• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Pc build questions about CPU and build?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

joed386

Registered
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Also is they anyway to save a bit of money on this build like a cheaper CPU than the i5 6500 which is now currently £200 on amazon or motherboard?
I thinking i might go with the I5 6400, is there much between the two CPU?

The full build.
https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/wddMXH

Thanks for your help.
 

trents

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
What will you be doing with the computer? You will need to focus on selecting components that provide the performance to do what you want to do efficiently. More than that is not necessary. Less than that will be disappointing and money thrown down the drain.
 

bob4933

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/DH2xVY

Highly recommend this over your build. The only "negative" is i put in a lower quality power supply. For that level of build, you dont really need a supernova g2. Its a great psu, but its not like the corsair is going to explode on you either. 430w is more than plenty for your uses.
 

NewbieOneKenobi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Location
Warsaw/Poland
Also is they anyway to save a bit of money on this build like a cheaper CPU than the i5 6500 which is now currently £200 on amazon or motherboard?
I thinking i might go with the I5 6400, is there much between the two CPU?

The full build.
https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/wddMXH

Thanks for your help.

It seems to point to Aria, and Aria currently sells 7400 at six quid less (£183), as a bit of sweet spot right now (7500 already costs £211, at which point it makes more sense to get 7600 for £218). It's clocked only 0.1 GHz less in turbo and 0.2 in normal mode, so it should be faster than the 6500.

Alternatively, if you want to save money instead, 6400 costs 30 pounds less than 6500, which is probably worth considering (even though the difference between 6400 and 6500 is greater than 6500 and 6600).

Just for the record, the 7600K at £230 for the extra fifty pounds certainly looks like a better purchase to me, except it's a bit OTT without a Z chipset, which is more expensive, plus it probably requires a separate, strong cooler (Skylake K's did), which chances are you don't already have, and then you'd also want a little faster RAM with that too, all of which would add up to a significantly higher final price tag. Instead, it kinda makes sense to stick with the initial idea.

Re: PSU, you probably do well to get some extra juice — PSUs degrade over time, and a stronger one leaves you with beefier upgrading options. However, if already buying a stronger and more expensive PSU, I would be tempted to get enough power for another RX 480 in the future, just to keep that option on the table, considering that your mobo supports CF.

Re: Storage. Obviously you know the difference between a normal HDD and an SSD as system drive (it's night and day), but I'd be inclined to go pure SSD (like Bob suggested) and avoid having any mechanical drives in the case at all, which goes a long way toward noise reduction and vibration control (just make sure your fans are civilized and you're going to have a pretty silent gaming rig). For pure SSD I'd go with 500GB, though (1TB is usually too expensive right now). My 230GB feels way too skimpy; in fact, I already know I need an upgrade, soon. 480GB drives start under 100 pounds.

Bonus: A 500GB SSD system drive could retire as a storage drive more or less comfortably after your next upgrade, at which point you're probably going to end up with an M.2 sysdrive, which is probably going to focus on speed more than capacity. In fact, my current sysdrive is a small but fast M.2 (got it cheap from a customized laptop seller whose client wanted bigger), and as I have only one slot for that I'm probably going to have to buy a 500GB SSD for storage anyway. You'd be doing it the other way round.

This said, if you have an external drive for data, don't use a lot of software, are comfortable with having only 1, 2, perhaps 3 games installed at a time, then 256 (or '256'; usually it's closer to 230 in reality) could work out just fine. I would always prioritize GPU power over storage capacity in a gaming rig as long the capacity wasn't a serious bother. By way of expection, if you decide to skip 480+ drives, you could still prioritize 256 over 240 ones or even look at those 275GB drives from Corsair. 35GB (or even 16 sometimes) is at least one modern game more sitting on your drive as opposed to uninstalling and reinstalling when you want to play.

EDIT: Whole post rewritten, 20 times. Sorry. Can't seem to wake up properly today.
 
Last edited: