With NBW coming out, looking to upgrade (up to $3-4K)

[damnyankees]

I've been desktop-less for about 10 years now, and I'm looking to get back in the game. Short story is that I'm getting a new job which actually gives me a work laptop, so I no longer need my personal computer to be a laptop, freeing me up to spend the money on a desktop (I was due to upgrade anyway).

Anyways, I'm not super-techie, so I'm not really qualified to build my own machine, but I do love love love PC gaming, and I'm a little sick of playing games on my laptop (which is good, but can't compare to a good gaming PC). I don't want the hassle of having to build my own PC either, so I hate buying party by part and assembling, so I'd like to just buy the comp already made.

Can I get some advice on what I should get? I'm most excited to be able to play BNW without it always crashing and going really slow, and I'm willing to shell out between $3,000 and $4,000 if its really worth it, so I'd obviously like the computer to last a while. I just feel dumb going on random PC-building websites and playing with the customization options without really knowing what I'm doing.

If there's already a thread on this type thing, please direct me there; I didn't see one.

 

[Zelig]

~500GB SSD = $400
Core i5-3350P = $180
Quieter heatsink = $60
Dell U3014 = $1200
Geforce GTX 770 = $400
16GB RAM = $110
PSU = $120
Mobo = $150
Silverstone FT02 = $260

Total = $2880

That's roughly what you're looking at for top-end parts that are still a good performancerice ratio.

You've still got a few dollars there to play around with and/or get your choice of nice mouse/keyboard/controller/headset/speakers.


Oh, actually I just reread your post and realized you don't actually want to build your own system... I got all excited about a thread where someone wasn't trying to get a good PC for $400. I'd generally recommend putting together your own system, it's not too difficult. If you're getting premade, you'll save money by getting as few extras (memory, drive space, a monitor) as possible and installing them yourself. I'm not really familiar with gaming PC builders anymore, maybe someone else will chime in.

 

[damnyankees]

~500GB SSD = $400
Core i5-3350P = $180
Quieter heatsink = $60
Dell U3014 = $1200
Geforce GTX 770 = $400
16GB RAM = $110
PSU = $120
Mobo = $150
Silverstone FT02 = $260

Total = $2880

That's roughly what you're looking at for top-end parts that are still a good performancerice ratio.

You've still got a few dollars there to play around with and/or get your choice of nice mouse/keyboard/controller/headset/speakers.


Oh, actually I just reread your post and realized you don't actually want to build your own system... I got all excited about a thread where someone wasn't trying to get a good PC for $400. I'd generally recommend putting together your own system, it's not too difficult. If you're getting premade, you'll save money by getting as few extras (memory, drive space, a monitor) as possible and installing them yourself. I'm not really familiar with gaming PC builders anymore, maybe someone else will chime in.

Thanks for this. Even though I don't want to build my own PC, listing out the components like that makes it easy to see how the pre-built one stacks up. This one looks pretty good under your rubric, for example:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227486

 

[bhsup]

http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-aurora-r4/pd?oc=dpcwnq4&model_id=alienware-aurora-r4

 

[Zelig]

Thanks for this. Even though I don't want to build my own PC, listing out the components like that makes it easy to see how the pre-built one stacks up. This one looks pretty good under your rubric, for example:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227486

It's hard to really go wrong at that price - my biggest concern with that PC is the only 256GB SSD, modern games are big, and it seems a silly spot to save a couple hundred dollars to go with an SSD that you'll generally be very borderline on running out of space if you have a bunch of stuff. (Also keep in mind that SSDs don't like being full, aim to keep them at least 20% free, or performance degrades.)


Otherwise, the CPU/GPU are faster than what I listed but the system doesn't include a monitor. I find it generally makes more sense to spend more on peripherals and then to upgrade performance parts more often, since monitors/keyboards/speakers/etc. won't be out of date in 6 months like everything else in your PC. Tough thing with this advice now is that we're just on the cusp of moving to general 4K availability, which is pretty much the biggest monitor upgrade in the past decade since 1920x1200 24" LCDs replaced 1600x1200 CRTs. Unfortunately, at the moment 4K monitors are still in the $4K range. Asus is the only company with a model (31") properly announced, but I expect Apple to compete very aggressively on price here, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple refresh their 27" Thunderbolt monitor with a 4K model for $2k when they get around to releasing the new Mac Pro. (Which conveniently, now has 4K monitor support.)

http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-aurora-r4/pd?oc=dpcwnq4&model_id=alienware-aurora-r4

No way I'd recommend that processor config. That processor is two generations old now, and is going to be slower/hotter/louder than a current-gen processor at the same price. (Though the mobo for the older SB-E processor will probably cost more and come with fewer features.)

