That's quite an overwhelming question, don't ya think?
GPUs should be fine for a while if it is at least equivalent to a Geforce GTX 770; about CPU, something above 3.4GHz, RAM isn't that expensive so 12 is a good starting point.
For the OS, Windows indeed, considering almost all if not all of the games are available for it. Windows 10 Home and Pro have Directx 12 which will become the standard in a couple of years.
https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/by_part/intel-cpu-bx80646g3258#X=50584,75126
Comment has been collapsed.
Have run windows 10 since release and have not encountered any real problems and any small ones i have were easily fixable. Unless you play a lot of games over 10 years old you are not going to really encounter any problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
Per the review in steam, there is a lot of complain. For new and old games.
Also, working in the gaming industry, I have some report about it.
Everything is easily fixable, I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
If everything is easily fixable, why would you mention it then?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it would still be trouble. If he is asking for advice hee, he might know nothing in IT, so checkign everywhere and asking help to fix a new PC is a pain in the ass.
Comment has been collapsed.
No issues here and I play all sort of legal AAA-games. Of course if you torrent illegal copies of games they are outdated and cracked, which makes them crash themselves.
Only issue I had with Windows 10 (and this is truly the only game that didn't work) was CrimeCraft GangWars, but I guess that's because that game is practically dead in development.
Comment has been collapsed.
Older retail games that use Securom or Safedisc don't work on Windows 10. At least 75 games I either have to crack or buy again, some aren't available digitally though :(
Comment has been collapsed.
None here. 5000+ games and haven't had issues yet.....none that you could blame Windows 10 for.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't encountered a single issue with Windows 10. Even old games like Empire Earth are working for me. Weird.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hopefully Vulkan will be the standard in a couple of years.
DX12 only works on Windows 10 while Vulkan runs on any windows and Linux = D
Comment has been collapsed.
If you wait a bit, you could spend a little more on a 1070. That should provide some good future proofing.
Also consider AMD graphics cards if cooling isn't an issue, but money is.
PC Part Picker is a great place to start. Look at some other guides as well over there.
Comment has been collapsed.
XDDDDDDD well my father has 3 macs and in the case i cant play in windows, thats what i would have :(
Comment has been collapsed.
yea dont buy a mac there is literally almost no AAA games on them and very few good indie games.
if your talking $1000-Usd then you can build a good mid range system for that spending the most on a half decent cpu and gpu (about $600) and buying the best you can afford for the rest of the system try not to go to cheep on the motherboard or power supply as those will come back to bite you in the ass down the road you can go cheep on the ram and hard drive and case for now and replace or add better ones down the road.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait for the RX 480 benchmarks, if good get the 8GB model, i5 and 8GB of ram are still fine as tits if you're on a budget, get a good 80 plus psu and decide where to splurge what remains of your budget (fancy case, fancy mobo, coolers etc).
Also, lurk /r/buildapc, it will help you heaps.
Comment has been collapsed.
1000 what? Dollars, Euros, Rubles?
Anyway, make that 2000$ and you may hit 99% ;)
How about writing what resolution (most probably Full-HD anyway), what games, what fps is necessary for you
Comment has been collapsed.
Peseta. Steam profile is showing that he is from spain so it must be peseta ;s
Comment has been collapsed.
i5-6500 +16GB Ram (8 are enough but 16 are the better deal)
GPU ... i would wait for the RX 480 but if u cant wait then a overclocked R9 380X
if u need everything new ...form Tower-mainboard over case etc ... a full pack would cost ~ 660€
just CPU+GPU+Mainboard+Ram 500€
Comment has been collapsed.
2xnVidia 1080, newest i7, 32GB RAM, liquid cooling...
Comment has been collapsed.
i5-6500
z170 mobo
16gb ram (either 3200 with CAS 15 or 2400 with 12, whatever you find cheaper)
rx480 8gb
Stick with 1080p and this will sail through anything. Depending on the extras you need (monitor/PSU/OS, etc.) this should come in well under 1000. If they're within budget it's also worth checking benchmarks for higher end Nvidia cards, I can't really speak to them cause here their price is retarded but ymmv.
And don't buy a fucking Mac for gaming :P
Comment has been collapsed.
The Z170 is pointless unless you have a K processor. Settle for a B150 or lower end mobo.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm willing to be proved wrong but afaik B150 downclocks ram to 2133.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope, it can have overclocked RAM. Well, the older ASRock ones at least. They let you play with the BLCK speed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ram speed doesn't matter as much as your processor and gpu :p The extra $20-$60 dollars that he spends on his mobo can go to getting a decent cpu and gpu. You don't get a Z170 board unless you overclock.
Comment has been collapsed.
but a B150 costs a lot less
ram speed cant fix price that difference because it doesnt really matter
Comment has been collapsed.
H170 or B150 should be enough on a budget. They have enough PCI lanes for a mid/high gaming rig.
I seriously doubt there is a country today where a 2400 MHz CL12 memory stick is not a helluva lot cheaper than a 3200 MHz CL15/16 one.
Comment has been collapsed.
I implore you to provide me evidence that the marginal increase in performance of getting an H170 motherboard for the supposed better ram speeds is greater than the increase of a better cpu and gpu.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point of higher speed ram is not particularly the marginal gains in your headline performance but improving the minimums you get for a smoother gaming experience.
I'd also be curious to know what upgrades he could get over a 6500/480 for $60 that would dramatically improve the performance on that system anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
A 6600k would be better since you're planned build for him has a Z170 board. The price difference for he i5-6500 and the 6600k is only $20 (at least in Newegg).
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can bump up the CPU for that then great, the difference sure as shit isn't $20 here :(
Comment has been collapsed.
There's also that factor :( The price difference of a 6500 and 6600k here is around $40 but I'm still willing to take it. What's your current setup right now? :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Any newer board without open BLCK multiplier downclocks RAM.
On the other hand, having a faster memory stick is utterly and totally pointless unless you run scientific calculations or an archive server. Games have zero performance increase to the point that you can run an OC Skylake system on DDR3 and have the exact same performance in games as with a fancy-pantsy super-expensive overclocked DDR4 kit. The biggest reason new mobos use DDR4 is because a) people who don't know what it does are gullable to pay a lot more for the "high-end" sticks and b) it runs on lower voltage, saving power and cost on the long run.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's from 2015. I've seen reports from this year that suggested faster Ram gives a noticeable performance increase that's worth the slight price increase nowadays.
Don't expect me to find them fast however ;)
Edit: Depending on the situation the PC is used for of course.
PCGH.de had a test with slight performance benefit for DDR4.
It's no use if your GPU is at its limit because of high details.
Comment has been collapsed.
I heard that Doom 4 was supposed to run somewhat faster on DDR4. In theory, DDR4 should be eventually a few percent faster as new engines come out. But not by that much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Higher speed ram from the same generation doesn't increase your headline speeds noticably and never has. It improves the minimums you get when the system is seriously straining, which improves the smoothness of your gaming and will hopefully last a little longer as games get more demanding. It's not something I'd pay the earth for but to suggest it's not a worthwhile upgrade is ludicrous.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/builds
Here's a list of builds.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) 750 what?
2) A Mac for gaming? And from a limited budget?
3) Define "not lagging".
Your post is barely more than "I have problem, please fix", it lacks so many specifics.
For gaming, you can go from a simple AMD APU from the A8 series to an Intel Core i5. For graphics card, the minimum nowadays seems to be a GTX 750 Ti to a GTX 1080, or AMD R7 270 to R9 Fury X. Generally, an Intel i5 is recommended, and either a GTX 1070 or waiting for the R9 480. For a limited budget, the latter is the better option, as AMD in the mid to mid-high range has a lot better performance/price ratios.
Memory is minimum 8 GB recommended for a gaming machine, 16 to 32 GB should suffice for the upcoming few years.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you will only do gaming I agree with the Intel Core i5 instead of an i7.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most anyone with a brain does. :) An i7 was always meant for high-calculation operation, which games are not. It's just the most recent series, the Skylake chips where people went crazy and the i7 variant is a lot more popular than the i5 one. Before that, the i5-4690(k) was the highest-selling CPU on the market, so the stupidity came recently.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's a budget rig why even bother telling him to go Intel? An FX 8350 is more than enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
Too much juice, too bad heating. I had AMD CPUs until my current rig, but they really went into a dead end when they introduced the Bulldozer. Zen may get them out of there, but if it is AMD, I say go for a budget build and use an APU. If you have over 700 USD, I'd go for an Intel Core i5.
But for GPU, I recommend AMD always under the high-end range.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people just go on hype or ADs and not spec sheets or benchmarks.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can run every game at max settings and I have what would be in the gaming world an old computer. It just happens to have a kick%& old generation GPU.
Comment has been collapsed.
No I said old! :) HD 5870 (I have two and Crossfire would sometimes stutter back when first installed. They seem to be fixing that.)
And yes I am keeping both cards until i burn them out or Star Citizen has to be dropped down in quality.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow. Older than my old rig that had a 6850. Even in Xfire, I'm surprised they hold this well. My 6850 couldn't start a few current games, only in 720 minimum.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you read the engineering specs and looked at Toms HW benchmarks you could see that my 5800 series was vastlysuperior to the 6800's series. I had a warranty and when my computer failed they sent me a new computer with "better" GPU and CPU, 6870 and i& 630. I refused them and got my i% back and I kept my 5870. Their engineering Det of the oEm said I was wrong so I sent engineering spc sheets and asked if any engineer could read. I have a PHd in EE and CP (Computer Engineering) and worked a decade developing computers from micro to mainframes including an old thing called a CRAY. (now I am dating myself.)
(I also have an 5840, 840, and 7 other working graphics cards stored somewhere. what AMD said when the new generation of my card game out is that they could not improve on it. Its internal specs were too fast. I will not go into details for as you write I know you can read spec sheets. Now their is a better generation but I do not need it as of yet. i am sure within two years I may.)
Also you will find gamers have a high demand for the old 5870 series to this day. As they do not only play everything they do not fail regardless of abuse. I can sell one of mine and by the latest top end if I wanted. But I rather stay with what I know works bug free.
Comment has been collapsed.
Max budget is only a 1000? you want to run 99% of AAA titles at 60FPS on Ultra?
Comment has been collapsed.
OP seems to be new to the PC scene. Best we can do is guide him to the right purchase given his budget. It may be possible as long as it's at 1080p
Comment has been collapsed.
No, with a 1000 dollar budget he'll never run maxed out AAA titles at 60FPS
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not contributing at all to the topic and your "common" knowledge seems to be nothing but false information unlike tso184's informative post :)
Comment has been collapsed.
After reading your component suggestion I can tell your not contributing much to this thread either...
Comment has been collapsed.
I smell a troll :p Anyway, look at the comments above. I've contributed my opinion on the builds of others while tso has already given the insights that are needed for the build. Better than just offering criticism and not offering actual help in my opinion~
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah most AAA are designed for consoles and they don't require much.Sim games like Arma 3 or strategy games usually require more power,as for low FPS that is usually bad ports since devs are in most cases lazy.Not saying 60 FPS is hard to achive but in most cases the devs are to blame for low performance of AAA games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've managed to build pc in that price range which runs MOST of triple AAA on 60 on high-ultra settings. MOST. Depends on how well are they optimized.
Comment has been collapsed.
^ it also depends on how recent the games are and on what settings.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) The original poster asked for medium settings, not ultra.
2) Even if medium settings were the goal, 60 FPS in almost all games @1080P with ultra graphics settings is within reach with €1000, if OS/monitor/peripherals don't need to be included. This is if you put your computer together yourself, typical store-bought gaming computers will usually give less performance for the price.
The key is in getting a good GPU, and for €1000 it's possible to include a GTX 1070, check the article in the link for performance tests. It averages 100+ FPS in the 15 titles tested.
I just tried putting together a kit in a Swedish webshop (Sweden has 25% VAT, Spain has 21%, so it might even be slightly cheaper in Spain), and the total was just a few € over 1000. I chose the cheapest GTX 1070 available, a case of the slightly cheaper type, same thing with the motherboard, but went for a decent PSU, 6600K CPU, a non-stock CPU cooler, 8 GB RAM, and even had the budget to throw in both a 120 GB SSD and a 1TB HDD.
Comment has been collapsed.
He never said "medium" and never specified the currency so calm down bro.
Comment has been collapsed.
You didn't try clicking the link on the word "medium"? :D That post also says €/$, and if you check the Steam profile of the OP, you see Spain set as the country, so one could also assume it's €1000 from that.
Totally calm and reasonable here.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh yeah xD didn't click it, you just seemed angry in your last post.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just tried to stay on topic, seeing what gaming computer would be possible to put together for €1000, and if it would run modern AAA games well (which it would). I almost never get angry, and if I would, there would probably be some WTH:s and/or WTF:s in the post indicating that :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice build :) I didn't expect that new GTX 1070 is not super-expensive already. Should last for many years for you, congratulations! :)
P.S. Thought I would better pick 16 GB of RAM.
P.P.S. Or was it just a test-build in internet shop?
Comment has been collapsed.
It was just a test build to see if it was possible to get a computer with a GTX 1070 for €1000.
Yep, 16 GB could be a good idea. I have 8 GB in my current computer, and it hasn't stopped me from playing any games, except for when I have a few things running in the background, especially in Fallout 4 that gave me a few system-low-memory-warnings. No problem as long as I shut everything down before playing, but for anyone who likes to leave a browser with 30 tabs open and some other stuff running, 16 GB can be good. Also more future-proof.
My current build is a 4670K, 8 GB RAM, R9 280X, H81 chipset and before anyone comments on it - the 4670K was cheaper than the standard 4670, and I know I can't overclock with the H81, but that was never the point - the price was. 120 GB SSD + 6 TB HDD. Thinking about getting a RX 480 (releases in two days, looking forward to seeing some real performance tests) somewhere in the next few months, if I can manage to get some money together, and might also upgrade to 16 GB RAM when I'm at it (also depending on the money).
Comment has been collapsed.
99%: Core i7-6700K, 32GB, GTX 980 Ti, Win10: http://gamesystemrequirements.com/game/doom-2016/cr/jzJlr2WXq0k
Comment has been collapsed.
Why not? The 6700k is one of the most mainstream processors for gaming builds.
Comment has been collapsed.
But do you know the real reason why? Or what advantage an i7 can give in gaming compared to an i5?
Comment has been collapsed.
It'll depend on the model but in general an i7 is more powerful than an i5 and while your GPU will be handling the beefy part of running a game, a faster processor may potentially make a world of difference.
Comment has been collapsed.
At least where I'm looking the i7 6700K seems to be around €100 more expensive than the i5 6600K, and the performance difference would be indistinguishable in most games. €100 can also be used to upgrade from a 970 to a 980, or from the 980 to a 1070, and that would be a very noticeable performance increase, so for a build where you want as much performance as possible for your money, go for the i5 and a basic motherboard, spend the money on the GPU.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that in terms of value, the i5 6600k is better, but in terms of specs on paper the i7 6700k still holds a small edge over the i5 6600k. My point, of course, is useless to OP since he has a budget.
Personally I'd rather have an i7 simply because it sounds better. /sobs
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, when splurging without a budget or specific goal to reach with your money you can always go for the i7 :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Here, I found this test, might be worth checking out
tl;dr: The 6700K is a few percent faster than the 6600K in most modern games. The largest difference I saw was 8% faster in Star Wars: Battlefront. The 6700K is also slower in some games! As an example, the i5 6600K was 17% faster in Crysis 3. Even if we remove the five (out of 14) games where the i5 was faster, the i7 is only 3% faster on average.
The potential world of difference isn't seen in these 14 games tested. A 980 is on average 20% faster than a 970, and a 1070 on average 34% faster than the 980, so there's definitely a noticeable increase in performance there.
My conclusion: €100 spent on a 6700K over a 6600K: Money not well spent. Spend it on the GPU instead.
If you know some specific game where the i7 performs 20-30% faster than the i5, and you're mainly going to play that game and not many other, maybe then it could be worth looking at the i7 instead, but not for gaming in general, if your budget is limited and you want the best performance possible for the money you're spending.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sadly, I thought as much. This is the misconception that for some reason started around the current Skylake line.
In reality, the only difference between an i5 and an i7 is that an i7 has Hyper-Threading enabled, meaning it is able to run 8 parallel calculations instead of 4.
The problem is, this is made to ensure the CPU can run more programs at once, and programs that require little attention by themselves. Since almost all game engine load cores heavily and often require a dedicated core for intensive calculations, in practise it means a Hyper-Threaded CPU either has no performance boost or even suffers slightly because it cannot give as much resources to the game as an i5.
The only reason you see slightly better values in gaming performance for the i7 is because it is shipped with a higher clock speed. But an unlocked (K variant) i5 raised to that speed matches or slightly outperforms an i7. Which is understandable, since they are literally the exact same chip, just with different factory settings.
i7 is recommended therefore for multimedia or calculation-intensive jobs like modelling. And this is why you see streamers buy it, because video encoders are great at throwing around the load, so on an i7 you can play a modern game comfortably while using the excess capacity through the virtual cores to encode video as well. But if you don't stream, only play games, then you will see no difference between an i5 or i7. (Because if the combined processing power of the cores would matter, AMD chips would beat Intels in gaming.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's better if you give us some specific details like the settings you want to play games at (1080p, 1440p, 2K, 4K, med, high, ultra, etc) then we can start from there :)
Comment has been collapsed.
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/TXZt6X/by_merchant/
There you go.
Comment has been collapsed.
You want to play 99% of the crappy games, then 500€ will be enough. If you want to play 99% of the AAA-games then I have bad news for you since your SLI next-gen graphic cards alone will cost about 1200€ if you live in Europe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you assuming 4k resolution when you say there's need for €1200 GPUs to run newer AAA games?
If we're talking 1080P, a single €480 GTX 1070 is enough for 60+ FPS in almost any game.
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-geforce-gtx-1070-review/
Comment has been collapsed.
By 99% I actually meant more like 100% of the games, for example if you want to play Assassin's Creed Syndicate or Rise of the Tomb Raider, you will need quite a monster computer even on the lowest graphics, especially if you want your said 60+ FPS
And yeah, I would buy GTX 1080 straight away because it's much better than 1070 and will serve you 5-6 years. And SLI so that you really can run 60+ FPS with highest graphical settings on ANY game.
Comment has been collapsed.
...still - are we talking 4k right now? Seems like a single 1070 does an excellent job in the games you mention @1080P:
Comment has been collapsed.
For what? To play in 8k? there are like half dozen games in existence that could even make a GTX 970 sweat in 1080p, and that one is gradually becoming a medium/high range card in performance.
Comment has been collapsed.
INTEL Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz
ASUS MB - SOCKET 1151 - Z170 PRO GAMING
Radeon RX 480 8GB
(2x or you can go 4x)KINGSTON 8GB DDR4 HyperX Savage Black 3000MHz CL15 - HX430C15SB2/8
Something with these should do the trick
As for budget in Serbia something like this cost ¬1000e but quite sure its cheaper in your country
Comment has been collapsed.
If there are no plans on overclocking or multiple GPUs, some money can be saved on the motherboard, a H170 or B150 chipset motherboard will deliver indistinguishable performance, but cost up to €100 less. Those money can be better spent elsewhere in the build.
Although the RX 480 looks highly interesting, I'm interested in one of those myself, if I can get enough money together.
Comment has been collapsed.
Intel i3 CPU, motherboard, 16GB Ram, SSD 120GB + 1TB Hard Disk, 550 Watt PSU, GTX 970 or R9 380X Graphics card
Comment has been collapsed.
i3 is in the same category with AMD FX 6350 (in multithreaded games). Intel i3 is a powerfull cpu for games. I am a computer technician and I can tell you that you can play every game that exists with about 5-10% lower framerate than with i5 or i7. Buy a good graphics card and you are ok. Intel Pentium Dual Core ones are weak for multicore games. i3s are powerfull because of hyperthreading (games utilize hyperthreading in dual core cpus). Sorry for my poor English.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd recommend to wait for Polaris 10 (RX series) since it's smaller architecture and that's huge performance boost per watt. Plus, it's VR ready. I also heard that it'll be pretty cheap too.
Comment has been collapsed.
graphics card if budget is a must the RX480 is little beast for the money, if you want the best of the best withouth minding price then the GTX1080.
either way, buying any old architecture graphics cards GTX970/980/Titan or AMD R9 380/390 is a waste of money, unless they are dirt cheap (150 or less) the 14nm change is really big, in power consumption and processor capabilities.
Comment has been collapsed.
what do you mean by lag? connection lag? input lag? output lag?
Comment has been collapsed.
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/Jyn2RG
Something like this + GPU.
You should wait for AMD and Nvidia's new cards. If you don't want to wait get GTX970 or GTX960 according to how much you'd like to spend but I recommend you to wait.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://pcpartpicker.com/user/GusN/saved/jQXCmG
This will do that for less than $1000.
This list includes a monitor ($99.99), keyboard, and mouse ($19.99) so if you already have a monitor/TV that you are going to use or a keyboard and mouse, then don't get those.
Operating system: it's 89$ for the cheapest Windows (10), pirate it if you want.
Also, the rebates/promos, do them, if you do them right you will get $57 in total back if you buy it soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would up the RAM and perhaps drop the card to a 970; if your goal is to be able to run things (but perhaps not at max) you don't need a 980, but you might need more RAM, especially if you run background programs like voice chat or web browsers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's a typical "I have money to burn but know nothing about computorz" build if I ever saw one next to Alienware.
Comment has been collapsed.
at least u can tell your friends you wasted +3k on a computer instead of ~700€ duuuh!
Comment has been collapsed.
The best advice I can give is get the best you can afford right now, or you'll be shooting yourself in the foot when you need to upgrade again. If that means going a little over your budget, it'll be worth it in the long run.
Comment has been collapsed.
Windows XP is best for games. Most of them will run on it. You should use it as second OS
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what I do, but it's my main OS. Also have 7 for pickier newer releases.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's also my main, I like to play older games too and my PC is almost 8 years old :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Around 10 mine changed the graphics and the power supply since they died.I am trying to get also a new one so i can play the games i want on multi with no lag.
Comment has been collapsed.
Couldn't tell you how old mine is anymore since I slowly upgraded it. Still have a DDR2 mobo that only eats a max of 8 gigs, but which is good enough to eat the 6 core 1090T via backwards compatibility and a GTX 960. Can do ultra 1080 on most of the things I play.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont know much about pc requirements so i need help about this, what type of pc, windows, mac, i5,i7 , ram, etc what i need to play games withouth lagging or something, i would spend a max of 1000 but im searching for something between 500-750
Hi!
Comment has been collapsed.