developers have more control with cpu allocation

Ew current Gsync monitors are TN panels, no thanks. If only they were IPS then I'd want one.

@BattleSpectre:Ya I agree, wont buy a TN ever again after owning an IPS@04dcarraher: I still think an i5 isn't worth it when for a little more you can have an i7 especially when trying to hit the high end for gaming.

That's a 100$ more for such little performance boost, it's not worth it.

that extra $100 can be put into a better cooler for overclocking and or gpu that would make up and have better results. its like comparing a

i5 4670k + Hyper 212 @ 4.4 ghz with GTX 770

vs

i7 4770 stock with GTX 760

Which one would have a better experience.....

I'm thinking the same thing

allthough we'll only be sure when we see some more next gen games.

Watchdogs isn't the only game asking for an i7 at this time though but still carraher could be right

He could be very wrong as well. It's hard to predict the future, the next gen consoles have 8 cores but very weak so i7 hyperthreading could be very usefull, if the games are ported right it could be useless also. But several games are asking for an i7-3770 or an fx 8350. The i7 is much better than the fx 8350 so it smells like 8 threaded games. How the i5 will handle that is hard to predict though.

Within 4 weeks we will know a lot more

Here is the problem the physical difference between quad core i7's and i5 of the same socket is just HT and extra cache. One really cant out right process the other clock per clock. When HT enabled and or 8 threaded apps/games make use the resources you can see slight gains where the workload is more evenly distributed and each thread has a set task too. HT does not magically allow the i7 perform massively better then an i5.

The new consoles are using Jaguar based 8 core cpus around 1.6~1.7 ghz. Also to point out that the jaguar architecture is only slightly faster then the old Athlon X2 from 2006 clock per clock which means they are quite slow even with 8 cores. And lets not forget that developers do not have access to all eight cores on these consoles but only have six cores available. which means an Athlon 2 X4 at 2.6 ghz can out process those cpu's. Also the fact that alot of these games are also being produced on the 360/PS3 means that these games dont require i7's to be able to have the full experience. And as stated AMD FX 8 series aren't any better then i5's even with apps and games that make use of 8 threads.

Which means the i7/FX 8 requirements should be taken by a grain of salt.

Yeah, people these days seems to be confused and forgot that GPU power is way above CPU rank in terms of gaming power; because all of those crappy ports coming

@04dcarraher: thanks

That all depends how well they port those games and how they are developped. If the games ask for lots of threads then the i7 will magically be better than the i5, if there's enough cpu power available but that won't be a problem if you look at the cpu power of most i7's.

The consoles may only uses six cores, a pc has to run an operating system and other services/apps as well. The pc versions of upcoming games will be of higher quality than the console versions also. When you say that the i5 will be enough for the full experience while most upcoming games are recommending an i7 or an 8 core amd then you must have some kind of crystal ball apparently.

If the game is developped to work with more threads then it will perform better with more threads. Just look at anandtech bench where you can compare i5-4670k with an i7-3770k both running at 3.5 ghz. Multi threaded apps have sometimes a 30 percent speed difference. You don't have to be a genius to see that. The two mb of exta cache won't give you that kind of difference because in single threaded benchmarks the i5-4670k performs exactly the same.

I don't have a crystal ball but as it stands now there's a very good chance the i7's will show a significant performance increase over the i5's in upcoming games. Maximum detail settings, high resolutions and AA can show bottlenecks with i5's, Saying it won't is just wishfull thinking.

My thoughts exactly.

Lol just no , an i7 4770k vs i5 4670k in multithreaded apps (with 100% use along all cores/threads) only gain in the real world gains around 15-18% improvement. An i5 4670k has nearly a 30% better price to performance ratio vs i7 4770k.

Are you serious? The console OS's and features eat two cores and 3gb+ Windows 7/8 has great memory and cpu priority management. Windows in idle only uses 1-10% from one core.

Most tests show 9-23% difference, with benchmarks those types of tests are best case scenarios. Even with a 30% increase cpu power does not equal 30% increase in performance. your lucky to see a few fps more with games.

i7's will not show massive increases over i5's especially with gaming. Its still best to have a slightly weaker cpu with a stronger gpu then a slightly stronger cpu with weaker gpu.

The real world you're talking about isn't released yet, Watchdogs will be one of the first completely next gen games. Games now that use more than four threads are optimized for less threads as well and do take advantage of the extra cpu speed and these just a handfull of games which are mostly console ports as well.

It's nice you did the calculations for me that's it's a max of 23 percent on the anandtech benches but these are not games and in these test the clock cycles are used completely. That will be different with upcoming games, they will spread evenly over the different threads. However there will still be a need of extra cpu power because of the extra gpu power that is used on the pc, how much all depends how strong your gpu is.

You really gotta tell where you found that crystal ball of yours, which completely contradicts the recommended settings of upcoming games. It also contradicts an opinion that a lot of people have because of the reasons just explained. I'm not saying you couldn't be right but I really doubt it will be just a couple of fps.

A strong gpu is always interesting, but If tc (rev hades) really wants a pc now , I would really recommend him an i7 but I would tell him to wait 4 weeks if he can. If he couldn't wait then it's quite simple, that motherboard supports 3x pcie 3.0 16x. That means he can sli three gtx 760's if he wants to upgrade. He can also buy a cheaper motherboard and keep the gtx 770. What's the point anyway to go for a 3-sli mobo with a 600 w corsair cx version and an i5.

Sorry, but I have to politely disagree. The mobo must be a single or dual slot and use the money you saved on an i7. He will have to add 50$ bucks yes but he will be free of nasty surprises.

Pfft, just another bad unoptimized port.

You're talking about next gen like it showed something innovative about enemy AI, graphics or physics - didn't see anything from their gameplay trailers.

Look, This is not a good build

this one below is good and balanced, I would spend some more money on your psu if was you though. A corsair tx version for instance, instead of the cx. The cx can be a bit noisy as well and the tx is better quality as well, a good quality psu is important when you're spending this kind of money on hardware.

However , like i said in the other posts, I would wait till watchdogs releases and look at the benchmarks but even then an i7 will always be a better deal. It could very well be one of your favourite games releases and you run into a cpu bottleneck or different thread optimizations.

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/partlist/

Pathetic post

The only bad thing here, is you giving advice for someone's hardware purchase.

I think you're the pathetic one here, the more I think about it the more I realize you're a wannabe hardware expert

and you have found your friend in predatorrules apparently.

It's just simply wrong you people giving hardware advice on this board.

yet you ask opinions and have been shown facts yet ignore them and go ahead with your assumptions and then claim that your fps over doubled with like dead space 3 going from an i5 2500 to i7 3820 with same 7870 series gpu..... yeah like your suggestions have any merit

Can we just go back to Helping instead of raging on my post...?

Yes i ask opinions but you're not the only person on this board.

The dead space fps increase was because of the i7, the drivers and the decreased latency on the dual channel ram.

But i guess you're just saying that so you could just say something, cut out the childplay

As much as you would like it, me and ribstaylor will not agree with carrahar and predatorrules on this

If it's any help these are the system requirements for watchdogs

http://www.vg247.com/2014/04/05/watch-dogs-pc-system-requirements-released/

These are the system requirements for middle earth: shadow of mordor

http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/8/5592814/steam-listing-reveals-middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-pc-requirements

Your so full of it

You claim that your CPU + dual channel upgrade doubled your frame rate to the point where it gives you 76FPS more than a card that's 20-40% faster?

Your

i7 3820 + HD 7870 XT = 120-177FPS

vs

i7 3770 + GTX 670 = 101FPS

Do you really not understand why no ones taking your posts seriously?...

pff now you start this because i just pointed out what a fraud you are

The gtx 670 is not faster than a 7870 xt (tahiti le)

From toms hardware

the i7-3820 benchmarks are done with quad channel memory which have much higher latency, I used dual channel. The numbers from that benchmark are with an old driver. Since the never settle drivers everybody knows drives can give big performance increases.

