Building a Gaming PC

[TyGuy]

About a month ago I built a new rig. I kept my videocard(geforce 1070), as well as my 3 ssd's and 1 hdd, mouse, keyboard, monitor, ect.

I'm now running an i7 7700 k @4.5 ghz. I plan to spend sometime later to get a faster overclock. 16 GB of 3200 mhz ddr 4 (corsair vengance) and I went with an MSI z270 pro carbon for the motherboard. My new case is a corsair air 740 and I also picked up a newer power supply (corsair 650 i).

In CPU bound scenarios it's been roughly a 115 % performance increase give or take. The bottleneck has now been transferred to my videocard as I can get performance increase dropping resolution in both witcher 3 and GTAV at even 1080 P. Before because my CPU was a bottleneck, increasing graphic fidelity didn't reduce performance. Now disabling MSAA in GTA V nets me 20 more frames per second in particular scenes. There really isn't any setting in Witcher 3 other than resolution that can net you big performance, but dropping to 720 p I can hit 130 frames per second average in the most demanding parts of the game which is Novigrad with the hundreds of NPCs going about. I'll probably pick up an nvidia volta when they come out so I can hit 140 fps @ 1080 P in the most demanding games (144 hz monitor) as well as increase my 3d performance as 3d vision requires a ton of GPU horsepower.

 

[Cassity14]

About a month ago I built a new rig. I kept my videocard(geforce 1070), as well as my 3 ssd's and 1 hdd, mouse, keyboard, monitor, ect.

I'm now running an i7 7700 k @4.5 ghz. I plan to spend sometime later to get a faster overclock. 16 GB of 3200 mhz ddr 4 (corsair vengance) and I went with an MSI z270 pro carbon for the motherboard. My new case is a corsair air 740 and I also picked up a newer power supply (corsair 650 i).

In CPU bound scenarios it's been roughly a 115 % performance increase give or take. The bottleneck has now been transferred to my videocard as I can get performance increase dropping resolution in both witcher 3 and GTAV at even 1080 P. Before because my CPU was a bottleneck, increasing graphic fidelity didn't reduce performance. Now disabling MSAA in GTA V nets me 20 more frames per second in particular scenes. There really isn't any setting in Witcher 3 other than resolution that can net you big performance, but dropping to 720 p I can hit 130 frames per second average in the most demanding parts of the game which is Novigrad with the hundreds of NPCs going about. I'll probably pick up an nvidia volta when they come out so I can hit 140 fps @ 1080 P in the most demanding games (144 hz monitor) as well as increase my 3d performance as 3d vision requires a ton of GPU horsepower.

That's awesome dude. I'm hoping to get a slight OC to 4.5 when I first put mine together too. Not going liquid cooling yet, so I'll leave it at 4.5 for a while.

Did you get the pro carbon when it was on that killer sale a few weeks back? I hadn't yet pulled the trigger on starting a new build, and I'm really mad I didn't buy that when I could have lol.

 

[gourimoko]

That's awesome dude. I'm hoping to get a slight OC to 4.5 when I first put mine together too. Not going liquid cooling yet, so I'll leave it at 4.5 for a while.

Did you get the pro carbon when it was on that killer sale a few weeks back? I hadn't yet pulled the trigger on starting a new build, and I'm really mad I didn't buy that when I could have lol.

You should go liquid cooling.. there's no reason not to.. The Corsair H110i will do everything you need to do and will make your shit purr...

My CPU and GPU are both on AIOs and I couldn't be happier...

 

[TyGuy]

That's awesome dude. I'm hoping to get a slight OC to 4.5 when I first put mine together too. Not going liquid cooling yet, so I'll leave it at 4.5 for a while.

Did you get the pro carbon when it was on that killer sale a few weeks back? I hadn't yet pulled the trigger on starting a new build, and I'm really mad I didn't buy that when I could have lol.

I got the pro carbon for 150 or so? It definitely wasn't on a killer deal. I picked up the 7700 k for 300 dollars though, which is pretty good. The thing you need to be weary about is ram prices. DDR4 keeps going up. I feel like 3200 mhz is the sweep spot. The faster you can get the better. It makes a big difference in games.

 

[Cassity14]

I got the pro carbon for 150 or so? It definitely wasn't on a killer deal. I picked up the 7700 k for 300 dollars though, which is pretty good. The thing you need to be weary about is ram prices. DDR4 keeps going up. I feel like 3200 mhz is the sweep spot. The faster you can get the better. It makes a big difference in games.

