Help me build my PC 2017 Catch All

Pushing 3440x1440 seems like it might be a tall order for a 1070, especially if you're expecting to get closer to 100fps for that panel's 100hz refresh rate. Of course, G-Sync sure does help when you are dealing with lower rates, so there's that.

Anyone have one of the EVGA cases? Not normally a manufacture that comes to mind when I think of a quality case but these look pretty nice if not a bit odd (The full tower appears to have the side of the case be the front)

https://www.evga.com/products/produc...

*Legion* wrote:

Pushing 3440x1440 seems like it might be a tall order for a 1070, especially if you're expecting to get closer to 100fps for that panel's 100hz refresh rate. Of course, G-Sync sure does help when you are dealing with lower rates, so there's that.

For that resolution you are probably looking at a 1080 or 1080Ti to get maximum details at 60+fps like Legion said. Granted you already have an ultrawide monitor but I'm not a huge fan.. back when I had one I was always frustrated by the lack of proper resolution and aspect ratio support in games for the ultrawide monitors.

TheGameguru wrote:

For that resolution you are probably looking at a 1080 or 1080Ti to get maximum details at 60+fps like Legion said. Granted you already have an ultrawide monitor but I'm not a huge fan.. back when I had one I was always frustrated by the lack of proper resolution and aspect ratio support in games for the ultrawide monitors.

That's certainly changing now.
I'm still leaning towards the 1080TI as I need the other money from selling the 1070 and I have an ultrawide already.

TheGameguru wrote:

Anyone have one of the EVGA cases? Not normally a manufacture that comes to mind when I think of a quality case but these look pretty nice if not a bit odd (The full tower appears to have the side of the case be the front)

https://www.evga.com/products/produc...

I don't, but it seems like EVGA is trying to aggressively expand its product lines, like with the recent introduction of laptops. Overall the reviews of their new stuff have all been good and basically said they are higher than normal quality options but also a higher than normal price but the price is justified.

I think a side-front could be pretty useful if paired with quiet-running components, so you could just put the case on your desk behind your monitor and have access to all of the front ports and buttons below your monitor bezel.

Malor wrote:

Well, I recently saw some numbers from CEMU (the Wii U emulator), and memory speed had a pretty substantial impact on frame rates. The three things they were testing were CPU overclock, memory speed (affected everything almost exactly as much), and tight memory timings (little impact on max frames, but as much impact on minimum frames as the other two settings.) My takeaway was that all three things matter.

There were also some Battlefield and Witcher 3 benches posted somewhere in this forum three or four months ago, and they showed similar impacts. Memory speed makes a pretty substantial difference for those games, W3 in particular. Those were just higher-clock tests though (DDR4-XXXX ratings), rather than timings, IIRC. I hypothesize that timings would also have affected minimum frames on those games as well, but I don't actually know this.

So ... maybe worth getting faster RAM?
Any other comments on the benefits of Z270 vs B250 boards? For the last few upgrades I've just gone with the cheapest board that supported the CPU I was buying, never had any problems with stability or had to replace one yet.

So ... maybe worth getting faster RAM?

Well, high-speed RAM seems to have almost as much effect on framerates as overclocking the CPU, and then tight timings improve minimum frames substantially.

If you're going to run high resolution (VR or 4K), your video card is probably going to be the choke point, so spending up on memory may end up being kind of wasted in many games. However, if you play games that load the CPU heavily (examples: emulation, Blizzard games, agent games like Dwarf Fortress, Factorio), or if you've got a graphic card that can truly handle the resolution you're running, then it can be a substantial benefit.

Whether it's worth it depends on how much it costs relative to baseline RAM, versus how much benefit you expect to get from the additional expense. That's not something I can answer for you; I can just point you at how to answer it for yourself.

I run lots of CPU-heavy games, so if I were planning on doing an upgrade, I'd be thinking real hard about buying very high quality RAM, and lots of it. (probably at least 32 gigs.) But that's because it suits my specific use pattern; it doesn't mean that's the right answer for everyone.

So I've talked about the Dell S2716DG monitor and the pixel inversion/cross-hatch issue I observed.

Apparently this is not limited to the Dell, but is common among many TN 1440p/144hz monitors.

This Tom's Hardware post describes EXACTLY the flaw I observed on the Dell, but on an Asus PG278Q. Some further searching found people complaining about it on other TN 1440p/144hz displays too.

If I knew that it wasn't just a flaw of the Dell's, I probably would have been less unhappy with it. Ah well, I'm extremely happy with the IPS ViewSonic.

Does anyone know if a graphics card (EVGA GeForce GTX 1070) can output two separate resolutions to two separate monitors? I just purchased a Lenovo monitor [Display port] capable of 2560x1440 to replace my, now incompatible, Asus 19" monitor [VGA (only input)]. However, it occurred to me that my other existing Asus monitor [23", HDMI] can only handle 1920x1080 and now I'm nervous that this graphics card won't let me actually run both screens simultaneously each at their best picture quality. Can anyone ease my concerns, or should I be returning/exchanging the Lenovo monitor for a second 1920x1080 monitor instead?
Note: I'm waiting for the graphics card to arrive for my new computer (which most of is also on it's way) meaning that I wouldn't have gotten a chance to test this myself for at least another week.

Don't worry about it - if you are extending the desktop, each screen will run independently at its full resolution. Of course if you are mirroring the same display on both, then they will both run at the lowest resolution.

This is fairly typical for laptops wth external screens but I've also set up and seen a lot of mismatched screens on desktops.

Eldon_of_Azure wrote:

Does anyone know if a graphics card (EVGA GeForce GTX 1070) can output two separate resolutions to two separate monitors?

This shouldn't be a problem with any modern video card.

I know that it's not a problem. I have the 1070 and 3 monitors and they each have different resolutions and they are extended across all of them.

Has anyone on here built a Mini PC in a Fractal Design Node 202 case? I am hoping to start building two new PCs to replace my aging desktop/file server/media server and I think having one of them in a SFF console like case for use primarily with my TV would be nice. If anyone has used this case what are your experiences with it?

So I am looking for a monitor. Not sure what monitor brand or even just particular model I should be looking it.
I am looking for something between 24-29", 2560x1440p. Do I still want to avoid TN panels? I need to be able to mount it on an arm. It will be my secondary monitor for now, but I want it too look good, and viewing angles should be good as well. I would like to have both HDMI as well as Display port. I have been doing some looking around. I just don't know what my best best bet is. HELP Please!

Yes, you want to avoid TN if you're wanting to have it not look terrible at sharp viewing angles.

Are you wanting 144hz? G-Sync?

So after 8 years or so I'm finally building a new PC.

This is what I've got so far.

Any obvious problems or am I good to go?

Norfair wrote:

So after 8 years or so I'm finally building a new PC.

This is what I've got so far.

Any obvious problems or am I good to go?

You can get a 7200 RPM 4TB drive for only a little more than that 5400 RPM one. Would probably be worth it as 5400 RPM is kind of brutal.

*Legion* wrote:

Yes, you want to avoid TN if you're wanting to have it not look terrible at sharp viewing angles.

Are you wanting 144hz? G-Sync?

Sounds like that would increase the price substantially so maybe not? If I could spend sub $500 canadian that would be great, but you might be able to convince me to pay more if need be.

Gaald wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Yes, you want to avoid TN if you're wanting to have it not look terrible at sharp viewing angles.

Are you wanting 144hz? G-Sync?

Sounds like that would increase the price substantially so maybe not? If I could spend sub $500 canadian that would be great, but you might be able to convince me to pay more if need be.

I guess it depends on what the "for now" meant when you said it was a secondary monitor "for now".

If it's not getting used to run games, then there's not as much point in 144hz, and definitely not any point in G-Sync.

But if I'm buying a monitor that's meant for gaming, there is no way that I would buy one that isn't both 144hz and an adaptive sync technology (G-Sync if I buy NVIDIA GPUs, FreeSync if I go AMD)

Looks fine to me, Norfair. A 7200 RPM drive would be faster, but since that's clearly a bulk-data drive, that might not be important to you. However, WD Blues have a reputation for being somewhat unreliable. My go-to brand for drives is Hitachi/HGST; they were bought out a year or two ago, but AFAIK their reliability is still top-tier. Larger Seagate drives (4TB+) are also quite good, per Backblaze, but quite a number of WD models are kinda chancy.

If you're buying that mostly as a gaming PC, you're good otherwise. If you're planning to do real work with the machine, where you're doing any serious computation, you could also consider a Ryzen. You're trading away a little peak game performance for a major increase in the total amount of work the system can do. If you're not doing any of that, though, then the trade would be a net loss; you're better off on Intel if you're purely a gamer.

Gaald wrote:

So I am looking for a monitor. Not sure what monitor brand or even just particular model I should be looking it.
I am looking for something between 24-29", 2560x1440p. Do I still want to avoid TN panels? I need to be able to mount it on an arm. It will be my secondary monitor for now, but I want it too look good, and viewing angles should be good as well. I would like to have both HDMI as well as Display port. I have been doing some looking around. I just don't know what my best best bet is. HELP Please!

I have two iiyama monitors, one 27" and one 24" and they're phenomenal, but they don't do 2560x1440. I kinda want to recommend them anyhow, because the image is super crisp and I love them. Then again, my last monitor was a 22" Samsung, so what do I know.

Yeah I don't want a TN panel. The viewing angles are not good enough.

Eleima wrote:
Gaald wrote:

So I am looking for a monitor. Not sure what monitor brand or even just particular model I should be looking it.
I am looking for something between 24-29", 2560x1440p. Do I still want to avoid TN panels? I need to be able to mount it on an arm. It will be my secondary monitor for now, but I want it too look good, and viewing angles should be good as well. I would like to have both HDMI as well as Display port. I have been doing some looking around. I just don't know what my best best bet is. HELP Please!

I have two iiyama monitors, one 27" and one 24" and they're phenomenal, but they don't do 2560x1440. I kinda want to recommend them anyhow, because the image is super crisp and I love them. Then again, my last monitor was a 22" Samsung, so what do I know. :D

-_- I'm still using a Samsung 22" from 2010. Can't justify the price tag to shift to a 144hz setup. That and I'm running with a cheap but functional RX480 GPU.

Bfgp wrote:

I'm still using a Samsung 22" from 2010. Can't justify the price tag to shift to a 144hz setup. That and I'm running with a cheap but functional RX480 GPU.

RX480 can absolutely do 144hz at 1080p. Not at 1440p, granted, and not on ultra-high detail, but I very much enjoyed my RX480 + [email protected] FreeSync monitor setup until I upgraded.

Bfgp wrote:
Eleima wrote:

I have two iiyama monitors, one 27" and one 24" and they're phenomenal, but they don't do 2560x1440. I kinda want to recommend them anyhow, because the image is super crisp and I love them. Then again, my last monitor was a 22" Samsung, so what do I know. :D

-_- I'm still using a Samsung 22" from 2010. Can't justify the price tag to shift to a 144hz setup. That and I'm running with a cheap but functional RX480 GPU.

Oh but I liked my Samsung very much until it was smashed to bits. That was not a reflection on the monitor itself, but more on me not necessarily having an informed opinion.

Hey guys,

I'm in the market for building a modest PC that can do some light video and photo editing as well as occasional gaming. I've found several builds that look very similar to this: https://pcpartpicker.com/guide/79QzK...

Aside from needing an optical drive, an SSD, and an OS, this has about everything I need. The only thing I feel I'm getting a bit gouged on is the GPU which seems a bit expensive for what amounts to a mid-range card when I see what's out there. It's been about 14 years since I've actually built a PC so I have no frame of reference. Would I be hurting myself too badly stepping down to the GeForce 1060 3GB to pinch a few pennies, or am I going to want 6GB to comfortably play modern titles on high-ish settings?

I'm not too worried about it for other purposes, and I'll probably still do most of my gaming on my Xbox. But could use some feedback since just about every "budget" build seems to include this nearly $300 GPU.

Evo wrote:

Hey guys,

I'm in the market for building a modest PC that can do some light video and photo editing as well as occasional gaming. I've found several builds that look very similar to this: https://pcpartpicker.com/guide/79QzK...

Aside from needing an optical drive, an SSD, and an OS, this has about everything I need. The only thing I feel I'm getting a bit gouged on is the GPU which seems a bit expensive for what amounts to a mid-range card when I see what's out there. It's been about 14 years since I've actually built a PC so I have no frame of reference. Would I be hurting myself too badly stepping down to the GeForce 1060 3GB to pinch a few pennies, or am I going to want 6GB to comfortably play modern titles on high-ish settings?

I'm not too worried about it for other purposes, and I'll probably still do most of my gaming on my Xbox. But could use some feedback since just about every "budget" build seems to include this nearly $300 GPU.

I think there are cheaper versions of the GTX 1060 that have less RAM but it is a good middle of the road card. If you were to switch to an Intel build you could get a motherboard/CPU combo that will work without a dedicated GPU and then add one later (I think that is what I will do with my next build since I am going to have to do it a few parts per month). Not the best solution for video edit and it would mean little to no gaming at first but it would let you spread the cost out a little.

Evo wrote:

Would I be hurting myself too badly stepping down to the GeForce 1060 3GB to pinch a few pennies, or am I going to want 6GB to comfortably play modern titles on high-ish settings?

DigitalFoundry has a good video on this:

I would say that, with 6GB cards close to $300 and 3GB cards beneath $225, the argument for a 6GB card is weaker than usual.

Here's my advice though: when you're ready to buy parts, watch Reddit's buildapcsales sub like a hawk. Get a good deal on the GPU, even if you buy the rest of the system at normal price. Like I bought my 1080 for $469 thanks to a deal on that sub.

There's a sale up right now for a 3GB 1060 for $189.99 from WalMart, looks like they have a tiny bit left in stock. That's pretty great value right there. There'll be sales popping up all the time, just watch that group for them.

Thanks, that's helpful. For my purposes it seems like I'd be fine with the 3GB. I put this together and was able to give myself a SDD and include the OS for just under my budget. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/LNLg9W

Cross-posting from the trading post thread in case someone here is interested.

Trying this out before ebay or amazon.... or being super lazy and e-junking them...

Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor purchased Dec 2, 2013. I think $150 plus whatever S&H you prefer seems fair as they are $175 on Amazon if I am searching correctly.

Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory from the same computer. I am guessing at $50 plus S&H based on googling them now.

Full disclosure, I am selling them due to the mobo dying and me not wanting to pay almost full price to replace it when a new one will give my machine new life. They worked great for me all the time and I have never had issues or messed with overclocking. If you plug them in and they don't work let me know and I will make it right.

Let me know if you think the prices are way off base, as I tried to do better than what I found with a simple search.