$1,500 PC build ideas?

Thanks everyone

So, I finally pulled the trigger on this setup

https://postimg.org/image/besm20n9r/

It shouldn't be much of a headache to slap another 8GB of RAM in there later if things start feeling sluggish.

It doesn't really make sense to settle for an H170 board when it's only about $300... I'd say just grab the Z170 instead; it’s barely any more expensive:

crimsonstag84 said:It doesn't really make sense to settle for an H170 board when it's only about $300... I'd say just grab the Z170 instead; it’s barely any more expensive:

Fair enough..
But what’s the actual difference there? (I'm a bit out of my depth on this one...)😵

crimsonstag84 said:Patriot Viper4, 3000Mhz, 8GB (2x4GB), CL16
MSI Z170M_Mortar
VGA Gigabyte Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 WINDFORCE OC 8GB GDDR5 P/N: GV-N1070WF2OC-8GD
AMD Radeon R3 SATA III 240GB SSD, 2.5” 7mm, SATA 6 Gbit/s, Read/Write: 530 MB/s / 470 MB/s
Toshiba P300 2TB 3.5"
GIGABYTE B700H Power Supply 700W, Modular, 80+ Bronze
Zalman Z1 neo Midi Tower black without PSU P/N: ZAL-Z1 NEO
Raijintek Themis CPU Cooler - 120mm
Intel Core i7 6700

Total: $3353 Centro

Something along those lines... you'd probably have some room to play around with overclocking on the SkyOC UEFI. 😛

EDIT: Yeah, I removed the processor 😁

Man, just go for this one. It has everything you actually need. i5 + GTX 1070. The only thing missing is 16 GB of RAM, which you can always upgrade whenever you feel like it. ☕ If it’s under $1,500, obviously.

wiredotter14 said:The components are fine, but honestly, if you're dropping more than $3000 on a PC build, there's no point in settling for an i5. Going with an i7 ensures you can handle higher resolutions, better FPS on a high-refresh monitor, VR, and all that other stuff.
That power supply you mentioned is solid, though Fortron is pretty reliable too.

Basically, an i5 + GTX 1070 setup is just a budget 1440p build. What I put together—the i7 + GTX 1060—is much better for the Future. (The 1070 is a great card right now, but it's overpriced because there's zero competition for it.)

If the goal is just pushing max settings at 1080p, you could do that for way less money—maybe around $800.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:A more powerful processor won't actually boost your performance at higher resolutions; if anything, it’s the opposite—as you crank up the resolution, the CPU becomes less relevant, and the performance gap between different processors starts to shrink significantly.

Personally, I’m pulling the trigger on the i7. It gives me peace of mind knowing I have the top-tier CPU for this socket right out of the gate. It's essentially future-proofing my rig for the most demanding titles and ensuring I can squeeze every bit of potential out of my GTX 1070, no matter what games come our way down the road.

I'm not sure if you guys are being serious about this i5 vs i7 "futureproofing" talk, or maybe I just missed something... are you seriously trying to tell me that an i5 2400 from 2011 would noticeably bottleneck a modern GPU today? (Five and a half years later). 🤔

analogtiger19 said:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious about this i5 vs i7 "futureproofing" talk, or maybe I just missed something... are you seriously trying to tell me that an i5 2400 from 2011 would noticeably bottleneck a modern GPU today? (Five and a half years later). 🤔

Of course it would. Sure, the game might run okay, but that doesn't mean there isn't a bottleneck present.

That’s why I used the term "significant" bottleneck... saying one exists is one thing, but calling it significant is a whole different story. I’d honestly love to see some data where an i5 2400 actually hits a wall with a card in the range of the GTX 1070 we talked about. I'll try to dig up some info myself while I wait for the game to start, but if you’ve already got a link, feel free to drop it 😬

I guess an i7 870 clocked at 3.7GHz is pretty much on par with an i5 2400.

crimsonstag84, I think you missed my point... what I'm saying is there isn't a major bottleneck when you look at an i5 2400 compared to an i7-2600, not when you compare it to modern i7 chips. My take was just that an i5 won't significantly bottleneck a GPU if you're looking at CPUs within the same generation.

Heh, you were being pretty specific about the i5 2400. And then you mentioned wanting to see exactly where a processor like an i5 2400 would significantly bottleneck a high-end card 😬

Sure, but the whole debate was about whether grabbing an i7 over an i5 makes more sense for futureproofing... we're talking about processors from the exact same generation here. 😉

Anyway, my bad if I phrased my question poorly. 😬

analogtiger19 said:That’s why I used the term "significant" bottleneck... saying one exists is one thing, but calling it significant is a whole different story. I’d honestly love to see some data where an i5 2400 actually hits a wall with a card in the range of the GTX 1070 we talked about. I'll try to dig up some info myself while I wait for the game to start, but if you’ve already got a link, feel free to drop it 😬

Look, in more and more games, the performance gap between an i5 and an i7 is way beyond a mere statistical error. Take Fallout 4, for instance—click (there's a 15-25% difference between i5 and i7 of the same generation, depending on your resolution) when paired with a 980Ti (which is basically the same tier as a GTX 1070). Then you have Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed Syndicate—click, click (both sources suggest a measurable gap even between quad-core and hexa-core i7 setups). Or look at The Witcher 3 during CPU-bound segments (Core i7 4790K hitting 65.0/84.4 vs. Core i5 4690K at 52.0/79.2)—that's a 23% difference in minimums. And don't get me started on those massive 64-player multiplayer matches like BF3 & BF4, or Crysis 3. You won't find a decent benchmark online for it, but I remember a crowd of people obsessed with bottlenecks claiming an i5 3xxx would throttle anything above a GTX 770/280 x, even those specific cards.

GPU: GAINWARD GTX 1080 PHOENIX
CPU: i5 4670K @ 4.5GHz, 1.24v

I'm definitely hitting a bottleneck, so I'm just waiting for Intel to drop the Skylake- architecture processors before I commit to a full platform upgrade. Regardless of how much I overclock, this CPU is going to be a bottleneck in almost every modern AAA title; my only real escape is moving up to an i7.

The issue now is that a 10-15% or even a 20-25% performance delta in the GPU world can represent the jump between entire classes of hardware—it's easily a difference of a few hundred dollars.

Newer games running on DirectX 12 / Vulkan support much better multi-threading than DX11 ever did. We’re already seeing overclocked i5 chips performing nearly identical to non-overclocked i7s in recent titles, especially when you look at the price gap. Moving forward, the i7 is just going to be about maximizing that utilization.
And for those poorly threaded games? An overclocked Pentium or an i3 might actually outpace an i5. You really have to look at where things are heading to see how bottlenecks will eventually shrink.

BTW Kimberly Gomez34. The guy said he’d go with a build featuring a GTX 1060, which is totally fine for 1080p. I brought up higher resolutions because of the increased CPU load if he decides to upgrade to a beefier GPU in a year or two—making everything more taxing on the processor. He isn't going to buy a 1440p monitor and stick with a GTX 1060 forever. There's also the option of picking a 144Hz monitor instead of a higher resolution one, which, like you said, would put more strain on the CPU by chasing higher FPS.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:Look, in more and more games, the performance gap between an i5 and an i7 is way beyond a mere statistical error. Take Fallout 4, for instance—click (there's a 15-25% difference between i5 and i7 of the same generation, depending on your resolution) when paired with a 980Ti (which is basically the same tier as a GTX 1070). Then you have Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed Syndicate—click, click (both sources suggest a measurable gap even between quad-core and hexa-core i7 setups). Or look at The Witcher 3 during CPU-bound segments (Core i7 4790K hitting 65.0/84.4 vs. Core i5 4690K at 52.0/79.2)—that's a 23% difference in minimums. And don't get me started on those massive 64-player multiplayer matches like BF3 & BF4, or Crysis 3. You won't find a decent benchmark online for it, but I remember a crowd of people obsessed with bottlenecks claiming an i5 3xxx would throttle anything above a GTX 770/280 x, even those specific cards.

GPU: GAINWARD GTX 1080 PHOENIX
CPU: i5 4670K @ 4.5GHz, 1.24v

I'm definitely hitting a bottleneck, so I'm just waiting for Intel to drop the Skylake- architecture processors before I commit to a full platform upgrade. Regardless of how much I overclock, this CPU is going to be a bottleneck in almost every modern AAA title; my only real escape is moving up to an i7.

The issue now is that a 10-15% or even a 20-25% performance delta in the GPU world can represent the jump between entire classes of hardware—it's easily a difference of a few hundred dollars.

Looking at these links, the only logical takeaway is that an i7 delivers higher FPS in most scenarios (sometimes significantly, sometimes not—but does anyone actually care about the difference between 80 and 90 FPS? Though, honestly, based on your link, there’s practically no difference here). That was never the debate. And yeah, even an i3-2100 won't completely bottleneck a GTX 980Ti (in AC Syndicate, the core load hits 96-98%, so if we want to be pedantic, you could call that a bottleneck)...

Let me sum this up, because I feel like I'm failing to get my point across. 😬
Does an i7 give you more FPS than an i5? Yes. Do I think a 70% price hike is justified for a measly 25% boost in specific situations? No. 🙂

Just one quick question: if you were buying this for yourself for $3.25, would you have gone with a $127 case
?

analogtiger19 said:Looking at these links, the only logical takeaway is that an i7 delivers higher FPS in most scenarios (sometimes significantly, sometimes not—but does anyone actually care about the difference between 80 and 90 FPS? Though, honestly, based on your link, there’s practically no difference here). That was never the debate. And yeah, even an i3-2100 won't completely bottleneck a GTX 980Ti (in AC Syndicate, the core load hits 96-98%, so if we want to be pedantic, you could call that a bottleneck)...

Let me sum this up, because I feel like I'm failing to get my point across. 😬
Does an i7 give you more FPS than an i5? Yes. Do I think a 70% price hike is justified for a measly 25% boost in specific situations? No. 🙂

Look, first off, you're investing in the whole rig. We aren't talking about a 70% increase in total PC cost; it's more like 10%. If paying 10% more gets you 20-25% more breathing room, that's a win.

Second, nobody is claiming an i5 can't run today's games—especially paired with a GTX 1060—but you seem to misunderstand what "future-proofing" actually means.
The goal isn't jumping from 80 to 90 FPS. It's making sure that when a demanding title hits, you're sitting at 60 FPS instead of 45 when you have a beefy GPU.
Plus, you're totally ignoring how APIs evolve. An i7 will only widen the gap over an i5, especially in CPU-heavy titles.

Basically, you slap an i7 on a standard motherboard and you're set for whatever comes next. Otherwise, in a few years when you want to drop in a GTX 1170 or an RX 590, you'll regret buying the i5. You'll be stuck trying to sell it for an i7, which are harder to find used because people hold onto them longer. Or worse, you'll end up replacing the entire platform. Like The New Guy said, that extra 20% headroom the i7 provides puts it in a completely different hardware class.

Alexander Moore67 said:Just one quick question: if you were buying this for yourself for $3.25, would you have gone with a $127 case
?

Absolutely. And besides, he mentioned the build would be around 8k, not 10k.
That Zalman case is solid and breathes well. Honestly, I wouldn't buy anything more expensive (if I were even considering it) without checking it out in person first.

@wiredotter14

One part costs 70% more than the other, so don't try to sell me those political talking points about how it's just "10% of the total price." The rest of the build doesn't magically contribute to that "25% performance boost" you're claiming—which, by the way, is a total stretch that only happens in rare scenarios, maybe at 1440p if you ever actually switch resolutions. You practicing for the upcoming elections or something? 😬

Besides, anyone looking to maintain a steady 60fps setup five years down the road is going to struggle with whatever hardware they buy today. In that scenario, having a top-tier case and a solid power supply makes upgrading your CPU, motherboard, and RAM combo way cheaper later on—since you'll probably swap the GPU much sooner anyway.

Honestly, let's just agree to disagree. We clearly have different ideas of what "value" means, and that's that. It’s actually better for the end user this way; they get to weigh two completely opposing viewpoints. Win-win. 👍 😁

analogtiger19 said:@wiredotter14

One part costs 70% more than the other, so don't try to sell me those political talking points about how it's just "10% of the total price." The rest of the build doesn't magically contribute to that "25% performance boost" you're claiming—which, by the way, is a total stretch that only happens in rare scenarios, maybe at 1440p if you ever actually switch resolutions. You practicing for the upcoming elections or something? 😬

Besides, anyone looking to maintain a steady 60fps setup five years down the road is going to struggle with whatever hardware they buy today. In that scenario, having a top-tier case and a solid power supply makes upgrading your CPU, motherboard, and RAM combo way cheaper later on—since you'll probably swap the GPU much sooner anyway.

Honestly, let's just agree to disagree. We clearly have different ideas of what "value" means, and that's that. It’s actually better for the end user this way; they get to weigh two completely opposing viewpoints. Win-win. 👍 😁

You didn't listen to a single thing we said.
Tech moves fast, APIs change, and hyperthreading is killer.
Even now, an i5 isn't on the level of a Core i7, and those 8 threads aren't being fully utilized yet.

The point is, an i5 is already bottlenecking cards like the GTX 1070, and in 3, 4, or 5 years, that gap is only going to get wider.
So, grab the Core i7 now. When you upgrade in a few years, you won't have to swap the motherboard and CPU, which is an investment of roughly $1000.

He could grab a higher-quality PSU if it fits his budget, but there's really no need. In a few years, a 4K gaming rig will pull about as much power as this current 1080p setup does now.

And he doesn't even need a better case for a future upgrade; he could cram a GTX 1080 in here right now and have zero issues.

It’s like one of us is playing chess while the other is just digging holes in the dirt.

wiredotter14 said:You didn't listen to a single thing we said.
Tech moves fast, APIs change, and hyperthreading is killer.
Even now, an i5 isn't on the level of a Core i7, and those 8 threads aren't being fully utilized yet.

The point is, an i5 is already bottlenecking cards like the GTX 1070, and in 3, 4, or 5 years, that gap is only going to get wider.
So, grab the Core i7 now. When you upgrade in a few years, you won't have to swap the motherboard and CPU, which is an investment of roughly $1000.

He could grab a higher-quality PSU if it fits his budget, but there's really no need. In a few years, a 4K gaming rig will pull about as much power as this current 1080p setup does now.

And he doesn't even need a better case for a future upgrade; he could cram a GTX 1080 in here right now and have zero issues.

I listened to everything you and wiredotter14 had to say, but I only actually responded to your point—specifically the part where I think you're wrong about whether the Core i7 is worth it or not.

wiredotter14 said:You didn't listen to a single thing we said.
Tech moves fast, APIs change, and hyperthreading is killer.
Even now, an i5 isn't on the level of a Core i7, and those 8 threads aren't being fully utilized yet.

The point is, an i5 is already bottlenecking cards like the GTX 1070, and in 3, 4, or 5 years, that gap is only going to get wider.
So, grab the Core i7 now. When you upgrade in a few years, you won't have to swap the motherboard and CPU, which is an investment of roughly $1000.

He could grab a higher-quality PSU if it fits his budget, but there's really no need. In a few years, a 4K gaming rig will pull about as much power as this current 1080p setup does now.

And he doesn't even need a better case for a future upgrade; he could cram a GTX 1080 in here right now and have zero issues.

Look, I agree—an i5 isn't an i7, and it never was. Most games out there barely touch four cores, let alone eight. Sure, APIs evolve, but at the end of the day, it’s all down to the developers. It's up to them how they code and how much they actually bother to support multi-core setups. An API is just a tool; if devs are too lazy to use what's available, that's on them. That's how it's always been, and honestly, it's probably how it'll stay.

wiredotter14 said:You didn't listen to a single thing we said.
Tech moves fast, APIs change, and hyperthreading is killer.
Even now, an i5 isn't on the level of a Core i7, and those 8 threads aren't being fully utilized yet.

The point is, an i5 is already bottlenecking cards like the GTX 1070, and in 3, 4, or 5 years, that gap is only going to get wider.
So, grab the Core i7 now. When you upgrade in a few years, you won't have to swap the motherboard and CPU, which is an investment of roughly $1000.

He could grab a higher-quality PSU if it fits his budget, but there's really no need. In a few years, a 4K gaming rig will pull about as much power as this current 1080p setup does now.

And he doesn't even need a better case for a future upgrade; he could cram a GTX 1080 in here right now and have zero issues.

Saying an i5 is already bottlenecking a GTX 1070? I don't even know where to start with that... You probably aren't talking about Skylake, you mean a Lynnfield i5. For me, the window is usually one to three years. Anyone buying an i5 today won't need to swap out their entire platform just to upgrade a GPU in a few years. And when I say anyone, I’m not counting that 4% of people who absolutely have to hit 90+ FPS on Ultra settings at any resolution, no matter what.

Look, whether you grab a Skylake i5 or an i7 today, the only thing you’ll be swapping out in a few years is the GPU. Give it five years and you'll be forced to overhaul the entire rig anyway once things like DDR5, USB 4.0, or M.5 SSDs become the standard. If you think otherwise, more power to you.

wiredotter14 said:You didn't listen to a single thing we said.
Tech moves fast, APIs change, and hyperthreading is killer.
Even now, an i5 isn't on the level of a Core i7, and those 8 threads aren't being fully utilized yet.

The point is, an i5 is already bottlenecking cards like the GTX 1070, and in 3, 4, or 5 years, that gap is only going to get wider.
So, grab the Core i7 now. When you upgrade in a few years, you won't have to swap the motherboard and CPU, which is an investment of roughly $1000.

He could grab a higher-quality PSU if it fits his budget, but there's really no need. In a few years, a 4K gaming rig will pull about as much power as this current 1080p setup does now.

And he doesn't even need a better case for a future upgrade; he could cram a GTX 1080 in here right now and have zero issues.

I wouldn't bother upgrading to a higher-end power supply just for the efficiency rating alone. It’s really about everything else you get bundled in—the superior thermal management, the quieter operation, the better safety protections, and that solid five-year warranty.

wiredotter14 said:You didn't listen to a single thing we said.
Tech moves fast, APIs change, and hyperthreading is killer.
Even now, an i5 isn't on the level of a Core i7, and those 8 threads aren't being fully utilized yet.

The point is, an i5 is already bottlenecking cards like the GTX 1070, and in 3, 4, or 5 years, that gap is only going to get wider.
So, grab the Core i7 now. When you upgrade in a few years, you won't have to swap the motherboard and CPU, which is an investment of roughly $1000.

He could grab a higher-quality PSU if it fits his budget, but there's really no need. In a few years, a 4K gaming rig will pull about as much power as this current 1080p setup does now.

And he doesn't even need a better case for a future upgrade; he could cram a GTX 1080 in here right now and have zero issues.

Of course you don't need a better case just to upgrade. You can cram whatever you want into any old chassis if you really want to. If I'm spending... $3.25 I’m going to put my components into a high-end, well-built case made from premium materials—something solid, quiet, and with great airflow. Someone else can go ahead and stuff their parts into a cheap, flimsy tin box if that's how they want to live. $50 If he doesn't give a damn about temps or noise, then he might as well just stick it in a case made of... $0.50 If he wants everything to be glass and RGB, or if he wants his case to brew him coffee and whip up breakfast every morning...

I’m going to say this one more time, because you keep bringing up "your" high-end setup and telling the OP what would be better for them. Like I said from the jump... I don't know what to tell you. It just is what it is. Just saying what I'd do. I can't work with this. There's nothing here to rewrite. He got what he paid for, honestly. I'm not going to tell him exactly what to buy because I have zero clue what games he’s actually playing, what resolution he wants, or if he expects high FPS and maxed-out settings two or three years down the road. 🕺

analogtiger19 said:Looking at these links, the only logical takeaway is that an i7 delivers higher FPS in most scenarios (sometimes significantly, sometimes not—but does anyone actually care about the difference between 80 and 90 FPS? Though, honestly, based on your link, there’s practically no difference here). That was never the debate. And yeah, even an i3-2100 won't completely bottleneck a GTX 980Ti (in AC Syndicate, the core load hits 96-98%, so if we want to be pedantic, you could call that a bottleneck)...

Let me sum this up, because I feel like I'm failing to get my point across. 😬
Does an i7 give you more FPS than an i5? Yes. Do I think a 70% price hike is justified for a measly 25% boost in specific situations? No. 🙂

You can't determine the absence of a bottleneck just by looking at those CPU load percentages. I've seen people running AMD Ryzen systems with only 35% CPU load while still being heavily CPU bottlenecked. You can tell by the FPS; an Intel Core i3 will deliver roughly 130% worse performance compared to a top-tier processor like an Intel Core i7 Extreme.

There are two other factors to consider here:

- I suspect anyone dropping $0.00 on a PC (or $2833 regardless) is going to find staying at 1080p/60Hz quite difficult.
- And even if they do stay there, as juretherebel mentioned, some games are much more demanding than others. This won't last forever. Next-gen consoles are arriving within the year.

I actually got into a debate once with that guy from the science studio (back before Pascal was even released). He was testing CPU bottlenecks using an Intel Core i5 paired with a GTX 970. I told him straight up: that isn't a good GPU for testing CPU bottlenecks. To get meaningful results, you have to eliminate the GPU bottleneck entirely by using a high-end card; otherwise, you can't actually see the difference between processors. His response was basically that he didn't feel like testing high-end GPUs on mid-range CPUs, plus he focuses on budget builds and value components—you'll never hear him recommend the most expensive cards. I told him, "Fine, I don't love high-end gear either, but your test isn't relevant because the GPU is acting as the primary limiter." He missed the point. Soon enough, a card like the 980Ti will drop in price and move into the "value" category, and those same users will be pairing them with Intel Core i5 chips. Think about how much CPUs have advanced in the last 4-5 years compared to GPUs. GPU progress has outpaced CPUs by several times, all while becoming more affordable. Meanwhile, games are getting harder on processors, and multi-thread optimization is improving across the board. He ignored that logic, arguing again that no sane person is going to buy a $600 GPU and a $200 CPU. But look at the reality: now you can grab that NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 for $1233 (whereas 980Tis were over $2000 until recently, and used ones are under $1167). I imagine by the end of this generation, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 will drop to at least $1000 right before it disappears, making it incredibly accessible.