Ah yeah it was down to about 135 for a day and I did t pull the trigger. I got 3000 ddr4 currently. If prices ever come down I'd look into upgrading but it should be plenty for what I need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gourimoko]

I got the pro carbon for 150 or so? It definitely wasn't on a killer deal. I picked up the 7700 k for 300 dollars though, which is pretty good. The thing you need to be weary about is ram prices. DDR4 keeps going up. I feel like 3200 mhz is the sweep spot. The faster you can get the better. It makes a big difference in games.

Ah yeah it was down to about 135 for a day and I did t pull the trigger. I got 3000 ddr4 currently. If prices ever come down I'd look into upgrading but it should be plenty for what I need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guys, just a heads up.. latency is way more important than DDR speed... you can get DIMMs that are slower with lower latency that will outperform faster ones. I agree 3200Mhz is the sweet spot in that, RAM that is much faster generally will have higher timings which makes for wasted money. I'm running 3200 myself, Corsair This is often why you see little to no performance gains beyond this point.

To give you an idea of optimization.. this is what I'm running in my box.. I dumped the shit Corsair Vengenance DIMMs I had (total trash, fucking up my OC, awful DIMMs).. did my research.. got these.. Fuckin' hell, there is a huge performance/stability difference..

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232348

G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Intel X99 Platform Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW

 

[MoneyMP3]

Looking to start saving up for a pc build capable of handling VR. Any body have any tips or suggestions on how I get the most bang for my buck? The limit I set for myself is around $2,500 and that's factoring in the Vive headset. Is that doable? I want to try to not have to upgrade for awhile.

 

[Man Called X]

Guys, just a heads up.. latency is way more important than DDR speed... you can get DIMMs that are slower with lower latency that will outperform faster ones. I agree 3200Mhz is the sweet spot in that, RAM that is much faster generally will have higher timings which makes for wasted money. I'm running 3200 myself, Corsair This is often why you see little to no performance gains beyond this point.

To give you an idea of optimization.. this is what I'm running in my box.. I dumped the shit Corsair Vengenance DIMMs I had (total trash, fucking up my OC, awful DIMMs).. did my research.. got these.. Fuckin' hell, there is a huge performance/stability difference..

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232348

G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Intel X99 Platform Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW

I want to know how the hell you weren't running G.Skills to begin with? Pretty much been the pinnacle for RAM for a while now.

 

[Cassity14]

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mqG4vV

Everything is ordered and I'm hoping my build is done by the end of the weekend. Super pumped!

 

[gourimoko]

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mqG4vV

Everything is ordered and I'm hoping my build is done by the end of the weekend. Super pumped!

Keep this handy:
http://www.evga.com/support/stepup/

Be sure to register your card when you get it, and you can upgrade in a few months to the Ti if you choose to..

 

[TyGuy]

I still don't think vr is ready for prime time yet. The technology isn't quite there yet and it's certainly not cheap enough. We're all getting use to razor sharp images with 4K now at entry level prices. Even 1080 p depending on how big your display is and how far you sit away from the display you can't distinguish the pixels.

For instance I sit 9 feet away from my older 50 inch 1080 p display. If I got a 50 inch 4K tv with the same panel I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I'd either need to sit closer or grab a larger display.

An 80 inch tv at 4K is where I start to reel the benefits of the resolution jump at my distance.

So with vr you have the screen right in your face taking up pretty much your entire field of view which requires a ridiculously high resolution screen to get the same sharpness we are now becoming accustomed to.

Couple that with the fact that we need 90 frames per second lock to feel smooth and to not get sick you can see why the tech isn't where it needs to be.

Even the almighty GeForce 1080 ti can't do 4K at 90 frames per second with the latest games. You need two of those cards to hit that framerate with good sli implementation.

For vr you're going to need beyond 4K because the screen takes up your entire field of view.

I feel like this tech is about 10 years away from where it needs to be optimal and affordable. By then it might have died because of low adoption rate with this initial push.

 

[gourimoko]

I still don't think vr is ready for prime time yet. The technology isn't quite there yet and it's certainly not cheap enough. We're all getting use to razor sharp images with 4K now at entry level prices. Even 1080 p depending on how big your display is and how far you sit away from the display you can't distinguish the pixels.

Honestly Ty, I couldn't disagree more... VR is taking off, and it's just getting better and better as graphics cards catch up to the technology. Also, I think VR is far far more immersive, qualitatively, than my non-VR setup and I've got a near-top of the line setup.

For instance; folks are saying that Fallout 4 VR is infinitely better (qualitatively) than Fallout 4 non-VR.. I personally can't wait for it to drop, as I've been waiting to play a game like Fallout (or Star Citizen) in VR for my whole life.

For instance I sit 9 feet away from my older 50 inch 1080 p display. If I got a 50 inch 4K tv with the same panel I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I'd either need to sit closer or grab a larger display.

I get what you're saying, but, I can definitely tell the difference between my 4k tv and my 1080p tv (both 65in). But that's not just resolution-- there's far more to the quality of a screen than resolution.

So with vr you have the screen right in your face taking up pretty much your entire field of view which requires a ridiculously high resolution screen to get the same sharpness we are now becoming accustomed to.

That's not actually true. There's far more that goes into the perceived image quality of the screen than just resolution. For example, the PSVR operates a single 1080p screen per eye, and yet has nearly no obvious screen-door effect while running at a considerably lower resolution than the Oculus or Vive (my setup).

Couple that with the fact that we need 90 frames per second lock to feel smooth and to not get sick you can see why the tech isn't where it needs to be.

I'm not sure what you mean by this..shaders have improved for rendering across near-by-views; speeding up VR-relating rendering several fold. Now instead of a single rendering split into two; it's two images rendered simultaneously per view.

Even the almighty GeForce 1080 ti can't do 4K at 90 frames per second with the latest games.

But none of the VR headsets are 4K. BTW, I'm running GTA V at 100fps avg / 100hz just fine on a 1080 at 3440x1440 (not maxed obviously, but again qualitatively close).

You need two of those cards to hit that framerate with good sli implementation.

For 4k... Not for 1440p.

For vr you're going to need beyond 4K because the screen takes up your entire field of view.

It's much less processor intensive to render two simultaneous adjacent spatial images than it is to render a single image at higher resolution.

I feel like this tech is about 10 years away from where it needs to be optimal and affordable. By then it might have died because of low adoption rate with this initial push.

I have no idea why you'd think we'd need 10 years to render a crisp image for VR? Have you used the Vive or PSVR?

 

[TyGuy]

The reason I said panel is because all things being equal you won't be able to tell the difference between the two screens if they are the same size and you sit at a distance where you can't make out the individual pixels. Retina quality if you will. How far do yo hair away from both of your sets?

Also I thought I made it clear you need two 1080 tis for 4k 90 frames per second and not 1440 p.

In fact, I don't think I mentioned 1440 p once in my post.

 

[TyGuy]

"Quibbling about aliasing on life-size hairs may seem nitpicky, but that's the level of detail Luckey is thinking about when considering how far VR can eventually go. "To get to the point where you can't see pixels, I think some of the speculation is you need about 8K per eye in our current field of view [for the Rift]," he said. "And to get to the point where you couldn't see any more improvements, you'd need several times that. It sounds ridiculous, but HDTVs have been out there for maybe a decade in the consumer space, and now we're having phones and tablets that are past the resolution of those TVs. So if you go 10 years from now, 8K in a [head-mounted display] does not seem ridiculous at all."


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013...esolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/

 

[gourimoko]

The reason I said panel is because all things being equal you won't be able to tell the difference between the two screens if they are the same size and you sit at a distance where you can't make out the individual pixels.

Well, Of course.

How far do yo hair away from both of your sets?

I sit about the same distance away as you do, about 9 feet in the bedroom, and 11-12 feet in the living room.

Also I thought I made it clear you need two 1080 tis for 4k 90 frames per second and not 1440 p.

In fact, I don't think I mentioned 1440 p once in my post.

You didn't mention 1440p.. I mentioned it in response to your post.

Since you're talking about VR, I thought I'd talk about the range of resolutions actually in use on those headsets 1920x1080, 2160x1200, etc; and where we're likely to go from there, qualitatively.

The point of my post is to explain that:
1) The quality right now is pretty damn good, I don't know many folks who would complain about this;
2) You can drive these headsets with a GTX 1080 with no problem.
3) The problem of the screendoor effect has more components to it than resolution, as demonstrated by the PSVR.
4) That measuring picture quality has a lot more to do with other factors of the panel, and the image being rendered on it than it does the resolution it's being displayed at.

I think we're about 3-5 years out from high pixel density panels that make the screendoor effect go away completely; but that really shouldn't stop anyone from buying a Rift or a Vive or the PSVR today -- it's just not that big of an issue, IMHO.