# What's the best pc parts to use for a gaming pc if budget is 1089$ usd



## Potatooesunshinerays (Dec 26, 2017)

I would like to use gtx 1060 as the graphics card. What other components would work into making it the best gaming pc for it's price? I am new to pc building and would like some insight on what parts I could use. I would like to run games on 60+ fps in high res. I am not sure how much power supply I have


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Is there a reason you need to use a 1060, like you've already got one or something? Generally the 70s of each series recently are best if you're on a budget but still want good performance. 

Here's a build which leaves about $140 wiggle room for a monitor and case if needed. Well, getting a monitor and case for $140 is probably a bit unrealistic, but the build is in the overall ball-park and gets the job done. You could probably downgrade the RAM and stuff if it's a bit over budget, 8GB is generally enough although 16 is comfortable these days.


----------



## Potatooesunshinerays (Dec 26, 2017)

dizzycactus said:


> Is there a reason you need to use a 1060, like you've already got one or something? Generally the 70s of each series recently are best if you're on a budget but still want good performance.
> 
> Here's a build which leaves about $140 wiggle room for a monitor and case if needed. Well, getting a monitor and case for $140 is probably a bit unrealistic, but the build is in the overall ball-park and gets the job done. You could probably downgrade the RAM and stuff if it's a bit over budget, 8GB is generally enough although 16 is comfortable these days.


Thank you very much
So I should get gtx 1070 6gb graphics card? Will it not take a larger power supply?
I forgot to mention that i would like a HDMI port, does the graphics card comes with that?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> Thank you very much
> So I should get gtx 1070 6gb graphics card?


Actually, looking into things in more detail, probably not. I didn't realise the 1070 was so much more expensive. 1060 seems much better value, and is likely good enough for your needs, depending on what resolution you'll be running at. 60fps at 1080p should be fine. 


> Will it not take a larger power supply?


Yes, but the one I specced has a 550W PSU, and the build is coming in somewhere like 290W, so it's more than enough for a small upgrade like that unless you're going to run titans in SLI or something. 



> I forgot to mention that i would like a HDMI port, does the graphics card comes with that?


The spec says it has an hdmi port.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Personal advice to you or maybe a notice. Sound cards and network cards are still worth it, media just got it all wrong. Even me being deaf can hear a difference between onboard audio and sound card audio. Just saying that it's totally worth it if you want something better. Network cards can reduce latency a lot compared to onboard solutions. Same deal with other cards, they do things better than onboard stuff. Just that mostly onboard stuff is good enough for most people.

Another advice is to never cheap out on motherboard as you get more ports, more settings and other extras. Read here for more:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/16/are_more_expensive_motherboards_better_motherboards63
imo you can get Asrock Z370-Pro4 and save some bucks, because it's a nice board for great price.

Yet another advice is that Cooler Master EVO 212 isn't de facto budget cooler. Just look at what coolers are available and look at heatsink size. Bigger and heavier rad is more surface are and it means better cooling. Faster fan with more airflow is better cooling too. Some stock coolers today are just really good enough, like AMD's. Intel still can't offer anything decent.

Cheaping out on case is a bad deal most of the time. Buy from reputable brands and don't look at their cheapest models. Pretty much anything that doesn't have painted interior is total crap. Also suspiciously small cases are bad deal. With cheaping out you lose some fan brackets, hard drive brackets, thick sheets of metal, protection against overtightening screws (it can be a hell), CPU cooler space and etc. 

16GB ram nowadays is a new standard, 8GB is a past. If you spend thousand, you get 16GB.

Anything dual core isn't worth it, at least dual core without HT.

Never cheap out on monitor, you will end up spending two times. Read reviews on them. Same for speakers. 2.0 or 2.1 are fine for most of us. 5.1 setups are losing their worth if you don't plan to surround yourself in speakers. Directional sound is mostly dead meat nowadays.

Never cheap out on PSU, bad idea and can be dangerous.

Generally in budget builds AMD now is just a better choice. 

Spend enough on peripherals. They make a difference. Most important stuff for mouse is optical sensor, adjustable DPI and comfortable shape. For keyboard it's how many buttons could be pressed at once (N key rollover?) and maybe switches, but switches are personal choice. 

Heatsinks on RAM do nothing besides aesthtics, don't pay more just for them. It's not worth it. Same for RGB nonsense, it doesn't make anything faster or better, but will look like a crap, when LEDs due to age will start to die out and you will have lots of ugly dead spots.

60+ fps is unrealistic for thousand bucks. Maybe at 1080p it is, but 1080p is becoming the past. It's all about 1440p and 4k now. My RX 560 can play some games at 1440p and 50 fps, but it won't do that for long time.

Anything with less than 4GB VRAM is already obsolete.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

First of all, it's all about your budget ceilings. 

Next, Techspot has unusually down-to-earth and realistic recommendation. 

https://www.techspot.com/bestof/graphics-cards/

https://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/

[url]https://www.techspot.com/bestof/gaming-monitors/
[/URL]

Infact you can read all other lists here, https://www.techspot.com/bestof/

If i were you, I will follow this particular recommendation too:
https://www.techspot.com/article/1602-what-to-buy-4k-tv-as-a-monitor/

Personally, i'll go with the red team. Good luck.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

I'm from Lithuania myself, but I picked parts for close to 1000 dollar build. It will cost more, but it's better to spend a bit more and get a lots more:
Motherboard - MSI B350 Krait Gaming - 109.19 euros
CPU - AMD R5 2600 with cooler included - 191.90 euros
RAM - Patriot Signature DDR4 2666MHz CL19 (2x8GB) - 165.19 euros
SSD - Adata Ultimate SU650 240GB - 55.59 euros
HDD - Seagate Barracuda 3.5" 2TB - 61.99 euros
GPU - Inno 3D GTX 1080 Twin X2 8GB - 518.00 euros
Sound Card - Creative Sound Blaster Z - 62.89 euros
PSU - Corsair TX650M - 84.59 euros
Case - Fractal Design Define C (without window) - 80.89 euros

Total cost - 1330.23 euros (it's just slightly more in dollars)

Recommended peripherals:
Steelseries Rival 110 mouse if you want normal size mouse or rival 310 if you like bigger and ergonomic mouses
Steelseries 6GV2 mechanical keyboard. Excellent if you are looking for budget keyboard without ghosting and with Cherry MX Black switches. Usually it doesn't cost much, but it's discontinued model.
Mouse mat from reputable manufacturer. It barely costs anything, but makes night and day difference. Certainly better than just keeping your mouse on table. I have tried Steelseries Qck mini and normal size mats, they are great products for low price.

Build capabilities:
Certainly it's over budget, but it will totally could play games at over 60 fps at 1080p and maybe even 1440p. There's a nice motherboard in there and will let you overclock processor if you wan to do that. It seems like it has good amount of power phases and good VRM cooling. CPU has 6 cores and 12 threads. It will last and will not run out of power. Stock cooler is really nice and can handle slight overclock, but then it's good idea to upgrade cooling, anyway for gaming it's totally fine. Like AMD says your CPU will be Cool and Quiet. SSD is from reputable manufacturer, offers 240 gigabytes of storage. Good for OS and all software. HDD is 2TB model of Seagate Barracuda, it will hold lots of games and other files. GPU choice is imo great. 1060 6GB version is good alternative. 1070 costs the same as 1080, so 1080 is just more worth it, but it stretches your given budget a lot. Sound card is older model, but it's compatible and still offers great audio output capabilities. it should play real booming bass and other stuff almost perfectly. Top of the line sound card is Asus Xonar STX II, but it costs 230 euros. It offers incremental upgrade, but costs times more, so it's not worth it. Power supply is decent. It offers everything you will need. It has modular cables, 80+ Gold rating and by Johnny Guru website it was reviewed. Reviewer mentioned "phenomenal voltage stability", that's a perfection. It has nice internal parts and is decent unit even for overclocking past 5GHz. For LN2 overclockers it might not be a perfection, but this is around 1000 dollar build. Overall it's great. Case is from Fractal Design, they know how to make cases. It has good cooling and minimal resonance. Also it looks great, the only downside for me is lack of brackets for hard drives. In this scenario it's fine, but if you want something better, then Fractal Design Define R6 is pure perfection. The case wouldn't have any shortcomings, except for some clearance for big water coolers, but it will be top of the line case nonetheless. You may not like lack of side window, but it's rational thing to dampen sound inside the case and previously Defines had side fan mounting space. Fractal Design makes cases that are elegant, extremely functional and all around are good, but they don't give a shit about LED or RGB stuff. It's no bullshit manufacturer, that only cares about functionality and performance. Usually offering cases for not lots of money too.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> I'm from Lithuania myself, but I picked parts for close to 1000 dollar build. It will cost more, but it's better to spend a bit more and get a lots more:
> Motherboard - MSI B350 Krait Gaming - 109.19 euros
> CPU - AMD R5 2600 with cooler included - 191.90 euros
> RAM - Patriot Signature DDR4 2666MHz CL19 (2x8GB) - 165.19 euros
> ...


You're not tailoring your recommendations to the audience. OP says she's fairly new to PC building, and my overall impression is that they're not an enthusiast level user. By which I mean, I doubt they'd care about things to that degree of detail like overclocking, mixing SSDs and HDDs, or tweaking things to a pedantic level. They likely just want something that works well at a decent price.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> If i were you, I will follow this particular recommendation too:
> https://www.techspot.com/article/1602-what-to-buy-4k-tv-as-a-monitor/


That's a bad advice as TVs have more input lag than computer monitors. Of course most TVs can't display more than 60 Hz and at 1k dollar budget 4K gaming is just a bad idea, unless you don't mind low settings.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

dizzycactus said:


> You're not tailoring your recommendations to the audience. OP says she's fairly new to PC building, and my overall impression is that they're not an enthusiast level user. By which I mean, I doubt they'd care about things to that degree of detail like overclocking, mixing SSDs and HDDs, or tweaking things to a pedantic level. They likely just want something that works well at a decent price.


And what doesn't work? Seriously, I just said that it can be overclocked decently and offers more features, but I don't advice to overclock. I'm saying what computer would be capable of. And putting SSD and HDD into same PC is very old technique, it has been done since 2010 and is easy peasy. If you can install Windows than you can do that too. It's not complicated at all. I never implied tweaking shit out of that PC, it's just that it's capable of that, so why not mention that? Same would apply to you. You offered 150 dollar overclocking motherboard with CPU which is not capable of being overclocked. Then it's possible to get non Z motherboard and save cash. It doesn't make sense unless you upgrade later, but why not just get all around capable system instead? Also SSD as only storage option is bad idea. It's tiny and won't hold much of data. Aslo if you work with files then it will wear out faster and it will die much faster. SSDs die without signs sometimes, meanwhile HDDs show some signs. Your computer will not be good all around, therefore that ruins value. 500GB SSD will hold a few games and will not increase FPS, that's just bad deal as the only storage option.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> That's a bad advice as TVs have more input lag than computer monitors. Of course most TVs can't display more than 60 Hz and at 1k dollar budget 4K gaming is just a bad idea, unless you don't mind low settings.


In a sense, yes you are correct but i've put the link to best gaming monitors too if op so insists.

For me personally it really depends on how hardcore gaming you are where [email protected] and 4:4:4 chroma is not that bad for me since I am not professional gamer. I value utility more.

If money is no object, this would be my ultimate killing monitor with 1ms response time, the first to support the upcoming Freesync2. Please drool:

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/samsung-chg90-qled-gaming-monitor


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> In a sense, yes you are correct but i've put the link to best gaming monitors too if op so insists.
> 
> For me personally it really depends on how hardcore gaming you are since [email protected] and 4:4:4 chroma is not that bad for me since I am not professional gamers. I value more on utility.
> 
> ...


I personally have professional grade 300 euro monitor. 1440p, 60Hz, IPS, 100% sRGB. It's nice for games too, but i see it's shortcomings. It was my personal choice and will be bad value for most people. At this budget we may be looking at TN screens with more than 60HZ. 1080p or 1440p. I personally couldn't ever advice to buy big TN screen, because TNs are bad at showing same thing at different angles. The bigger it is, the worse it will be too. So it should be around 24 inch. 22 inch is fine if person like that size. I personally find 24 being the biggest I would ever want. Everything past that feels huge to me personally. So yeah if OP wants monitor for games, it's likely gonna be 22-24 inch, TN with low input lag and more than 60 Hz. Something like G-Sync or Freesync may increase cost too much. Also it seems like we are all talking about Nvidia graphics cards to G-Sync will be needed and from what I know they increase cost of monitor a lot. I personally have some games running at hundreds of fps. It's UT 2004 at 1440p and maxed out settings. Screen doesn't tear even without VSync enabled, so I'm really am not sure if G-Sync is really needed, especially if person tries to save money.

Edit: Ultrawide is out of question. It's not all that good. I personally am decent UT 2004 player and love instagib mode. I have been playing it for more than decade and often find 4:3 ratio working out beautifully for me. 5:4 is is fine too, but wide formats are distracting. 16:9 for me feels just a bit too wide. 4:3 and 5:4 is where ultimate speed and precision is. Not to mention other things about ultrawides, like high cost, huge space requirements, lack of vertical space and still not so great compatibility with software. 4K still has scaling problems with Windows. My dad has 4K laptop and AutoCAD looks blurry as hell on it. Lots of installation screens are very tiny too.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> And what doesn't work? Seriously, I just said that it can be overclocked decently and offers more features, but I don't advice to overclock.


Whether or not you've had to inflate the budget to allow for these features, spamming one massive, poorly formatted paragraph with a bunch of terms OP is likely not familiar with is likely confusing and obscures the central point and the bigger picture. 



> I'm saying what computer would be capable of. And putting SSD and HDD into same PC is very old technique, it has been done since 2010 and is easy peasy.


And requires you to know to only install games on the SSD, and files on the HDD, and to install windows on the SSD for faster bootup... not saying it's hugely difficult, saying it's unnecessary here and only likely to add to the information overload for someone new to all this. 


> If you can install Windows than you can do that too. It's not complicated at all. I never implied tweaking shit out of that PC, it's just that it's capable of that, so why not mention that? Same would apply to you. You offered 150 dollar overclocking motherboard with CPU which is not capable of being overclocked. Then it's possible to get non Z motherboard and save cash.


Yes, and I would recommend something a bit cheaper if she doesn't need/use the extra features, I was just throwing together something quickly as a suggestion, whilst you deliberately include that sort of stuff. 


> It doesn't make sense unless you upgrade later, but why not just get all around capable system instead? Also SSD as only storage option is bad idea. It's tiny and won't hold much of data.


Again, you're talking from an enthusiast perspective, you're like someone who says anything less than 4k resolution is unwatchable. It's elitist and out of touch with what most people need. I've given 500GB of storage, while the average triple-A game is somewhere around 20GB, and most games far smaller than that. If they really need more than that, it's easier to just go with a slightly bigger SSD capacity, which is possible since my spec is below budget, and yours literally exceeds it by 50%. 


> Aslo if you work with files then it will wear out faster and it will die much faster. SSDs die without signs sometimes, meanwhile HDDs show some signs.


Again, pedantic. You can expect an SSD to last 10 years. Issues are generally very unlikely, and not a major consideration unless you're min-maxing like an elitist. 


> Your computer will not be good all around, therefore that ruins value. 500GB SSD will hold a few games and will not increase FPS, that's just bad deal as the only storage option.


An SSD won't increase FPS, but the performance increase everywhere else is massive. Booting up, loading screens, anything to do with loading applications, moving files around, browsing files, searching for files, logging in to your account... an SSD is probably the single easiest way to dramatically increase general system performance.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> I personally have professional grade 300 euro monitor. 1440p, 60Hz, IPS, 100% sRGB. It's nice for games too, but i see it's shortcomings. It was my personal choice and will be bad value for most people. At this budget we may be looking at TN screens with more than 60HZ. 1080p or 1440p. I personally couldn't ever advice to buy big TN screen, because TNs are bad at showing same thing at different angles. The bigger it is, the worse it will be too. So it should be around 24 inch. 22 inch is fine if person like that size. I personally find 24 being the biggest I would ever want. Everything past that feels huge to me personally. So yeah if OP wants monitor for games, it's likely gonna be 22-24 inch, TN with low input lag and more than 60 Hz. Something like G-Sync or Freesync may increase cost too much. Also it seems like we are all talking about Nvidia graphics cards to G-Sync will be needed and from what I know they increase cost of monitor a lot. I personally have some games running at hundreds of fps. It's UT 2004 at 1440p and maxed out settings. Screen doesn't tear even without VSync enabled, so I'm really am not sure if G-Sync is really needed, especially if person tries to save money.
> 
> Edit: Ultrawide is out of question. It's not all that good. I personally am decent UT 2004 player and love instagib mode. I have been playing it for more than decade and often find 4:3 ratio working out beautifully for me. 5:4 is is fine too, but wide formats are distracting. 16:9 for me feels just a bit too wide. 4:3 and 5:4 is where ultimate speed and precision is. Not to mention other things about ultrawides, like high cost, huge space requirements, lack of vertical space and still not so great compatibility with software. 4K still has scaling problems with Windows. My dad has 4K laptop and AutoCAD looks blurry as hell on it. Lots of installation screens are very tiny too.


Yay, you don't even need 1440p monitor to play UT properly, nor a gtx1060 or even 1080 to reach the expected framerate.

Come on, comrade. You can give better recommendation.

On the other hand, freesync cost no money. At all.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> Yay, you don't even need 1440p monitor to play UT properly, nor a gtx1060 or even 1080 to reach the expected framerate.
> 
> Come on, comrade. You can give better recommendation.
> 
> ...


Guys make a list of your proposals because the OP has probably lost it through all this features talk. 
Hardcore hardware fans can take it easily to the extreme h:


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

dizzycactus said:


> Whether or not you've had to inflate the budget to allow for these features, spamming one massive, poorly formatted paragraph with a bunch of terms OP is likely not familiar with is likely confusing and obscures the central point and the bigger picture.


Just get 1060 if you want to save, everything else is just being cheapskate and cutting out on important features. 1080 just offers more for what you pay. It's just better to spend more.




dizzycactus said:


> And requires you to know to only install games on the SSD, and files on the HDD, and to install windows on the SSD for faster bootup... not saying it's hugely difficult, saying it's unnecessary here and only likely to add to the information overload for someone new to all this.


Bullshit. It's easy to do and for budgets lie this is ideal choice. Being stranded with 500GB only is bad idea from the start, even for gaming only computer. If you want to save more, then get hard drive only, but never touch storage space into levels below 1TB, it's not mid 2000s anymore. You can pull out sound card too, but imo it's important feature. I said onboard is fine, but 1000 is semi-premium budget. It doesn't cost much and improves stuff a lot.




dizzycactus said:


> Yes, and I would recommend something a bit cheaper if she doesn't need/use the extra features, I was just throwing together something quickly as a suggestion, whilst you deliberately include that sort of stuff.


I threw stuff quickly too, but I think I have more common sense and can point out exactly why I put each component together.




dizzycactus said:


> Again, you're talking from an enthusiast perspective, you're like someone who says anything less than 4k resolution is unwatchable. It's elitist and out of touch with what most people need.


I'm on 768p right now. On 2004 PC. Elitist my ass. I just like to give advice that is modern and doesn't feel like it has some serious shortcomings in unpleasant thinngs.




dizzycactus said:


> I've given 500GB of storage, while the average triple-A game is somewhere around 20GB, and most games far smaller than that. If they really need more than that, it's easier to just go with a slightly bigger SSD capacity, which is possible since my spec is below budget, and yours literally exceeds it by 50%.


GTA 5 is around 70 GB and many games are similarly big. They will just get bigger over time. 500GB is stupid purchase and is obsolete on the same day you get it. Why not get hard drive too? It's cheap thing and makes experience much better. Oh and GTA 5 is old game. It's at least from 2015, stuff already improved during these years.





dizzycactus said:


> Again, pedantic. You can expect an SSD to last 10 years. Issues are generally very unlikely, and not a major consideration unless you're min-maxing like an elitist.


That's not pedantic. There's nothing as bad as losing all your data. SSDs are still bad for lots of writes and reads, especially when they are mostly TLC or MLC. SLC was good for that, but many thought that saving some cash was a good idea. I don't think so. Pedantic in this case would be RAID 1 as minimum requirement. That's what most people don't have. Meanwhile having SSD and HDD is what majority has.





dizzycactus said:


> An SSD won't increase FPS, but the performance increase everywhere else is massive. Booting up, loading screens, anything to do with loading applications, moving files around, browsing files, searching for files, logging in to your account... an SSD is probably the single easiest way to dramatically increase general system performance.


It's gaming PC, fps and frame times are most important. SSD-HDD combo is great, you get speed and storage. I don't get you at all, you are suggesting to people to be limited in space just for not important speed gains. I think it's faster to load game from HDD than to re-download it from Steam. Also re-downloading games wears out SSDs rather fast too, so yet another disadvantage for SSD only system on budget. It's fine to go SSD only if you can afford 1TB SSD or 2TB one, but it's enthusiast stuff and for most just overpriced things they don't really need.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> Yay, you don't even need 1440p monitor to play UT properly, nor a gtx1060 or even 1080 to reach the expected framerate.
> 
> Come on, comrade. You can give better recommendation.
> 
> ...


I know I don't need Titan V for UT2004 or 8k monitor, I just used as example for saying that screen tearing isn't a bad issue or something that is always noticeable, especially on high Hz monitor.

Freesync doesn't cost money, but Nvidia has better cards for price now. Can't beat that.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

SirCanSir said:


> Guys make a list of your proposals because the OP has probably lost it through all this features talk.
> Hardcore hardware fans can take it easily to the extreme h:


I made hardware list that OP should get as well as advice list.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

SirCanSir said:


> Guys make a list of your proposals because the OP has probably lost it through all this features talk.
> Hardcore hardware fans can take it easily to the extreme h:


Personally, i'd suggest prebuilt system. Just a bit more costly but you got no hassle plus all the support and warranty.

Take a look on every entry in below limk. You can customize each built according to your budget, taste and need.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-desktops,5198.html

I like the smaller htpc form factor such as the first entry. 

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> Personally, i'd suggest prebuilt system. Just a bit more costly but you got no hassle plus all the support and warranty.
> 
> Take a look on every entry in below limk. You can customize each built according to your budget, taste and need.
> 
> ...


Well it depends on what the OP wants. I personaly prefer to build it myself since if i get the right parts it comes to be cheaper overall and more suited to what exactly i need.
But its defenitely easier to have it prebuilt to avoid getting into the trouble of understanding which is what and where do you put each.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> What millions and what data? It's simple. If I overclock FX 6300 and run GTA 5 FPS increases, so really I must be wrong, right?


Lol. So you're taking your one test of fps increase in one game after having OC your CPU, and making a statement about the effectiveness of a calculator that has taken "x" amount of samples from various benchmarks off various hardware 'bench systems' that in all likelihood are setup to run said benchmarks at 'peak' performance compared to a 'amateur' home built user computer with most likely a bunch of bloat running in the background...

Oh you're talking about GTA 5, my bad lol.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Here's _a very_ good tool you can use to determine if your GPU will be a 'good' match for your CPU, and vice versa.


My system only got a 3% bottleneck, guess I'm a better speccer than I thought lol. 

This is a 4790k, 980 gtx, 16 gigs RAM, and 500GB SSD.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Lol. So you're taking your one test of fps increase in one game after having OC your CPU, and making a statement about the effectiveness of a calculator that has taken "x" amount of samples from various benchmarks off various hardware 'bench systems' that in all likelihood are setup to run said benchmarks at 'peak' performance compared to a 'amateur' home built user computer with most likely a bunch of bloat running in the background...


How do you know it's their peak and my "amateur" build with "bloatware"?
How many people do you think have really good bechmarking computers?
I ran Cinebench too, score increased decently.
My amateur build also reached 5.150GHz.
Your "perfect" tool says that Atom could manage 4 Titan X graphcics cards just fine.
GTA 5 is moderately CPU demanding game. That's what I played when I overclocked. In Cities Skylines this PC will show off all overclock results much better.
My Windows 10 Pro install was almost fresh then.
Look other benches and see how per core faster Intels destroy AMD FX cpus.

Really pull out your head from your ass before commenting anything about result credibility and before defending some random computer part calculator on net. 





BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Oh you're talking about GTA 5, my bad lol.


Well, at least you apologize. I only later realized that you may be joking about that calculator, but it looked like I was partially wrong. Anyway, my apologies too, for being a bit toxic.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

> Graphic card and processor will work great together
> 
> Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz with GeForce GTX 750 Ti (x1) will produce only 5% of bottleneck


Well done. I get to have VGA, unlike you advanced HDMI people.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

> Graphic card and processor will work great together
> 
> Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz with GeForce GTX 750 Ti (x1) will produce only 5% of bottleneck


Well done. I get to have VGA, unlike you advanced HDMI people.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Well done. I get to have VGA, unlike you advanced HDMI people.


Hello, I'm DisplayPort.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

There are more factors than fps that help determine a systems bottleneck. Just because the calculator shows a bottleneck doesn't mean that the pair of parts _won't_ 'play nice' together. It's just saying that under full load/stress the chances of "x" part will be limiting the other at whatever approx percentage.



The red spirit said:


> How do you know it's their peak and my "amateur" build with "bloatware"?


I've dropped into Athlonium here and there, and it's pretty obvious you're still somewhat of a 'novice' compared to more experienced system builders. And that's not meant to be a dig or anything, because I think you learn a lot by doing all that you've done; and you've done a lot.

Plus, because of cash constraints, people are obviously going to be limited in doing the kind(s) of testing that others might have access to.



> How many people do you think have really good bechmarking computers?


I'm not 100% sure of their source, but obviously there is a whole 'scene' for benchmarks - not to mention sites - where this sort of information is readily available; including testing setup/methodology...



> I ran Cinebench too, score increased decently.
> My amateur build also reached 5.150GHz.


Nice!



> Your "perfect" tool says that Atom could manage 4 Titan X graphcics cards just fine.


The website itself puts a disclaimer on its accuracy...









Not sure in what world this means _this Atom_ can manage a single Titan X let alone 4...



> GTA 5 is moderately CPU demanding game.


Yes factors like this, and others like say... resolution may have an impact on the ability to properly test FPS/systems _actual_ 'peak' performance.



> That's what I played when I overclocked. In Cities Skylines this PC will show off all overclock results much better.
> My Windows 10 Pro install was almost fresh then.


You're killing me. 



> Look other benches and see how per core faster Intels destroy AMD FX cpus.


Not sure why this generally accepted/understood knowledge of most older gen CPU is being brought up...



> Well, at least you apologize. I only later realized that you may be joking about that calculator, but it looked like I was partially wrong.


I'm not joking about the calculator though... nor am I saying it's 'perfect'. Check my previous post(s) if it wasn't clear what I did say.



> Anyway, my apologies too, for being a bit toxic.


No worries, we can all at times get over passionate discussing our interests.

But I won't bother derailing any further, as people who are seeking for additional information will search out whichever sources they'd prefer. Though, feel free to send another 'lovely' PM if you'd like to 'discuss' further.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Also, if it wasn't clear, the point of why I brought up the tool isn't to say which part(s) is definitely 'the best' for pairing and _you must_ get those. It's to give an idea of how much room one would have. And where one might be overspending needlessly.

So for the OP/TS  @Potatooesunshinerays with 1060, knowing which CPU will bottleneck the card and which will pair with it 'optimally', can then decide which platform(chipset), price range, and tier of CPU to purchase depending on whether or not they want 'the best' right now, or if they'd rather leave room for upgrades down the line.

But knowing what applications/games you mainly plan to use, and researching as to whether or not _those_ are GPU or CPU intensive will also help to make a smarter purchase for the 'right now', regardless of upgrade potential.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> Hello, I'm DisplayPort.


I am definitely dated in terms of displays. I have never seen a monitor that uses display port, if it did it would probably be a computer monitor rather than a television. My laptop has Mini DisplayPort, which seems to be a slot where buy an adapter for a different cable. I recall hearing that HDMI is proprietary making it more expensive to put onto a computer than a DisplayPort.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> There are more factors than fps that help determine a systems bottleneck. Just because the calculator shows a bottleneck doesn't mean that the pair of parts _won't_ 'play nice' together. It's just saying that under full load/stress the chances of "x" part will be limiting the other at whatever approx percentage.


We are forgetting that many of those calculators just spread misinformation too.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> I've dropped into Athlonium here and there, and it's pretty obvious you're still somewhat of a 'novice' compared to more experienced system builders. And that's not meant to be a dig or anything, because I think you learn a lot by doing all that you've done; and you've done a lot.


I have been much more before into computers, actually maybe since 2009. That's half of my life. Excluding computers, I'm into random tech since age of 5. I also have read some books just about computer architecture. Athlonium 64 is still what it is cool in head, poor in reality. I with another dude just dude just found out the root of problems. Bad motherboard. And those things just die like that often. With random stuff going wrong and little logic, just because they became very complicated things since 80s or even earlier. I think I will just get ASUS K8V SE Deluxe and it will run yet again. Athlonium 64 is like Devil Z of Wangan, it's old school, mysterious and attractive in its own authentic way. Also betrayed it's 'driver' many times, but there's a hope that it will finally run fine. As long as owner believe in it.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Plus, because of cash constraints, people are obviously going to be limited in doing the kind(s) of testing that others might have access to.


Athlonium 64 by itself is definition of personal. Also my personality just wants to make things even more personal. So I do what cash doesn't dictate. I find fitting into cash limits distasteful. They remove the thrill and make things boring. I remember I once bought like 15 light bulbs just to try out various variations of color temperature, various types, various other things. When I got into cars a bit, I started reading from what they are made, how aerodynamics work and other mechanism work. It's normal for me to be obsessed into some stuff. Computer stuff is the longest obsession.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> I'm not 100% sure of their source, but obviously there is a whole 'scene' for benchmarks - not to mention sites - where this sort of information is readily available; including testing setup/methodology...


For CPUs Cinebench is a great tool. It shows how your CPU will perform at its peak. Both in multithread and single thread ways. To me it says a lot. I almost never have to look at anything else. For graphics cars I just use current game benchmarks and card specifications.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Nice!


Air only.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> The website itself puts a disclaimer on its accuracy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, but you see total noob may believe them like a bible. So almost automatically tool becomes only good for amateurs, because you have to know something beforehand and not something, but actually a lot. That Atom couldn't be connected to 4 Titan Xs, maybe 1 at most. And bottleneck would be huge. Atom is almost comparable to Pentium 4.





BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Yes factors like this, and others like say... resolution may have an impact on the ability to properly test FPS/systems _actual_ 'peak' performance.


1440p, medium-high settings. Certainly not the best for pushing CPU, but if CPU overclock shows positive results in such case, then it surely bottlenecks.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> You're killing me.


:kitteh:




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Not sure why this generally accepted/understood knowledge of most older gen CPU is being brought up...


Because it's realistic system? Because I have experience with it? Because it's good to create CPU bottlenecks?




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> I'm not joking about the calculator though... nor am I saying it's 'perfect'. Check my previous post(s) if it wasn't clear what I did say.


I wouldn't advice it for people with little experience due to possible misconceptions. Imagine some noob thinking that his Pentium 4 machine is super gaming PC, just because he put Vega 64 in it. Sure there's no Pentium 4 inside, but I hope pattern is clear. 





BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> No worries, we can all at times get over passionate discussing our interests.


It felt like sharp knife straight into heart X(




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> But I won't bother derailing any further, as people who are seeking for additional information will search out whichever sources they'd prefer.


I honestly think that OP already bought PC and forgot this thread or is just too confused and started researching herself.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Though, feel free to send another 'lovely' PM if you'd like to 'discuss' further.


There's nothing much to say, I just love to hear wise phrases from other people.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I am definitely dated in terms of displays. I have never seen a monitor that uses display port, if it did it would probably be a computer monitor rather than a television. My laptop has Mini DisplayPort, which seems to be a slot where buy an adapter for a different cable. I recall hearing that HDMI is proprietary making it more expensive to put onto a computer than a DisplayPort.


Display Port is easier to deal with. No revisions, no bullshit. With that 'hello" I comically sorta wanted to recreate "hello I'm Mac and I'm PC" stuff:





lol


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> Air only.


Hot. :hotneko:



> It felt like sharp knife straight into heart X(


:surprise::bee:



> I honestly think that OP already bought PC and forgot this thread or is just too confused and started researching herself.


Probably for the beest.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Hot. :hotneko:


59C

Don't for validation only. It was unstable. 4.92GHz was stable. Never exceeded that. Official CPU limit is 72C. I could daily it at 5.5GHz maybe on air only. My motherboard ran out of voltage a that point.



BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> :surprise::bee:


I can't die, I'm a spirit, I feel everything, but am immortal. The red soul among others.





BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Probably for the beest.


hopefully


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Noctua is overpriced? Could be.

But how much value conscious i can be, personally i will never thought their products as such. Theirs are seriously quality stuff with attention to details that simply can't be match by other producer. And they lasts almost forever especially if you are an AMD user because the baseplate rarely changed.

Noctua will always be one 'expensive stuff' i never thought twice in splurging my money on. That's how good their impression to .

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> Noctua is overpriced? Could be.
> 
> But how much value conscious i can be, personally i will never thought their products as such. Theirs are seriously quality stuff with attention to details that simply can't be match by other producer.


I have tried Cooler Master Hyper 103 and Scythe Mugen 4 PCGH. Both are quality things. Noctua just doesn't stand out





contradictionary said:


> And they lasts almost forever especially if you are an AMD user because the baseplate rarely changed.


That applies to all coolers, except their fans, which will all die. Any quality brand will offer great fans.




contradictionary said:


> Noctua will always be one 'expensive stuff' i never thought twice in splurging my money on. That's how good their impression to .


I never thought twice about it either, it;s too expensive for very little it has to offer. I never though twice about Scythe Mugen 4 PCGH, just because when I saw it in store, I instantly knew it was serious thing and that it was one of the best. That's 50 euros for it. Noctua will be around 85. Besides that Noctua will be louder and will be ugly. It could be acceptable for 40 euros, but not for the most expensive air cooler in the market. It's overpriced by a lot.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> Noctua is overpriced? Could be.
> 
> But how much value conscious i can be, personally i will never thought their products as such. Theirs are seriously quality stuff with attention to details that simply can't be match by other producer. And they lasts almost forever especially if you are an AMD user because the baseplate rarely changed.
> 
> Noctua will always be one 'expensive stuff' i never thought twice in splurging my money on. That's how good their impression to.


I know I already replied to you, but I finally accidentally found amazing cooler. Actually I found it in Japanese shop called Dospara and they only wrote Scythe cooler and then model number, but not exact model. I looked up their website and it turns out to be Ninja 5. It's insane. It's really big, but not tall, it has two 800 rpm fans. Well that doesn't sound high end, but it actually performs exceptionally well:
Scythe Ninja 5 | Dual Fan CPU Cooler Review

It doesn't beat Noctua at full load, but it performs exactly the same. At idle it beats any other air cooler and in acoustics test it beats Noctua again and by huge margin. If you put on faster fans it would beat Noctua in thermals, instead of matching it. Besides all that it looks great. So what about cost? In Japan it costs around 50 euros, in Europe it costs 60 euros. Noctua D15, their top of the line cooler costs 90 and can't deliver anything that could beat 60 euros cooler. 30 euros burned to make system ugly, louder.

There are also other coolers, that are huge and cool exceptionally well, like Gamerstorm Lucifer V2, Alpenfohn Olymp, Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 3, Silverstone Heligon, Thermaltake Frio Extreme Silent 14. They are all cheaper than Noctua and cool like Noctua. 

I don't see how Noctua can be considered a leader if their coolers are constantly being beaten by other coolers.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Yes, yes, i do admire japanese scythe. And you are right, their value can't be beaten most of the time. 

But noctua, i rarely become a minded person especially with consumer brands, yet they always amaze me with their precision engineering.

Here, have a look at their newest gapless fans with a mere 0.5mm gap between the impeller and the frame. The kind of precision people used to get in expensive jet turbine made from compsite metal, they managed to made from 'mere' plastic. Take a look:

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...mance-pc-fans-built-from-a-brand-new-material

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> Yes, yes, i do admire japanese scythe. And you are right, their value can't be beaten most of the time.


I honestly aren't attracted to their value at all. Scythes are often the most stylish coolers available, not to mention sometimes weird and almost always quiet. I like how they do some unconventional designs like:









































They are like insane madmans of heatsinks. Anyway their normal products are very attractive too. I kinda like Arctic for similar things. It's nice that value is good too, but I would admire them if that wasn't true. For some reason their production is so unnoticed, which is sort of sad.




contradictionary said:


> But noctua, i rarely become a minded person especially with consumer brands, yet they always amaze me with their precision engineering.


I think that Be Quiet! has same philosophy, their coolers always look serious well thought out and perform great. I have tried Cooler Master coolers and they were strong, really strong.





contradictionary said:


> Here, have a look at their newest gapless fans with a mere 0.5mm gap between the impeller and the frame. The kind of precision people used to get in expensive jet turbine made from compsite metal, they managed to made from 'mere' plastic. Take a look:
> 
> https://www.extremetech.com/computi...mance-pc-fans-built-from-a-brand-new-material


That's really nice. I wonder now why not attach blades to part of frame and spin it too? Or maybe why not make more smaller blades. Too bad, it's one of those things that will not be noticed and won't make much of difference, I guess. I wonder why manufacturers don't make plastic shroud on tower coolers to make sort of ducting for air to move better. Maybe it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

When building your PC I recommend using PC Part Picker to ensure compatibility then using Google to find the best prices on individual parts.


----------

