New Gaming pc

[steveg]

My sister has asked me to build her a new gaming pc. I used to do this a lot, but since having children 6 years ago haven't at all.

 

Does anyone fancy making some suggestions? She is a pretty serious gamer, and has given me an initial budget of £1500, but is flexible if there is good reason to go over.

 

Nothing from her current pc will come across, except the second monitor, keyboard and mouse, so will need a new main monitor.

 

My rough spec so far is:

 

i7 4790 (although slightly over the top for gaming, she also wants to broadcast games when playing so think its needed)

16gb ram

3 x 480gb ssd in raid 5

Gtx 970

28" 4k monitor.

windows 8

 

This brings it in a bit over budget, but think its a fairly rounded spec, but would welcome input, and any specific items.

 

Ideally she wants it as small as possible, so can take it on the train if necessary (gaming events etc) but not at the expense of spec / performance.

 

28" is max size for new monitor, would be happy with anything 24 - 28. I'm not set on building it, if an equal spec machine can be found ready made, but think it may be better value to build.

 

Thanks

 

Steve

[LosOjos]

Is RAID5 really necessary in a gaming PC? I can understand a RAID1/mirrored drive for redundancy but RAID5 seems like major overkill and with SSDs you're blowing a hell of a chunk of your budget on that extra drive, budget that could be used for a better monitor or additional GPU, something I personally feel would be of much more benefit in a gaming PC.

 

Just my 2p

 

EDIT: also, if it's going to be exclusively a Windows machine, seriously consider Storage Spaces over RAID - it's software based, but much easier to swap in/out drives and even move drives in to a new machine if necessary (hear horror stories of RAID cards dying and being unable to rebuild, even on an identical card/mobo. Also had an issue myself where a BIOS update killed my RAID without me realising for weeks!)

Edited February 27, 2015 by LosOjos

[steveg]

I like very responsive computers :-) But do see our point.

 

I like the idea of storage spaces though, I've never been too impressed with raid at the cheaper end of the scale and so this may well prove to be more reliable. Would have to have a separate boot drive then though, but think I have some spare 120gb solid states anyway, would be much easier to expand it in the future then if she runs out of space.

 

thanks

 

 

Steve

[ICTDirect_Dave]

If you're looking at 4k gaming I'd pop a pair of 970's in there. Looking at the benchmarks and the reviews it seems that 4K is a push if you want fantastic framerates. I'd drop an SSD and rock with a pair of 970's in SLI

[JRowley]

Raid 5 really isn't recommended for a gaming rig, would be much better off using Raid 1, and in this case storage solutions would be the best choice as mirroring through storage solutions delivers better performance than hardware raid.

[steveg]

I'm not overly keen on SLI configurations, they don't always work the best (unless things have changed?). The 4k monitor was more for future proofing, as monitors seem to last through 2 or 3 new pc's. She expects this to last 3 years before she'll buy a new pc.

 

I did also consider some of the monitors that were somewhere between 1080 and 4k, as they may be a better quality monitor?

 

Steve

[newpersn]

SSD Boot (120-240gb) + 500GB or 1TB Hybrid Hard Drive. (or 2 if you want them raided)

[JRowley]

SSD Boot (120-240gb) + 500GB or 1TB Hybrid Hard Drive. (or 2 if you want them raided)

 

This really isn't recommended either due to the slow loading times on the things that matter (the games).

[3s-gtech]

My recommendation would be to avoid RAID entirely. Get a nice fast and large single SSD - if you're worried about resilience (that's all RAID 5 would give you, it's slooooooow) then add a big spinning disk for backups. Use the liberated cash to get a GTX 980 OC, or wait for AMD's R9 3** series cards.

 

The rest of your spec looks good. Make sure you partner it with a recent and decent Z97 board so it'll take Broadwell without hassle.

[mcolbourn]

Don't use RAID5 for that setup you don't gain anything. If I was you I would put two 480/500/512 SSD's into a RAID0 config and then make sure you have a backup of any important data either to an external drive/NAS. If not just leave two SSDs as separate drives. In my home PC I have two 250GB SSDs in RAID0 (been running fine for nearly 2 years now) and then a 1TB spinning disk. It works nicely and its very fast.

