Poll

x86 Or ARM?

x86
ARM

Author Topic: [MEGATHREAD] Personal Computer - Updated builds thanks to Logical Increments  (Read 1600662 times)

A quick survey for you guys:
Which do you prefer?
CPU -> Intel or AMD?
GPU -> Intel, AMD or NVidia?
HDD -> Western Digital or Seagate?
SSD -> Western Digital, Seagate or Kingston?
^Note: These are the only options available to me to upgrade my system. Don't chose a company I didn't put.
CPU: Honestly, people have a fan opposition against AMD or Intel. I prefer neither. I'd say to go with AMD if you're going for that bang for your buck situation, however if you want an extra couple of framerates or intend to use Visual Studios or any rendering software, I would go with Intel because of how the software takes advantage of that processor. However JayzTwoCents said in one of his YouTube videos that either don't have much difference.

GPU: Intel only do integrated graphics. I wouldn't go towards intel graphics standalone in a system build as I would want to have enough power to pump four screens which I have. Again AMD have a better price to power ratio but NVidia has it's superior in rendering than AMD. (I would still go with an AMD GPU though because of how powerful they are for the price offered.)

HDD: I don't mind. I would go for WD because I have these in a RAID configuration on my workstation PC in my bedroom, and they're doing good enough for what I need them to.

SSD: People might slaughter me for this, but I would go with an Intel SSD. Kingston SSD if I had to choose out of them three.

AMD would save you a lot of money. I consider building an overclocked fx-8000 series cpu with a watercooled CPU and R9-290 for a good budget yet really powerful PC.


Nvidia wtf Intel's not a GPU anyway

They do APU's.

I've not really looked through all 687 pages, but I've looked at the OP and jumped to a few random pages, but didn't see much on Laptops.
But I'm pretty sure since you all know what you're talking about with Desktops you could give me some advice on a laptop I'm hoping to buy.

I'm looking at buying a laptop from PCSpecialist.co.uk (their reviews are good), and chose to configure their "13.3" Optimus V".
For the most part I'm keeping what they've got as default, but am thinking on choosing this setup at £603;

Quote
Chassis & Display
Optimus Series: 13.3" Matte Full HD LED IPS Widescreen (1920x1080)
Processor (CPU)
Intel® Pentium Dual Core Processor 3560M (2.40GHz) 2MB Cache
Memory (RAM)
4GB KINGSTON SODIMM DDR3 1600MHz (1 x 4GB)
Graphics Card
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 860M - 2.0GB DDR5, 640 CUDA Cores - DirectX® 11
Memory - Hard Disk
1TB SERIAL ATA II 2.5" HARD DRIVE WITH 8MB CACHE (5,400rpm)
Memory Card Reader
Integrated 6 in 1 Card Reader (SD /Mini SD/ SDHC / SDXC / MMC / RSMMC)
Thermal Paste
STANDARD THERMAL PASTE FOR SUFFICIENT COOLING
Sound Card
Intel 2 Channel High Definition Audio + MIC/Headphone Jack
Bluetooth & Wireless
GIGABIT LAN & WIRELESS 802.11N CARD + BLUETOOTH 3.0
USB Options
3 x USB 3.0 PORTS + 1 x USB 2.0 PORT AS STANDARD
Battery
13.3" Optimus Series 6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery (62.16WH)
Power Lead & Adaptor
1 x UK Power Lead & 120W AC Adaptor
Operating System
Genuine Windows 8.1 64 Bit - inc DVD & Licence (£79)
Office Software
FREE 30 Day Trial of Microsoft® Office® 365
Anti-Virus
BULLGUARD INTERNET SECURITY - FREE 90 DAY TRIAL
Keyboard Language
13.3" OPTIMUS SERIES BACKLIT UK KEYBOARD
Notebook Mouse
INTEGRATED 2 BUTTON TOUCHPAD MOUSE
Webcam
INTEGRATED 2.0 MEGAPIXEL WEBCAM

I'm quite happy with all of it, but just wanted your thoughts and opinions, primarily in relation to the CPU and the Graphics Card.
Unfortunately I can't change the Graphics Card on this, from here, it seems.
The CPU however has a few available options.

I can either stay with the Intel® Pentium Dual Core Processor 3560M (2.40GHz) 2MB Cache, or choose the Intel® Core™i3 Dual Core Mobile Processor i3-4100M (2.50GHz) 3MB, which is £32 more.

Is this worth the increase in cost?
I really don't want to spend over £700, and if I can stay closer to £600 for similar quality then I would.

