Not Your Typical "New Build" Thread (Gaming PC Build Recommendations)

[TechWizard]

TL;DR: I'm going to build a gaming PC by November 1st, but I have been out of the gaming scene for roughly 10 years. I could really use some honest and detailed advice. I'm very particular and want a proper configuration of hardware.

Disclaimer: This post is long and I have no idea if I am even hitting on topics that matter that much for gaming. I know I could just throw some parts together and they would run just fine, but that is not what I am looking for. That's what I've got right now and it bothers me deeply.

Backstory: I used to be an active member of the community when I was a teenager. Real life obligations as I got older lead to inactivity which apparently resulted in the deletion of my account, so my apologizes for the appearance of a new member. I came here when I was 13 for advice on my first build and was not disappointed.

I am reaching out to the community once more because I am coming back after a long 10 year hiatus from building gaming PCs. That's not to say I haven't been building PCs over the last decade, I just have zero personal experience in any of the fore mentioned topics with their effect on gaming.

In essence, I am out of the loop on gaming hardware. Most of the computers I have been putting together have been primarily focused for small budgets and for business use. I am a Computer Technician by trade and a Desktop Support Specialist by profession, there are gaps in my knowledge I am hoping someone can fill. I have already researched many of these questions, but am still lacking a comprehensive enough of an understanding to decide if they are worth the additional cost or lack of performance to save money.

---

The Goal: To put together a high performance gaming computer that allows for an additional 32GB of memory expansion in the future and possible GPU upgrade(s). It must be able to handle games in 4k at max settings.

---

*I know 64GB memory is total overkill, but for another $100 in the future I can't see why I wouldn't do it.*


I believe I can achieve this goal while remaining under $1500, but am willing to spend up to $2000 or even $2500 if someone can convince me it is worth it. However, I do not want to regret spending a lot when I know it is very possible I could end up building another $1500 rig in 3-4 years and vastly out perform the one I will be building in a few months.

I also do not want to buy parts that will not work at their optimal levels immediately while being as conservative as possible in price. I am willing to spend as much as I need to build something with a nice equilibrium between price and performance. I do not plan to buy anything immediately. I will be watching the prices on the list I have provided below and any other suggestions that are posted.

I will be using an Antec 1200 that I already own to house the hardware, heat should not be an issue.


The OLD Watch List: Total Price $912 without GFX Card(s)

Intel Core i7-6700K 8M Skylake Quad-Core 4.0 GHz LGA 1151 + Hydro Series H50

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000)

CORSAIR RMx Series RM1000X 1000W

ASUS Z170-E LGA 1151 Intel Z170

SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 250GB

---

The NEW Watch List (7/11/16):

Intel Core i7-6700K 8M Skylake Quad-Core 4.0 GHz - $350

Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - $20

ASUS Z170-E LGA 1151 - $86

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3000 - $165

EVGA SuperNOVA 650 - $85


--- $706 Total for Essentials


SAMSUNG 950 PRO M.2 512GB - $320


--- $1026 with M.2 Drive

---

Graphics Cards: I used to specifically go for EVGA Nvidia cards, but am willing to compromise.

Please keep in mind I'm probably not buying anything for a few months, I know many of these are Out of Stock or have limited availability right now.

GeForce GTX 1080 8GB ~ $650 (Could buy a second when they drop in price)
GeForce GTX 1070 8GB ~ $440 (Not SLi capable?)
GeForce GTX 970 4GB ~ $275 x2 (Not worth it? I hear they don't even come close to out performing one 1080 and are half the GRAM of a 390 which is cheaper)

Radeon R9 390 8GB ~ $260 x2 (Affordable long term solution, but might not pay off once other cards drop in price)
Radeon R7 370 4GB ~ $150 x2 (Cheaper solution until newer cards drop in price)

All these options put me somewhere between $1200-1600 total cost.


Concerns:

1.) CPU: To my understanding the i7-6700k can only handle DDR4 memory at a maximum of 2133MHz. This obviously means I am wasting money on purchasing 3000MHz RAM. I don't even see an Intel processor that supports 3000MHz RAM, let alone options on newegg for DDR4 RAM at 2133MHz.