The i7-3820 has more cache

Let's get back to your delusional postings where i7's are the same as i5's and they cost a 100$ more just for the fun of it.

grow up

lol you have no idea what your talking about..... your i7 3820 is no faster then i7 3770k with dual channel and that extra cache wont give you 40% increase in fps with a slower gpu vs a similar cpu with faster gpu. Your not going to that type boost from 12.11 drivers vs 14.** with a 7870xt.

GtX 670 is a much faster card then that 7870xt , the 7870xt sits below a normal 7950 and a GTX 670 is nearly 20% faster then 7950.

You need to stop posting BS, and saying I need to grow is hilarious. Since your the one that needs to learn.

It's better at stock with quad channel or at least the same and latency is very important for games

The frames don't lie. It's a combination of factors. Dead space is where I got the more performance increase.

I need to learn? I'm an engineer lol

Your 3820 with dual channel is no different from using an i7 3770 with dual channel And then even if your using quad channel bandwidth goes up but it does not help in the way your thinking , DDR3 with higher bandwidth and lower latency does not give any real gains with single gpu setups.

The whole reason for the LGA 2011 cpu's and their motherboards is to handle multiple gpu's better. The quad channel memory is there to feed multiple gpu's and the cpu is design to handle more pci-e data. You running that system with a single gpu +drivers will not magically give the gains that you claim unless you had something seriously wrong on your end.

Yes you still need to learn just because you claim your an engineer does not mean you know more then someone else in other areas.

lol on what planet the gtx 670 is 20 percent faster than the 7950. Maybe before the 'never settle' drivers but were 2014 now not 2012.

Tomshardware is probably the most respectable hardware site and they have always seen the gtx 670, the hd 7950 and 7870 xt on the same level

The 7870 xt runs at the clock rates of a hd 7970 and it can be higher overclocked than a 7950. The 7950 has more cores but the 7870 xt counters this with the higher clock speeds. The hd 7950 comes stock at 800 mhz , the 7870 xt at 950 mhz. Without voltage tweaking the hd 7950 comes no higher than 1000 mhz, the 7870 xt gets easily 1200 mhz.

At stock settings the gtx 670 maybe a bit faster, but even techpowerup only sees it around 10 percent. When you start adjusting some sliders, the difference is next to nothing.

So again I need to learn? You're a real funny man and this was a very nice way to completely derailing the subject. This person asks for help , first you give him bad advice and then you derail the thread, you're a real helpfull guy lol

Lol, no different, all the game benchmarks are done with quad channel memory which is just for server purposes and have higher bandwith but also much higher latency. When you use dual channel it doesn't have that latency. The i7-3820 simply outclasses the i7-3770k at stock clocks. Not that it's such a big difference but it's a difference.

LGA 2011 is more than that, it also has server purposes, that's why it supports a load of xeon cpu's lol.

I maybe need to learn something but certainly not from you, you contradict yourself all the time

not to mention you're forgetting everything we talked about before, we already went over this dual channel thing lol

Being the same tier on a list does not mean equal performance

Stock vs stock 7870xt having higher clocks then 7950 does not mean its faster the 7950.... the 7950 has more CU's, wider memory bus which counters the higher clock rates. The R270x for example is a faster version of the 7870 Tahiti LE and is faster then the 7870xt and yet it still loses to a stock 7950, A stock 670 is faster then a 7950 and is on par with a stock 7970.

Fact is that your i7 with 7870xt would not perform better then another similar i7 with a GTX 670 on the scale that you stated.

You claiming i7's are or will be needed and will see massive difference over i5 is false hence the derailing. Developers claiming i7's or AMD equivalent is plan as day BS requirements.

i7's 2nd thread on each core is dependent on the 1st thread's usage and what ever cpu cycles is leftover to use for processing. the single core performance of an i5 4670 vs i7 4770 are equal and when you take an app that correctly splits the 1st and 2nd thread workloads 50/50, You gain slightly better multitasking abilities but the total processing power remains nearly the same. the difference It would be no different from going from an FX 8320 to a FX 9370 only slight gains.

1. there's no 7870 xt in this list

2. these are stock clocks, the only card that's not running at stock is the 7970 ghz edition.

3. My i7 is not like a normal i7, it's on the lga 2011 chipset. It beats the i7-3770k with dual channel memory.

4. This is relative performance on all tested games with techpowerup, I was talking about dead space and I used drivers that were a year old with my i5. Other games also show a performance increase but nowhere near the difference in dead space. Far cry shows about 40 percent increase (which i also mentioned before)

5. Multitheaded apps do run better on a i7, benchies prove it. It's recommended by the devs and if you look at the cpu power of the next gen consoles the i7 will have cpu cycles to spare.

6. You can stand on your head, it's not going to change the fact there's a big chance the i7 wil have a significant performance increase compared with the i5 but nothing is sure at this time. You can be right but you can be very wrong as well. You don't have a crystal ball. When you buy a pc now , an i7 is the safest option.

How is that got to do anything with what I've said? Oh that's right, you've got nothing to speak of, so you start to talk dirty about my advices which many people BTW thanked me in PM and actually sent me free game codes as appreciation.

But yeah, go ahead continue with your argument...

I'm just saying that because your advice isn't good

You let him buy a three sli mobo with an i5.

I don't let him anything, it's his money and choice to make, and BTW I've posted my changes, he might be wanting SLI in the future, it's his choice.

And as for today gaming i5 4670k is the best gaming CPU choice on the market, few bad ports doesn't change anything unless all future games will be required i7 CPU, then it's either crappy developers or actually something next gen that requires such power; so far i7 is being bought by small free lancing developers and editors of any kind (movies, music)

1. If you bother reading the post you wouldn't be saying that..... 7870xt is slower then 270x but faster then normal 7870. figure it out.

2. Even if you have your 7870xt at 1.2 ghz would still be slower then a stock 7970. So again your framerate should be under a 670 and if its massively overclocked should be be like a 670 not 20% 30% or 40% faster with dead space 3. Farcry 3 only seen a 5 fps difference from a i5 to i7 an 8% difference and this with a 7970 ghz using 12.11. From 12.11 to 13.1 where they did patched Farcry 3 performance you will only see *upto* 25% increase with high AA settings. So again 50% gain is very unlikely under normal circumstances.

3. In real programs, dual-channel or quad-channel makes no difference. Even in most synthetic benchmarks you will see no meaningful difference, with the exception of SiSoft Sandra. Unless you have a specific need for extreme memory bandwidth, you will see no difference from going to triple or quad channel from dual channel. Yes your cpu is slightly faster however its less then 10% with single threaded tasks and only 5% faster in multithreaded tasks. But thinking will make a real difference in the results is just wrong.

4. Here is the thing the 7870xt didnt come out until late 2012 which by then AMD's 12.11 drivers were out, coming from 12.11 to 14.* will not yield the framerate boosts you claim coming from an i5 2500 with same gpu with updated drivers especially with games that only make use of less then 8 threads.

5. Yes apps that make use of 100% of each cpu core and thread correctly you do see improvement, but games dont need the full processing power from i7's which is why i7's and i5's in gaming even with games that make use of all the i7's threads only see slight differences because both the i7's and i5's from same series have nearly the same total processing power. When direct x 12 releases and developers have more control on the cpu and gpu usage then we might see a shift in needing more threads.

As of right now and the near future i7's are not needed. Just because a developer recommends does not mean its actually needed. And the fact that they ask for FX 8's as well means that an i5 will do just as well. Also developers are known to lie about what is needed for their games. For example Assassins Creed 4 recommend a modern quad core cpu but yet runs the same on dual cores. Or how about COD ghosts requiring 6gb of ram and direct x 11 when its does not even need or use it. Or even Crysis 3 recommending a FX 4150/i7 2600k which is funny since AMD's Phenom 2 x4's are faster clock per clock then the FX series. So really dont take requirements straight from the box and say its needed because they say so.

6. Again as I stated before the processing power from same series i7/i5 are nearly the same which means you wont see massive differences in gaming. Ive been building,fixing and playing on pc's since the mid to late 90's, I know how fast and how slow hardware progression can be. You can never really future proof yourself with pc hardware, but if you have the budget for an i7 sure go for it but not an i5 will serve you just as well and in gaming the differences are slight.

1. The 7870xt is not slower than a R 270x. facts are facts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

2 Techpowerup comparitive performance with cards from different years are a bit off at least. They use the numbers from benchmarks when a card is released. The performance gains that happens with new drivers isn't always reflected in this chart. They also don't count overclocking ability as well. Tomshardware does this. This is why I use tomshardware for reference

Techpowerup sometimes implements some new benchmarkswith the release of new games or when there's a big increase in performance with new drivers, like with the never settle ones but overall the charts are just a guide, they don't test every game and do a new test for every game when a new driver is released as well.

If you look at the pricing of these cards it's crystal clear. According to you the 7970 and gtx 670 is on the same tier, even the gtx 670 is faster lol, while the cards were never in the same prive range. The 7970 was way more expensive, while amd is always cheaper while delivering the same power, nvidia stands for better quality, in the sense that it's driver support is much better. That's the thing with you , you see information somewhere and you copy it without it thinking. You don't know how to interpret information. The gtx 670 has always been lower than the hd 7970 but it could have better performance in nvidia meant to be played titles and when the 7970 runs at stock.

The 7970 has much higher overclocking potential than the gtx 670 though and that's where you're missing the ball again.

It's the same with your interpretation of the 7870 xt. It may have been cheaper than the hd 7950 at release, but this was kind of stunt from amd, hence they only released on 3 pcb's and crossfired with tahiti chips while been called 78xx series. The thing with the 7870 xt is that it uses more power than the hd 7950 even at stock and that's why the card was cheaper but it easily matches the 7950 performance once you start overclocking both cards. The tdp and clock rates are much higher than a 7950.

3. Again you start inventing shit because you read something somewhere, dual channel has less latency than quad channel memory on the x79 and it has influence on the performance in games because games don't like high latency in the system memory. This has also been tested, we've even discussed this in the past , but again you forgot it.

4. The drivers are not the only thing that give framerate boosts, you're forgetting the i7-3820 , which is a server platform, it has more cache and it's faster than an i7-3770k on stock clocks, when it uses dual channel memory

5. It still doesn't matter they have the same processing power, a phenom II x4 955 has the same processing power as an i3-2120 only the phenom II x4 has more physical cores. Still skyrim runs way better on that i3 because it only makes use of two cores. You don't have a clue apparently how development can alter a games performance on a certain platform. If they develop the game to run with 8 threads or even 6 threads and they don't put a high effort to make it run on 4 threads only then the game will simply run worse on an i5. How much worse remain to be seen.

Until these games are released you can't say with certainty an i5 will be enough for ultra settings especially when they ask for an i7-3770k for recommended settings, this has never been the case in the past. The fact that they recommend a amd fx 8350 also points in this direction , because an i7-3770k is way more performant than a fx 8350. What they have in common, is 8 threads.

6. This isn't about future proofing, there's more to it than just speculation when they ask for it in recommend specs. A lot of things point in that direction, but you can never really predict future, that's why i say it could be you're right but the safest option now is to buy an i7. It's even more safer to wait for 4 weeks and wait out the benchmarks and even then you can't be sure.

To get back to the point, if you look at this guy's budget, he can easily afford an i7 with a gtx770. A gtx 780 is out of his price range, and a triple sli mobo is useless with that psu, especially with that i5.

Whatever Im done.... you dont want to learn, O well its your problem not mine.