[steveg]

Ok, raid is out - 5 too slow, and 0 too much change of having to re-build it, which would be down to me, and she lives 70 miles away.

 

I definitely want all ssd's. I'm likely to go with either 1 larger 1, or 2 or 3 smaller ones and use storage spaces, to allow for future expansion if needed.

 

Is a gtx 980 worth the extra over a 970? 970 seemed reasonable value to me.

 

Steve

[ICTDirect_Dave]

Is a gtx 980 worth the extra over a 970? 970 seemed reasonable value to me.

 

Steve

 

970 seems to be the best value for me. I toyed with a 980 but couldn't justify it and settled on an msi970. I've yet to tax it massively either.

 

Monitor-wise why not look for something 1440p? I'm currently rocking one of these and it's great! BenQ GW2765HT LED IPS 27 -inch W Monitor 16:9 2560 x 1440, 1000:1, 20M:1, 4 ms GTG, DVI/DP1.2/HDMI1.4/speakers - Black & Glossy Black: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

 

I've no issues with framerate and everything looks lovely!

Edited February 27, 2015 by ICTDirect_Dave

[steveg]

970 seems to be the best value for me. I toyed with a 980 but couldn't justify it and settled on an msi970. I've yet to tax it massively either.

 

Monitor-wise why not look for something 1440p? I'm currently rocking one of these and it's great! BenQ GW2765HT LED IPS 27 -inch W Monitor 16:9 2560 x 1440, 1000:1, 20M:1, 4 ms GTG, DVI/DP1.2/HDMI1.4/speakers - Black & Glossy Black: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

 

I've no issues with framerate and everything looks lovely!

 

that looks like a better value monitor to me, her eyesight isn't that great so cant image she'd be able to tell the difference between that and a 4k one anyway!

 

Steve

[LosOjos]

Might be worth looking at G-Sync monitors too - they're pricey, but paired with a 970 they're stunning (my limited understanding is it's hardware V-Sync - rather than limiting the framerate to match the monitor, the monitor matches it's frame rate to the GPU - flicker free image, minimal frame drop)

[3s-gtech]

At 4K, the 970 will annoy you due to the 4GB/3.5GB bug, that's the res where it'll show up. Alternatively, stick an R9 295X2 in there so it'll have the power for 4K. Big money, but 4K gaming demands it unless you take a big drop in IQ settings.

[steveg]

At 4K, the 970 will annoy you due to the 4GB/3.5GB bug, that's the res where it'll show up. Alternatively, stick an R9 295X2 in there so it'll have the power for 4K. Big money, but 4K gaming demands it unless you take a big drop in IQ settings.

 

I'm leaning towards a 1440p monitor now with smoother frame rates rather than 4k. new pc in 3 years time may be the time to go 4k.

 

Will look into the G-sync technology mentioned above.

 

Steve

[JRowley]

When is she thinking of putting this together? DDR4 has just been released, if she's not desperate for the new build she should probably wait, or at least try and fit a DDR4 enabled motherboard into the build.

[3s-gtech]

1440p gives you much greater choice. The 970 will be a good choice, alongside the 290, 290X and 980.

[Gaz]

4k is a long way off being suitable for gaming until they bring out 120Hz monitors 60Hz would make my eyes bleed. The only 1440p monitor worth considering for a gamer is the Asus ROG Swift which will run you £600+. My friend runs that monitor with x2 780 Ti's in SLI and just about gets over 100FPS in high end games but he is CPU limited by only having the 2500K (4.4Ghz). For running high resolutions such as 1440p a single 980 would maybe be the way to go, however x2 970's in SLI would be very good value for money but the 3.5GB issue might be a limiting factor on very high detail at 1440p later on in life, currently it'll be fine.

4790K would be an excellent processor especially as its so easy to overclock it. 16GB ram is fine. I'd go for 1TB SSD OS/Steam/Games drive and a large capacity mechanical drive for steam backups.

For £1500 you will struggle to get a decent 1440p setup. I'd seriously consider 1080p its still got plenty of life in it.

[ICTDirect_Dave]

4k is a long way off being suitable for gaming until they bring out 120Hz monitors 60Hz would make my eyes bleed. The only 1440p monitor worth considering for a gamer is the Asus ROG Swift which will run you £600+. My friend runs that monitor with x2 780 Ti's in SLI and just about gets over 100FPS in high end games but he is CPU limited by only having the 2500K (4.4Ghz). For running high resolutions such as 1440p a single 980 would maybe be the way to go, however x2 970's in SLI would be very good value for money but the 3.5GB issue might be a limiting factor on very high detail at 1440p later on in life, currently it'll be fine.

4790K would be an excellent processor especially as its so easy to overclock it. 16GB ram is fine. I'd go for 1TB SSD OS/Steam/Games drive and a large capacity mechanical drive for steam backups.

For £1500 you will struggle to get a decent 1440p setup. I'd seriously consider 1080p its still got plenty of life in it.

 

I think we might have different standards here. My system (4790K, 32GB 12800, SSD, GTX970) runs practicaly everything on max at 1440p and still hits over 60fps on all my games. That 27" Benq screen does the job perfectly

[Gaz]

I definitely think so. For me 60FPS just doesn't cut the mustard. I play primarily first person shooters (CS:GO) so having as many frames as possible means the difference between kill or be killed. I also hate screen tearing which can occur with lower refresh rates. CS:GO runs at around 300FPS and Evolve runs at 120FPS (no V-Sync)

Very similar system to mine.

4790k @ 4.6GHz 16GB ram, 512GB SSD and another 512GB SSD just for steam x2 GTX 970's in SLI. 24" BenQ 120Hz monitor.

[LosOjos]

I also hate screen tearing which can occur with lower refresh rates. CS:GO runs at around 300FPS and Evolve runs at 120FPS (no V-Sync)

 

Actually, I believe screen tearing is more likely at higher FPS - it happens because you GPU redraws the scene quicker than your monitor refreshes, resulting in different images being drawn simultaneously on screen (monitor starts displaying one frame, GPU updates it before monitor has fully refreshed, next frame is in memory so starts to get drawn, you see 'tearing').

 

This is why V-Sync exists - it forces the GPU to limit it's FPS to match the monitor's refresh rate. This means a maximum FPS equal to your monitors refresh rate, but no tearing. I'll always opt for lower FPS as tearing drives me nuts!

 

BenQ 120Hz monitor.

 

With a 120Hz monitor, you can squeeze in roughly double the number of frames per second over your average monitor (50-60Hz)

 

EDIT: final thought, this is why G-Sync/FreeSync seems like a very good idea (that's what Nvidia/AMD call their version of essentially the same technology respectively). This works similarly to V-Sync but in reverse - the monitor adjusts it's refresh rate to match the GPU

Edited March 2, 2015 by LosOjos

[Arthur]

The only 1440p monitor worth considering for a gamer is the Asus ROG Swift which will run you £600+.

At this point, it might be worth wating for the Asus MG279Q (120+Hz IPS) or Acer XB270HU (144Hz IPS with G-Sync).

 

Personally I would never buy a 27" TN monitor due to the poor viewing angles.

[Gaz]

No tearing yet and I'm 1500 hours into it. My samsung 21" 60Hz was bad unless I used V-Sync. Just my real world experience anyway. Yeah with 120Hz and V-Sync enabled I'd get 120FPS with 60Hz V-Sync you'd be getting 60FPS which again isn't great imho.

I think graphics settings are pretty much like which RAID array to use.

[Gaz]

At this point, it might be worth wating for the Asus MG279Q (120+Hz IPS) or Acer XB270HU (144Hz IPS with G-Sync).

 

Personally I would never buy a 27" TN monitor due to the poor viewing angles.

 

That Acer looks pretty good. Although not sure I'd wanna take a 27" monitor to LAN it gets tight with 24" monitors, although I have seen people using 32" TV's