Building a computer

[Bribe]

Apple Cinema Display 27" Response time: 12 ms, price: $999

Asus Ultra Slim 22" Response time: 2 ms, price: $151

I will let these numbers speak for themselves. Espcially since u are a gamer.

 

[BlargHonk]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176242

Why not that, I linked it earlier, exceeds or matches his requirements :\

 

[Bribe]

It carries almost the same price tag. If an Apple computer was between 20-30 percent of the price I'd pay for a somewhat equivelant product, I'd rather go with them and get the complete product. However Apple is usually a minimum of 2x the price.

The difference between a 27" 2560x1440 screen and a 21" 1920x1080 screen is the utility bill, the need for an even more expensive graphics card and half an application window. I suppose the porn picture viewing experience will be the only real advantage. But can it justify the price?

 

[Magtheridon96]

Now that I reconsider, the one that BlargHonk posted is excellent \o/

I guess I misread the Details
I was looking for a 2560x1440 resolution 27inch screen.
The BenQ monitors I browsed through were great, but the problem is, they were 27 inches and had resolutions of 1920x1080.
My 21.5 inch display currently has that resolution.
To buy a computer that's larger with the same resolution is almost as effective as standing closer to the screen so it looks bigger

Thanks for the assistance fellas ^^

I guess you were right Bribe, paying $700 only for the resolution upgrade and slight size difference is terrible

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Why do you need a 2560x1440 resolution screen? As Bribe says, you'll be forced to get a better GPU as well (Seeing how there are 77% more pixels). 27" is kinda overkill as well. I am more than happy enough with my 22" BenQ.

Actually, when I think about it, you could buy 2 BenQ screens (each with way better "performance" than any other option discussed here) and get a resolution of 3840x1080 and it will STILL be cheaper than what you're considering. That is, if you really want to go in for the overkill thing.

 

[Bribe]

All things considered, I think Apple would make a killing if they went back to selling smaller standalone screens. A standalone 21.5" screen to sit next to an iMac would fill the gap. They'd probably price it around $500 though.

 

[Magtheridon96]

FINE THEN.

1920x1080 it is.

I only wanted 2560x1440 because my uncle has this 27'' iMac at work with that resolution, and it looks amazing. It's vivid, there's lots of space, etc..

I guess I could go for a 1920x1080 22'' screen to increase performance.
I'm still going to be buying a powerful GPU though :L
My current one only has 256MB of memory and nowadays, it's starting to lag while I'm on YouTube and 9gag at the same time.

I was planning on getting some AMD Radeon HD 79xx so I can play Warcraft III far more smoothly (Objects are not efficiently managed), and if that last clause sounded silly, I'll have you know, I also use PS2 Emulators. (I can achieve 35-40FPS with my current build and sometimes 55-60, but that rarely occurs)

 

[The Reborn Devil]

With the AMD Radeon HD 79xx you can get 6x 1920x1080 displays if you really want. Derp.

Of course, 6 BenQ displays will cost slightly more than 1 Apple display.

Also, one of the reasons you might think the Apple display is so "amazing" and "vivid" is because of the shiny shit they put on it, it's not due to high quality.

If you compare the size of each pixel on the 2 screens, then the Apple screen has 23mm pixels, while the BenQ screen (or any other 1920x1080 22" screen) has 25mm pixels. The difference is really small.

To make it easier to see. If you had taken the same size pixels which are in the 22" screen, but take 2560x1440 (nearly twice as many) of them, then you end up with a 29" screen instead of a 27".

Btw, in some cases, the shine on the Apple display can be really disadvantageous. Personally I dislike it regardless of the situation, because I like to see what I'm supposed to see. Which, btw, is in most cases better. The shine on the display is kinda like the bass boost in headphones (*shivers*).

Edit:

About the PS2 Emulator, with my AMD Radeon HD5750 I get >60 FPS in all situations. Most of the time I can even use the turbo and have FPS between 100 and 400 (Depending on the complexity of the scene). 400FPS can be really nice when you're grinding in FFXII (For those who don't know, time is sped up by the turbo. Nearly 7 times faster with 400FPS)

 

[Bribe]

God I was really craving a fast-forward button for FFXII. First world problems.

Btw a Radeon 78XX destroys any modern 1080p game. Only get something with moar power if you plan to use a superhugemonitorcombo.

Really, some money is better spent elsewhere. For example, don't go cheap on a HD that you really could use (such as an SSD) and splurge on a GPU that is way too much overkill for your needs (thus being the equivalent of setting your money on fire).

 

[Magtheridon96]

The shine on the display is kinda like the bass boost in headphones (*shivers*).

I love Bass boosting /o/

About the PS2 Emulator, with my AMD Radeon HD5750 I get >60 FPS in all situations

Awesome.

Btw a Radeon 78XX destroys any modern 1080p game. Only get something with moar power if you plan to use a superhugemonitorcombo.

Well, I guess I could save $100-$250 by getting the 7850 instead.
Heck, I might even get the 7750 to save $200-$350

As for HDs, a 500GB HD would be ideal for me.
I'm going to have 2 operating systems (Windows and Mac OS X)
250GB will be allocated for Windows and the other 250GB for Mac OS.

When it comes to RAM, 4GB is too little for me. It finishes up fast while I'm running iMovie and the like.
8GB is ideal.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220662
These are worth $60 and they're clocked at 2133Mhz

To compliment the fast RAM sticks, I'm getting a fast processor.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070
This is excellent.

I think this motherboard would support the above specs: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131711

The total cost would be about:

Processor ...... $300 (Intel i7 Quad Core @ 3.4Ghz)
RAM ............. $60 (2x4GB @ 2133Mhz)
GPU ............. $110 (AMD Radeon HD 7750)
Monitor ......... $270 (BenQ GL2750HM 27 inch Widescreen LED Monitor)
HD ............... $80 (500GB Seagate HD)
Motherboard .. $110 (ASUS P8H67-M)

That would sum up to $930 excluding the case, the power supply and any other crucial component I may be forgetting here

edit
Oh, and thanks for the assistance guys ^^
And I apologize for hijacking this thread Bribe :O

 

[Bribe]

The 7750 is not enough if you want to do modern gaming at 1080p. If you had to choose between the 7750 and the 7850 and budget was a concern, I'd recommend downgrading the 2600K to a 2500K and that will allow space for your budget.

For my build, I think I found a new favorite, though I'll have to spend 10-20 more to change the motherboard to Mini ITX and 10-20 more to get this case: http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22990

All I have to say is: holy stuffings! That looks like a first-time CPU builder's wet dream. And the design is perfect for StarCraft 2. The white one, of course.

 

[Magtheridon96]

The funny thing is, I have no budget. I'm just trying not to make it too expensive
$2000 is too much, $1200 is okay, $900 is excellent.

I guess the 7850 would be better.
I just reran my PS2 Emulator and for some weird reason, it was running at 55-80FPS
Too bad I need to redownload the ROM and the entire Emulator because of some corruption in the game and possibly the software D:

 

[Bribe]

I never liked emulators. They always felt cheap and hacky to play. Nothing beats hooking up the real thing.

If AMD releases a 7790 which ranks in between a 7770 and a 7850, I've probably found my video card, because my CPU may bottleneck keeping me from exploring the 7850 to its fullest anyway.

When nVidia releases their 650 Ti I'll see what price it carries and what kind of performance it gains in StarCraft II over the existing 550 Ti. Playing that game at 1080p Ultra settings is the goal, and I want to do it while consuming the least amount of power and paying the least amount of money while getting a build that is easy to put together.

 

[BlargHonk]

HD ............... $80 (500GB Seagate HD)/QUOTE]

Haha, I remember when my 1tb drive cost $70


You might as well pay the extra $20 on a 1tb, 250gb is tiny, my Steam games alone takes half of that, then throw in 20gb for the OS, 8gb for the swap, media, etc etc and you're full. So get this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148840

Take heed of the comment saying Update the Firmware. It is extremely fast once you do.

 

[Magtheridon96]

I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate on a 50GB partition, I think 250GB for each OS will do

edit
Still, the more, the merrier
And besides, it's only $20

 

[The Reborn Devil]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220662
These are worth $60 and they're clocked at 2133Mhz

Umm, not sure if "Enhanced Latency" is a feature to be proud of.

Extreme Performance PC3-17000 (2133MHz) Enhanced Latency (11-11-11-30) Voltage: 1.65V XMP Ready Equipped with an extruded aluminum shield build around a copper core to provide improved cooling 100% Tested and Verified RoHS Compliant Tested on Intel P67 platform

 

[Bribe]

Mag, you'd want to look at low CAS + low voltage for a really stable RAM kit. You also want to make sure the RAM is balanced - buy X-X-X instead of X-Y-X for example.

 

[Magtheridon96]

Yeah, I found these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233147

8-8-8-24 Timing, 1.5V and 8 CAS Latency.
It's only $5 more expensive and the 500Mhz speed difference will not actually make a huge difference while I'm using my computer because I'm never actually going to need to allocate several GBs of memory all at once.

 

[Bribe]

Yeah king triton's crown is good ram. I still recommend an SSD to store your windows 7 and your favorite couple of games. Or a hybrid drive as those are pretty fast compared to an HDD.

 

[Magtheridon96]

If I can find a 512GB SSD, sure.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

You combine the SSD with a regular HDD, Mag.

 

[Magtheridon96]

Oh, I get it.
This way, my computer would startup fast and my OS wouldn't be prone to corruption due to mechanical failure. I'd use the HDD for my other data.

Okay, that makes sense.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

You will notice improvement on more than just the startup, but yeah, SSD for OS, drivers and shizzle, HDD for other data.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The main benefit comes from the system libraries being on the SSD. They are usually small but often numerous and scattered physically so slow initial load times. As SSDs have no seek time (it is constant and negligible) they become no problem. However if you have cached all that data in RAM SSDs offer no advantage.

An example is my WC3 load booster will allow me to load a map in WC3 as fast if not faster than someone loading it for the first time from a SSD. Yes WC3 will start slower due to the system libraries but none of them are loaded when starting a session (only at application start).

 

[Bribe]

I have updated the first post with some important updated information.

- If the 7850 was available for around $200, I would buy it without second thought.
- If a 7790 was introduced, it would have the performance I need at a reasonable price.
- When nVidia launches the 650 Ti, hopefully that will have enough performance.
- When nVidia launches the GTX 660, I would buy that for under $200.

Currently I think the 560 is the best option out there for me to match my style, but rumors suggest the 660 will only require one 6-pin PCI connector and that interests me greatly. The older 460 card is my current choice though, because it is simply a lower price and I like that. I am much more inclined towards nVidia lately because they have the best resources on their site for picking the right graphics card depending on the game (I can't find anything like this on AMD's web site).

 

[Bribe]

Ironically, I have decided to scrap the whole project for a 1080p MSI GE60 from GenTechPC.com, customized with a last-gen CPU (no real loss but an $80 gain), mSATA 60GB SSD for $99, $25 640GB HDD for data, and they will put it together for me and install the OS for a grand total of $1070 (plus tax or w/e). I checked the performance on the CPU and the GPU; the CPU, being a natural 4 core with 8 threads, will surely perform better than the i3 which has half of the L3 cache (turbo up to 3.1GHz + that cache will probably out-perform any desktop i3), and the 650M is the latest-gen GPU so it will get royal treatment with drivers, plus it can run SC2 at 30-40FPS on full ultra 1080p or 60+ with a setting or two put on high. Plus with all those pixels condensed into a 15" screen anti-aliasing will be less important.