If this is true, am I better off upgrading to a better processor that can handle memory at faster speeds, or do I sacrifice memory speed to accommodate the capacity of the processor? The price difference for memory in these ranges seems minimal whereas processors tend to span hundreds of dollars in difference and I may even have to buy a more expensive motherboard to support the socket upgrade.

I am quite negligent in my knowledge of processors at and beyond the 4.0GHz i7 level. I feel like I am missing something fundamental here in relation to the supported memory speeds.

2.) Motherboard: Should I be concerned with not having triple or quad channel memory capabilities? I don't see many builds on the forums even mentioning it and this would require a complete reconsideration of parts, not to mention an entirely different price range. I have a feeling I am being too optimistic with the performance from a $100 motherboard, but it has always worked out well for me in the past. I was considering the Sabertooth version, but I'd rather spend the $150 difference on a graphics card(s).

3.) Solid Sate Performance: Raid 0 for SSDs? Should I even bother? I have read mix reviews here and else where on the net. I am not worried about data loss, but would highly consider it given the promise of faster speeds. I know SSDs are already fast, but if there is a noticeable difference I would be more than happy to invest in a second drive. I will likely only have a few games installed at any given time so space should not be an issue if I have at least 250GB. I already get by with 120GB and a secondary 160GB that isn't even full.

I was also considering purchasing a PCIe SSD, but I am skeptical of weather or not the motherboard I have listed would even utilize a PCIe SSD fully, not to mention Windows. It would be extremely disappointing to spend excess money and find out in the end there is a software related bottleneck.

4.) Power: If I find a 1200W for roughly the same price I plan to buy it just to be safe. However, if 1000W is plenty and somebody knows this for sure then I don't see the point. Again, I feel like my optimism might be getting the best of me, but I have always cut it close with power in my systems without issue and I know there are graphics cards out there that are not power hogs and even perform better than their counter parts.

5.) SLI/XFire vs Single Card: Ideally I would like to go with a dual card configuration, but I have never utilized SLI or XFire. I have no idea if they are worth the hype. I've seen the performance comparisons on paper and it just seems like this can be hit or miss. All I see right now is the 1080 blows everything else out of the water, even dual 970s. I figure by October they'll be down to a fairly affordable price with plenty of options to choose from.

If you've made it this far, thanks for reading!

This build is going to be a HUGE upgrade from my refurbished HP Business Class Frankenstein built out of parts I collected from side jobs.
(3.2GHz i5-650, 12GB Mixed Sticks of RAM, 2GB 660 GTX).

Thoughts, comments, or additions are welcomed. I feel like I've absorbed so much information on my own in the last week that I'm not sure if I am headed in the right direction, or if there is an entirely different set of options I'm overlooking.

Thanks again!

 

[Lochekey]

I would stick with the i7 6700k, there really is no need to go to anything on the x99 platform just for a gaming rig. As to the memory speed concern the 6700k will be able to handle the faster memory Intel just does not list the system as capable of it.

I would look at a better cooler than the h50. Either go with a better aio or get a high end air cooler.

As far as ram capacity we normally recommend 16gb for current systems so 32gb is already considered overkill for a gaming build. By the time you can utilize 64gb the system will need revamped anyways.

Do not worry about more than dual channel ram.

The 1000 watt psu will be plenty and most go with 750/850 watt puss depending on the final gpu decision.

Speaking of the gpu I would currently stick with the 1080 from nvidia if you intend to run at 4k resolutions but please bare in mind that this card may not give you acceptable frame rates at ultra settings. You will either need to sli these or wait for a 1080ti to really get solid performance at 4k ultra if you intend to play modern AAA games.


Definitely go with a ssd for your main drive. You will see no real world benefit from raid 0. A pcie or m2 ssd will give better performance than a sata ssd but it will be more of a personal preference if the small gain is worth the price premium.
I would pick up a 512gb Samsung evo ssd and call it a day if I was building the system.

Well I will try to add a few more things as you go along but those are my thoughts for now.

 

[trents]

"CPU: To my understanding the i7-6700k can only handle DDR4 memory at a maximum of 2133MHz. This obviously means I am wasting money on purchasing 3000MHz RAM. I don't even see an Intel processor that supports 3000MHz RAM, let alone options on newegg for DDR4 RAM at 2133MHz."

I don't know where you got this information but it is erroneous. The IMC of the CPU may be rated for that but it will surely run RAM at faster speeds than that with no trouble. My celeron G3900 will handle 16gb of DDR4 at 2400 mhz with no problem. Having said that, you will not notice any real world difference running high speed RAM anyway in the vast majority of common apps. File compression/decompression is one of the few applications where high speed RAM makes any difference.

 

[TechWizard]

I would stick with the i7 6700k, there really is no need to go to anything on the x99 platform just for a gaming rig. As to the memory speed concern the 6700k will be able to handle the faster memory Intel just does not list the system as capable of it.

Ok, great! I was worried about that and couldn't really find any hard documentation on it. I've made the mistake in the past where I've had RAM far too fast to work properly with the motherboard and did not want to make a similar mistake here.

I would look at a better cooler than the h50. Either go with a better aio or get a high end air cooler.

After sleeping on it, I don't think I wan't to go with an AIO after reading that people get leaks.

10 years ago the Zalman coolers were the best by far, I was assuming they would still at least live up to their old hype...

I was looking at: ZALMAN 92mm

After reading reviews though it seems a bit overrated and a cheaper contender that supposedly performs better is the CM 212 EVO.

As far as ram capacity we normally recommend 16gb for current systems so 32gb is already considered overkill for a gaming build. By the time you can utilize 64gb the system will need revamped anyways.

This is a good point. I can always put that extra cash into the GPU(s) and not feel bad about it. I just know I used to think I would never utilize 12GB, let alone 16.

However, right now I run into memory issues with all the extra applications I like to run while I game and I'm not even playing games that are that memory intensive with exception of StarCraft 2 and DOOM. I am a very heavy multi-application user and it has been eating up every bit of the 12GB I currently have, even if I upgraded to 16GB I'm sure I would use that up fairly easy.

But I'll lean towards your advice and still have the other two slots open just in case I ever feel the need to upgrade so there is no real loss there unless there is some reason I should be buying 4x8GB instead of 2x16GB? They both seem to run about the same price either way.

I feel I should clarify here a bit more. Typically when I am using my computer I am running multiple chat programs, have open several tabs in Chrome, and usually have a movie playing on a TV I use as a 3rd monitor for whoever else is in the room. I alt-tab A LOT.

With some games I simply can't do that and I'd like that freedom back. Right now if I am playing DOOM that is ALL my computer can handle. DOOM is the only program running and it eats up every last bit of memory I have available, not to mention sometimes StarCraft 2 prompts "Low Memory" errors when too many units come into the play and it is nearly 6 years old now. Sometimes Chrome tabs completely crash out if I have them open while I am playing. I'm even using a page file which makes me cringe since it uses up unnecessary space on my SSD, but without it applications crash and become unstable when I run games.

This is why I am so skeptical about the future in regards to memory. 32GB seems like overkill now, but in a year it might not be. Then in 2 years it will start becoming the norm and by the 3rd year I'll be capping it out attempting to play a game in 4k while watching a movie in 4k with Chrome tabs, applications, and who knows what else I'll get into running simultaneously.

This is basically what I do! Haha!

We are upgrading all of our laptops at my work right now to 16GB to handle simple office applications and Visual Studio. So I'm just having a hard time imagining 16GB being enough for games like Just Cause 3 even with the majority of the memory dedicated to it. I know right now they have some nasty memory leaks with the newer games and excess RAM is helpful for a stable experience.

Maybe I'm out of touch with the reality of it and expect too much, but I'd like to think I can build a machine that would be able to handle my level of multi-tasking with minimal performance impacts on whatever game I am playing at the same time.

Speaking of the gpu I would currently stick with the 1080 from nvidia if you intend to run at 4k resolutions but please bare in mind that this card may not give you acceptable frame rates at ultra settings. You will either need to sli these or wait for a 1080ti to really get solid performance at 4k ultra if you intend to play modern AAA games.

I just played through DOOM at 15-30FPS on my 660 GTX. I'm not sure I know what acceptable frame rates are .

I am heavily biased by all the hype, media attention, and statistics they have been producing for the 1080. With the announcement of the 1060 it should relieve some of cost pressure I would hope.

The plan in the end if I go the 1080 route would be to SLi them in the future. My major concern here is if I am going to spend $450-500 on the first one and then an additional $250-350 on the second a year later, will it really be worth $700-850? I know it still keeps me under $2k for the build, but I dread seeing next summer roll around and seeing 1080TI's for less.

I know in 2 or 3 months I will have a much clearer picture of the price, but are there other options I should consider? I know some of my friends have run two entirely different Nvidia cards in their desktops, but I can't imagine they work in SLi or remotely give the amount of performance two synced cards do.

I would pick up a 512gb Samsung evo ssd and call it a day if I was building the system.

This is pretty much a done deal. We use these at my new job for every new machine that comes in and I am beginning to experience their might on a daily basis.

Thank you for all your input! You've calmed some of the fears I had and have given me plenty to think about in the upcoming weeks! I'm so glad there is still somewhere I can go where I'll get clear answers!

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know where you got this information but it is erroneous. The IMC of the CPU may be rated for that but it will surely run RAM at faster speeds than that with no trouble. My celeron G3900 will handle 16gb of DDR4 at 2400 mhz with no problem. Having said that, you will not notice any real world difference running high speed RAM anyway in the vast majority of common apps. File compression/decompression is one of the few applications where high speed RAM makes any difference.

It was the conclusion I was coming to from looking at what they were rated for and not finding much information on Google. I was unaware if that was something that would actually hinder the speed of the memory or not.

That's good to know! I do a lot with file compression/decompression and would gladly love to see an improvement there. Right now decompressing a 10GB file takes over 15 minutes on my current computer. It's pretty sad.

 

[trents]

If you do a lot of file compression/decompression then you would benefit from high speed RAM. 2400 RAM is pretty reasonably priced but you start getting into higher speeds than the price tag climbs steeply. But to give you an idea of the flexibility of the IMC on Intel CPU I am running 16gb of 2133 DDR3 RAM on my 4790K overclocked to 4.8+ ghz. I think the IMC is only rated for 1866 or something. Lots of folks are running 2400 mhz DDR3 on those 4790k CPUs without a problem. Now AMD - different story. Relatively week IMC.

 

[EarthDog]

TL;DR: I'm going to build a gaming PC by November 1st, but I have been out of the gaming scene for roughly 10 years. I could really use some honest and detailed advice. I'm very particular and want a proper configuration of hardware.

Disclaimer: This post is long and I have no idea if I am even hitting on topics that matter that much for gaming. I know I could just throw some parts together and they would run just fine, but that is not what I am looking for. That's what I've got right now and it bothers me deeply.

Backstory: I used to be an active member of the community when I was a teenager. Real life obligations as I got older lead to inactivity which apparently resulted in the deletion of my account, so my apologizes for the appearance of a new member. I came here when I was 13 for advice on my first build and was not disappointed.

I am reaching out to the community once more because I am coming back after a long 10 year hiatus from building gaming PCs. That's not to say I haven't been building PCs over the last decade, I just have zero personal experience in any of the fore mentioned topics with their effect on gaming.

In essence, I am out of the loop on gaming hardware. Most of the computers I have been putting together have been primarily focused for small budgets and for business use. I am a Computer Technician by trade and a Desktop Support Specialist by profession, there are gaps in my knowledge I am hoping someone can fill. I have already researched many of these questions, but am still lacking a comprehensive enough of an understanding to decide if they are worth the additional cost or lack of performance to save money.

---

The Goal: To put together a high performance gaming computer that allows for an additional 32GB of memory expansion in the future and possible GPU upgrade(s). It must be able to handle games in 4k at max settings.

---

*I know 64GB memory is total overkill, but for another $100 in the future I can't see why I wouldn't do it.*


I believe I can achieve this goal while remaining under $1500, but am willing to spend up to $2000 or even $2500 if someone can convince me it is worth it. However, I do not want to regret spending a lot when I know it is very possible I could end up building another $1500 rig in 3-4 years and vastly out perform the one I will be building in a few months.

I also do not want to buy parts that will not work at their optimal levels immediately while being as conservative as possible in price. I am willing to spend as much as I need to build something with a nice equilibrium between price and performance. I do not plan to buy anything immediately. I will be watching the prices on the list I have provided below and any other suggestions that are posted.

I will be using an Antec 1200 that I already own to house the hardware, heat should not be an issue.


The Current Watch List: Total Price $912 without GFX Card(s)

Intel Core i7-6700K 8M Skylake Quad-Core 4.0 GHz LGA 1151 + Hydro Series H50

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000)

CORSAIR RMx Series RM1000X 1000W

ASUS Z170-E LGA 1151 Intel Z170

SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 250GB

Graphics Cards: I used to specifically go for EVGA Nvidia cards, but am willing to compromise.

Please keep in mind I'm probably not buying anything for a few months, I know many of these are Out of Stock or have limited availability right now.

GeForce GTX 1080 8GB ~ $650 (Could buy a second when they drop in price)
GeForce GTX 1070 8GB ~ $440 (Not SLi capable?)
GeForce GTX 970 4GB ~ $275 x2 (Not worth it? I hear they don't even come close to out performing one 1080 and are half the GRAM of a 390 which is cheaper)

Radeon R9 390 8GB ~ $260 x2 (Affordable long term solution, but might not pay off once other cards drop in price)
Radeon R7 370 4GB ~ $150 x2 (Cheaper solution until newer cards drop in price)

All these options put me somewhere between $1200-1600 total cost.


Concerns:

1.) CPU: To my understanding the i7-6700k can only handle DDR4 memory at a maximum of 2133MHz. This obviously means I am wasting money on purchasing 3000MHz RAM. I don't even see an Intel processor that supports 3000MHz RAM, let alone options on newegg for DDR4 RAM at 2133MHz.

If this is true, am I better off upgrading to a better processor that can handle memory at faster speeds, or do I sacrifice memory speed to accommodate the capacity of the processor? The price difference for memory in these ranges seems minimal whereas processors tend to span hundreds of dollars in difference and I may even have to buy a more expensive motherboard to support the socket upgrade.

I am quite negligent in my knowledge of processors at and beyond the 4.0GHz i7 level. I feel like I am missing something fundamental here in relation to the supported memory speeds.

2.) Motherboard: Should I be concerned with not having triple or quad channel memory capabilities? I don't see many builds on the forums even mentioning it and this would require a complete reconsideration of parts, not to mention an entirely different price range. I have a feeling I am being too optimistic with the performance from a $100 motherboard, but it has always worked out well for me in the past. I was considering the Sabertooth version, but I'd rather spend the $150 difference on a graphics card(s).

3.) Solid Sate Performance: Raid 0 for SSDs? Should I even bother? I have read mix reviews here and else where on the net. I am not worried about data loss, but would highly consider it given the promise of faster speeds. I know SSDs are already fast, but if there is a noticeable difference I would be more than happy to invest in a second drive. I will likely only have a few games installed at any given time so space should not be an issue if I have at least 250GB. I already get by with 120GB and a secondary 160GB that isn't even full.

I was also considering purchasing a PCIe SSD, but I am skeptical of weather or not the motherboard I have listed would even utilize a PCIe SSD fully, not to mention Windows. It would be extremely disappointing to spend excess money and find out in the end there is a software related bottleneck.

4.) Power: If I find a 1200W for roughly the same price I plan to buy it just to be safe. However, if 1000W is plenty and somebody knows this for sure then I don't see the point. Again, I feel like my optimism might be getting the best of me, but I have always cut it close with power in my systems without issue and I know there are graphics cards out there that are not power hogs and even perform better than their counter parts.

5.) SLI/XFire vs Single Card: Ideally I would like to go with a dual card configuration, but I have never utilized SLI or XFire. I have no idea if they are worth the hype. I've seen the performance comparisons on paper and it just seems like this can be hit or miss. All I see right now is the 1080 blows everything else out of the water, even dual 970s. I figure by October they'll be down to a fairly affordable price with plenty of options to choose from.

If you've made it this far, thanks for reading!

This build is going to be a HUGE upgrade from my refurbished HP Business Class Frankenstein built out of parts I collected from side jobs.
(3.2GHz i5-650, 12GB Mixed Sticks of RAM, 2GB 660 GTX).

Thoughts, comments, or additions are welcomed. I feel like I've absorbed so much information on my own in the last week that I'm not sure if I am headed in the right direction, or if there is an entirely different set of options I'm overlooking.

Thanks again!

Welcome!

First I want to get out of the way that talking in July for a November build is pretty premature on a lot of parts... particularly in the GPU area. But pricing, new items, and item availability, will all play a role in what you are looking for... To answer your questions...

1. That is what the IMC is rated for... it can handle WELL over 3000 MHz. Your processor speed really has nothing to do with what memory you choose. The sweet spot for memory speed, cost, and performance is around the DDR4 3000 MHz CL14 area. I don't like to go much lower than that simply because its DDR3 speeds with DDR4 latencies.. Come play in DDR4 3000 MHz land for the slight premium it costs of 2400 MHz.
2. Nope.
3. I wouldn't R0 SSDs, no. If you are asking, you don't need it. Just grab an M.2 Samsung 960 Pro when it comes out...
4. Depending on the build, a single 1080 and a 6700K both overclocked to the moon can easily run on a 500W PSU. At setup like that will pound through 2560x1440 for the next couple of years. Unless you plan on going 3 cards, there is no need for a 1.2KW PSU. None. I suggest something like the EVGA Supernova G2 550W for one 1080, and for two the G2 650W.
5. WHy do you want to go dual card for such a low resolution? I would use a single card over a dual if I could help it. It costs 2x, but you never get double performance. 2x power use, 2x heat to dissipate, sometimes SLI doesn't work, or doesn't work out of the gate, etc.

This is why I am so skeptical about the future in regards to memory. 32GB seems like overkill now, but in a year it might not be. Then in 2 years it will start becoming the norm and by the 3rd year I'll be capping it out attempting to play a game in 4k while watching a movie in 4k with Chrome tabs, applications, and who knows what else I'll get into running simultaneously.

LOL, no.. not really... I would imagine 16GB would be plenty for most users for the next few years. 32GB will last the life of your system. There wouldn't be a reason to go 64GB within the next 5 years unless you have an application you work with that uses a ton. Gaming in 4K uses more vRAM, not system ram.. same thing with movies.. its hardware/gpu accelerated.

I feel I should clarify here a bit more. Typically when I am using my computer I am running multiple chat programs, have open several tabs in Chrome, and usually have a movie playing on a TV I use as a 3rd monitor for whoever else is in the room. I alt-tab A LOT.

So take a look at your current use when you are doing all that stuff... I bet you will be surprised how low it actually is.

 

[Lochekey]

5. WHy do you want to go dual card for such a low resolution? I would use a single card over a dual if I could help it. It costs 2x, but you never get double performance. 2x power use, 2x heat to dissipate, sometimes SLI doesn't work, or doesn't work out of the gate, etc.

Ed he is looking to game at 4k resolution on ultra settings.

 

[EarthDog]

Missed that (how, I don't know.. I even quoted parts)! Thanks!

Yeah, that's a must, 2 1080's at 4K... Id still rock a 650-750W PSU there though and overclock the snot out of each component, and have plenty of headroom.

 

[TechWizard]

Hey EarthDog, thanks! I'm pretty sure I remember you helping me with my AMD3200+ Build back in the day ... back when 64-bit architecture just came out and graphics cards were just getting to 256MB of RAM (I just noticed your join date says 2008 so maybe it wasn't you :X my bad.)

Just grab an M.2 Samsung 960 Pro when it comes out...

I'm going to consider this if you are 100% serious. Given they are running only in the 300 range on Newegg this would be affordable since I am going to be saving money else where in this build with the feedback I've been getting. It looks awesome in every respect and it removes an additional cable which would be a plus to keep things cleaner.

4. Depending on the build, a single 1080 and a 6700K both overclocked to the moon can easily run on a 500W PSU. At setup like that will pound through 2560x1440 for the next couple of years. Unless you plan on going 3 cards, there is no need for a 1.2KW PSU. None. I suggest something like the EVGA Supernova G2 550W for one 1080, and for two the G2 650W.

Good to know. I had no idea I was over killing it with a 1k watt PSU. I was just assuming it would be a good amount to have for dual cards with some headroom. The couple of people I have talked to in person who recently built a gaming machine put in PSUs over 1k so I figured that would be a safe zone. I'll definitely lower myself down in between 650-750W. I'd like to overclock this machine, but I do not think I will "overclock to the moon" lol.

I think I still want a little bit of room in the event I decide to throw heavy storage into this machine. I have been using external drives over the last few years for media since I was moving around a lot... and it's time to cut that out since I'm mostly in the same place now.

LOL, no.. not really... I would imagine 16GB would be plenty for most users for the next few years. 32GB will last the life of your system. There wouldn't be a reason to go 64GB within the next 5 years unless you have an application you work with that uses a ton. Gaming in 4K uses more vRAM, not system ram.. same thing with movies.. its hardware/gpu accelerated.
So take a look at your current use when you are doing all that stuff... I bet you will be surprised how low it actually is.

I didn't necessarily mean what I said towards the average user. When I boot up I'm already at about 30-35% RAM usage. I believe a major contributor to that is because I am constantly writing/reading to/from an external drive. Then I have Skype, Line, Steam, Battle.net, PeerBlock, uTorrent, Spotify, and TeamViewer that are constantly running in the background. Those are just the basics. Then it starts to get sketchy once I start opening Chrome and browsing the web. Add in a few randomly opened PDFs, my surveillance software, then a movie and I'm surpassing 45% easy. Having ~6GB leftover for a game just doesn't cut it anymore.

I know it sounds ridiculous and maybe I just don't want to compromise here , but I don't think that I, personally, will have an enjoyable experience with only 16GB of memory. (I know nobody is telling me to only use 16, I'm just stating.)

Yeah, in terms of 32GB I should have plenty of head space for a long while. My concern/panic just comes from not wanting to ever be in the situation I am in right now. If I have a bunch of work open I don't want to have to close it and open it later if I want to sneak a quick game in. I'm a lazy, entitled, late 80s generation millennial. Probably the worst of them all . 64GB of RAM in the long run just sounds so enticing .

Again, THANK YOU guys for the great information, I know when I finally start putting this build together I won't be disappointed. I'm not educated enough to know all the caveats with these higher builds, but I'm also not naive enough to overlook something that wouldn't be working as intended after building this beast.

With that said, I might actually start buying sooner than October given this will be more affordable than I originally thought. My birthday is the 1st of Nov so the idea is to be done by then so I can enjoy it.

I'll keep the thread updated and I'll revise my list soon.

 

[EarthDog]

I am serious on the M.2 PCIe NVMe based drives, yes.

Good to know. I had no idea I was over killing it with a 1k watt PSU. I was just assuming it would be a good amount to have for dual cards with some headroom. The couple of people I have talked to in person who recently built a gaming machine put in PSUs over 1k so I figured that would be a safe zone. I'll definitely lower myself down in between 650-750W. I'd like to overclock this machine, but I do not think I will "overclock to the moon" lol.

I think I still want a little bit of room in the event I decide to throw heavy storage into this machine. I have been using external drives over the last few years for media since I was moving around a lot... and it's time to cut that out since I'm mostly in the same place now.

"heavy storage" won't generally amount to much... a HDD at full tilt is like 10-14W. Idle, 2-3W... not a huge consideration. Go 750W if it makes you feel comfortable, but I would bet you won't break 450W at stock, and 550W fully loaded with two 1080's.

When I boot up I'm already at about 30-35% RAM usage. I believe a major contributor to that is because I am constantly writing/reading to/from an external drive. Then I have Skype, Line, Steam, Battle.net, PeerBlock, uTorrent, Spotify, and TeamViewer that are constantly running in the background. Those are just the basics. Then it starts to get sketchy once I start opening Chrome and browsing the web. Add in a few randomly opened PDFs, my surveillance software, then a movie and I'm surpassing 45% easy. Having ~6GB leftover for a game just doesn't cut it anymore.

I know it sounds ridiculous and maybe I just don't want to compromise here , but I don't think that I, personally, will have an enjoyable experience with only 16GB of memory. (I know nobody is telling me to only use 16, I'm just stating.)

% means nothing if we do not know what you are starting off with. I do not believe that transfers from drive to drive are ram intensive in the least. To be more clear, for yourself, know your peak usage and make your decision from there. I would think 32GB would be fine for the life of the machine, but overkill for the short term future. 64GB is a waste of cash. If I was in your shoes, I would grab 2x8GB now and 2x8GB later if you ever end up needing it (that is, until you tell us how much ram you are starting with. ). Not sure what 'situation' you are in now, but it can be remedied with more ram if you are concerned.

 

[TechWizard]

I mentioned it briefly at the bottom of my first post.