 

[classical_hero]

Surely you should have a local PC store that can build you a good PC.

 

[damnyankees]

It's hard to really go wrong at that price - my biggest concern with that PC is the only 256GB SSD, modern games are big, and it seems a silly spot to save a couple hundred dollars to go with an SSD that you'll generally be very borderline on running out of space if you have a bunch of stuff. (Also keep in mind that SSDs don't like being full, aim to keep them at least 20% free, or performance degrades.)


Otherwise, the CPU/GPU are faster than what I listed but the system doesn't include a monitor. I find it generally makes more sense to spend more on peripherals and then to upgrade performance parts more often, since monitors/keyboards/speakers/etc. won't be out of date in 6 months like everything else in your PC. Tough thing with this advice now is that we're just on the cusp of moving to general 4K availability, which is pretty much the biggest monitor upgrade in the past decade since 1920x1200 24" LCDs replaced 1600x1200 CRTs. Unfortunately, at the moment 4K monitors are still in the $4K range. Asus is the only company with a model (31") properly announced, but I expect Apple to compete very aggressively on price here, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple refresh their 27" Thunderbolt monitor with a 4K model for $2k when they get around to releasing the new Mac Pro. (Which conveniently, now has 4K monitor support.)



No way I'd recommend that processor config. That processor is two generations old now, and is going to be slower/hotter/louder than a current-gen processor at the same price. (Though the mobo for the older SB-E processor will probably cost more and come with fewer features.)

Wouldn't you need immense processing and video card peower to be able to use a 4K monitor? Doesn't seem like its anywhere near practical for another few years at least. There's no way games are even made with enough graphical detail to look good on a screen that big, even if you had the horsepower.

 

[damnyankees]

Surely you should have a local PC store that can build you a good PC.

Talking to and looking at actual human beings? Surely you jest.

 

[Zelig]

Wouldn't you need immense processing and video card peower to be able to use a 4K monitor? Doesn't seem like its anywhere near practical for another few years at least. There's no way games are even made with enough graphical detail to look good on a screen that big, even if you had the horsepower.

CPU doesn't matter, you do need a lot of GPU. However, even at 1080p, single top-end GPUs start to become overkill. A $350 card is already good for gaming at 2560x1600. (The monitor I suggested - you can also get cheaper 27" monitors at that resolution for half the price of the 30".)

HardOCP has some tests here where they try single cards at 4K resolutions - not really playable at full settings, but their SLI setups smash through 5760x1200, which is ~6.9 megapixels vs ~8.3 megapixels on a 4K display. Going from these numbers, 4K should be playable on max settings with 2-way SLI/Crossfire and higher-end cards. You're still looking at a lot of GPU power, but I figure two $400 should do it well, particularly considering you don't need as much AA with the higher resolution.

Modern 3D games can pretty much scale to arbitrary resolutions, lack of pretty looks at 4K shouldn't be a problem.

 

[bhsup]

No way I'd recommend that processor config. That processor is two generations old now, and is going to be slower/hotter/louder than a current-gen processor at the same price. (Though the mobo for the older SB-E processor will probably cost more and come with fewer features.)

That was really just a general link to the alienware machine. You need to go through the customization process, of course.

 

[damnyankees]

That was really just a general link to the alienware machine. You need to go through the customization process, of course.

Thus my problem. I would not have customized that until Zelig's comment, since I have no idea what processor config is good or bad.

 

[damnyankees]

CPU doesn't matter, you do need a lot of GPU. However, even at 1080p, single top-end GPUs start to become overkill. A $350 card is already good for gaming at 2560x1600. (The monitor I suggested - you can also get cheaper 27" monitors at that resolution for half the price of the 30".)

HardOCP has some tests here where they try single cards at 4K resolutions - not really playable at full settings, but their SLI setups smash through 5760x1200, which is ~6.9 megapixels vs ~8.3 megapixels on a 4K display. Going from these numbers, 4K should be playable on max settings with 2-way SLI/Crossfire and higher-end cards. You're still looking at a lot of GPU power, but I figure two $400 should do it well, particularly considering you don't need as much AA with the higher resolution.

Modern 3D games can pretty much scale to arbitrary resolutions, lack of pretty looks at 4K shouldn't be a problem.

Sounds like you think any system with 2 video cards in SLI Mode is a ripoff.

 

[Zelig]

Hm, that's not really the impression I was going for - the problem is that 4K screens are a ripoff and are going to massively drop in price over the next few years, and there isn't really any point in doing SLI/Crossfire if you're only driving a single 2560x1600 screen.

If I could get a 4K screen for $800, I could justify another $800 on dual video cards to drive max settings on it.

 

[illram]

If money is no option why not go with a Haswell? K or non K depending on if you overclock. Go to ibuypower.com or cyberpower.com and just spec something out based around an i7-4770 and a GeForce 770 with a big SSD. Opt for a reasonably priced 1920x1080 monitor and at either of those websites ~$2200-2600 will get you top end everything. If you go 2560x1440 spring for a 780.

 

[Zelig]

I wouldn't get an i7 over an i5 if I wasn't already building a 2560x1440 monitor into the budget - there's going to be essentially no difference in gaming performance past the i5-4670(K), but it still adds $100 to the cpu cost.

It's too bad there's no Haswell without integrated graphics, the money spent on integrated graphics is wasted in a gaming computer, which is why the 3350P was my standard Ivy Bridge non-overclockers recommendation.

 

[illram]

I guess. The way intel does their pricing I don't see it making much of a difference. The price difference between an i5 4670 and an i5 3350p is about $40. I can see the logic of not shelling out for an i7-4770 vs an i5-4670 for a few extra FPS, but I would definitely go with the latest generation of chipset if you want a premium build. I.e. an i5-4670 at a minimum. If OP goes with Haswell he has more of an upgrade path for the future.

I agree that Intel's marketing shenanigans foist unwanted "features" on us all, which is a shame.

 

[Zelig]

Yeah, I mean I'd go Haswell now, I'm just saying it's too bad there's no 4450p model without integrated graphics. For a gaming computer, I doubt you'll ever see any difference between a 4670 and a 4770, that upgrade is only worthwhile if you're doing heavy multitasking (outside of gaming) and can make use of the hyperthreading.

Sounds like you think any system with 2 video cards in SLI Mode is a ripoff.

Following up, Anandtech just put out some numbers this morning: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7120/some-quick-gaming-numbers-at-4k-max-settings

I might have been being optimistic in my previous post, we're probably looking at a year or two before pricing and availability makes 4K properly available in the enthusiast market. On the plus side, if you're running demanding games, you can drop a 4K monitor to 1080p without the normal loss of quality from LCD scaling, since it's an exact ratio of pixels.

 

[King_Course]

You surely don't need to spend as much to get a good strong system. And advising you to buy a 1200$ screen when you don't now much about it is just plain bad advice I'd say.

As you are in the States I take it, you'll probably want to go to one of the custom building sites that has a good reputation for using decent hardware, and build a machine they can sell you.

AVAdirect should be decent.

 

[classical_hero]

Talking to and looking at actual human beings? Surely you jest.

Well you are talking to us. They will have some good ideas, so at least go to them and see what they can do.

 

[Quintillus]

First thing first on the monitor, how much space do you have for it? The Dell UltraSharp U3014 would be gorgeous, but also fairly gigantic. Depending on the desk you are using, you may need to drop down to 27" or 24" simply due to space constraints. Which will also save several hundred dollars, even if you still got an UltraSharp at 1920x1200. A 30" monitor will also seem gigantic coming from a laptop. I switch between a 15.4" laptop and a 24" monitor, and even with that difference the 24" seems big after using only the laptop for awhile.

Zelig's post is a good target of what to shoot for spec-wise. The only thing I'd add is a hard drive in addition to the SSD for cheap, plentiful storage, and then a backup drive so you don't lose your data if a drive should crash. Not that likely in a desktop, but better to be ready.

For computers with AMD/ATI graphics cards, I'd say you should be aiming for a 7870 or higher GPU. As for the CPU, it does make a difference for Civ AI turn times. The 3350P isn't top-end, but it's decent and a good price. I'd probably go for the 3570 over it, though, given your budget. The 10% increase in speed isn't great, but it's something, and the price difference isn't high. Unfortunately, AMD processors aren't really competitive at the high end. The FX-8350 isn't bad, and can be a bargain price-wise, it just isn't in the same league for single-threaded tasks, which tends to be what matters in games (including Civ AI turn times).

It's also worth saying that you could buy a very good machine for $1500-$1800 and pocket the rest. I think the recommendations so far have been assuming that you're coming at this from a "I'm willing to spend this, and I want something that'll blow my socks off now and will serve me well for several years." $1500-$1800 would probably still knock your socks off now (although without the 30" monitor), but it wouldn't keep up with the latest games for quite as long.

Alienware is very much in the "Shut up and take my money!" category. They'll give you good specs (although not always the absolute best), but they're expensive.