Want you guys' opinion. $3000 new build

[cmcghee358]

So the wife is coming in to some money, so I think I'm going to pass on my AMD build to either her or my daughter.

I have a really rough idea what I'm going to buy, I'd like to see what you guys come up with.

Approximate Purchase Date: May-July

Budget Range: $3000 don't include rebates I never do them

System Usage from Most to Least Important: Gaming

Parts Not Required: Mouse, I also have a 5870 2GB that I would consider Xfiring. But I'd prefer a 6xxx or 7xxx series(or nVidia equivalent 5xx 6xx). But if I can get good performance by cheaply adding another 5870 that's ok too.

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: newegg.com only. Loyal.

Country of Origin: USA

Parts Preferences: Because of the budget, I prefer Intel. I have a mild preference for AMD for GPUs just because of the power efficiency. But I'm posting this to get other viewpoints so do what you please for build recommendations. I'd like a Noctua NH-D14 air cooler and 80 PLUS GOLD PSU. Also my preference is for a single card GPU solution. But Xfire/SLI will be considered. Motherboard should be 8x/8x minimum

Overclocking: Yes

SLI or Crossfire: Maybe

Monitor Resolution: Will need 3 monitors 1920x1080 each totalling 5760x1080

Additional Comments: (e.g.: Need to have a window and lots of bling, I would like a quiet PC)

 

[jednx01]

This is just my two cents: if I were going to spend a bunch of money on monitors, I would get a 30" 2650x1600 monitor over 3x 1920x1080. Just for feedback on how system specs, I recently bought two 6950s (stock HIS models) and am very impressed with their performance. I can max out literally every game that I've tried at 1920x1080 with 60 frames per second. (Yes, including crysis... With the settings all at very high with 8xaa, I got 60.5 frames per second average according to the built in benchmark) I think you'll be very happy with the 6950s. I'm running:
core i7 930@4.0ghz (OC'd)
6 gigs corsair xms3 1600mhz ddr3 ram
asus p6x58d premium
corsair hx1000 psu
500gb 7200rpm seagate barracuda hdd

For CPU cooling, I'm using the Prolimatech Megahalems Rev B., which are reviewed very similarly to the heatsink that you listed. The noticeable thing about the Megahalems is that it has the best mounting system that I have EVER seen for a heatsink. It is very very very easy to mount it evenly and with a good amount of pressure. Best heatsink that I've ever owned. Just something you could consider. The heatsink you listed looks good as well.

 

[UmeNNis]

...

The other thing to consider is that a 120hz monitor isn't really 120hz, that's part of the marketing nonsense. 120Hz monitors still only synch 60 times a second, what is does is drop an interpolated frame into the picture stream.

That's just a fancy term to describe something that's been used in animation for a long time. Basically, lets imagine a dude doing a fast 1 second wave. You can do this by displaying 20 frames of the hand down, 20 of the hand up in the air, and 20 with the hand back down.

Another way is to do 10 with hand down, 10 of hand halfway up in the air, 20 of the hand in the air, 10 of the hand halfway down, and 10 with hand down. You're still only displaying 60 frames, but by adding those half way down images, it theoretically looks smoother. If you've ever used a flipbook to simulate animation you'll have an idea of what this is.

Now, monitor companies in marketing consider these in between frames as the equivalent of 2 frames (sounds better than a 60hz monitor that automatically does in betweening).

To get a true 120 synchs per second, you'll need to go back to CRT. LCD tech is limited to 60 refreshes a second due to a buncha technical stuff having to do with the RC constant of the capacitors/resistors that make up the LCD. This is being worked on, though I'm not aware of any practical solutions yet.

TLR version - Response rate and refresh rate are 2 different things. A 60hz TN for ex is commonly found with 2-8ms marketed (not true) response time. Those Dells are 60HZ.

Only partially true. 120hz TN monitors require DVI Dual link for a reason. This is not trickery or marketing nonsense, this is the graphics card having to push out more fps at a higher refresh rate. There is no 'technical stuff' having to do with the 'RC constant of the caps/resistors'. First off this would have nothing to do with resistors whatsoever, and second off capacitors can charge and discharge at any rate chosen by circuit design (within current technological and/or cost restraints).

Please don't just repeat something you think you heard somewhere about something...

If anyone has any other questions about 120hz TN monitors, either look up the technicalities, or go the easier route, and read some reviews. It doesn't take a genius to read all the favorable reviews in regard to faster refresh rate monitors (not just CRT) and gaming fluidity.

With all that said, IPS is the way to go for true color accuracy. However, if you choose a quality TN panel, the noticeable difference will be slim, unless you frequently work with Photoshop or something else at a professional level.

 

[banthracis]

Ugh, why does this have to happen every time.

Ok, first, 120 HZ is pointless, Normal human's can't even perceive more than about 60FPS. Classic example is flourescent lights. These flicker btwn 100hz and 120hz. Do you see flickering light or a solid stream of light? If you see a solid stream, guess what, you're not seeing 120fps.

Now you probably won't me believe on that point, but fortunately, Andrew B. Watson, Ph.D. NASA's Senior Scientist for Vision Research writes it all up for us.

http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/techareas/tech_faq/watson_visibility.html

Second, color accuracy, even good TN monitors are limited to 6 bit, that's a limitation of TN tech. Most companies won't even rate their monitors color gamut, Dell however does so lets use them as an example.

A dell TN professional P2311H covers 68% of the 16.7 million colors.
http://accessories.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&sku=320-9511

A dell IPS ultrasharp covers 82% of the possible 16.7 million colors. Including 100% of sRGB
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?cs=19&c=us&l=en&sku=320-9270

This is a pretty significant difference.
Course, you won't believe me, so I'll give you some samples.

First is an image taken from an old Powerbooks color gamut, and converted to sRGB for web posting.
http://www.getcolormanaged.com/images/Blog/Screenshot_sRGBImage_Powerbook.jpg

The second image is in full sRGB.
http://www.getcolormanaged.com/images/Blog/SavedForWeb_sRGB.jpg

The difference is pretty noticeable even on a TN monitor thanks to that old powerbook having a color gamut less than a good modern TN. That'll give you an idea of the color difference.

Ok next, RC constant and LCD screens.
Yes LCD's are essentially capacitor/resistor networks, and yes RC Constant is a limiting factor in LCD design. In fact, it's the primary reason why Al is used in signal bus design. The slow response time of Liquid crystals is a well known issue in the field, I'm not sure why you think I randomly picked that outta the internet.

If you want the full technical details on how an LCD display works, take a look here.
http://www.lcd-tv-reviews.com/pages/tft_device_design.php

Now, onto the last part, dual link DVI 120HZ monitors. Not many of these around, all of them at least $500, though actually more than I thought, so my apologies for not mentioning this exception.

Anyway, these do truly display 120 frames per second, as opposed to the the commonly advertised 120hz monitors which interpolate or duplicate frames above 60. However, these monitors are still limited to 60 synchs per second.

These showed up after my formal training so I'm not 100% sure of the tech behind it. However, a quick library search brought up this paper
http://www.k-ids.or.kr/storage/journal/B/9_1/861/articlefile/article.pdf
Haven't read through it carefully yet, but it looks like 2 solutions were usage of quasi impulse driving to allow black frame insertions, and backlight flashing.

Not quite sure which one is used, or if diff companies use a diff solution, but I can't seem to find a white paper from one of the companies that actually make these. Perhaps you've got one on hand umennis?

 

[UmeNNis]

Okay, first off. Let's drop the color gamut 'argument', although not sure there was ever really one to be had. I completely agree with IPS output being superior to TN. However, we can throw around numbers and percentages all day, the fact of the matter is simply that the 'missing colors', so to speak, are usually not all that missed, unless the user is a professional or quite the enthusiast. The state of the current market tells us that much, simply by looking at market share.

Second off. If you really want to get technical, the human eye isn't supposed to be able to see much above 30 frames per second. Yet we know this is quite often far from the truth. And in regard to your florescent bulb reference, the fact is that some people CAN see the flickering, and it all is not nearly as cut and dry as had been previously believed.

I own a Samsung 2233rz, a true 120hz TN monitor. It is no longer manufactured for whatever reason, but it got nothing but spectacular reviews, and was quite less than the $500 minimum price you stated.

 

[cburke82]

Okay, first off. Let's drop the color gamut 'argument', although not sure there was ever really one to be had. I completely agree with IPS output being superior to TN. However, we can throw around numbers and percentages all day, the fact of the matter is simply that the 'missing colors', so to speak, are usually not all that missed, unless the user is a professional or quite the enthusiast. The state of the current market tells us that much, simply by looking at market share.

Second off. If you really want to get technical, the human eye isn't supposed to be able to see much above 30 frames per second. Yet we know this is quite often far from the truth. And in regard to your florescent bulb reference, the fact is that some people CAN see the flickering, and it all is not nearly as cut and dry as had been previously believed.

I own a Samsung 2233rz, a true 120hz TN monitor. It is no longer manufactured for whatever reason, but it got nothing but spectacular reviews, and was quite less than the $500 minimum price you stated.

I guess the easy way to see if its putting out more than 60 real frames is if you can run it with no v-sync and go 0 screen tearing. I know some games are better than others so pick a game that is a known screen tearing nightmare and run is on settings that allow you to average 100fps or more and see what happens???

I was a console gamer for a long time and so to me 30 FPS look fine as long as its not going up and down. I would think we tend to see the changes in frame rate more than the FPS. So a game synced to 60FPS that is not dropping below that would seem smoother than one synced to 120FPS that is ranging from 80-120FPS.

I would think you would notice that 40FPS swing and see that as looking ever so slightly choppy. Were as the solid stream of 60FPS would look smooth because it is a constant. At anyrate I know its just my personal preference but with PC tech ever changing it would seem that there are better things to spend money on that 120hz monitors.

Lets say its $100 more for the 120hz for a 3 monitor set up thats $300....Thats your next GPU when the current ones go out of date. Also as soon as your computer is aged to the point were it can no longer play games at 120 FPS you loose any possible benefit. If your running games at 70 FPS its no longer worth $100 for the 10FPS you may or may not be seeing.

Were as a better GPU or a monitor that displays a higher res or more accurate color will always have that added benefit. And I may be wrong here but how many GPU setups can run 3 monitors on very high setting that far past 60 FPS avg anyhow? Also in order to really see that extra FPS you would need to not drop below 60 FPS to tale full advantage and again if your going super high res or 3 monitor how long will a current 2-3 card setup run newer games at that high of a rate?

 

[UmeNNis]

...
Were as a better GPU or a monitor that displays a higher res or more accurate color will always have that added benefit. And I may be wrong here but how many GPU setups can run 3 monitors on very high setting that far past 60 FPS avg anyhow? Also in order to really see that extra FPS you would need to not drop below 60 FPS to tale full advantage and again if your going super high res or 3 monitor how long will a current 2-3 card setup run newer games at that high of a rate?

Now here is an argument that makes more sense. The multiple monitor setup I have given less thought to, as I currently run a single monitor, and therefore haven't had to worry about lower frame rates.

Seeing as how everyone is coming up with budgets far less than the op's allowable budget, however, without including more expensive monitors, it doesn't seem to be that outlandish to spend extra on what may be only a short to mid-term benefit. And this is technology we're talking about anyway, is it not? Aren't these benefits often short to mid-term anyways?

And to answer your question, I never use v sync with this monitor, and experience no noticeable tearing.

 

[banthracis]

$500 was referring to 1080p 120hz monitors, the requested resolution by the OP.

Also, rereading my initial post I guess I wasn't exactly clear about a couple things, so my apologies about that, and the clarifications.
1. There a difference between synchs and frames. 120hz monitors will all display 120 frames in a second that part is true, but they're not 120 distinct images from a source. The cheapest ones accomplish this by duplicating frames, the slightly better ones do it through interpolation as described above.
2. The analogy is also a bit off since it's animation interpolation rather than digital interpolation. Outside the high end top 120hz monitors, the majority of then either duplicate a frame to give 60fps, or insert one of these in between frames in between 2 actual or key frames. The source is still only providing it with 60 images a second, but it's using above techniques to turn it into 120 images.


Cburke re: your question about the FPS of current gpu's with 3 1080p monitors, you can find them here. Basically at those resolution, even 2 6970's are only getting 30's-40's
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/AMD_Radeon_6800_6900_-_Updated_Benchmarks_Page_3

 

[cburke82]

Now here is an argument that makes more sense. The multiple monitor setup I have given less thought to, as I currently run a single monitor, and therefore haven't had to worry about lower frame rates.

Seeing as how everyone is coming up with budgets far less than the op's allowable budget, however, without including more expensive monitors, it doesn't seem to be that outlandish to spend extra on what may be only a short to mid-term benefit. And this is technology we're talking about anyway, is it not? Aren't these benefits often short to mid-term anyways?

And to answer your question, I never use v sync with this monitor, and experience no noticeable tearing.

My budget would be very close to $3000 after purchasing 3 quality monitors depending on what size was purchased.

 

[cburke82]

Now here is an argument that makes more sense. The multiple monitor setup I have given less thought to, as I currently run a single monitor, and therefore haven't had to worry about lower frame rates.

Seeing as how everyone is coming up with budgets far less than the op's allowable budget, however, without including more expensive monitors, it doesn't seem to be that outlandish to spend extra on what may be only a short to mid-term benefit. And this is technology we're talking about anyway, is it not? Aren't these benefits often short to mid-term anyways?

And to answer your question, I never use v sync with this monitor, and experience no noticeable tearing.

Try turning v-sync on and seeing were it syncs to... just for shiets and giggles lol

 

[cmcghee358]

So after much debate, I'd like to post what I intend to build when the money starts raining
(Also my current build will be going to my 6 year old in a pretty pink Cool Master case)

Case: Cooler Master HAF-X 189.99

Fan Controller NZXT Sentry 2 5.25" Fan Controller 24.99

HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 54.99

Monitors(x3): Acer 23.6" LED-LCD 1920x1080 monitors 149.99 each(449.97)

GPU(x2): HIS Radeon 6950 2GB DDR5 Eyefinity Video Card 269.99 each(539.98)

Keyboard: Razer Lycosa Gaming Keyboard 79.99

RAM: G.SKILL 2x4GB DDR3-1600 CAS 7 RAM 149.99

Motherboard: ASUS WS Revolution P67 NF200 Motherboard 254.99

CPU: Intel Sandy Bridge i7-2600k 314.99

CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14 fan 89.99 with added 120mm fan 24.99

OS Drive: OCZ Vertex 2 120GB MLC SSD 209.99

PSU+OS Combo: Corsair AX850 Modular 80 PLUS GOLD/Windows 7 64 bit Professional 307.98

Total with shipping: 2692.83

 

[UmeNNis]

The fan controller is a complete waste of money. My .02.
Everything else looks pretty good

 

[cmcghee358]

I disagree. I just built an i5-2500k build for my friend and the fan controller kept the fans at 50%, substantially reducing case noise.

 

[banthracis]

You've heard about the whole vertex 2 fiasco right cmc?

I'd go with an Intel 320 personally.

The NZXT fan controller have a pretty limited range of control, as in it'll go down to I think 6v and that's it. So long as you're ok with that it's fine.

As for the mobo, if you don't plan on getting a 3rd GPU, Tom's did an article few weeks ago where they showed the NF200 chip only netted a 2% improvement over a standard x8/x8 mobo, so if you're getting it for the increased performance may not be worth the ~$65 over a GA UD4P or p8p67 pro.

I'd also spend the extra ~$210 and upgrade to IPS monitors, but that's just me.

 

[cmcghee358]

Best answer selected by cmcghee358.