Building a Gaming Rig for $1500!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jwl3039

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2014
70
0
18,635
I am looking at building a pure gaming rig for $1500. I want it to be future proof in the sense that I will not upgrade any parts for close to two years aside from cosmetic additions.

http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/22JW7LSM2RUDJ

On this amazon wishlist I have all my parts listed that I have compiled. Any feedback would be welcome. I was planding a white and black build with purple accents from the rgb led strip included with the case, but I am willing to throw that out the window if there are better parts to purchase.

[EDIT]
The reason there are two 1080 gpu's is because I could not decide which to purchase. Also do you guys think 1440p is worth it?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD RYZEN 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($324.68 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Biostar X370GT5 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($128.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory ($106.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Zotac Premium Edition 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($69.65 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.33 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB Founders Edition Video Card ($698.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Phanteks ECLIPSE P400 TEMPERED GLASS ATX Mid Tower Case ($79.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($79.28 @ Amazon)
Total: $1537.89
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-25 09:33 EDT-0400
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Not for gaming, and he wants a PC gaming build, testing in games side by side, a 300$ ryzen vs 300$ Intel is a no brainer for games. I would say rendering and stuff like that is better on ryzen as programs use all the cores properly while games don't make very good use of it. Also have in mind Ryzen is meant for 1440p and 4k gaming.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


how is 1440p/4k gaming any different from 1080p/720p gaming cpu-wise?

personally, I'd prefer a 7700 as well over a Ryzen
but honestly, if I have the choice between an i5 and a Ryzen 5, I'd probably go with the Ryzen. you might get a few fps less at maximum, but you won't get as low fps. a quadcore is nice, but a hexacore is a hexacore, especially with hyperthreading, you're feeling me? superior performance in 4 threaded games doesn't really help when the game can use 6-10 threads -- see BF1. but it depends largely on the games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


It's very different gaming wise check benchmarks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


pls explain to me the correlation between CPU load and resolution, that's all I'm asking.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


CPU & GPU load are two different things.
a GPU has to render way more pixels at 1440p than at 1080p

however the phsyics and scripts in the background don't change just because there are more pixels to render for the GPU
logic dictates that the CPU doesn't care about your resolution or if you got a display connceted at all
please correct me if I made a huge error in my thinking and argumentation but I don't see how a CPU can be 'meant' for a certain resolution when taxed with a game.
if Ryzen delivers too little frames at 1080p, it won't deliver more at 4k
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
At 720p the framerates can get high so easily that it becomes a challenge for the CPU to see if it can keep up. If the GPU can do 400 frames per second @ 720p but the CPU bottlenecks around ~250, you're seeing the typical CPU ''bottleneck'' That's why people do those 720p tests, to test CPU power and see how much FPS it lets the GPU push.

If you're playing at 4k, and you're getting ~80 fps in the same title, it still means that in the same game the CPU can produce up to 250 fps, so no more bottleneck.

CPU load does not change, only the GPU does.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
. At 720p the framerates can get high so easily that it becomes a challenge for the CPU to see if it can keep up. If the GPU can do 400 frames per second @ 720p but the CPU bottlenecks around ~250, you're seeing the typical CPU ''bottleneck'' That's why people do those 720p tests, to test CPU power and see how much FPS it lets the GPU push.

If you're playing at 4k, and you're getting ~80 fps in the same title, it still means that in the same game the CPU can produce up to 250 fps, so no more bottleneck.
Click to expand...

That's kinda my point. If you're getting 200 FPS but your GPU could output 300 -- who cares? One part will always be faster, stronger, better than the other one. But if you're playing at 720p/60Hz it doesn't matter if you're getting 90/129/200/500 FPS. You pick the GPU to fit your CPU not the other way around.
A "CPU bottleneck" at 200fps doesn't matter if the real bottleneck is your screen at 60fps.

So linking CPU and resolution makes no sense. Linking it to refresh rate does.
That being said one has to remember when looking at benchmarks that they're done usually with a benchmark optimized setup, meaning everything disabled but the game and critical processes. I don't know about you guys but I usually have a bunch of other crap running too - music player, TeamSpeak, various utility software, firewall, a browser, etc. All of this you can't read in a benchmark most of the time and of course benefits machines with more threads (if the game is properly programmed of course).

TL;DR: just because no GPU is able to push high frames at 4k doesn't mean a CPU is better suited for a certain resolution
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom