Putting together my 2nd PC from scratch

[Gary Childress]

Four years or so ago I built my current computer from parts. First PC I had ever put together from the ground up. I had done bare bones systems before but had never messed with a mother board and CPU installation. I'm thinking I may undertake such a project again. I really don't know much in the way of technical stuff about computer parts. Looking over some processors just now I have no idea what to look for. Is 8 core better than quad core? If so then why are some dual cores more expensive than 8 cores?

Anyway I want first to put together a list of parts. That seems like the logical starting point. Ideally I'd like to keep the cost under $1000.00, preferably in the 500-700 range if possible. Obviously it will be a gaming machine. Probably not for high end FPS games, mostly RTS and things of that genre. Not sure yet if I want to cannibalize my old PC for parts or keep it as a backup. If I cannibalize my old PC I should be able to get a good power supply (Corsair 650w), a good graphics card (I forget the make and model but it's supposed to be a decent upper middle range one), hard drive (Western Digital "black" series 500 gb), DVD ROM, already have a copy of Windows 7 (hopefully I can install it on a new PC though I'm not sure). This would leave me with finding a good Case, CPU, Motherboard and RAM.


1. Case
2. Power supply
3. Mother board
4. CPU
5. Video Card
6. Hard Drive
7. Optical Drive
8. RAM
9. Operating System

Did I miss anything on the list above? Any recommendations on components?

Thanks.

 

[tokala]

For a gaming machine, forget about AMD CPUs.
AMD CPUs are only competetive if the software is making good use of their many cores.
Intels latest models are much faster than AMDs, when comparing a single core at the same clockspeed, and are using less power.
AMD tried to compete by ramping up clock speed and going "wide" with multiple cores, but this didn't really work out.

Very few games make any use of more than 4 cores, most games are just using one or two efficiently, the newer the game, the more likely is the efficient use of multiple cores.

Next it might be interesting to know the model of your old video card.
And if you are interested in overclocking, this might decide which type of mainboard you need.

You can install Windows on the new machine, worst case is that you have to call MS to get it activated.

If you plan to keep the new system for several years, and use it primarily for gaming, an intel quad-core is probably the sensible choice.
If you need a quiet machine, you will need an after-market cooler, otherwise the Intel boxed cooler will do.

RAM is cheap, but more than 8GB won't make any sense for the foreseeable future. RAM speeds have only minor influence on performance, and overclocker RAM might make trouble, so go for a pair of DDR3-1600 sticks from the likes of Samsung, Kingston or Crucial.

Get a SSD. Seriously.
For reliability, Intel or Samsung with an "in-house" controller are preferable, and almost any SSD is much, much faster than a HDD.

If you recycle most parts of your old computer anyway, do you really need a new case? If you don't have any specific requirements, almost any case should do.

 

[Gary Childress]

Thanks Tokala for some really great advice!

I just bought a new case that I really liked tonight, a Corsair for 80.00. My old case is really bare bones and kind of cramped and not very well ventilated I don't think.

I really want to get a SSD, I've heard only great stuff about them, but my Windows is currenlty on an HDD. Is there a way I can transfer my windows to the SSD without having to buy a new copy? Bacially I think I'll be canibalizing my old machine for some components.

I forget what kind of video card I have but it's supposed to be a pretty decent one and I bought it only about a month or so ago. Right now my old computer is in the shop looking at some dead USB ports. So I can't look to see what the video card is.

Aside from gaming I'll probably be using it for some 3D apps like Poser 7 and stuff. So a guy at CompUSA was recommending an I-7 chip to me. What do you think of the I-7? Will it be overkill? Would it be a good idea given anticipated future progress in technology?

 

[Zelig]

Sigh, I had a more detailed post, but pushed the wrong button and my browser ate it. Highlights:

All your data should be backed up, so reinstalling an OS should be a trivial exercise.

8GB RAM isn't much depending on usage - I'm consistently over 16GB used before I launch a game.

You probably don't need an i7, see Tom's Hardware gaming cpu guide.

 

[illram]

My last build was almost a year ago, which is eons in computer time, but if you're cannibalizing your HD, GFX card, and PSU you should be able to get a quality mobo and CPU and case.

The only not out of date info I can give you is about cases. Your case is mainly aesthetic; browse Newegg and see what you like looking at and then google it for reviews. Cases can pretty much only go wrong in airflow, ease of construction, or bad/stupid wiring. Honestly even if you buy a horribly reviewed case that you nonetheless like the looks of, you can still put together a perfectly fine PC inside of it though. So don't stress that.

However, if you're trying to build a niche build, like an HTPC or a silent PC, then you need to do more homework.

Now for the out of date (potentially) info: a year ago Bulldozer was still not as solid an option as Intel Sandy Bridge, which is now out of date with Ivy Bridge. Check the guides (e.g. Anandtech and Tom's) but my guess is the sweet spot right now is one of Intel's 3xxx Ivy Bridge offerings on 1155 mobos.

 

[GoodGame]

For the CPU, I think a I5 locked (no "K") would be fine if there's a price break in going that route.
I'm a gamer and that is my current build.

For case I recommend going full tower ATX if you aren't thinking that way already. And I really like the CoolerMaster HAF series of case.

If you're sticking with just the same old graphics card then the 650W power supply is probably good.

I think the hardest part of upgrading is deciding on a matching motherboard. Features change between generations and making sense of the on-board features is a pain. I went with an Intel Extreme Edition motherboard to try to make things a little bit easier.

 

[tokala]

I really want to get a SSD, I've heard only great stuff about them, but my Windows is currenlty on an HDD. Is there a way I can transfer my windows to the SSD without having to buy a new copy? Bacially I think I'll be canibalizing my old machine for some components.

First of all, a windows license is not limited in its number of succesive installations, you are just not allowed to use one license on multiple installations at the same time.

The most straightforward method is simply installing Windows on the SSD and keep your old drive as it is.
You would need to reinstall all the software in that case. You may delete the windows and program files folders on the old drive to free up space.
If I remember correctly, there is a Windows tool that allows you to migrate your personal settings to the new Windows installation. I suggest to look it up before going that route.

If your windows partition is smaller than the SSD, you can just clone it with an imaging tool like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonezilla
and afterwards you can expand the cloned partition to the full size of the SSD with the Windows disk manager.
Again you might want to delete files on the old HDD, or you can keep them just in case.
If you are lucky, you just need to install a few drivers for the new mainboard, reactivate windows and you are good to go.

Aside from gaming I'll probably be using it for some 3D apps like Poser 7 and stuff. So a guy at CompUSA was recommending an I-7 chip to me. What do you think of the I-7? Will it be overkill? Would it be a good idea given anticipated future progress in technology?

Depends on what stuff you are doing there. Apparently newer versions of Poser
are multithreaded, so more than 4 CPU threads will be utilized.
Generally 3d modelling software is very efficient in using multiple threads, an i7 is likely to be about 20-30% faster there than an i5.
In games the performance difference will be minimal, a few applications might be a bit more than 30% faster.
This won't change much in the future.

You have to decide if that's worth the ~$100 price premium.


If your 3d software is a memory hog, you might want to concider going 2x8GB instead of 2x4GB of RAM.

 

[Quintillus]

I somewhat disagree with blanket-disregarding AMD CPUs if gaming is the primary purpose. Generally, yes, Intel CPUs will be a better deal and have better performance above the low-end. tokala is right about the technical comparison of the two brands' approaches in post 2. But, especially some of the new AMD "Piledriver" CPUs are potentially competitive if graphics is your main concern. I would still go Intel myself for basically the reasons tokala gave... but most games (Civ being an exception) don't tend to stress the CPU as much as the GPU, and if Poser/etc. do take advantage of multiple threads, they might do similarly for the same price with AMD. So depending on what deals are available, the balance could favor AMD.

Core i7 is above the sweet spot of priceerformance, and at a 500-700 desired budget, not worth it. 20-30% better sounds optimistic to me, assuming we aren't talking top-end i7's that are clearly out of budget. Core i5, and possibly even i3, is likely to be a better fit for your budget. Future progress will allow you to upgrade in the future more cost-effectively than by buying an i7 now (although AMD tends to do better at not making their motherboards obsolete quickly than Intel does). (Also, does CompUSA actually still exist? Thought they folded a few years back)

A couple examples I'd consider: $200 Intel quad core. $140 AMD Hexacore.

I second tokala's recommendation on 8 GB of RAM as a starting point. If it turns out you need more, it's easy and cheap to add. I've found that I very rarely use more than 4 GB in practice. It'd be a bit higher if I ran Windows 7 instead of XP, but even with Windows 7, it'd be well below 8 GB. Since prices are likely to continue a general downward trend, and you don't know if you'll need more, don't buy extra now.

For the OS, if you continue to use your old PC/keep it around as a backup, you will need a fresh copy of Windows. Windows 8 is now an option in addition to 7. Couldn't hurt to swing by a store and try it out to see if it's to your liking. Even if you don't keep the old PC around, at $40 to upgrade an existing copy of Windows, it's worth considering. Might be more value for the dollar than bumping up the CPU, for instance.

 

[tokala]

Sorry, but assuming that this will again be intended to get used for several years, it just don't make sense to go AMD.
Yes "for now" a FX6300 would be "good enough" for almost any game, but it will fall below that threshold much earlier than either i5 or i7.
CPU upgradability is a non-issue, as there will be at best another generation matching the socket for AMD, and it will have only minor improvents.

I think you overestimate the FX series a bit. A "8-core" FX is similar in concept to intels i7 with hyperthreading in that there are 4 fully functional cores, each of which has to share certain resources with another stripped down "core".
And the FX's are real power hogs when running under load, with all the assorted negatives.

Regarding which CPU is how much faster under what circumstances my estimates are based an various reviews, anandtech has a handy overview, focused on applications:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=701
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=701

Charts summarizing the results from several reviews:
http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/lau...iver-rechenkernen/launch-analyse-amd-bulldoze
relative performance normalized to the FX8350, first chart for applications, second chart for games.
Keep in mind that most games were not running in the CPU limit during the benches, i.e. the difference in computing power for games will be (much) higher than indicated by those numbers.

And what's the purpose of "Windows for Tablets" on a gaming/workstation machine?

 

[Zelig]

It really becomes a priceerformance thing - sure, AMD is slower at the high-end, but otherwise they could price any of their stuff to be competitive.

I'm too lazy to do much of my own research here, but the Tom's Hardware gaming cpu/gpu guides are usually pretty good, and the only AMD CPU they have listed is the FX-4170 at $125 tied with the i3-3220. Even here though, it's hard to recommend the AMD CPU because of power usage. I don't see many places I'd recommend one asides from a heavy multitasker. (Where 8GB almost certainly won't be enough memory.)

20-30% better sounds optimistic to me, assuming we aren't talking top-end i7's that are clearly out of budget.

Actually more of a difference than I expected, it looks like hyperthreading is making a fairly significant difference, since the only difference otherwise is an extra 100MHz and 8MB vs 6MB of L3 cache.

 

[Gary Childress]

For the CPU, I think a I5 locked (no "K") would be fine if there's a price break in going that route.
I'm a gamer and that is my current build.

What is the difference between "locked" and "unlocked"? If it has anything to do with overclocking it would probably be lost on me because I won't be overclocking I don't think.

I'm sort of leaning so far toward the i7 3770k. It seems to get good reviews. Motherboard is the next hurdle. If I were to get an i7 3770k what would be a good motherboard to take advantage of the processor's abilities? I may go a little overbudget maybe but at least I hopefully won't need to replace the machine for a long time - hoping anyway.

 

[tokala]

What is the difference between "locked" and "unlocked"? If it has anything to do with overclocking it would probably be lost on me because I won't be overclocking I don't think.

Exactly. The "not-K" models have nonexisting (i3) to limited (i5 and i7) overclocking capability.

I'm sort of leaning so far toward the i7 3770k. It seems to get good reviews. Motherboard is the next hurdle. If I were to get an i7 3770k what would be a good motherboard to take advantage of the processor's abilities? I may go a little overbudget maybe but at least I hopefully won't need to replace the machine for a long time - hoping anyway.

Accordingly there's no point whatsoever to get a more expensive "K" model if you are sure you aren't going to overclock.
The mainboard choice has no influence on the (stock) performance. Therefore you can chose any board you fancy. A "middle of the road" model would look something like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...rue&Keywords=(keywords)&Page=1#scrollFullInfo

I supports pretty much any modern type of drives, add-on cards and external devices, has a, for the average user, sufficient to generous number of port/slots/connectors and comes with a 3 year warranty.

 

[Gary Childress]

Exactly. The "not-K" models have nonexisting (i3) to limited (i5 and i7) overclocking capability.


Accordingly there's no point whatsoever to get a more expensive "K" model if you are sure you aren't going to overclock.
The mainboard choice has no influence on the (stock) performance. Therefore you can chose any board you fancy. A "middle of the road" model would look something like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...rue&Keywords=(keywords)&Page=1#scrollFullInfo

I supports pretty much any modern type of drives, add-on cards and external devices, has a, for the average user, sufficient to generous number of port/slots/connectors and comes with a 3 year warranty.

Maybe I'll just go for the i7-3770 then (non-K and non-S). That will save me a few $$. Interesting note on motherboards. If there are no performance differences between motherboards, why are some so much more expensive than others? So you seem to be saying that I could purchase a cheap motherboard and come away with the same stock performance as buying some high end model like a sabertooth or something? I like the sound of that. I could go all out on CPU and then buy a budget MB to keep my costs lower and still get all the power out of the CPU.

 

[illram]

More expensive mobos generally have more features or more connectivity options (e.g., USB 3, more SATAIII connectors, more fan headers, more PCIe slots, more fan control, etc.). You can usually tell at a glance by the mobo designation, e.g., for LGA 1155 mobos, the order (in rising order of features and cost) is H61, H67, P67, and Z68. That and the size of the mobo are the two important things in a mobo name. Ignore the rest of the junk that mobo manufacturers throw in their like fatal1ty and xtreme and other marketing garbage.

If you were overclocking on an LGA 1155 mobo you would also need to purchase either a P- or Z- LGA 1155, which are more expensive, but as others have said, no overclocking means you can safely ignore those. I think P- models are out of date anyway.

I believe the Z- model also allows "SSD caching" which allows you to utilize an SSD and an old HDD together to improve performance by caching your most used files on the SSD. (Basically.)

Essentially, figure out what you need and then ignore any other bells and whistles you don't need. Many users of locked Intel chips do fine with H61 or H67.

 

[tokala]

If there are no performance differences between motherboards, why are some so much more expensive than others?

The high end boards have better support for multiple video cards and overclocking.
They have all kinds of bells and whistles the average user will never miss, they have to earn their development costs on a much smaller unit number, and the marketing departments are really good in convincing people that they are indeed worth that much.

So you seem to be saying that I could purchase a cheap motherboard and come away with the same stock performance as buying some high end model like a sabertooth or something?

I probably wouldn't suggest to put a $300 CPU an a $35 mainboard, but for your stated purposes there's really no point in buying a $100+ board.

All the performance relevant parts have been integrated into the CPU itself.
Under a controlled testing environment, with identical software versions, memory timings etc. a given CPU should perform almost identical on any board.

This results in performance differences within the error margins of the tests, like this:

Some manufacturers are cheating though, and "silently" overclock the CPU a bit.

 

[GoodGame]

Maybe I'll just go for the i7-3770 then (non-K and non-S). That will save me a few $$. Interesting note on motherboards. If there are no performance differences between motherboards, why are some so much more expensive than others? So you seem to be saying that I could purchase a cheap motherboard and come away with the same stock performance as buying some high end model like a sabertooth or something? I like the sound of that. I could go all out on CPU and then buy a budget MB to keep my costs lower and still get all the power out of the CPU.

Yeah the non-K's only have 'turbo-boost' over-clocking, similar to a mild overclock one might do in previous CPU generations.

On the motherboards, I think the overclocker's vs non-overclocker's motherboard dilemma is now obsolete, and people buy Z model motherboards for their second gen iCore CPUs. I recall there being nuances between H and P motherboards that'd be best to avoid by spending a few dollars more. It's safe to say that motherboards are more expensive, so if you're spending $300 on an i7, won't overclock for durability, then it doesn't make much sense to try to be a cheapskate on your motherboard.


And shopping tip, you might want to just start scanning component prices now, and plan on pouncing by/on Black Friday.

 

[Zelig]

To be fair, CPU also makes very little difference to gaming performance once you've got at least 4 reasonably fast cores.

 

[GoodGame]

Yeah good point that if you are doing 3D gaming, then the Video card probably most deserves upgrading (and then usually the power supply to accommodate).

 

[Gary Childress]

The salesman at CompUSA/Tiger Direct suggested not going under 750 watts for my power. I have a 650 watt PSU right now on my old PC, so it sounds like maybe I should get a new PSU?

Also I posted on the TomsHardware forums and someone recommended these motherboards to me.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-na&AID=10446076&PID=4176827&SID=msjkmcaeawsb

What do you guys think of these?

Goodgame:
And shopping tip, you might want to just start scanning component prices now, and plan on pouncing by/on Black Friday.

Ah...great idea!

 

[GoodGame]

You didn't say what your video card is. That makes a difference. It also makes a difference if you go for an i7, and even then it might make a difference if you go for one of the newer model i7s. And the maker of the PSU makes a difference too since there is some sophism in the self-rating of PSUs. Corsair is a reliable brand though.

I run a 450 GTS Nvidia with a i5 (locked) and a pretty full case (about 3 drives, 16GB RAM, etc..), and that does well with a Seasonic (another reliable brand) 550 PSU.

I may be exaggerating the power draw of an i7 due to ignorance, but if you are going for a modern GTX card, I'd expect up to another 200W needed.


This calculator seems to be decent, though I have to compare it's predictions to mine: http://psucalc.tk/#calcpsu