This thread is for people who are working on building a computer to seek advice from those who already have. From gaming rigs to business this will be the thread to seek good deals on parts and how to set up your dream computer.

I'm looking at building a gaming rig, and a put together a parts list, if someone with experience could look it over and say what they think that'd be great!
bit.ly/Yq7Yhq

Well, for one thing, you really should be using pcpartpicker. Lets you know whether parts are even compatible with one another.
Just going of price, I would say you are good for now, but you arent dont seem to be building for the future.
I suggest you look at benchmark stats for certain parts, like your gpu, which is good, but there are others at the same price range that are better.
Also will want to invest in a bigger harddrive

>>2
Wi-fi adapter:
There's a usb version that you can find for around $15. Goes up to 15mb/s, so unless you stream on 3 channels at once while loading 15 youtube videos you'll be fine.

Keyboard:
Why the fuck would anyone spend that kind of money on a keyboard.
WHY.
You can buy a simple keyboard and mouse for $30, there's no reason to waste that much money.

Tower (I assume you meant case):
Do whatever, just be sure it has decent cooling, check for overheating issues from other customers, and if it allows you to add fans later if needed.

HD:
Fine, by all means.

Graphics card:
>650Ti
Good for a gaming rig, no real problem here, so long as it stays meant for games.

RAM:
Only 4 GB? Really?
I used to run 8GB, and came close to using up all of it after only a few months of multitasking. If you play a lot of games and browse the internet, at least get 8GB. You can always add more later as needed.

Motherboard:
Not bad at all.

CPU:
As much as I love AMD, keep an eye on that thing. Saying you have an AMD CPU is like saying your computer is a very real fire hazard. Just keep an eye on your CPU temp, and don't overdo your processor and you should be fine.

>>3
Pertaining to the last part:
Absolutely not, 500 GB is more than adequate. The reason I say this is because of the way most people save on storage space:
>Buying a external hard drive
Simply save all your games, anime, pictures, and other things on the external, and save executable programs on the on-board storage. That way you can buy more storage for cheaper, you can share almost any of your files with friends, and you can transfer your files easily between your desktop and laptop (if applicable). On top of that, you can always buy and use more storage if you run out, versus if you fill an on-board HD you have to choose which ONE you want to use (unless you have multiple HD bays, which I have no idea why you would). With external drives coming so cheap, there's no reason not to. A standard 2 TB HD (external) will run just below $130, and you can last on that for at least a good 10 years, unless you download a LOT of porn or something.

Just one thing: do NOT get Seagate.
DO.
NOT.
GET.
SEAGATE.
I've had several friends who at an early point bought a seagate drive, and every one of them crashed from 2-24 months. Most other external HD producers are fine, just keep away from Seagate.

Oh, and make sure the external drive has USB 3.0 so you can take full advantage of the 3.0 ports you already have.

The cooling is good on that tower, I checked reviews
I put that keyboard on there as a joke to my friend, sorry :)
That WiFi adapter has support for packet injection
The parts are compatible
I chose on 500 gigs internal because I have 3Tb external

In terms of RAM that is something I can upgrade so I may just try that amount for now, unless you think I should get more right off the bat for sure.

Those seem like very good components for a computer. I recently build one myself with very similar performance and price, same graphics card and everything. The main difference is I used an Intel i5 2500K which I highly suggest looking at (it is a bit pricey, but I got it on a Black Friday sale from Newegg). Also, I have been using 2 HDDS in RAID 0, which has been incredibly fast and has no hiccups at all. Anyway, good luck to you!

PS: What OS are you going to use? I'm on Win8

If your gonna use an intel processor, go with an i5. i7 have hyper threading, but games usually use single to 4 cores, because of the complex coding. you should invest in a video card, like 660ti. the ram should be 8gb if you are using a 64bit os but if your gonna install 32bit or 86bit, 4gb of ram will do. 32bit and 86bit can only utilize upto 4gb so i recommend that you go with 64bit

>>8
"invest in a 660Ti"
To do that would be similar to shooting a spider on the wall by completely emptying a household firearm. Sure, it gets the job done well enough (although I would suppose that depends on how good a shot you are), but it's complete overkill.
A 650Ti can run (for example) a copy of League of Legends at 90 fps steady. There's really no need to spend so much extra money on performance that will be barely visible, if at all.
For example, I use a 660 and can run LoL at 90~120 fps, and there really isn't a noticeable difference. (Only reason I got the 660 at all was to build a render farm that could also handle games).
For the time being, it seems like a cheaper, more cost-effective choice to go with a 650Ti, if the goal is a gaming computer.