I'm currently running a system I basically Frankenstein'ed together. A company was recycling a bunch of HP i5 systems and I found one that they were getting rid of just because it had a dead USB port on the motherboard. Other than it worked just fine.

MSI 2A9C
Clarkdale i5 650 @ 3.2GHz
2x2GB DDR 3 Generic + 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz (althought I doubt the generic stuff clocks that high)
GTX 660 2GB DDR5

So in terms of memory I am only working with 12GB total RAM. I get what you're saying though with the 64GB being a waste.

 

[EarthDog]

Missed that too, damn long posts...

So at PEAK you are using less than 6GB of ram (40-45% of 12GB). Yeah, I would go 16GB if I was you. 32GB if you are feeling saucy and want to burn some cash.. 64GB if you just plain want to blow cash for no reason ever.

 

[TechWizard]

Revised Watch List:

Intel Core i7-6700K 8M Skylake Quad-Core 4.0 GHz - $350

Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - $20

ASUS Z170-E LGA 1151 - $86

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3000 - $165

EVGA SuperNOVA 650 - $85

--- $706 Total for Essentials

SAMSUNG 950 PRO M.2 512GB - $320

--- $1026 with M.2 Drive

This build leaves plenty of budget for graphics cards. I am surprised to say the least. I just hope by the time October rolls around the 1080's become cheaper. I don't know how I feel spending $600 on a graphics card knowing that is only half of what I'm aiming for.

I am probably going to buy the Heatsink and Motherboard since they seem so well priced. I want to buy the processor too, but I'm not sure if there is a chance it could drop another 25-50 dollars in the next month or two.

$350 seems like a real nice price for what you get, but I don't know how I feel sitting on an untested processor for at least 30+ if I don't order the rest of the essentials with it.

Thanks for all the input, I feel like this is coming together better than expected. There are a lot of things you've opened my eyes to over the last few days. I didn't even know M.2 drives were out and that they were already placing the peripheral slots for them directly on the motherboards. With that said, I am still trying to learn/figure out if I will need a PCIe board for the M.2 or if I can just use the slot on my motherboard. I have read in some places that the motherboard slot can be tied to the SATA lines instead of the PCIe ones and restrict you to the 6GB/s SATA limit.

I'm really tempted to just pull the trigger on the essentials. Now that I've started this adventure I've got the itch bad and money isn't an issue right now.

The RAM isn't THAT badly priced and I don't know if I'd save that much in a sale (16GB is only ~40 dollars less). This would at least give me a new base system and I'm sure I could survive for a few months with my 660 GTX and current SSDs in a much faster system. It would also give me a benchmark on how much faster the m.2 drive would feel.

Any thoughts or advice on whether I should wait it out or not?

 

[trents]

I would move up in quality on the PSU. The Corsair CX series is the bottom rung of their lineup. Serviceable, but if money is not tight I certainly would move up the ladder. EVGA Super Nova series is a favorite around here and 600W would be plenty.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438048

 

[TechWizard]

Thanks, I couldn't find that one. $80 is completely reasonable. I remembered it being mentioned in an earlier post, but when I looked at Newegg they were considerably more than I expected.

The only reason I choose the CX Series is because they are typically what I have used in the field. Surprisingly I have never had to replace any so I assumed their reliability was good.

 

[trents]

What do you mean you couldn't find it? Did the link not work?

 

[TechWizard]

Nope, the link worked beautifully. I have it in my updated list now. I meant earlier when I was revising my list, I did look at some of the EVGA Power Supplies, but I must have overlooked that one. My search was probably poor since I forgot to add in Supernova.

However, I just found a platinum one for slightly cheaper.

 

[EarthDog]

I don't see a point in the platinum personally. It also costs more at newegg.

Get the 650W G2. The Supernova GS are solid PSUs, but for $5 more, you should get the best Tier 1 bang for your buck PSU in the Supernova G2 series.

 

[TechWizard]

Gotcha. I didn't even notice they were different in terms of G2 vs P2. I feel extremely unobservant lol

I also thought Platinum was higher than Gold?

 

[EarthDog]

It is more efficient, yes. But unless you are running it 24/7 you will never make up the cost difference.

Please don't get me wrong, the P2 is just as high quality/Tier 1 PSU as the G2, if not more... and its slightly more efficient.