Thread: My Current PC Build

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11  
    rage against the dying of the light


    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    294
    Thanks given
    103
    Thanks received
    93
    Discord
    View profile
    Rep Power
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Iburn View Post
    I'm die hard Intel, and like liquid cooled
    Intel has a much poorer price-to-performance ratio. For budget and first-time builds, AMD is seemingly the most effective option. The newer Ryzen-series processors are much cheaper that comparable Intel processors, as well as the baseline for low-end Ryzen processors being set as high as some of the mid- to high-end Intel processors. Liquid cooling is most often completely unnecessary unless you are frequently heavily stressing the system or overclocking. He might do the former, but I seriously doubt the latter. The difference between most liquid and air cooling solutions, in regard to heat, is often not worth the significant increase in price.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumplum View Post
    I'm hoping to play some of the newer games at around medium to high graphics like battlefield series or pubg, rust / ark, borderlands, etc..
    With the processor and graphics card you picked out, most semi-recent games (Battlefield, Ark, etc.) should operate at high settings with no problem. Older games (Borderlands, Rust, etc.) should operate at the highest settings without trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumplum View Post
    Could you point out some sticks that would work well with my build? Max is 16gb though, anything after that is too much for me
    I believe that 8GB is plenty for most day-to-day applications, and certainly enough to start with, but 16GB would be best for more complex games and especially come in handy for graphic design and modelling. It also matters less to have a higher capacity and more to have dual-channel memory. I would suggest starting with two 4GB sticks operating in dual-channel, then you can buy another two 4GB sticks for a total of 16GB later on down the road, if you decide it necessary.

    Not that you asked for it, but I put together a list of parts that I believe will give you the best performance for the price you are paying. It is only marginally more expensive, but I believe the parts will last longer in regard to future-proofing. Let me know if you have any questions!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Contributor
    Kris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,568
    Thanks given
    726
    Thanks received
    2,482
    Discord
    View profile
    Rep Power
    5000
    Get minimum 256gb ssd & 16gb ram.
    You may not need the whole 16gb of ram, however it doesn't hurt to have more. A lot of these high-end games don't require more than 8, but if available, they will still allocate more memory, thus enhancing your gameplay. Considering the rest of the specs, I highly recommend you do upgrade RAM, as it could otherwise very well actually block you from reaching maximum efficiency.
    The ssd is fairly obvious - you've never played high-end games. You'll use all that space up very fast, most high-end games take 50-100gb of space; you'll then at least be able to have 2-3 high-end games before needing to erase some. 512 of course is an even better choice - and trust me when I say it; You will use that space up once you do have it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    rage against the dying of the light


    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    294
    Thanks given
    103
    Thanks received
    93
    Discord
    View profile
    Rep Power
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    Get minimum 256gb ssd & 16gb ram.
    With the ridiculous state of inflation surrounding RAM, it seems inadvisable to suggest more than 8GB as a baseline. The vast majority of higher-end modern games only require 8GB of RAM to allow for breathing room in stressful situations. The game may allocate all available memory to the game, but that does not mean that all of the memory is in use, per se. 8GB is usually sufficient for a casual gamer, especially one playing at 1080p. As I mentioned above, both the gaming and graphic design would benefit from more RAM, but I cannot see it as a minimum, especially for a first-time builder (and potentially on a budget of some sort).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    you'll then at least be able to have 2-3 high-end games before needing to erase some.
    The SSD is not the only means of storage in any of the part lists; he already picked out a 2TB Barracuda HDD to hold the games. 120GB is sufficient for Windows and applications, but a 240-256GB is only marginally more expensive and ensures that he won't run out of space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Contributor
    Kris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,568
    Thanks given
    726
    Thanks received
    2,482
    Discord
    View profile
    Rep Power
    5000
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
    With the ridiculous state of inflation surrounding RAM, it seems inadvisable to suggest more than 8GB as a baseline. The vast majority of higher-end modern games only require 8GB of RAM to allow for breathing room in stressful situations. The game may allocate all available memory to the game, but that does not mean that all of the memory is in use, per se. 8GB is usually sufficient for a casual gamer, especially one playing at 1080p. As I mentioned above, both the gaming and graphic design would benefit from more RAM, but I cannot see it as a minimum, especially for a first-time builder (and potentially on a budget of some sort).



    The SSD is not the only means of storage in any of the part lists; he already picked out a 2TB Barracuda HDD to hold the games. 120GB is sufficient for Windows and applications, but a 240-256GB is only marginally more expensive and ensures that he won't run out of space.
    Didn't notice the HDD there, however that's somewhat besides the point. HDD is drastically slower than an SSD; I use an SSD for everything now, even if you have a combination of both, it'll slow everything down regardless, if the HDD is being accessed.

    And I still stand by the RAM point; while it may indeed be a little bit more expensive now, it's not that much more expensive and I still find it to be worth buying, especially considering that build.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    rage against the dying of the light


    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    294
    Thanks given
    103
    Thanks received
    93
    Discord
    View profile
    Rep Power
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    even if you have a combination of both, it'll slow everything down regardless, if the HDD is being accessed.
    I have never heard this point. I utilise a 500GB Samsung SSD as my primary drive that consists of my OS, applications, documents, pictures, etc. My secondary and tertiary drives are 1TB HDDs that consist of my games library, resource archive, and backup. I notice absolutely no difference between having all three drives connected and only my SSD. I could see extended boot time if your SSD is not the primary boot device, but I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. I despise how my genuity may be coming across as sarcasm, but I truly would be interested in learning more about that theory.

    For someone like me, who tries to archive their entire game library so that it's always ready to play, an SSD is certainly not the most effective option. It may be the best option in regard to performance, sure, but the price alone would keep me from doing it. The 2TB HDD he picked out is only $60, whereas upgrading from the 240GB SSD to anything above 500-512GB would be the same price as the minimum. The price-to-performance ratio tells me that the HDD is the clear choice. Gameplay is usually not affected whatsoever by the speed of storage outside of the boot time, so I definitely don't see the extra money as worth it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kris
    it's not that much more expensive and I still find it to be worth buying, especially considering that build.
    Have you seen the price of RAM these days? Another 8GB of RAM would cost at least $100, if not more, depending on the brand and model. The rest of the build is fairly moderately priced, nothing too high-end, which tells me this is more of a casual, mid-budget build. As I mentioned, 16GB would surely be beneficial, but it's not worth it. It's a matter of the price-to-performance ratio again; the increase in performance, to me, does not seem worth the increase in price.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


User Tag List

Similar Threads

  1. My PC build.
    By mutant in forum Showoff
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-01-2017, 06:21 AM
  2. My current build/setup
    By Project in forum Showoff
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-21-2016, 07:19 AM
  3. Planning on Building my own PC
    By Raw-B in forum Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 02:43 AM
  4. Building my new PC - Q&A & Info
    By 007 Snoop in forum Chat
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 12:43 AM
  5. My Current Client
    By Eleclion in forum RS2 Client
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 09:05 AM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •