Nice. You know, you could just add a drop-down menu with rounded-square icons for the other categories. Something that only shows up when needed.
Also, this would make PC Part Picker something like a NewEgg-like site, except it would search multiple websites to get the user the best pricing possible. Love it!
(you could add case fans now, though... it would help, as they are kinda an important part in Case cooling)
Well, Oliver seems to nail it. So I'd agree with him.
8GB runs your system fine, and your game fine too.
If you're running loads of things at the same time (extreme multi-tasking, video/audio/graphics editing, many RAM-heavy apps at the same time), 16GB is appropriate.
16GB seems to be the limit for future-proofing your system for gaming at the moment. Of course, you can always get 32GB of RAM, but there's no need (unless you'll RAM Disk your game folder for the purposes of playing).
Right now, I'd say 16GB is worth it, because RAM is just so cheap. It's worth paying the extra 30$~40$ just so in the next year or so you won't be running out of RAM and going for that virtual memory CR*P.
However... that's assuming you're using normal priced RAM. If you're using expensive RAM, going from 8GB to 16GB might be expensive.
But, to sum up the general idea: 8GB for current gaming needs, 16GB if you want to future-proof your system (for RAM) for the next one or two years, 32GB if you really need it (otherwise, don't bother just yet).
This monitor should hold you through:
Dell ST2220L (21.5'') http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260049
However, if you're looking for a larger monitor, I have some suggestions, but they do cost more.
ASUS VS247H-P (23.6'') http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236174
This specific model is best. It isn't too large (when the pixels become obvious), nor too small. It's LED backlit, great contrast, 2ms response time. It's got loads of features, and it's incredibly bright. It'll light up the mancave, and it's got lots of connectivity.
Both the Dell and ASUS models offer D-Sub, DVI, and HDMI connectivity. Although DisplayPort is the connector of the future, especially for larger resolutions, it's still being charged at extortionary prices from monitor manufacturers, and it's use still isn't widespread.
Either model will work for you. DELL will offer you value. And unless your intend on doing some intense gaming, and this is a serious priority for you, I don't think the price difference justifies paying more for the ASUS.
Also, you'd be looking at the monitor from some distance. Larger screens means you have to see it from further away. Also, desk space is important, so take some measurements. Measure the width of your desk, first and foremost.
The ASUS screen is about 23 inches wide, and 17 inches tall. Take a ruler and a piece of cardboard, cut it to that size, and place it on your desk. See if you've got space. If there isn't enough depth for you comfortably see all of the screen, it's too large. Also, if it's in risk of falling off, not a good choice.
The DELL choice is 20 inches wide, by 16 inches tall. It should be significantly smaller, and easier for a smaller desk. If your desk is large enough, you might even be able to add a second monitor to your system, given the GPU you've selected. However, remember that your framerate would slow down significantly if you add a second monitor, but it would add depth for your gaming experience.
An idea you might be inclined to consider is to mount each monitor vertically, creating a 2160 x 1920 resolution. Adding a third FullHD monitor vertically would create a 3240 x 1920 resolution virtual screen. This would be the IMAX of computer screens, and with VESA mounts, it would be epic. Of course, this would require an expensive 3 monitor setup, and a powerful multi-GPU system.
On the other hand, if you have wall space, the ASUS model does have VESA mounts, and therefore you could mount your monitor to the wall behind your desk (supposing that your desk is next to a wall, of course).
Again, these are just some options to play around with. In the end, it's about getting you the best setup you can buy for your budget, right?
How does the NXZT Switch 810 compare against the THOR V2? I'm more interested in functionality than looks, though.
Also, how does the NZXT Switch 810 compare against the Rosewill ARMOR EVO, in terms of functionality?
I'd say you should get at least an HDD, just in case. You could use Intel SSD caching so you can get HDD permanence, but SSD like speeds. I'd get an ASUS motherboard for that, though, because ASUS has their own caching solution.
Oliver is also right on the PSU. Get a better one. Antec offers a good PSU.
This PSU is highly recommended for stable, clean power, and reliability. It's good enough to overclock on, while keeping good temps and acoustics. It's not as good as a silverstone or corsair, but it's still pretty good. It's modular, too, which helps. And at only 79.99, it's a pretty good buy.
Still, that Corsair PSU is pretty good, and you wouldn't do poorly either way.
Looks like a good build. If you're not gonna use it for games, it should have all the power you need.
However, if you plan on doing some serious work, I'd recommend getting the i5 3570 (since you wouldn't be overclocking), and since it would also give you a nice power boost in graphics power (useful for Windows 7 or Windows 8).
But for your intents and purposes, this should do nicely.
That Antec PSU is highly recommended for gamers, as it delivers good, clean power. It is also modular, which will help get good airflow. In a 43-way PSU roundup of PSUs between 500W and 700W, the Antec scored very high. It should have all the power you need. (http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/2762/megatest-43-psus-from-500-to-700-watt)
The GPU is probably the most important aspect of a gaming PC. Although other components cannot be underspeced, I'd say you've got it good where it counts.
As for your motherboard... you can get a WiFi card. But the questions you should ask are these: do you need it to be PCI-Express, or will a USB one work just as fine? Do you need removable WiFi antennas (for really sensitive antennas), or will a regular one work fine?
I'd downgrade to a 128GB SAMSUNG 840 model. However, remember to enable ASUS SSD-Caching, if you'd like that. Getting an ASUS motherboard enabled better SSD Caching than Intel includes. Moreover, it will give you SSD-like speed, and the permanence of a real HDD. Best of both worlds.
That motherboard from ASUS offers a very nice feature set. It also allows for QuadSLI in the future, if you ever go with 2x GTX 690's. Of course, it's extremely unlikely you'd ever need to. It also offers support for LucidLogix MVP software, which is a nice add-on for later.
Hope this helps.
Problem; it tried searching for it in the list of mice, I couldn't find it by sorting through Razer-only products. Seems there's still some issues.
Thanks man. I think this is an awesome case. It's having variety that makes this site awesome, and with little niche products like these, this site will go far. _^
Nice. Love this site. Helps me so much to show my friends what I mean when I recommend stuff to them. n.n
Keep up the good work!
Well... if you want to harness the full power of modern games, you'd have to dish out some big cash. A 1440p monitor can cost in excess of 500$. A 120hz monitor can cost in excess of 300$. And a FullHD monitor can cost in excess of 120$.
The issue isn't availability of parts, but rather what kind of money you're willing to spend. For 3D gaming, you'd need monitors to be of the same resolution (if at all possible), and preferrably the same model.
I'd say that for best gaming immersion, you'd be best off with a FullHD monitor between 23 and 27 inches. If you're planning on playing FPS games, or RTS games, in a truly competitive setting, go with a 120hz monitor.
My recommendations on what to look for in a monitor:
For MMOs and daily use:
- 60hz or higher
- LED Backlit (because it increases reliability, brightness, energy efficiency, and contrast)
- 23 inches to 27 inches
- 1080p minimum
- Between 5ms and 2ms response time (lower is better)
For FPS or RTS games:
- 120hz (most will be nVidia 3D Vision compatible)
- LED Backlit
- 23 inches to 27 inches
- 1080p minimum
- Between 5ms and 2ms response time (lower is better)
For better game immersion:
- 1440p minimum
- Below 8ms response time
- LED Backlit
- 25 inches minimum
If you're looking for something to hold you though for the mean time, I'd recommend this monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260049
It's got a 5ms response time, it's FullHD ( 1080p ), it's got an HDMI port in case you need it, it's LED backlit, and it's 120$. It's not the best monitor out there, but this should do for you. It offers great value. If you're looking for a better 1080p monitor, I'd recommend the ASUS VS247H-P, simply because of the reviews I've read about it, and what others have told me too.
If you're looking for a monitor for FPS or RTS, here's my suggestion: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236293
And last, for extreme resolution (clearer, crisper, more defined picture): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236294
Remember, though, these options all should take account your needs, wants, resources (cash), and space available. Measure your desk before you make any purchases, otherwise you'll have a nice monitor, but nowhere to place it.
Well, the GTX 670 by Galaxy is an option. But why not the ASUS GTX 670 4GB, and overclock it instead? Isn't the ASUS cooling model better, along with their components?
Why the SAMSUNG 830 series? Why not go with the 840 series instead? I hear it's a bit better. Also noteworthy is the OCZ Vector, which does outperform the SAMSUNG 8400 in some regards. It depends on your needs, though, and your budget.
If your machine is built for gaming, why go with the ASUS P8-Z77-V LE? Why not the P8Z77-V LK instead?
The case is good; I hear great things about it. But the Rosewill THOR V2 and Rosewill ARMOR EVO are other good options; you might consider them too.
The Power Supply seems a bit over the top. You won't need that much power unless you're gonna be adding more cards for SLI in the future, or a lot of HDDs, optical drives, fans, etc.
Overall, I'd say your build seems awesome. I'd say it took some thought to find anything to mention, and most of it isn't that important. All that I mentioned are tiny details, and eventually the differences only matter according to your needs and preferences.
Overall, it's still a d*mn fine machine in any book, and it'd make any gamer or workaholic proud.
Well... I don't know if for emulation you'll be better off with an i5 or an i7, so I won't offer advice on that.
Your motherboard seems good. I've heard good things about it from reviews.
I'd ask, if you're going to be doing emulation, why not go with a LGA 2011 motherboard? You don't have to go with the six-core powerhouses just yet, though. The 3820 will do for now.
Ivy Bridge Extreme is coming in Q3, and you'd be dealing with one h*ll of a powerful system when you get the CPU for it. You'd have to upgrade the BIOS beforehand, though, in order to support Ivy Bridge E CPUs.
The video cards these days can handle most games on ULTRA/EXTREME in every setting as it is... in 1920 x 1080 settings. If you're looking for a 3 monitor setup, or a 1440p monitor, then it might be interesting for you to consider getting a really powerful video card.
For example, if you're trying to build a system to run Crysis 3 (which isn't even out yet) on a 5760 x 1080p 3 monitor setup, that would justify a GTX 690, or even 2x GTX 690 in Quad-SLI.
For most applications, including extreme 3D gaming, you should not have to worry about lag. The resolution is what's going to be the main problem; so, what monitor setup do you use?
For WoW, you really don't need 16GB. It'll help if you're running LOTS of heavy RAM programs at once. Gaming only sees benefits up to 8GB.
However, if you want to future-proof your system, 16GB would be the way to go. But you won't see any immediate benefit from it this year, unless WoW really goes all out. In fact, many games aren't even 64-bit games, so they can't take advantage of more than 4GB of memory at a time.
As for the video card... maybe swap it with a GTX 660. The GTX 660 has better drivers, and they get better every day. Lag isn't just high average framerate, it's also keeping that framerate high through the entire game.
If your framerate drops below 15 fps, you'll be in serious lag. Keeping the minimum fps as high as possible keeps the game running smooth. nVidia has done better at that than AMD.
You can find other reviews and comparisons, but typically nVidia will keep their 99th percentile framerate higher than AMD. New drivers means AMD could outperform nVidia in the future, but that means you'd have to wait until said drivers come out.
But you're video card will handle WoW either way, no sweat.
From what I hear about ASUS, this would be the card to get:
It can be easily overclocked, and should be very good for all your needs. It should also keep your card very chilled (relatively speaking).