>>8
It wouldn't be overkill if one wants to play newer games at higher settings. For instance my gtx 680 can't play farcry 3 at highest settings without making the fps suffer. Though I haven't overclocked it yet. Depending on what kind of games they play a gtx 660 could be overkill, but my pc replaced all my consoles and I max out the graphics on all my games.

Just throwing this out there: I never understood the obsession with graphics among PC gamers, even after becoming one. My laptop is an i5-480M with an ATI Radeon 6370M and 6GB of RAM. It was designed for CAD but I can game on it.

- Endwar runs at 30FPS on low to medium settings with occasional slowdown. It's a little bland texture wise but otherwise the game is perfectly playable.

- Fallout: New Vegas runs at 30FPS on medium settings. It looks fine to me.

- Orcs Must Die runs perfectly fine on low settings.

- NFS Carbon, NFSU and NFSU2 all run fine on medium settings and look no different than they do on consoles.

- PSXv1.13 and Project64 run at 60FPS. Old games, so obviously they'll run fine.


The only games I can't get to run well are high end FPSes (which are nothing more than annual rehashes of the same game), Dolphin (which is a GCN emulator and requires a better processor), and SimCity 4 (due to incompatibilities with Windows 7). So someone please explain this obsession with graphics to me. I'd love to hear it.

>>11
I didn't really obsess over graphics, and still don't too much. But playing Resident evil 5 made me realize the 2 major benefits to pc gaming. The first is the graphics, since I actually started to get creeped out during a segment of the game due to the graphics. Even Dead space was a lot more intense due to the graphics being better. I played and beat both on the ps3 and the experience didn't even compare to when I did so on the pc. Better graphics make it easier to immerse yourself within that game, but the game itself would still be the same at lower settings. The boost in graphics isn't needed, but it could mnake some games more enjoyable.

The major benefit to pc games, in my opinion, is the processing power for the npc's to react faster with more variations. I realized this in resident evil 5 as well, since the npc's shooting at me instantly reacted to me pointing a gun at them and had a substantially more array of moves to avoid the gunfire. While in the ps3 version, and xbox, the npc's had about a 1-2 second delay before trying to dodge anything with less ways of doing it.

Also another factor to better graphicsis showing off, or boasting. I never saw the point in that, but some people just want to show off they can play the most grpahically intensive games at the highest settings possible.

>>12 You're contradicting yourself a bit there. You initially say that graphics aren't a priority, and then flip a 180 and say that graphics are a priority.

Second, I still feel your first point is a major matter of opinion and devoid of any real criteria. Compare Forza 3 to NFS Pro Street. Forza obviously had better graphics, but Pro Street's presentation actually made it more enjoyable of a game depending your POV. Yes, one got a 9 and the other a 6, but Forza fell flat on so many levels by making a multitude of mistakes (crippling loading times, boring events, lack of a proper soundtrack, poor sense of speed, and so on).

Go back and play a few PSX/PS2 games that were horror themed. The original Resident Evils, Silent Hill, Fatal Frame. These games are ten years old or more, have terrible graphics due to age, and are still legends today. Why? Because developers back then knew how to use other elements in unison to provide an incredible experience. Graphics alone simply cannot do that.

As for your second point, that has to do not only with the hardware, but also with how the game is programmed. You could have the best hardware in the world and terrible AI and the game would be, well, fucking terrible. Doesn't matter if it's PC or Console.

TL;DR: You are obsessing over graphics. Therefore I can't really accept that argument.

Yes, but for the newer generations of games graphics help improve some gameplay. The game itself is the same regardless of the difference in graphics. Why did they remake the ocarina of time and the marketing mainly focused on the improved graphics? I say that graphics aren't the main point, since I still play ps1 and n64 games that are still a lot of fun. For example mario cart 64 kicks ass over all the later ones.

Also I never said they were a priority, it just makes some games easier to immerse yourself in. It is a plus, but not a priority. I was just trying to help give insight into why some might prefer better graphics. I mainly focused on the graphics aspect to try to shed some light onto why people prefer better graphics. There is still a lot of other minor things that I think make pc gaming better, but those are the main differences between console and pc games I have noticed.

Also most games I played they tried to improve the AI in the pc versions, since overall a pc has more processing power than a console. I am just explaining the differences in most of the games, but some are just console ports with no new features or benefits.

