Advice for buying a gaming PC!

No way, keep in mind those are only $300 for an entire PC that they put 😬together
. Basically, you might be able to pick up a used 280X and maybe a compatible power supply
.

Timothy Kim60 said:No way, keep in mind they built an entire PC for just $300 over there.😬
At that price, I could probably just pick up a used 280X and maybe one other component.

Well, $300 is out of the question, but for around $380, prices over there are actually quite a bit lower...

The AMD build features an eight-core processor paired with a high-speed SSHD—essentially finding that middle ground between a standard hard drive and an SSD.

1 x Sapphire R9 290, TRI-X, 4GB, GDDR5
1 x AMD CPU Desktop FX-Series X8 8300 (3.3GHz,16MB,95W,AM3+) box
1 x GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3P, AM3+
1 x LC POWER LC-CC-95, socket 775/1155/1156/AMD
2 x Crucial 4GB DDR3 1600 Mhz (PC3-12800) CL11
1 x Fortron Hyper 700W, 80+
1 x SEAGATE HDD DESKTOP SSHD 3.5" / 1TB / 64m/ SATA/ 7200rpm
1 x Zalman Z3, USB3.0 black, 3x120mm

Total: $2185 Futur includes free assembly and shipping!
If you aren't interested in the SSHD, you can opt for a standard hard drive instead You could also upgrade to a better cooler and overclock the processor to somewhere around 4.5GHz
. Alternatively, you could go with the Nvidia GTX 970 In that scenario, you'd likely want to choose a lower-wattage power supply
.
The Intel option, designed for overclocking.

1 x XFX R9-280A-TDFD, Double Dissipation Edition AMD Radeon R9 280 933M
1 x Intel Core i5-4690K Processor (3.50GHz,1MB,6MB,88 W,1150) Box
1 x ASRock Z97-PRO3, s1150, Intel Z97
1 x Zalman CNPS10X OPTIMA, CPU cooler. FAN: 120mm, fan speed:1000rpm
2 x DDR3 4GB (1x4GB) Kingmax, 1600MHz, FLGF
1 x Fortron 600W Power Supply, Hyper, PPA6003302, 12cm ventilator
1 x TOSHIBA 500GB, 7200rpm, SATA 6 Gb/s, 32MB, DT01ACA050
1 x Zalman Z3 mid tower case. 192(W)x465(H)x430(D)mm. MB standard

Total: $2186 ADM.com, free assembly and shipping included!

Timothy Kim60 said:The R9 290 is easily the most powerful card you can get your hands on right now, and it’s a noticeable step up from everything else on the market.

Regarding the power supply, I mean that while there are plenty of cheaper options that might technically work, this one stands out slightly from the rest of the build because it’s a bit pricier. That said, when you consider what a unit like this usually goes for, the price is actually quite solid considering the build quality, the Gold efficiency rating, and the fact that it comes with a 5-year warranty...

I'm not quite following what you mean about the graphics card. If you're talking about the TRI-X, that features an aftermarket-style cooler; if you're referring to the stock blower style, then you definitely want to stay away from that kind of setup on this specific card.for instance, 😬

TRI-X review

When I mentioned the graphics card, I was actually pointing toward this: http://zotacusa.com/media/catalog/pr...10p-image2.jpg

From my own experience, I've always found a dedicated cooler like this to be much better than the basic ones that come pre-installed in a case (like an aftermarket design). I haven't handled a massive amount of different cards over the years, but that's just how it feels to me.
And a 5-year warranty on the power supply? Yeah, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
EDIT: Would that CPU you suggested earlier handle titles like Grand Theft Auto V and > without any issues?

It’s honestly better to be upfront when you're dealing with a crappy blower fan 😁 ... though I guess that doesn't apply to the TRI-X cooler (and really, it doesn't apply to about 95% of other VGA coolers either).

http://media.sapphiretech.com//image...57_600_600.JPG

Christian Miller48 said:Regarding the GPU, I was thinking about this http://zotacusa.com/media/catalog/pr...10p-image2.jpg

In my experience, an aftermarket cooler like this beats the stock one that comes with the case. I haven't handled a massive amount of cards, but still...
A power supply with a 5-year warranty? That sounds reasonable enough.

Cards built like that were common five or more years ago—they still exist, but usually on those budget models. A cooler like that wouldn't satisfy the cooling needs of any serious modern GPU. Besides, doesn't this Sapphire R9 290 with its triple fans and beefy design look much better to you?
As for Zotac, their cards aren't even really available in our local stores, except for one Nvidia GTX 980 that costs over $1533 and even that is currently sold out.

It would be wise to overclock both processors since they are designed for it—except for that standard i5 4460; you can't overclock that one because it lacks the "K" designation. Regardless, The Witcher 3 is a demanding title, and performance will depend heavily on optimization, but generally speaking, either of these CPUs should be sufficient for a smooth experience.

