Build a PC: Blueprints (November 2012)

54

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Novus

Unless this was written in early October, the GTX 660 is not faster than the HD 7870.

avatar

Phyrvurm

The GTX 660 is faster than the HD 7870

(PassMark benchmark as of 11/18/12)
GeForceGTX 660 ----------------3,984
Radeon HD 7870 ------------3,442

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

avatar

handyman315

MAXIMUM PC has always been at its best when focusing on PC builds and hardware. The no holds barred style, coupled with forthright recommendations makes for an enjoyable read, and a workbench dog-eared magazine copy.

My latest build, "Hexamichael" (like hexadecimal only different) with hand picked parts from MAXIMUM PC recommendations, breathes fire when rendering videos:

Motherboard-ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Processor-- Intel® Core™ i7-3930K
Memory-32GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1866
Video-SLi-(2)EVGA 015-P3-1480-KR GeForce GTX 480 (Fermi)
Drives-(2) 128 GB, SSD, Samsung 830 SATAIII, RAID0
SSD+HDD Caching Pair:
(1) 128GB, SSD, Samsung 830 Series SATAIII &
(1) 1.0TB, Western Digital, SATAIII
(2) 750GB Western Digital, SATA 2, RAID0
(1) 2.0 TB Hitachi, SATA 2 - in Docking Bay
Liquid CPU Cooler - After Market, Corsair H70, w/2 Fans in Push-Pull Config. pushing air IN from the back
Case - Cooler Master Storm Scout Mid-Tower

avatar

Dexter243

I have a $850 acer laptop with i7 10gig ddr 3 1600 and a ati 7750card with 1.5gig video ram and i must say even on my 27"at 1080p it runs every thing i can throw at it on eather high sett BF3 or other games at ultra settings
sorry maximum but for most the desk pc is just no longer needed do to good pricing on decent gaming laptops
buy the way i also have a 2012 mac air 11.9" for traveling and it will even play diablo3 with ease for something to do on trips

avatar

Hilarity

Rubbish. You don't get 60FPS+ wioth 16xAF and 4xMSAA at 1920x1200. Same with Crysis 2 or Metro 2033. What shit. Your laptop is crap. Simple.

avatar

Mediziner

Intel qx9770 core 2 quad or core i3?

avatar

ccianciu

Hi guys,

I put together a gaming computer and I always manage to keep the price down to below $1300 with a LCD.

Here it is: (obviously I don't add the most expensive case)

-Cooler master GX PSU 750W 80+ $60
-Antec One Mid Tower ATX case $50
-MOBO: ASUS P8Z77-V $125
-CPU: Intel i7 3770k $330
-Cooler Master Hyper 212 $30
-Pc assembly $50
-SSD Crucial M4 128GB $100
-HDD Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 $75
-RAM G.Skill 2x8GB 1600 $73
-Bluray DVD LG BH14NS40 $75
-nGear flash card reader $19
-ASUS VH236H 23in widescreen $150

Total $1137

Will the CPU cooling be enough?
Will these parts fit in the chosen case?

Comments welcome.

Newbie

avatar

Mediziner

Yes, the Cooler Master Hyper 212, Hyper Evo 212, and Xigmatek Gaia will fit in almost any mid-tower case. Try using the Xigmatek Gaia or Evo instead of the normal 212, they're better and newer and cost the same. Get 8 gb of ram, you don't need 16gb for gaming. Oh yeah, the mobo you're using is the ASUS P8Z77-V LX, not the regualar ASUS P8Z77-V. The regualr is like $180. CPU cooling will definitely be enough. The Gaia or Evo can handle an overclock 2011 chip quite nicely, don't even ask about a 1155. By the way, what's the graphics card? You don't seem to have one. A 650 watt power supply can probably handle that, so get a 650 watt. And if you don't overclock, an H77 board will be sufficient and cheaper. What is PC assembly?

avatar

Mediziner

Here are is links to my planned rig:

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?
WishListNumber=19402825

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=21336206

The first is ATX and the second is mATX, and I'm currently on a strict budget, won't be overclocking (have a 2600K and the only CPU intensive task I'll be doing is gaming), want a portable rig (LAN parties), and want it to look good with a color scheme.

Which one should I get? What can I cut corners on?
FYI, my budget is <$1,000

avatar

pedro111

Did you consider Caselabs for the Ultra build case? Most reviews have them as the best cases around at the moment and they are not that expensive compared to the Cosmos.

avatar

stige

i'd really like to see a SFF "blueprint" meant for gaming.

something similar to the one Mr. Edwards did a month or so ago in the Corsair(?) case or something using a smaller case like the SJ08-E.

these current ones are great food for thought. thanks!

avatar

stige

A case like THIS. Pack in the awesome-sauce.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119265&RandomID=41804723412825020121115225919

avatar

Mediziner

It's ATX.

avatar

'69 GS Bui-hog

Why the Gigabyte motherboards? I thought Gordon was inclined to use Asus mobos these days. BitLocker isn't on the AsRock mobos, I don't think...isn't that a separate chip? I'd prefer redundancy with the mobo guys, rather than embedded.