I primarily need the laptop for university and access to Microsoft Office programs, but also want to be able to play games on it (not the most expensive flashiest games every, but some at least. Looking more towards things like The Elder Scrolls Online, since I'm paying subscription for it).

Opinions?

Well I'm probably shooting blanks here but I think that with that sort of processor, the GPU would be bottlenecked. All laptops I've seen with a GTX 860M usually has top of the line i5 mobile processors or even i7's, like the top spec gigabyte laptops and macbook pros.

i'd say you should take a look on the gigabyte laptop website, they sell some really powerful laptops for great prices!
link
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 02:29:05 PM by nerraD »

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get what you suggested Darren considering that's almost twice the price of what he was looking at. But you do have a point, the pentium will likely bottleneck that GPU. I think you'll have to shoot for a more balanced configuration, Dooble. If there is an option to get a 4-core i5 or similar, with a lower-end GPU then I'd go for that instead.

A quick survey for you guys:
Which do you prefer?
CPU -> Intel or AMD? intel because im generally more comfortable around intel CPUs for some reason
GPU -> Intel, AMD or NVidia? AMD graphics chips in (preferably) MSI cards
HDD -> Western Digital or Seagate? western digital even though other drives like hitachi usually have lower failure rates but the WD caviar black drive is awesome
SSD -> Western Digital, Seagate or Kingston? didnt know WD or seagate made SSDs, i u se a samsung one but i hear kingston is good

Well I'm probably shooting blanks here but I think that with that sort of processor, the GPU would be bottlenecked. All laptops I've seen with a GTX 860M usually has top of the line i5 mobile processors or even i7's, like the top spec gigabyte laptops and macbook pros.

i'd say you should take a look on the gigabyte laptop website, they sell some really powerful laptops for great prices!
link
I'll keep the bottlenecking in mind. To what extent would I be bottlenecked, do you reckon? I'm not really looking for anything that would smash through games or anything, since for most of the demanding games I'm ever interested in I tend to just get on Xbox (which I know doesn't do them at their best quality, but the demanding games are often the expensive big titles which I get on xbox so my brothers and I can share).
I understand that bottlenecking will mean I don't get the most out of the GPU, but will it restrict me to the point that I can't play newer games on average settings, or not?

I'm not too fussed for playing the likes of Crysis 3 on top graphics.
My current desktop (which is a few years old) can play most games at medium-to-low settings with the following;
  • AMD Athlon II X4 605e Processor 2.30 GHz
  • 3 GB RAM
  • NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get what you suggested Darren considering that's almost twice the price of what he was looking at.
Yeah, thank you loads for searching for a laptop for me Darren, but that's a little bit over the top for price for me.
I only want to spend enough to get a quality laptop capable of Uni work while letting me have my guilty pleasure of being able to still play games.
I would go for a prebuilt by a larger company normally, like Toshiba, but I went shopping today and was disappointed by what I saw, and in the past my family have always had terrible luck with such laptops, particularly HP laptops, which I don't think we've had a single one that hasn't had it's battery and charger input break within a year.

And I think I might steer away from Gigabyte laptops. They look really nice and certainly powerful. But the one you shared was quite a price, and you linked it on Amazon.
I assume that Gigabyte isn't an online supplier, generally speaking. And If possible I'd prefer to buy from the company.
And the nearest shop selling to me is about 3 counties away.
But you do have a point, the pentium will likely bottleneck that GPU. I think you'll have to shoot for a more balanced configuration, Dooble. If there is an option to get a 4-core i5 or similar, with a lower-end GPU then I'd go for that instead.
Unfortunately I can't change the GPU on PCSpecialist for this particular laptop, so unless it's possible to get a better one and install it later (which I'm wary about because I know next to nothing for building/modifying desktops, and less for laptops. Plus I wouldn't really want to pay for the GPU that's in this laptop and then buy a new one on top of that).

Would it be a better match (albeit not necessarily perfect) if I were to replace the CPU with an Intel Core i5 Dual Core Mobile Processor i5-4210m (2.60GHz) 3MB?
That's an increase of £76, from £603 (3560M 2MB) to £679.

Would that bridge the gap between CPU and GPU by a decent amount, or no?
Remembering that I don't need it as a gaming powerhouse, but as an investment into university for the next 3-4 years, is it worth it to go with this, or look for an entirely different build?


Another question, to perhaps mean I need less help, is there any way in which you can accurately compare CPUs and GPUs with other ones and each other?
I don't really know what traits to look out for in each product to know what is good and what will work with each other.
There any guides for getting to know this? The CPUs and the GPUs are my least-favourite part in buying and upgrading PCs, as I normally have no idea how one CPU compares to another.
And I hadn't even considered that the GPU in this build would be too much for the CPU.

Swap to the first i5 CPU and get 4GB of RAM instead of 2GB, should give you a balanced laptop which can do things well enough



CPU -> Intel or AMD? AMD. More bang for your buck.
GPU -> Intel, AMD or NVidia? NVidia. Tends to be more reliable and stable than AMD/ATi GPUs
HDD -> Western Digital or Seagate? WD. Pretty reliable and good priced, a very good investment IMO.
SSD -> Western Digital, Seagate or Kingston? WD. See above.


Lets cut to the chase. I want to run this game, but I have absolutely no idea what I am doing.

These are the recommended specs for the game:
OS: Windows 7 64 bit is highly-recommended
Processor: Intel Core i5 3.0Ghz or equivalent
Memory: 6GB
Hard Disk Space: At least 30GB of free space
Video Card: Nvidia GTX 560 Ti 1Gb
DirectX®: 11.0
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card

These are my specs:
CPU
   AMD A8-3850   10 °C
   Llano 32nm Technology
RAM
   8.00GB DDR3 @ 532MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
   ASRock A55M-HVS (CPUSocket)
Graphics
   Acer P237HL (1920x1080@60Hz)
   LCD1770GX (1280x1024@60Hz)
   2048MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 620 (ZOTAC International)
Hard Drives
   932GB Hitachi HDS721010DLE630 ATA Device (SATA)


So, what can I do to make this run at least on High Settings?

Lets cut to the chase. I want to run this game, but I have absolutely no idea what I am doing.

These are the recommended specs for the game:
OS: Windows 7 64 bit is highly-recommended
Processor: Intel Core i5 3.0Ghz or equivalent
Memory: 6GB
Hard Disk Space: At least 30GB of free space
Video Card: Nvidia GTX 560 Ti 1Gb
DirectX®: 11.0
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card

These are my specs:
CPU
   AMD A8-3850   10 °C
   Llano 32nm Technology
RAM
   8.00GB DDR3 @ 532MHz (7-7-7-20)
Motherboard
   ASRock A55M-HVS (CPUSocket)
Graphics
   Acer P237HL (1920x1080@60Hz)
   LCD1770GX (1280x1024@60Hz)
   2048MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 620 (ZOTAC International)
Hard Drives
   932GB Hitachi HDS721010DLE630 ATA Device (SATA)


So, what can I do to make this run at least on High Settings?


Upgrade your GPU, I don't know what game it is but any current-gen mid-range card should be good enough. Something like the HD 7770 or it's R7/R9 equivalent should suffice.

Upgrade your GPU, I don't know what game it is but any current-gen mid-range card should be good enough. Something like the HD 7770 or it's R7/R9 equivalent should suffice.
Thanks, it's on my wish-list. It's good that all I have to replace is this, because graphics cards are relatively easy to switch out. I can already run this game on minimum but I want to crank more power into it.

It's not just your video card, your processor is weak as stuff. If the game really requires an i5 it's going to be unplayable with your A8, and your socket won't support anything better than the A10.

It's not just your video card, your processor is weak as stuff. If the game really requires an i5 it's going to be unplayable with your A8, and your socket won't support anything better than the A10.

I find it hard to believe that it'd actually require an i5 to play comfortably, unless it's Watch_Dogs or some other unoptimised mess, he should be fine even with an A8

Depends on what game it is; some games have lots of game logic, such as AI and physics calculations, and therefore needs lots of CPU power. I read a gaming comparison somewhere between a dual-core Pentium and a quad-core i5, both equipped with the same high-end graphics card (290X or 780ti; don't remember which), and the Pentium was on par with the i5 on every game except for a few that happened to be very CPU intense (think one was an RTS, don't remember the name), where the Pentium completely bogged down.
However, I went and looked up how fast the A8 actually was, and it's actually not that bad; Tom's Hardware's CPU hierarchy chart lists it in the game category as the Nehalem i5's and i7's, and the low-power Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge i5's, which is better than what I expected. It may be worth a gamble.

So, I got some old networking hardware for free; a set of wireless ethernet receivers and an old Netgear router. Since the wireless reception in my sisters bedroom and the kitchen is a bit crap, I want to bridge the new-old router to my current D-Link router using the ethernet receivers, in such a way that I end up with only a single LAN. I read and followed this guide, but for some reason I can't access the internet using the Netgear router. I can access both routers configuration pages when connected to either router, but internet access only works on the D-Link router. Here's a chart I made to show how everything's hooked up:

Any clues as to what might be wrong?