Going to do a new pc build in the near future...
polycounter lvl 11
I wanted to build a new desktop. I was thinking of nvidia gtx card, i5 or i7, at least 16 gigs of ram. It will be for gaming on steam, and for using 3ds Max, Zbrush, Marmoset Toolbag 2, UDK, Unreal Engine 4 (eventually).
I wanted to avoid getting a cooling system I have no need to overclock and tweak the graphic card, as long as I can play games on steam and games like hawken at highest setting then thats fine.
For the motherboard I wanted an Intel Chipset Power supply probably 1000 watts but not sure if its necessary.
I am not sure what case to get but I wanted one with alot of fans to avoid overheating.
My budget was going to be 1000-1500 us dollars.
If anyone has any suggestions I am all ears.
I wanted to avoid getting a cooling system I have no need to overclock and tweak the graphic card, as long as I can play games on steam and games like hawken at highest setting then thats fine.
For the motherboard I wanted an Intel Chipset Power supply probably 1000 watts but not sure if its necessary.
I am not sure what case to get but I wanted one with alot of fans to avoid overheating.
My budget was going to be 1000-1500 us dollars.
If anyone has any suggestions I am all ears.
Replies
http://www.ibuypower.com/
i7 3770k, 32gb ram and gtx 670, built it last year for a little over $1000cad
if you plan on working in game engines I would say gtx 760 or better, or if you really need to save money the 660ti
its so much faster to work with...
And yeah, to the guy who said get an SSD? He's right, a 240GB would be good.
I'm curious as to what happens when Mudbox starts paging to disk on an SSD.
Mines a 128gb, it's big enough to hold the OS, a few work programs and have enough space left over for a page file & windows updates bloating. Maybe even a game or two and an assets folder if I'm working on a bigger project.
Unless you have another SSD with your boot on it I'm not sure why you would want to use it as a scratch disk. It could contain some programs, games and work but if you have many open and run out of RAM it'll take ages to come back from the page file if Windows is on a standard HDD.
Before I got an SSD switching programs used to be my biggest problem, I only have 6GB's of RAM on my home rig. So when I'm texturing and have Photoshop, Xnormal, maybe Ndo2 open as well as 3ds Max and Marmoset to test my maps in, switching back and forth got a bit laggy.
Put short, SSD = must have. I can't go back anymore.
Can't say much about Mudbox though I don't have it installed.
Every game that I have played so far I can play on max graphics no problem (Total War: Rome 2, Assassins Creed 4, Batman Arkham Origins etc) I have no issues with modeling programs either or running multiple at a time. As far as your zbrush question I can't answer it as I haven't done a zbrush heavy project with it yet.
My Priority order:
1. Graphics Card - Spend the most money here
2. CPU - i5 for gaming, i7 for rendering
3. SSD - The bigger, the faster
4. Ram - Low CL
I'd disagree with Quack on GPU over CPU. It's easier and cheaper to upgrade a graphics card, or move it to another rig, or to sell it off. Your CPU is a more fixed part of your computer and people tend to upgrade them less often. I'd spend about the same on CPU as GPU. Save money on the GPU now and get a better one in 3 years or so when they have new features and are much faster. CPUs haven't been increasing in performance as quickly.
Because AMD's good CPU times are over (when AMD CPU's where faster and more energy efficient as Intel. Good ol' Athlon times
It's just like ZacD wrote: Intel CPU's have a much better IPC (basically more power per mhz), thanks to Intels manufacturing advantage they are much more engery efficient (AMD FX-8350 200-240 Watt under full load, i7 4770k 100-140 watt), and not really that much more expensive. For example, the AMD FX-8350 is a little bit slower than a Intel Core i5-4570, but not that much more affordable - in fact, in some stores it's even more expensive.
AMD CPU's can only compete in highly multithreaded applications, like rendering, video transcoding (handbrake x264 for example) etc., in everything else it's not even funny how much faster Intel is.
Ok, granted, in games the advantage depends. Most games are GPU bound so you will not notice such a huge differece, but in MMO's, multiplayer like in BF4 and strategy games Intel has a huge advantage.
Sadly, the only area where I would consider AMD CPU's nowdays is in PC builds under $600-700 bucks. It's sad, because Intel needs competition, but it is what it is.
really?? is there a benchmark website with this stuff on because that doesnt make sense, 8 core amd 8350 4/4.2ghz is slower than 4 core intel i5 4570 3.6ghz so the ghz means nothing and the cores mean nothing for performance?
Also, cheaper 4K monitors! I wanted to do some upgrades on my own rig, but I just can't bring myself to with all this cool things this year :P
At the moment, yes. This is has two reasons, first, because Intel has a much better IPC (Instructions Per Cycle, or let's call it power per mhz). So one Intel core at 3 ghz is a lot faster than one AMD core at 3ghz (funny how things got turned around, back in the Pentium 4 days it was exactly the other way around and AMD had a lot better per mhz performance). The second reason is AMD's module concept, which also hurts single threaded performance because it removes some things.
AMD bet on multithreading with this concept, but even after 8 years of quad core processors only a small fraction of software uses more than 1 or 2 cores.
On top of that Intel has a manufacturing advantage which gives them a huge edge in power consumption and the amount of CPU's they can get on a wafer (the more the better because it's cheaper to produce).
For benchmarks you can use the following sites (you should read multiple test, because sometimes it seems sites prefer Intel over AMD and vice versa. Basically the same as Nvidia vs AMD in the GPU department):
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,1.html
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-fx-8350-8-core-black-edition-processor-review_2055
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46985-amd-fx-8350/
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i7-4770k_review/1
http://techgage.com/article/intel-core-i7-4770k-quad-core-processor-review/
http://www.eteknix.com/intel-core-i7-4770k-haswell-processor-review/
http://www.techspot.com/review/679-intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i7_4770k/
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_haswell_core_i5_4670k_core_i7_4770k_review,1.html
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1762/pg1/4th-gen-intel-core-i7-4770k-processor-review-feat-gigabyte-g1sniper-5-motherboard-introduction.html
google translate
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2FHaswell-Codename-255592%2FTests%2FHaswell-Test-Core-i7-4770K-Core-i5-4670K-Core-i5-4570-1071762%2F2%2F&act=url
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2Fartikel%2Fprozessoren%2F2013%2Fsechs-haswell-mit-vier-kernen%2F4%2F&sandbox=1
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fht4u.net%2Freviews%2F2013%2Fintel_core_i7_4770_4670_haswell_cpus_test%2F&sandbox=1
There's a lot more than than to take into account : L2, L3 cache, instructions, architecture...
Do you remember the Pentium D era ? The Pentium D 965EE was a dual core 3.73Ghz CPU, it cost a grand when new and it was a lot slower than a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo E6600 that came out a few months after, and still slower than the 2.13Ghz E6400, requiring much more power as well (130W for the Pentium and 65W for the Core 2 Duo).
While the old Netburst architecture had some advantages in some applications (video encoding mostly), it lacked in every other aspect.
There's always something new around the corner, I just wait to update when you feel too far behind performance/hardware wise.
QFT!
And yea, my priority list was based on actual performance boost rather than upgradeability, which I do agree that CPU's are a pain to upgrade compared to graphics cards.