-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
$1,000 build budget inc. 1080p monitor
- Thread starter rcald2000
- Start date
Solution
- Aug 27, 2013
- 22,421
- 14
- 84,965
Assuming you need to buy the OS too
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($174.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H-A Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($49.98 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($32.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 390 8GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($274.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($43.26 @ Mac Mall)
Power Supply: XFX 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($55.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home OEM (64-bit) ($87.95 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: Acer GN246HL 144Hz 24.0" Monitor ($207.58 @ Newegg)
Total: $977.52
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-09 23:06 EST-0500
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($174.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H-A Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($49.98 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($32.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 390 8GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($274.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($43.26 @ Mac Mall)
Power Supply: XFX 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($55.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home OEM (64-bit) ($87.95 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: Acer GN246HL 144Hz 24.0" Monitor ($207.58 @ Newegg)
Total: $977.52
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-09 23:06 EST-0500
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
First, I assume this is for GAMING?
I started a build, but stopped because the above build is pretty good. The $1000 point turns out to be weird because while I'd prefer a different motherboard like the Asus H97M-PLUS that adds $50 which I'd have to end up taking from the graphics card.
A few points:
1) Mail In Rebates:
One is a hassle, more than one is a problem getting your money back for most people. It's hard to avoid, but read the info on how those rebate work (is it one per order? For non-sale items? How long does it last?).
2) CPU - I'd spend about $12 more and get the i5-4590 which is 300MHz faster than the i5-4460.
(*Note you should be able to adjust the BIOS settings to manually limit how much the CPU Turbo drops with 1,2,3,4 cores loaded. My i7-3770K dropped 100MHz each time so a default 3.9GHz Turbo max value was 3.6GHz under load. I tweaked that so there was no drop. I also overclocked but that's not applicable to you.)
3) SSD - Consider that in the future. I'd get a 250GB SSD (as little as $60 now) then clone/reinstall Windows to that and run games off the hard drive. Perhaps some games off the SSD but ask about an optimal setup for that later.
4) PSU - the XFX is probably pretty good. I do prefer Semi/Full modular though to reduce cable clutter in the case.
5) W10 - You can actually save about $40 by going to Amazon and buying a W7 64-bit license for $50 or less. You can burn the W10 DVD/USB from the Microsoft media creation tool (download W10) site, boot to that, and simply enter the W7 key.
A few added steps, but worth it IMO.
6) Monitor - if you're gaming 144Hz is nice. I'm not sure how the above monitor quality is (seems okay) but there's not much else at this price point for 144Hz.
*IMPORTANT*
You should learn how to use RadeonPro's Dynamic VSync tool. You can force a game to run at "Half Dynamic" VSYNC which will then apply a cap of 72FPS. Dropping below 72FPS GPU output will auto turn VSYNC OFF.
You do NOT want to run games if your GPU can't match the monitor refresh rate when VSYNC is ON. Why? It causes stutter due to the variation of frame times (missing the target causes the monitor to simply draw the same frame thus doubling the viewable time).
This is actually one of the main reasons games stutter despite the frame rate appearing solid (i.e. 60FPS on 60Hz monitor). FRAPS can record partial frame updates as a full frame.
So...
Let's say you play Crysis 3. Obviously hitting 144FPS is problematic. You can just leave VSYNC OFF but you may get a lot of screen tearing (it varies by a few factors such as what your current average frame rate is vs monitor refresh rate).
So VSYNC OFF is not an option... what to do?
1. TWEAK game settings until you get 72FPS about 90% of the time
2. Open RadeonPro
3. Force "Half Dynamic VSync" to Crysis 3 specifically
4. Observe that 72FPS is now the cap
5. TWEAK again later as needed (if screen tearing gets annoying again it means your GPU can not output 72FPS, so dropping say 8xMSAA to 4xMSAA is one way to increase frame rate. Some features are more costly than others for what you get. Ambient Occlusion is another thing that may be costly and not benefit as much as say higher resolution textures).
(One drawback is that pre-rendered cut scenes which usually run at 30FPS will have some screen tear as VSYNC gets turned off automatically)
Summary:
*For the best advice, please provide a bit more info on the GAMES intended to be played.
