New PC Build

Nice rig man!!!

 

Thanks!

I had worked on and built PCs before for other people and companies, but this was my first personal build.

 

So this time instead of pleasuring everyone and their grandma's you finally splurged and pleasured yourself ATTA BOY!

 

I could get used to pleasuring myself. XD

 

Check that warranty stuff with the EVGA GPU. They usually got these pretty interesting programs if you buy from them, like discounts on the next gen graphics and that sort of thing.
That could be old information though, things may have changed from back then (but it's a reputable company)

I think I could say you got yourself a real good "Gaming Machine"

 

CPT_K3nny approuves of this message

 

Thanks, I'll check that out. That could be useful for future upgrades.

I've only tried it on Final Fantasy XIV so far, but it runs like a dream.

 

My favorite part is how it glows...
...
That... isn't really something I should be interested about in these gaming PCs, is it?
Parts seem to be pretty good. I presume they are among the top ranked?

 

I mean, that's really all that matters.

They're up there.

The i5 6600K is about on par with the i7 6700K in terms of actual performance for gaming, but is a bit cheaper. In order to get a real difference, you would need to upgrade to the next i7 which is quite a bit more expensive.

The GTX 960 4GB FTW is top of the line in terms of the 960 cards, but is a more budget friendly alternative to premium cards like the 970 or 980 (or the Titan, if you've really got some cash burning a hole in your wallet). The 970 is decently more powerful, but the 960 is a great card for the price and is capable of handling most games on max settings at 60 FPS when coupled with a decent CPU and enough RAM.

 

Unfortunately, this was was my prime reason for wanting an Alienware laptop. At least, that was when I was little.

So these are the 9/10 parts in performance. Getting the 10/10 parts would obviously be an improvement of performance, but that little bit of extra performance boosts the price significantly. Would this be correct?

...
...
...
...Don't get too carried away.

 

Pretty much. I suppose you could say this is a sort of "most bang for your buck" build.

Too late..

 

Titan is a cash grab. 980ti is overkill, 980 is just a slightly less messy overkill, 970 is a beast and the 960 is the little beast that wants to grow up.
Either way that card is marketed as a gamer card and accurately so.

I would definitely put the gpu as 9/10 when you factor the wise choice you did with the cpu. Maybe 8/10 if your running Crisis with Ultra stuff. Or whatever passes as "poorly optimized video game that crushes your gpu for no good reason"
Games are hamstrung by CPU more often then not. That I5 will serve you well

On a not so unrelated note, I bought a Radeon R7 360. That would be an slightly weaker alternate to the 950 if you were looking at that.
Long story on this one, for the longest time I was looking for a GPU that was around 150$. That was my sweetspot. It was usually the Nvidia choices that almost got me to pull the trigger, the old 650/ti, then the 750 ti, then the 950

But the 950 was nearly 180$ everywhere I could find it. So I looked at AMD and found a similar card that fell in that range.

R7 360 for only around 130 something? Nice! Just don't go crazy with certain settings.

 

I wish I would have seen this sooner. I would have -not- recommended a skylake cpu. They actually tend to be slower than 5th gen (4790k/4690k) for gaming, if that's the purpose of this.

Not to mention the cost increase.

970/390/380x instead of 960 and a cheaper cpu. Cpu does not make a big impact on gaming tbh.
DDR3 ram is also cheaper than DDR4, and DDR4 is no better for gaming. (Might actually be worse iirc).

Oh well, still a nice build otherwise. Enjoy it




Or, could have dropped even cheaper, picked up an 8320e+mobo for less than $200 from microcenter, and picked up a 980 or 390x for around 400.
Side note:

Spoiler

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1592?vs=1596
http://www.microcenter.com/product/...STRIX_Gaming_4GB_GDDR5_Overclocked_Video_Card
http://www.microcenter.com/product/434177/Core_i5-4690K_35GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor
http://www.microcenter.com/product/446594/Z97_PRO4_LGA_1150_ATX_Intel_Motherboard
Mobo/proc $30 off when bundled

Second side note: Dual SSD's is a little odd? Would have made more sense to get the 500gb for boot drive/common programs, and pick up a 1tb wd black performance hdd for other bullshit. ($54 at microcenter.)

 

The 4790 is actually more expensive. The 4690 is around the same price. But the 6600K seemed the best bet for the money, from my research. I'm pretty happy with it.

While a 970 is definitely better than the 960, I think this was the best option. As, in my experience, the CPU does make a noticeable difference, to a point. I feel like anything more powerful than the 6600K is just overkill for my purposes, and anything less powerful is just not as efficient a use of money for performance. So, in my opinion, this was the best performance for the money.

The only reason I went with DDR4 is future proofing. Specs indicate that they're better than DDR3, but not by much. I doubt that the difference really matters. I just wanted DDR4 for if/when DDR3 is phased out.

The smaller SSD is for boot and utilities. The 500GB is solely for games. I've noticed a not insignificant difference in load times VS an HDD. In addition to the SSDs, I have an HDD that was just laying around that I'm going to install for libraries (documents, pictures, etc.).

 

$50 difference between a 4690k and a 6600k, and the 4690k is better, not to mention the increased cost of DDR4 and the motherboard. If the CPU does not bottleneck the gpu, than it is good enough. A 4690k/6600k is overkill for a 960. Still overkill for a 970.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your build, I'm simply saying there were more cost effective options. It's still a good build that will be good for years to come.

Nobody should be against increasing their knowledge.

After some more research, the 6600k is -slightly- better than the 4690k, for $50 more with a requirement of expensive ddr4 and x99 boards.

The 4690k has SIGNIFICANTLY better single core performance, however, seems to (in real world tests) have slightly (almost negligible) multi-core performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=1261

The only major difference between the two comes in integrated graphics, which is a non-issue for this point.


http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8959/...-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial/8

DDR3 to DDR4 differences are negligible.

 

I don't think anyone is? We just all know there's a difference between specs and actual performance. I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that I think that the 6600K is a good choice for the price.

Nah, that's fine. Sorry if im coming off as defensive. I'm just expressing my opinion that, given my budget and considering my capacity for affording future upgrades, I think this was the best bet.

Definitely. Again, the reason is just future proofing.

 

Nude picutres of your self I hope I bet you have 500GB worth of those dont you!? You old Dog!!!

 

I have those on an external 3TB HDD. ;D

 

So that means you could ship it to me intriguing

 

*shudder*