When I look at the performance benchmarks for the GeForce GTX 570, the approx. $250 videocard is on par with the GTX 6xx $400 component. Recently the revised AMD worked well for Handbrake, true, but will future hardware performance degrade software programming, especially in the pro workflow? The trend indicates Intel's focus is on graphics, power, and the Haswell solution, right? This is for all intents and purposes, the laptop paradigm. Smaller and smaller buttons to push. So why did Microsoft just let their CEO go, huh. Because it's a hard sell. Ever since the advancement of quad core for most consumers, that's why...and I get it. Not all of us need a camera eye in everything we own either. Get ready for those $400 netbook style i3-3110M products with their HD 4000. (What smart phone?)

As far as the article, I'm not inclined to go with that 660 over a 570. I also don't think PCIe 3.0 bandwidth is important, nor even Thunderbolt for most people as long as USB3.0 storage is readily affordable/available. I also don't like the way Corsair attaches software to fan speed via the OS. One thing I can say about AMD's people...Taiwan really keeps their Bios lemony clean. Nothing mysterious ever happened to mine, I always appreciated that, especially when my tool gave up the ghost. A hammer should act like a hammer, MaxPC-MinBS.

avatar

andrewc513

"BitLocker isn't on the AsRock mobos, I don't think...isn't that a separate chip?"

BitLocker is software. It uses TPM to store keys, which is a separate chip. (Can be used without it too with some GP) I don't think I've seen a motherboard in the longest time not have TPM as long as it wasn't some $40 bottom barrel model.

avatar

IIDXStyle

So I have been curious about the choice between a 3820 and a 3770k for a while now. I'm looking to upgrade from an old Phenom II X4 and it seems like it's a split decision everywhere I look. Even right here on maxpc considering the performance build here uses the 3820, yet the BotB page has a 3770k listed for mid-range. I don't really care about upgrade paths for hex-cores on each platform and just want to know which one is going to be the wiser choice in the long run for gaming as far as the chips and platform. What do you guys recommend and why?

avatar

Mediziner

Go with the AMD Vishera 8350. It's cheaper and you can brag about having 8 cores to your friends. It will also help out AMD (they need money). The AMD 3+ socket will also last you a long, long time, so you don't need to switch boards every time you upgrade. If all you do is game, then you won't really notice a difference between the 3770K and the 8350.

avatar

limitbreaker

I'd go with the 3820 if I were you. Upgrade paths are somewhat redundant with Intel usually but in this case I think we might actually see the socket live through a second gen with ivybridge atleast which will probably have 8 core given the lower TDP. Now the real reason for 3820 is the lga 2011 socket/chipset because of the extra pci-e 3 lanes letting you have dual 16x and also quad channel ddr3 giving you very fast memory and enough of it for the next decade.

avatar

IIDXStyle

Thanks for the reply. To be honest, platform does seems to be the main argument in the 3820 vs 3770k debate. I have heard the pci-e lanes and quad channel ram as the big reason to go X79, but then in almost every situation, it has been brought up that the actual performance difference is negligible at best and not even close to perceivable unless you are doing things like 3D rendering or some kind of editing. I'm mostly just looking for gaming performance and from what I have seen of benchmarks, the 3770k seems to beat out the 3820 every time. I suppose if anyone has seen performance benchmarks between the two platforms that shows the pci-e and quad channel having that much of an effect on gaming performance, I would be more than happy to look at it if it's posted.

As far as the actual CPU vs CPU is concerned though, which is the better option in raw system and gaming performance? I have heard Ivy tends to run really really hot but I picked up an H100 so I don't think heat would be too much of an issue. Also speaking of heat, how is overclocking headroom on each chip?

avatar

limitbreaker

If it's a pure CPU vs CPU then you're right, the difference is really negligible but my guess would be with the 3770k but I don't have the benchmarks. All I was saying was that the x79 platform is a better investment because eventually you will want the increased performance in the future.

avatar

Zstreek

If I were going to spend this kinda money on a pc I would run 2 SSD in RAID 0 and double the speed. The cost is basically the same if you get 128GB SSDs. AND if you added some more RAM (at very very little cost) you could make a RAM Disk for windows. So combine 2 SSDs for booting and RAM Disk for running, now that might be pretty cool. Just a thought.

Also, isn't there an H100i out now for the same price as the H100?

avatar

Hilarity

Z77 and a K processor - really? Pick an H77 board, a 3470 and sink the rest into a 680 or 7970GHz. Overclocking is pointless now. Stock speeds are more than enough anyway for your typical shitty 2006 era console ports that probably don't even support 1200p, never mind proper high res uncompressed textures *grumble* *grumble* . . .

avatar

CaptainFabulous

And if you're playing something other than a shitty 2006 console port that actually requires a lot of horsepower, for example an MMO like GW2? Then what you moron?

avatar

Hilarity

What horsepower you slag? Any stock i5 Ivy Bridge is sufficient for any game. And fuck shitty MMO's, get a real life for once.

avatar

Mediziner

Except for Crysis 3. And if you use an i5 with a 680 (except for the 3570K overclocked) your CPU will probably be bottlenecking. If you're not going to overclock, get a 3770K... or a E3 Xeon w/ Hyper-treading. Performance >i7 for the price of an i5.

avatar

Mediziner

Except for Crysis 3. And if you use an i5 with a 680 (except for the 3570K overclocked) your CPU will probably be bottlenecking. If you're not going to overclock, get a 3770K... or a E3 Xeon w/ Hyper-treading. Performance >i7 for the price of an i5.

avatar

Hilarity

Wrong. Intel does not bottleneck. An i5 is certainly sufficient. Get your facts straight.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Except when they do, like in Guild Wars 2 that is currently CPU bound on all Intel processors.

This is when you come up with an illogical fallacy or strawman argument in an attempt to deflect the fact that you've been proved DEAD WRONG.

avatar

Hilarity

Bullshit. Shitty poorly made MMO no one cares about. Blame the shit company, not Intel.

avatar

zaphodbeeblebrox 42

by that logic u wouldn't need the 680 or 7970 Ghz either.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

I still wanna see more AMD builds. Especially with the recent driver update that levels the playing field with the 7970 and the 680.

Also a couple of "7990" ish cards have hit the market and they're gunning up pretty well against the 690. I'd like to see more of that.

avatar

stanleygarland

Yes, I think that I agree with the other poster who said that they would like a bit more economical build. Hold a few bells and whistles and give me a practical option. http://stanleygarland.info

avatar

limitbreaker

It's amazing that a i5 would be recommended as the baseline when a 8350 is clearly superior, a GTX 660 will never be bottlenecked by either CPU.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh that's a good one. Sad you believe it, but it's a good one!

avatar

Mediziner

It's true, the 8350 is better than the 3570K. And with the longer life for the socket, the price/performance jumps aheap of intel's i5 by leaps and bounds. Intel fanboys..

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Except it's not. Sorry AMD fanboi. The *only* time that processor beats the 3570K is in highly multithreaded apps. In everything else, including gaming, it fails and fails HARD.

Sorry, but the facts don't lie, and yeah, the truth hurts.

avatar

Mediziner

I'm not an AMD fanboy. I'm going to use a intel 2600K for my next build. I'm moar of a person that is in the middle. Intel fanboys...

avatar

maddingo

what are you talking about the i5-3570K mops the floor w/ the 8350 and uses considerably less power while doing it.

oh well whatever... but that is nonsense.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

I don't know what planet you live on.....but the i5 doesn't "mop the floor" with the 8350 at all. They're pretty even on most everything I've seen.

It does use more power though. That part is true.

avatar

mh15216

I pumped my I5 to 4.7GHZ @ a mere .22v increase, what have you gotten out of an 8350? I guess what I'd focus on in the benchmarks is that the Intel is only running @ it's stock 3.4GHZ. Boost @ least that other .6GHZ and see if the time's/processes are the same. I'm sorry, a chip that has to come clocked .6GHZ higher to have minimal gains is not a better chip. I could give you a 6 second head start in a race you beat me in by 1 second, that doesn't mean you're doing better @ racing.

avatar

limitbreaker

Lol your logic is quite flawed. Actually the 8350 should have no problem getting up to 5.5ghz and will match your i5. Now what you're really missing here is not how the i5 compares to the 8350 fx because the different isn't huge (i5 has better ipc and fx has better mutithreading), the real determining factor is that the 8350 is faster AND... and Costs less... Lol

avatar

limitbreaker

The Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 costs 30$ less than the baseline motherboard and is very feature rich. The 8350fx costs 20$ less than the i5 3470k and is a better cpu. The argument is that if the PC is meant for gaming alone then spending 50$ more on a better graphic card is much smarter and if the pc isn't for gaming then the fx 8350 is much better for everything else than a i5. Is it for future proofing? really? You'd recommend a Intel socket over a amd for future proofing when know that steamroller will fit on am3+? Hmmmm.... I agree with all the other builds but the baseline one is just laughable.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

And whenever you get around to publishing DumbassPC Magazine you can post whatever builds you think are best.

avatar

Mediziner

*MAXIMUMPC

avatar

limitbreaker

If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man, the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.
You have a very loud mouth but you bring nothing to the table.. Thus, you're a fool.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Are you talking in the mirror again? They have pills for that now.

avatar

limitbreaker

So your response is in other words... "I know you are but what am I?" Okay then...

avatar

Electrik

BTW, where's the budget build?

avatar

joshnorem

We've been alternating the Ultra and Budget builds, so since this one has the Ultra the Budget will return in the next installment.

avatar

D4rkr4in

Ultra? Sorry, but the 660 can't play squat. Should have opted for a UD3H as the mobo, lower the PSU to a 400W one, and get a 7950. 7950>670>660Ti>660. And still come in at +-1200.

Other than that, tbh, the build is actually not bad, case selection is great, fantastic SSD, and I like Seagate.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.