I started a build, but stopped because the above build is pretty good. The $1000 point turns out to be weird because while I'd prefer a different motherboard like the Asus H97M-PLUS that adds $50 which I'd have to end up taking from the graphics card.
A few points:
1) Mail In Rebates:
One is a hassle, more than one is a problem getting your money back for most people. It's hard to avoid, but read the info on how those rebate work (is it one per order? For non-sale items? How long does it last?).
2) CPU - I'd spend about $12 more and get the i5-4590 which is 300MHz faster than the i5-4460.
(*Note you should be able to adjust the BIOS settings to manually limit how much the CPU Turbo drops with 1,2,3,4 cores loaded. My i7-3770K dropped 100MHz each time so a default 3.9GHz Turbo max value was 3.6GHz under load. I tweaked that so there was no drop. I also overclocked but that's not applicable to you.)
3) SSD - Consider that in the future. I'd get a 250GB SSD (as little as $60 now) then clone/reinstall Windows to that and run games off the hard drive. Perhaps some games off the SSD but ask about an optimal setup for that later.
4) PSU - the XFX is probably pretty good. I do prefer Semi/Full modular though to reduce cable clutter in the case.
5) W10 - You can actually save about $40 by going to Amazon and buying a W7 64-bit license for $50 or less. You can burn the W10 DVD/USB from the Microsoft media creation tool (download W10) site, boot to that, and simply enter the W7 key.
A few added steps, but worth it IMO.
6) Monitor - if you're gaming 144Hz is nice. I'm not sure how the above monitor quality is (seems okay) but there's not much else at this price point for 144Hz.
*IMPORTANT*
You should learn how to use RadeonPro's Dynamic VSync tool. You can force a game to run at "Half Dynamic" VSYNC which will then apply a cap of 72FPS. Dropping below 72FPS GPU output will auto turn VSYNC OFF.
You do NOT want to run games if your GPU can't match the monitor refresh rate when VSYNC is ON. Why? It causes stutter due to the variation of frame times (missing the target causes the monitor to simply draw the same frame thus doubling the viewable time).
This is actually one of the main reasons games stutter despite the frame rate appearing solid (i.e. 60FPS on 60Hz monitor). FRAPS can record partial frame updates as a full frame.
So...
Let's say you play Crysis 3. Obviously hitting 144FPS is problematic. You can just leave VSYNC OFF but you may get a lot of screen tearing (it varies by a few factors such as what your current average frame rate is vs monitor refresh rate).
So VSYNC OFF is not an option... what to do?
1. TWEAK game settings until you get 72FPS about 90% of the time
2. Open RadeonPro
3. Force "Half Dynamic VSync" to Crysis 3 specifically
4. Observe that 72FPS is now the cap
5. TWEAK again later as needed (if screen tearing gets annoying again it means your GPU can not output 72FPS, so dropping say 8xMSAA to 4xMSAA is one way to increase frame rate. Some features are more costly than others for what you get. Ambient Occlusion is another thing that may be costly and not benefit as much as say higher resolution textures).
(One drawback is that pre-rendered cut scenes which usually run at 30FPS will have some screen tear as VSYNC gets turned off automatically)
Summary:
*For the best advice, please provide a bit more info on the GAMES intended to be played.
- Aug 27, 2013
- 22,421
- 14
- 84,965
photonboy makes some good points although you do lose a little bit of value by spending more on a 4590 + H97, + semi mod psu. I almost added this psu the first time but it's great price is due to a $30 rebate. $49 for the B85 is just too good to pass up IMO. This 1080p 21:9 monitor is a nice alternative to a regular 1080p 144hz monitor.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($188.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H-A Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($49.98 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($32.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 390 8GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($274.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($43.26 @ Mac Mall)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Monitor: AOC q2963Pm 60Hz 29.0" Monitor ($299.99 @ B&H)
Total: $1000.08
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-10 00:12 EST-0500
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($188.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H-A Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($49.98 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($32.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 390 8GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($274.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($43.26 @ Mac Mall)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Monitor: AOC q2963Pm 60Hz 29.0" Monitor ($299.99 @ B&H)
Total: $1000.08
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-10 00:12 EST-0500
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
GPU performance chart (average about 20 games):
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html
To me the choice between a GTX970 and R9-390 is a really tough choice. A year ago it would have been NVidia hands down, but AMD is improving their driver support.