@MKOLLER I used to be a major graphics obsessor (like when FEAR came ou) so I kind of understand the obsession. Certain games Ifeel need the beautiful graphics to make an impact to add to the gameplay,whereas games like CoD need them because the gameplay is garbage. I totally agree with the silent hill RE statement, because silent hill 1 2 3 are the best horror games Ihave ever played, so the graphics don't matter because the atmosphere is so stellar-ly terrifying

Gais, gais, gais. Question. Are there certain power supply unit brands that are more reliable than others? Also is four fans necessary or should two be fine for a pretty high tech comp

>>16
"four fans"
What are you running, a nuclear reactor?

Hell, my AMD processor doesn't generate enough heat to barely necessitate the one fan I'm running.
Given my home is pretty cool year round, and it's sitting on hardwood, but unless you're running a lot of processes (and perhaps even overclocking), then I doubt you would.
Although it really depends on what you'd be using, and what you would be using it for, really.

this is the build
I really just ask because the thing case can for some ungodly reason hold 5 fans. No I dont have any plans on overclocking, and mainly for gems

I bought 5 GTX Titans by accident, when I meant to click 4 for the amount.
Wat do?

>>19 Well.. let's see.. you can give me one, what do you say ?

>>19 request refund, youll probably get it. Who needs 4 of those anyways

I was thinking of building a decent gaming machine at some point in the future. Any hints on how to choose good parts compared to their price? I particularly would like to know how to choose a motherboard, though advice on any part would be useful.

I'm planning on building a gaming computer soon but this will be my first time and I have a friend helping me out so hopefully it will go well.

bump

Never built one. Doubt I'll have the money to. I'd like to learn how though.

>>25 It's very rewarding, trust me. You can do it for as little as $500 for a decent computer that can play most modern titles.

It's also nice to take apart computers you already have and put them back together.

That hilarious moment when you ESD the processor RIP little one

>>27 That sucks :P. You might be able to get another one if you had warranty or something like that?

^^

I'm sick of my current shit microATX. Everything about it sucks.
I'm looking to go mid/or full ATX(plan to liquid cool CPU).
Can anyone recommend me a case under $300?

>>30 I have the nzxt phantom case. There is a bunch of airflow possibility too. It is a good case, just requires some assembly. You need to install the motherboard standoffs. I also had to bend the radiator brackets a tad for the fans on the radiator to clear the ram sticks. The only downside is I could only fit a 200mm nzxt fan in the 200mm slots.

I originally had a corsair 650d and it crapped out on me within a couple of years. It would always reset if I applied pressure on the top front too.

If you want a fast computer, don't invest in a CPU. Invest in RAM.

>>32 It depends on what one wants out of a computer. More programs will depend on the cpu than ram. Also others more so on the gpu, like games. For me I want to invest in a cpu mainly for emulators, like dolphin, which is highly cpu dependent.

Also for the ddr4 ram you kind of need to invest in a cpu, since it is only 2011 v3 that support it so far, to my knowledge.

>>30 I have the NZXT Phantom 410. It's a mid-tower, I think. It looks fucking gorgeous. It's got good cable management and a lot of room for extra fans. I also have the Cooler Master Evo Hyper 212, and it barely fits in the case. Nice window, removable hard drive bays, etc. The only thing I'd say is the front fans are kind of impeded by a stylish looking front grate that cuts off the top fan. There's also a grate on the side that will leak air and possibly change airflow if you don't put a fan there. But, other than that, completely satisfied. $90 when I bought it on sale.

>>32
RAM caps out its usefulness for damn near everyone at 8GB right now. Most people can get away with 4GB. Also, higher speed RAM does not live up to how much more it costs for typical users in my experience.

>>34 I was looking at a few NZXT sometime ago. I'm still not sure. I want a full ATX, though. I don't think a mid-tower would suit me well.

Also, DDR4 is a game changer.

>>35 my nzxt phantom (enthusiast) is considered a full tower. But a true full tower case I think is overkill, unless you plan to water cool. My corsair 650d was about the same size. My next build I think I will get a corsair 900d. Taking into account that a true full tower will be a lot bigger. I just like the aesthetic design of a phantom, but corsair is an easier installation. Since it already has the standoffs installed.

Also it is hard to push past 200 dollars for a case, unless you want a specialized one.

My build fits perfectly in my case to give you an idea.
asus x79 motherboard
i7 3930k with corsair h100 cooler
2 gtx 980 strix cards
16gb ram
corsair ax1500i psu
a sound card and a wifi card
3 hard drives
8 fans (3 200mm, 5 120mm)

Not really sure what you want to put in the case, but I could give you some input if you know what build you plan on having.

Anyone has Extra CPU? I really need one :D