Need some advice for a PC Build

[Zor2k13]

PC market is turning to shit thanks to intel doing bad things because no real competition. Consoles are not making the money much anymore since people are going to pc for some games and steam but PC in general is in a state of most computers from last few years will do anyone just fine now so why bother with the latest sort of mood. If you have a high end computer from late 2011 or 2012 you would still be just fine today just upgrade a video card and done.

 

The only major releases this year will be doom and deus ex then another call of bathroom break and nothing more till next year. The crap economy is just killing everything everywhere and tax hikes all over the world too. So glad I don't live in australia where a person is taxed if they make a deposit to their bank accounts and foreign real estate buyers are being run out of the country with new laws.

[Crooltool]

I would think the PC market turning to shit has to do more with the fact that most people <including consolegamers> have absolutely no need for the latest gen 6 hyperthreaded cores CPU capable of 4 Ghz since the most taxing thing they do with a PC is FB and Turbotax and a 300 dollar throwaway laptop or tablet will manage that just fine. Besides SOME games and maybe video editing software, what programs out there even really need or use 2 cores? The Average User is what dictates market. The thing is, we have pretty much reached the limit of what is needed in a CPU, hence CPU replacement is now more to do with "failure" then with "need more speed/cores/whatever". The PC i'm using now was built in 2010, with a CPU that was 1 generation out of the latest,  and yes, to keep up with gaming, I have only had to upgrade the GPU. Never once have I come close to using all 12 gigs of RAM or taxed the CPU except when editing video. And yes, I will be building a complete new PC soon but that is due to an aging motherboard starting to develop faults and unable to procure a MB in my chipset anymore Vs any real reason of needing a faster CPU or more RAM capability. I don't see what Intel or any chipmaker for that matter has done to kill the PC market other then to keep putting out faster and faster chips that the majority of the market has no need for. It has always been PC gamers who pushed PC development because the games coming out pushed the available chip technology to the limit. I really think we will see the same thing happen in the GPU department as well, because, lets face it, a game maker isn't going to put out a game that is going to tax a TITANX because it will not be able to port that to console, and a game made for a console and ported to PC isn't going to do it either really. the big advancements in technology are going to be in definition, but I think we are hitting the max there as well, and the majority of the using public isn't going to want or pay lotsa bucks for more 4000k.

 

Simple case of "we have the technology, just no one needs it"

[Zor2k13]

What will change the console market is if amd dies off then only intel could really make a replacement cpu for whatever mobo they come up with to go in the next console that the usual suspects come up with so the consoles would get faster but not by much because of cost and that would still be the same game you described and that is if the console market can even exist for another ten years. Thanks to cell phones and crap economy the main stream does not have much time left to eat and sleep let alone play a game. The only thing people make time for these days is staring at a dam phone for whatever reason. They even do it while driving or going to the bathroom. I don't see how the console market can survive if people simply don't even have time or interest to use them.  Most people I run into have a laptop these days only because they are going to school online or it is too tedious to use fb with a phone or they can't do their resume on a phone and these people don't even know simple file management. They don't even know they can right click and copy/paste files and folders to different places because their phones don't do that and don't have a desktop for things to be copy pasted. When I explain to them to have their files in two places at the same time they look like a deer in the headlights of a car on the road. They can't even comprehend storing something in more than one place.

 

To explain about why I say intel is screwing us check out all the fuss over new processors that are slower under the excuse of using less TDP and so on. Who wants to own and i7 that runs like a celeron? Now they have ULV versions of i3 and i5 YUK.

[pinky6225]

 

Simple case of "we have the technology, just no one needs it"

 

This has been the case for many many years, when CPU's started to approach the 1 gig mark everybody wondered what we needed that for and the same when multiple cores came along.

 

I imagine its very hard to design software that uses hardware that either doesn't exist or has just came to market and it has not been the software that has been driving progress.

 

Back to the thread though the one thing i would be concerned about if i was building a new PC would be the MB supporting DDR3 since DDR4 is "the new thing" and they are not backwards compatible so while a DDR4 motherboard right now is outside of the OPs price range spending a bit more now on a DDR4 MB and memory might save a MB and memory change at a later date

 

[Zor2k13]

Gonna take some time for DDR4 to become more mainstream since things are going down so I wouldn't worry about it so much. By the time DDR4 gets to be significantly used they will probably have DDR5 out. What we need is something totally and completely different something revolutionary to really shake things up but that costs a lot of money and time.

[pinky6225]

Gonna take some time for DDR4 to become more mainstream since things are going down so I wouldn't worry about it so much. By the time DDR4 gets to be significantly used they will probably have DDR5 out. What we need is something totally and completely different something revolutionary to really shake things up but that costs a lot of money and time.

 

DDR5 has been out for quite a while, its used on GPU's as it is optimised for bandwidth which is important on GPU's

 

DDR3 however has a better response rate so its still better than DDR5 at doing the R part of RAM which is why they have come up with a sucessor to DDR3 which is DDR4

 

Personally i'm not going to upgrade MB and memory for it but if i was building a new PC today then i would consider it for future proofing (although whether the OP has the budget to be able to do that would also be important)

 

[kuroinoakuma]

 

Gonna take some time for DDR4 to become more mainstream since things are going down so I wouldn't worry about it so much. By the time DDR4 gets to be significantly used they will probably have DDR5 out. What we need is something totally and completely different something revolutionary to really shake things up but that costs a lot of money and time.

 

DDR5 has been out for quite a while, its used on GPU's as it is optimised for bandwidth which is important on GPU's

 

DDR3 however has a better response rate so its still better than DDR5 at doing the R part of RAM which is why they have come up with a sucessor to DDR3 which is DDR4

 

Personally i'm not going to upgrade MB and memory for it but if i was building a new PC today then i would consider it for future proofing (although whether the OP has the budget to be able to do that would also be important)

 

 

 

GDDR5 ≠ DDR5

 

GDDR5 (and the upcoming GDDR5X) is based on DDR3 SDRAM (GDDR4 was as well, but was replaced by GDDR5 within a year) and is solely for use as Video RAM, having been in use since 2007 (same year as DDR3).

GDDR5 is also possibly going to be replaced with HBM/2 (first used on AMD's R9 Fury family of GPU's) on the upcoming Pascal (Nvidia) & Polaris (AMD) graphics chips expected to launch later this year. Time will tell if it's going to be GDDR5/5X on low/mid-end GPU's (eg: *60 & *70 Nvidia chips) & HBM2 on the high/extreme-end GPU's (eg *80/Ti & Titan Nvidia chips) though for the cards and chips being released.

 

DDR4 SDRAM was released in September 2014 (within the past 18 months) and is currently the standard for System RAM for new CPU's such as Intel's Haswell-E (X99) & Skylake (Z170) chips and (presumably) AMD's upcoming Zen chips.

 

GDDR5/5X & DDR4 are different branches of the same core technology and are for different uses, plus we are unlikely to see DDR5 SDRAM for System RAM until around 2019 or 2020 at the earliest based upon the lifespans and development times of the standards from DDR1 through the current DDR4.

 

[Zor2k13]

That is what I am talking about, the long term. Even a system from 2011 can play skyrim just fine and many other games too. So what would be the point of going all turbo charged when the current and even older systems do just fine? The only thing really promoting next gen is DX12 and that all hinges on people switching to win10 or not which is up for serious debate for many reasons. Also many people already have computers and a lot of people out there will ride that horse until all the legs are broke not just one or two. I have seen some really ghetto computers over the last ten years and I can tell you that people will stretch these things out as far as they can and some will just do without if it don't work anymore.

 

Unless we get something really totally different in the next two years I don't see any reason for someone currently using a working computer from 2011 to now to just junk it and buy a new one or upgrade most of it to a new one.

[RitualClarity]

 

 

One last thing! Maybe this is just my problem, but I have 8GB RAM and I still get bloated saves. Just an adviceblo

Bloated saves have nothing to do with how much RAM you have or don't have, that is an issue with a mod or mods

 

Oh well, thanks for the data then

 

I second this. It is the coding of the mods you are using that contribute to the bloat.

[2K Ultra]

an amd r9 390 or a gtx 960 would be better than a gtx 950 and a gtx 970 or r9 390 would be ideal (btw a gtx 950 performs basically the same as a gtx 750ti wich is about £20 cheaper)

http://gpuboss.com/ is a good site too help you choose though they are accused of being biased against amd so do bear that in mind

[NosulRagal]

an amd r9 390 or a gtx 960 would be better than a gtx 950 and a gtx 970 or r9 390 would be ideal (btw a gtx 950 performs basically the same as a gtx 750ti wich is about £20 cheaper)

http://gpuboss.com/ is a good site too help you choose though they are accused of being biased against amd so do bear that in mind

 

Cool, thanks for the advice.

[RW311]

Fo4 will run at ultra less shadows on medium on a fx6300 and an r9280 in 1080p, skryim on that setup will run at 1440p in ultra with more than a healthy amount of mods. I'm just putting that out there from experience. That was my old pc which isn't even old really but I hold onto for when my daughter or my brothers kids come visit, they aren't really kids anymore but anyway, ya that is enough to run those games with eye candy.

[Yotix]

I agree that the slowdown of the PC market is simply due to the fact that a five-year-old i7 2600k will perform well enough in most games.

 

Back when we were still dealing with questions such as "should I take the 320 MB or the 500 MB hard disk drive" and the single-thread CPUs kept getting faster and faster, you fully expected to have to replace your PC every two years, maybe three. 

 

Nowadays though? They're reaching the physical limits on what single cores can do, so they're stuffing two, four or six cores into one CPU die. However even on a Core2Duo, most games still play okay, and there's still plenty of software that doesn't parallelize much. 

The one thing I don't understand though: Why AMD? I agree they do have some sort of underdog appeal, like "Aaaaw the poor crippled puppy should also get a tiny share of the CPU market, it doesn't deserve to die" but if you buy their chips, you'll be wasting money by converting electricity into heat (a lot more than on Intel) and have a way slower machine than if you just bite the sour apple and get a modern i5 or i7.

[Zor2k13]

AMD APU stuff is great for making a basic work pc without paying intel prices. For gaming pc though well yeah intel is better at that.

 

If AMD goes away then intel prices will go much higher as they won't have any competition.

[oticon]

 

 

Simple case of "we have the technology, just no one needs it"

 

This has been the case for many many years, when CPU's started to approach the 1 gig mark everybody wondered what we needed that for and the same when multiple cores came along.

 

I imagine its very hard to design software that uses hardware that either doesn't exist or has just came to market and it has not been the software that has been driving progress.

 

Back to the thread though the one thing i would be concerned about if i was building a new PC would be the MB supporting DDR3 since DDR4 is "the new thing" and they are not backwards compatible so while a DDR4 motherboard right now is outside of the OPs price range spending a bit more now on a DDR4 MB and memory might save a MB and memory change at a later date

 

 

 

ddr4 has its place within the gaming community as long as all the other properties are included, it has been for the better part of the last 5-7 years where the cpu had to be either throttled up (OC'd) or the ram had to be to match one another frequency for frequency, basically put, if the cpu was running at 1333 then you had to match the ram to the cpu frequency in order to obtain a steady thresh hold, now this bears a real issue when the pcie lanes are limited to the cpu BOSS, for example z77 boards had a minimum of 4-12 lanes available for pcie x16 in slot one and pcie x8 in slot 2 well with ddr3 ram running in dual chanel mode chewwing away at roughly half of the bus speed of the PCIE lanes the bottle neck clearly became visible that with the cpu and the memory chugging away at matched  frequencies the pcie was overloading one or the other at nearly double the frequency, think of as an example " a freeway durring rush hour utilizing a 4 lane freeway both directions being the cpu and ram interlink,with the GPU trying to push information the size of a 12 lane super highway down that same 4 lane express way, you can see what the issue would be

 

now comes along DDR4 ...ok utilization of this new freeway comes at a premium, what is that simply said X99 platform , yes the z170 boards use it too , but it was not spefically designed for z170, in hindsight Z170 creates more problems with using it as opposed to that of z99 platform, how it takes that 12 lane and increases the PCIE bus to the cpu and increases it to 16 lanes but only via X16 X8 X8 in series which is fine as long as you are SLI'ing 2 lower grade cards, but you move into the 980GTX or the TI editions and you are running a whole new issue you are basically in the same boat as you were with the DDR3 ram above , how sure you have a few more lanes to work with but now you have a 980 ti running at full speed in x16 mode utilizing 12 lanes, and the second card is managing x4 speed in sli configuration, you just castrated your $600 card running it at 1/3rd its speed

 

X99 solves this issue with DDr4 by allowing upto get this 8 Dimms throughput to the cpu and tied into the PCIE lanes giving you a total with quad channel ddr4 a total of 40 lanes in x16 x16 x8 x8 so now you can run 2 nvidia 980 ti's at full speed and another 2 at half speed in quad sli, although its not recommended as it hinders the last 2 cards in 3 & 4 slot to half speeds so basically you have 2 running full tilt with 2 running at the speed of one card native speeds

 

[worldofhavok]

I'm going to be throwing my tax return at a new gaming rig, so this is good advice for me as well. I'd never even heard of GDDR5 before. So it's like a separate RAM for graphics?

 

Maybe this may help?