I am planning to buy 4k gaming PC, please share your advice

[oudmaster]

hi all
I want to buy a 4k gaming PC with 60+ FPS, and I want it to be set for long term.

can you please share what hardware specs should I buy !??

thanks a lot

 

[GRUxTSAR]

Budget?

 

[JamesHeller]

Budget?

yep
please enlighten us with your budget

 

[Mac266]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($339.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Thermaltake Water 3.0 Extreme 99.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($100.98 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 EXTREME4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($143.79 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($81.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial MX100 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($109.97 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB Video Card ($555.91 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 450D ATX Mid Tower Case ($119.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 750W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1586.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-04 04:12 EDT-0400

a $1600 overkill machine.

 

[GRUxTSAR]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($339.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Thermaltake Water 3.0 Extreme 99.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($100.98 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 EXTREME4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($143.79 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($81.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial MX100 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($109.97 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB Video Card ($555.91 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 450D ATX Mid Tower Case ($119.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 750W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1586.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-04 04:12 EDT-0400

a $1600 overkill machine.

I don't think a single 980 would be suited for 4K 60fps. 970 SLI would be better for an extra $100ish

 

[VincentP]

Two GTX 970 cards in SLI will give you this frame rate, but I would have concerns about having only 4GB of VRAM in the long term.
Ideally I would suggest you wait for 8GB models to be released.
Two GTX 780 6GB cards in SLI would be the next best thing available at the moment.

A core i7 4790K and a Z97 motherboard, 16 GB of DDR3 memory in a 2 x 8GB kit.

 

[Mac266]

I don't think a single 980 would be suited for 4K 60fps. 970 SLI would be better for an extra $100ish

You reckon? I haven't tested my 970's at 4k, but I would have thought a 980, with it's 4 GB and "over Titan Black" performance would give it run.

 

[GRUxTSAR]

Two GTX 970 cards in SLI will give you this frame rate, but I would have concerns about having only 4GB of VRAM in the long term.
Ideally I would suggest you wait for 8GB models to be released.
Two GTX 780 6GB cards in SLI would be the next best thing available at the moment.

A core i7 4790K and a Z97 motherboard, 16 GB of DDR3 memory in a 2 x 8GB kit.

Either way you won't be getting 4gb with the 900 series. The memory bus will bottleneck the VRAM usage. You'll be getting ~3gb of 8gb unless you cool your GPUs with liquid nitrogen and can set the memory clock to 1000000000000mhz

 

[GRUxTSAR]

I don't think a single 980 would be suited for 4K 60fps. 970 SLI would be better for an extra $100ish

You reckon? I haven't tested my 970's at 4k, but I would have thought a 980, with it's 4 GB and "over Titan Black" performance would give it run.

Well, the Titan Black is worse than a 780ti, which in turn is worse than a 980 with a slight OC, which could be OCed to...

I don't know. A 290X is suitable for 4K@60 right now, but I doubt either a 290X or 980 would be as future proof as OP wants it to be

 

[VincentP]

Two GTX 970 cards in SLI will give you this frame rate, but I would have concerns about having only 4GB of VRAM in the long term.
Ideally I would suggest you wait for 8GB models to be released.
Two GTX 780 6GB cards in SLI would be the next best thing available at the moment.

A core i7 4790K and a Z97 motherboard, 16 GB of DDR3 memory in a 2 x 8GB kit.

Either way you won't be getting 4gb with the 900 series. The memory bus will bottleneck the VRAM usage. You'll be getting ~3gb of 8gb unless you cool your GPUs with liquid nitrogen and can set the memory clock to 1000000000000mhz

That is rubbish.
The width of the memory bus has nothing to do with the total quantity of VRAM.
The GTX 780 3GB version and 6GB version had the same memory bus. Adding extra VRAM doesn't make the VRAM faster or slower, it just allows the GPU to store more in VRAM.
An 8GB version of the GTX 970 or 980 will simply have more memory chips. It will be the same speed, but the additional memory will allow more capacity for textures, frame buffer, etc.

 

[VincentP]

I don't think a single 980 would be suited for 4K 60fps. 970 SLI would be better for an extra $100ish

You reckon? I haven't tested my 970's at 4k, but I would have thought a 980, with it's 4 GB and "over Titan Black" performance would give it run.

Well, the Titan Black is worse than a 780ti, which in turn is worse than a 980 with a slight OC, which could be OCed to...

I don't know. A 290X is suitable for 4K@60 right now, but I doubt either a 290X or 980 would be as future proof as OP wants it to be

You are thinking of the titan, not the titan black.
The titan black is a GTX 780 Ti with more VRAM (6GB rather than 3GB), faster clock speeds and double precision calculations fully enabled.
It is expensive, but better than a GTX 780 Ti in every way.
It is not quite as fast as a GTX 980, so it's only selling points at the moment are more VRAM (which might matter at 4K) and much better double precision calculations (which doesn't matter for games).
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_980_g1_gaming_review,16.html

 

[GRUxTSAR]

Two GTX 970 cards in SLI will give you this frame rate, but I would have concerns about having only 4GB of VRAM in the long term.
Ideally I would suggest you wait for 8GB models to be released.
Two GTX 780 6GB cards in SLI would be the next best thing available at the moment.

A core i7 4790K and a Z97 motherboard, 16 GB of DDR3 memory in a 2 x 8GB kit.

Either way you won't be getting 4gb with the 900 series. The memory bus will bottleneck the VRAM usage. You'll be getting ~3gb of 8gb unless you cool your GPUs with liquid nitrogen and can set the memory clock to 1000000000000mhz

That is rubbish.
The width of the memory bus has nothing to do with the total quantity of VRAM.
The GTX 780 3GB version and 6GB version had the same memory bus. Adding extra VRAM doesn't make the VRAM faster or slower, it just allows the GPU to store more in VRAM.
An 8GB version of the GTX 970 or 980 will simply have more memory chips. It will be the same speed, but the additional memory will allow more capacity for textures, frame buffer, etc.

But your VRAM usage will cap long before you hit 8gb. A 256 bit bus will NOT utilize 8gb

 

[malachy32]

Wait for 980 ti

 

[VincentP]

Two GTX 970 cards in SLI will give you this frame rate, but I would have concerns about having only 4GB of VRAM in the long term.
Ideally I would suggest you wait for 8GB models to be released.
Two GTX 780 6GB cards in SLI would be the next best thing available at the moment.

A core i7 4790K and a Z97 motherboard, 16 GB of DDR3 memory in a 2 x 8GB kit.

Either way you won't be getting 4gb with the 900 series. The memory bus will bottleneck the VRAM usage. You'll be getting ~3gb of 8gb unless you cool your GPUs with liquid nitrogen and can set the memory clock to 1000000000000mhz

That is rubbish.
The width of the memory bus has nothing to do with the total quantity of VRAM.
The GTX 780 3GB version and 6GB version had the same memory bus. Adding extra VRAM doesn't make the VRAM faster or slower, it just allows the GPU to store more in VRAM.
An 8GB version of the GTX 970 or 980 will simply have more memory chips. It will be the same speed, but the additional memory will allow more capacity for textures, frame buffer, etc.

But your VRAM usage will cap long before you hit 8gb. A 256 bit bus will NOT utilize 8gb

Having 4 GB or 8 GB of VRAM has nothing at all to do with the 256 bit bus.
Having a wider bus allows you to access memory faster not have more of it.

The number of bits in the bus is the number of bits you can read from memory at one time.
The speed is also affected by the memory frequency and compression used.
Nvidia and AMD have moved from a 384-bit bus to a 256-bit bus in recent cards (GTX 970, GTX 980, R9 285) because it has allowed them to save power and reduce cost. They have compensated for this by using faster clocked memory and better compression.

To include more memory they need only fit it on the PCB, attach it to the existing memory bus, power it and keep it cool.
They could easily include more memory on every card in the range but it affects cost so they try to balance the provided memory size with the expected usage of the card based on the performance of the GPU.

Workstation cards typically have more memory because of the applications these run, and because cost is less of a factor. The K6000 for instance has 12 GB of VRAM and it still has a 384-bit bus. In the lower end of the range, the K2200 has 4 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus.

 

[GRUxTSAR]

Two GTX 970 cards in SLI will give you this frame rate, but I would have concerns about having only 4GB of VRAM in the long term.
Ideally I would suggest you wait for 8GB models to be released.
Two GTX 780 6GB cards in SLI would be the next best thing available at the moment.

A core i7 4790K and a Z97 motherboard, 16 GB of DDR3 memory in a 2 x 8GB kit.

Either way you won't be getting 4gb with the 900 series. The memory bus will bottleneck the VRAM usage. You'll be getting ~3gb of 8gb unless you cool your GPUs with liquid nitrogen and can set the memory clock to 1000000000000mhz

That is rubbish.
The width of the memory bus has nothing to do with the total quantity of VRAM.
The GTX 780 3GB version and 6GB version had the same memory bus. Adding extra VRAM doesn't make the VRAM faster or slower, it just allows the GPU to store more in VRAM.
An 8GB version of the GTX 970 or 980 will simply have more memory chips. It will be the same speed, but the additional memory will allow more capacity for textures, frame buffer, etc.

But your VRAM usage will cap long before you hit 8gb. A 256 bit bus will NOT utilize 8gb

Having 4 GB or 8 GB of VRAM has nothing at all to do with the 256 bit bus.
Having a wider bus allows you to access memory faster not have more of it.

The number of bits in the bus is the number of bits you can read from memory at one time.
The speed is also affected by the memory frequency and compression used.
Nvidia and AMD have moved from a 384-bit bus to a 256-bit bus in recent cards (GTX 970, GTX 980, R9 285) because it has allowed them to save power and reduce cost. They have compensated for this by using faster clocked memory and better compression.

To include more memory they need only fit it on the PCB, attach it to the existing memory bus, power it and keep it cool.
They could easily include more memory on every card in the range but it affects cost so they try to balance the provided memory size with the expected usage of the card based on the performance of the GPU.

Workstation cards typically have more memory because of the applications these run, and because cost is less of a factor. The K6000 for instance has 12 GB of VRAM and it still has a 384-bit bus. In the lower end of the range, the K2200 has 4 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus.

I think one of us is misunderstanding the other. What I'm trying to say is that you will HAVE the VRAM, but your VRAM usage will not fully utilize all of it

 

[VincentP]

Two GTX 970 cards in SLI will give you this frame rate, but I would have concerns about having only 4GB of VRAM in the long term.
Ideally I would suggest you wait for 8GB models to be released.
Two GTX 780 6GB cards in SLI would be the next best thing available at the moment.

A core i7 4790K and a Z97 motherboard, 16 GB of DDR3 memory in a 2 x 8GB kit.

Either way you won't be getting 4gb with the 900 series. The memory bus will bottleneck the VRAM usage. You'll be getting ~3gb of 8gb unless you cool your GPUs with liquid nitrogen and can set the memory clock to 1000000000000mhz

That is rubbish.
The width of the memory bus has nothing to do with the total quantity of VRAM.
The GTX 780 3GB version and 6GB version had the same memory bus. Adding extra VRAM doesn't make the VRAM faster or slower, it just allows the GPU to store more in VRAM.
An 8GB version of the GTX 970 or 980 will simply have more memory chips. It will be the same speed, but the additional memory will allow more capacity for textures, frame buffer, etc.

But your VRAM usage will cap long before you hit 8gb. A 256 bit bus will NOT utilize 8gb

Having 4 GB or 8 GB of VRAM has nothing at all to do with the 256 bit bus.
Having a wider bus allows you to access memory faster not have more of it.

The number of bits in the bus is the number of bits you can read from memory at one time.
The speed is also affected by the memory frequency and compression used.
Nvidia and AMD have moved from a 384-bit bus to a 256-bit bus in recent cards (GTX 970, GTX 980, R9 285) because it has allowed them to save power and reduce cost. They have compensated for this by using faster clocked memory and better compression.

To include more memory they need only fit it on the PCB, attach it to the existing memory bus, power it and keep it cool.
They could easily include more memory on every card in the range but it affects cost so they try to balance the provided memory size with the expected usage of the card based on the performance of the GPU.

Workstation cards typically have more memory because of the applications these run, and because cost is less of a factor. The K6000 for instance has 12 GB of VRAM and it still has a 384-bit bus. In the lower end of the range, the K2200 has 4 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus.

I think one of us is misunderstanding the other. What I'm trying to say is that you will HAVE the VRAM, but your VRAM usage will not fully utilize all of it

If you don't fully utilize the VRAM it will be because the game or application does not need this much VRAM, but even then it will probably cache more textures anyway.
Any suggestion the card is unable to utilize the VRAM because of a 256-bit memory bus is simply wrong.