Main differences:
1. NVidia has PhysX, Gameworks features
2. NVidia has MFAA (for supported titles) which is an optional anti-aliasing method which can increase frame rates by roughly 15% average but it varies a lot
3. NVidia has a lot more MONEY to work on drivers, virtual reality etc (Linux drivers are better on NVidia currently, and AMD may have a difficult time upgrading those. You may not care, but I added a drive so I could experiment with SteamOS for fun.)
4. NVidia's GTX970 uses less power (it's an issue for ME due to the temperature of my room at times. Electricity cost is minimal difference)
5. NVidia's RECORDING software is better IMO. (Shadowplay, though it may get renamed. I tried AMD's solution and didn't like it, though it should improve)
6. AMD has 8GB vs 4GB/3.5GB (mostly a future proofing issue. all things being equal it's a no-brainer but there are other issues. The GTX970 is just fine for every current game at proper settings)
7. AMD's FreeSync monitors are currently cheaper
(My research suggest NVidia's GSync has better potential going forward since they can add features into the newer GSync modules which the manufactures can then drop into existing monitor designs. And module price will drop a lot. In fact, with the module replacing the scaler, and NVidia taking some of the cost of researching future monitor implementations we might see price parity but with GSync being better.)
Having said all that, a good FreeSync monitor is a great experience. You need to get one with at least a 2.5X ratio of max to min asynchronous support. (if 30Hz is the minimum, then you need the maximum to be 75Hz or higher).
Anyway, those are currently out of your budget.
Summary:
Aside from the small cost difference (ignoring rebates), the main difference I see for you in favor of AMD is the extra VRAM. While it can and will benefit in future games the extend is uncertain. Game engines should also become better at swapping to system memory at appropriate times (which can reduce the VRAM requirement).
So personally I'd choose the GTX970 for the reasons I listed above.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html
To me the choice between a GTX970 and R9-390 is a really tough choice. A year ago it would have been NVidia hands down, but AMD is improving their driver support.
Main differences:
1. NVidia has PhysX, Gameworks features
2. NVidia has MFAA (for supported titles) which is an optional anti-aliasing method which can increase frame rates by roughly 15% average but it varies a lot
3. NVidia has a lot more MONEY to work on drivers, virtual reality etc (Linux drivers are better on NVidia currently, and AMD may have a difficult time upgrading those. You may not care, but I added a drive so I could experiment with SteamOS for fun.)
4. NVidia's GTX970 uses less power (it's an issue for ME due to the temperature of my room at times. Electricity cost is minimal difference)
5. NVidia's RECORDING software is better IMO. (Shadowplay, though it may get renamed. I tried AMD's solution and didn't like it, though it should improve)
6. AMD has 8GB vs 4GB/3.5GB (mostly a future proofing issue. all things being equal it's a no-brainer but there are other issues. The GTX970 is just fine for every current game at proper settings)
7. AMD's FreeSync monitors are currently cheaper
(My research suggest NVidia's GSync has better potential going forward since they can add features into the newer GSync modules which the manufactures can then drop into existing monitor designs. And module price will drop a lot. In fact, with the module replacing the scaler, and NVidia taking some of the cost of researching future monitor implementations we might see price parity but with GSync being better.)
Having said all that, a good FreeSync monitor is a great experience. You need to get one with at least a 2.5X ratio of max to min asynchronous support. (if 30Hz is the minimum, then you need the maximum to be 75Hz or higher).
Anyway, those are currently out of your budget.
Summary:
Aside from the small cost difference (ignoring rebates), the main difference I see for you in favor of AMD is the extra VRAM. While it can and will benefit in future games the extend is uncertain. Game engines should also become better at swapping to system memory at appropriate times (which can reduce the VRAM requirement).
So personally I'd choose the GTX970 for the reasons I listed above.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
You dropped Windows 10 to afford the $300 monitor.
As for the "value" that really depends on what the priorities are. For example, $13 more for the CPU is 1.3% more cost but the CPU is capable of processing up to almost 9% faster. That can add a few FPS in demanding games that are CPU bottlenecked.