Robert Taylor said:Cards like those were the standard five or more years ago (and you still see them today on budget models), but a cooler like that wouldn't be able to adequately handle any serious modern graphics card. Besides, don't you think this Sapphire R9 290 with its triple fans and massive build looks way better?
When it comes to Zotac, they barely even have anything in stock here in the States, except for one Nvidia GTX 980 that’s priced at over $1533 and even that is currently sold out.

I honestly just grabbed that Zotac image as an example because it was the first thing that popped up when I searched. My thinking was simply that a setup like that probably isn't enough in terms of cooling anymore—as for the aesthetics, well, that's a whole different conversation.🙂

Thanks so much, everyone! I'll reach back out if I run into any more questions.😉
EDIT: Man, what kind of beast is priced at $4,500?! xD

Honestly, that card isn't worth it $1533 since it's barely more powerful than the R9 290 we keep suggesting, yet somehow it carries a higher price tag. $667 Just take a look at this comparison to see the gap for yourself; the blue lines represent the Nvidia GTX 980, while the orange shows the Sapphire R9 290 we've been recommending all along. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1351?vs=1068

I’ve been reading through the thread and realized you’re looking to buy using a credit card. My suggestions, along with the advice from Timothy60, were based on cash prices. If you're planning to put this on a card, we’ll need to adjust things since cash deals are significantly cheaper here in the States.

If you decide to go the credit route, the build should look something like this:

1 x Gigabyte AMD Radeon R9 280 WF3 OC, 3GB GDDR5, HDMI, DVI
1 x AMD CPU Desktop FX-Series X8 8300 (3.3GHz,16MB,95W,AM3+) box
1 x Asus M5A97 R2
1 x Coolink Corator DS cooler 115x/2011/AMD
2 x Crucial 4GB DDR3 1600 Mhz (PC3-12800) CL11
1 x Fortron Raider S PSU 650W, 80+ SILVER
1 x HDD SEAGATE Barracuda (3.5",1TB,64MB,SATA III)
1 x Zalman Z3, USB3.0 black, 3x120mm

Total: $2158 via credit, at Futur, includes free assembly!
By the way, I could have included a 120GB SSD, but since you mentioned you weren't interested, I reallocated those funds into a better motherboard, cooler, and power supply.
You might also consider picking out a nicer case with a transparent side panel so you can actually see the components

If you're looking at Nvidia, the GTX 970 is really the smart buy here since it isn't much slower than the 980. That said, both struggle significantly if you're aiming for 4K. Nvidia holds the edge because of their proprietary features that AMD just doesn't offer, but speaking from my own experience with demanding titles, using DSR provides much better visual quality than any fHD x4 Supersampling AA or even 8x MSAA (which tends to eat your frame rates alive). Personally, I usually just run everything at 1440p without any AA enabled at all...
Now that we've set aside those minor advantages held by Nvidia, the R9 290 stands out as the best value option.
P. with Zotac includes a 2-year warranty, plus the manufacturer offers an additional 3 years on top of that—which is actually quite impressive, provided you remember to register the card...

David Sanders4 said:If we're talking value, the Nvidia GTX 970 is the smart pick since it isn't much slower than the 980. Honestly, both struggle at 4K. Nvidia holds the edge because of their proprietary features that AMD just doesn't have, but speaking from experience in heavy titles, using DSR looks significantly better than any standard fHD x4 Supersampling AA or even 8x MSAA—which absolutely kills your performance. Personally, I tend to run almost everything at 1440p without any AA enabled...
Now that we've stripped away those minor advantages held by Nvidia, the R9 290 stands out as the best budget option.
P.

What kind of rig are you running? What's your monitor setup like, and what kind of FPS are you seeing at 1440p or 4K when you toggle the settings between high and low?

I personally stick to FHD using DSR. It isn't true native 4K since the total pixel count remains the same; rather, the number of samples used is what matches a 4K output.

To put it simply, 4K uses 8,294,400 samples for 8,294,400 pixels.
Standard 1080p relies on 2,073,600 samples for 2,073,600 pixels.
When you run 4K DSR down to 1080p, you're looking at 8,294,400 samples being squeezed into 2,073,600 pixels. Essentially, each individual pixel becomes the average color of four different samples. This allows for much smoother and more accurate color transitions than standard 1080p could ever manage. For instance, instead of getting a muddy mix from just two blue and two yellow samples for a 2:2 green, you might get a cleaner 3:1 blue-green blend.

If you're wondering how this actually works, here is a link that breaks it down.
Dynamic super Resolution Improves Your Games with 4 K-Quality Graphics on hd Monitors DSR VS other Antialiasing settings

Dynamic super Resolution Improves Your Games with 4 K-Quality Graphics on hd Monitors DSR VS other Antialiasing settings

So, what kind of GPU are you running?

MSI GTX 970 gaming

Does it swallow up more than 3.5GB of RAM? I'm curious how the GPU handles things—specifically once you toggle DSR on. I've got an Asus board myself, but I haven't really messed around with those settings yet. Thanks a ton! 👍

You definitely aren't going to want to run that on something like Assassin's Creed Unity or those few massive titles that just eat up all your resources. DSR is actually fantastic for games where the graphics are stunning but you can still maintain a solid 60fps. I'm talking older titles or newer games that aren't overly demanding. For instance, one of the main ads for DSR actually featured Dark Souls 2 (check out the link from David Sanders4). At the end of the day, regarding what you're asking—just give it a shot once you have it 😁

I don't actually have any games installed right now—well, except for Tomb Raider, which is pretty much locked at 60fps on Ultra settings, and I've got Dirt 3 sitting there too. 😁 Maybe I'll give those settings a shot just to see how that 4K resolution looks on my 1680x1050 monitor. 😛

Larry Ortiz5 said:Is it eating up more than 3.5GB of VRAM? How does the card hold up? (specifically when you toggle DSR). I have an Asus model myself, but I haven't really messed around with those settings yet. Thanks a lot. 👍

I know you're running a Strix; I spotted it at some hardware meetups. I was actually torn between MSI and Asus myself... I didn't pay much attention to the memory capacity at the time, so I think I'll download a utility to monitor the actual usage.

Timothy Kim60 said:Of course, you wouldn't want to try this with Assassin's Creed Unity or those few heavy hitters that demand everything from your rig. DSR is actually fantastic for games where the graphics aren't pushing the frame rate below 60fps—basically older titles or newer ones that aren't overly demanding. For instance, one of the main advertisements for DSR featured Dark Souls 2 (here is the link from David Sanders4). At the end of the day, though, you should just test it out once you have it. 😁

What I'm really curious about is whether there's any noticeable difference between DSRx4k and native 4K. 🤷
In Metro LL, for example, I noticed that the FPS remains identical whether I use fHD x4 Supersampling AA or DSRx4k. So, which one actually looks better? It feels to me like DSR has the edge, but perhaps I'm just overthinking it.

Larry Ortiz5 said:Actually, I don't have any games installed right now, except for Tomb Raider, which stays locked at 60fps on Ultra settings. I also have Dirt 3. 😁 Maybe I'll give those a shot to see how that 4K resolution looks on my 1680x1050 monitor. 😛

Well, Tomb Raider is perfect for testing; it'll show you immediately if there's a meaningful difference.

And you don't necessarily have to stick to DSRx4; you could try DSRx1.76 (if I recall correctly, that would be 1440p).

Robert Taylor said:I spent some time catching up on this thread and realized you’re planning to pay with a credit card. My suggestions, along with the advice from Timothy Kim60, were all based on paying cash. If you're going the credit route, we'll need to tweak things because you'll definitely pay more than if you just walked in with cash in hand.

If you decide to go with the credit card option, here is how the build should look to stay balanced:

1 x AMD Radeon R9 280 WF3 OC, 3GB GDDR5, HDMI, DVI
1 x AMD CPU Desktop FX-Series X8 8300 (3.3GHz,16MB,95W,AM3+) box
1 x Asus M5A97 R2
1 x Coolink Corator DS cooler 115x/2011/AMD
2 x Crucial 4GB DDR3 1600 Mhz (PC3-12800) CL11
1 x Fortron Raider S PSU 650W, 80+ SILVER
1 x HDD SEAGATE Barracuda (3.5",1TB,64MB,SATA III)
1 x Zalman Z3, USB3.0 black, 3x120mm

Total: $2158 via credit, at Micro Center, assembly included for free!
By the way, I could have squeezed in a 120GB SSD, but since you mentioned you weren't interested in one, I decided to put that extra budget toward a better motherboard, a solid cooler, and a reliable power supply instead.
If you want to spruce things up, you could always pick out a nicer case with a clear side panel so you can actually see those components working

Isn't using a card about 10% more expensive if I remember correctly?
Man, after hearing all that, I'm definitely leaning towards the Sapphire R9 290 now. I might even reconsider paying cash—$600-$233 is a pretty significant chunk of change.

I turned on DSR and set it to 4.00x 😬 I fired up Tomb Raider and bumped the resolution up to 3360x2100—keeping everything else on Ultra—and ended up getting about 40 to 43 FPS. Honestly, I’m pretty impressed; I didn't realize this card had this much kick in it. GPU usage sat right around 2.2 to 3 GB, which is actually quite 👍