The motherboard analysis is a bit more complicated so I won't get into that here too much, though IMO it's the most important part of the computer since swapping it is a huge hassle. Some of the Gigabyte boards for example have oddly poor fan control support. The Asus I linked had M.2 SSD.
You probably lose a bit of performance in gaming using the slower chipset. It's not a bad board, but the $50 (5% of $1000) value depends on several factors.
Also, REBATES are problematic. I know they are hard to avoid, but you have three separate ones for a total of $70. He has to pay that, and tax, then attempt to redeem it later by buying more stuff. So it's tricky calculating value there too if one doesn't think they'll actually redeem all those rebates. Spending slightly more on a particular part but with no rebate MAY make more sense.
- Aug 27, 2013
- 22,421
- 14
- 84,965
Yes I realize I didn't add it back. I was going to add that there are ways he could legally acquire windows for free or for really cheap like you mentioned above.
I disagree about the B85 being "slower" than a H97 chipset. That is simply not true and I don't know how you even came up with that.
I can't argue about rebates. I read on here that some people do have issues with them. I personally have never had an issue with a rebate.
I stand by my first build that only has $50 in rebates with most of that being on the video card.
I disagree about the B85 being "slower" than a H97 chipset. That is simply not true and I don't know how you even came up with that.
I can't argue about rebates. I read on here that some people do have issues with them. I personally have never had an issue with a rebate.
I stand by my first build that only has $50 in rebates with most of that being on the video card.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,566
- 13
- 85,015
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1330&page=3
(note the CPU section at bottom)
I've been trying to figure out exactly WHY motherboards vary in performance for programs and games. In many games it's less than 1% difference, though in others that are more CPU bottlenecked it can be as high as 8% (best to worst in same socket).
It's possible the DEFAULT settings are slightly different between motherboards depending on what CPU is chosen. I'm not sure if this affects non-K CPU's or not. It's really hard to find good info on this.
Here's more info: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8582/msi-z97-gaming-5-motherboard-review-five-is-alive/6
"Readers of our motherboard review section will have noted the trend in modern motherboards to implement a form of MultiCore Enhancement / Acceleration / Turbo (read our report here) on their motherboards. This does several things, including better benchmark results at stock settings... "
This may explain why other benchmarks have shown the cheaper boards sometimes getting LOWER performance. The more expensive boards with better voltage regulation may tweak things by default higher.
Again, probably not worth getting too hung up on so maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned it.
So...
If he got an i5-4590 it's likely the BEST performance he could get would be to manually raise the Turbo values. It probably is 3.7GHz for one core heavy usage then dropping 100MHz until full load is 3.4GHz. He may be able to tweak that so it's still 3.7GHz for one, two, three and four-core usage. Or close.
Can test with Prime95 for a while to see if it's stable (Memtest86 for memory).
(note the CPU section at bottom)
I've been trying to figure out exactly WHY motherboards vary in performance for programs and games. In many games it's less than 1% difference, though in others that are more CPU bottlenecked it can be as high as 8% (best to worst in same socket).
It's possible the DEFAULT settings are slightly different between motherboards depending on what CPU is chosen. I'm not sure if this affects non-K CPU's or not. It's really hard to find good info on this.
Here's more info: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8582/msi-z97-gaming-5-motherboard-review-five-is-alive/6
"Readers of our motherboard review section will have noted the trend in modern motherboards to implement a form of MultiCore Enhancement / Acceleration / Turbo (read our report here) on their motherboards. This does several things, including better benchmark results at stock settings... "
This may explain why other benchmarks have shown the cheaper boards sometimes getting LOWER performance. The more expensive boards with better voltage regulation may tweak things by default higher.
Again, probably not worth getting too hung up on so maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned it.
So...
If he got an i5-4590 it's likely the BEST performance he could get would be to manually raise the Turbo values. It probably is 3.7GHz for one core heavy usage then dropping 100MHz until full load is 3.4GHz. He may be able to tweak that so it's still 3.7GHz for one, two, three and four-core usage. Or close.
Can test with Prime95 for a while to see if it's stable (Memtest86 for memory).
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 202
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram