Specs for new PC?

We were talking about that system being too expensive - today dell has:
(probably today only but nearly 1/2 price)

Alienware Aurora

-i5-8400 6-core CPU
-8GB RAM
-1TB Hard drive
-GTX 1060

$799.99 ($120 cash back) $679.99
--
Upgrade to a GTX 1070 for $100, or to a GTX 1080 for $200.
-
so with 1080 for under $1000.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
We were talking about that system being too expensive - today dell has:
(probably today only but nearly 1/2 price)

Alienware Aurora

-i5-8400 6-core CPU
-8GB RAM
-1TB Hard drive
-GTX 1060

$799.99 ($120 cash back) $679.99
--
Upgrade to a GTX 1070 for $100, or to a GTX 1080 for $200.
-
so with 1080 for under $1000.

UK alienware doesn't even have 8th gen i5 and starts at £1,250
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,175
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Also add 100$ on that alienware for a decent ssd. Nobody wants to use a hdd these days as main drive.

Edit: Well, it actually costs 180$ if you want that extra (total of 1Tb HDD and 256Gb SSD which is still not a lot)

Well, alienware was always expensive as shit and during sale it may get down to humane prices.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,691
Since part of the project description is that AAA gaming will be done on the PS4, I would buy a smallish 4k TV in the 80 - 100 cm range. I suppose it can also scale down to 1440p and 1080p if necessary.
I dont really care about frame rates though.

Depending on whether he meant PS4 Pro or a regular PS4 when he talked about the PS4, you may be right.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
We were talking about that system being too expensive - today dell has:
(probably today only but nearly 1/2 price)

Alienware Aurora

-i5-8400 6-core CPU
-8GB RAM
-1TB Hard drive
-GTX 1060

$799.99 ($120 cash back) $679.99
--
Upgrade to a GTX 1070 for $100, or to a GTX 1080 for $200.
-
so with 1080 for under $1000.


Would 8GB RAM even suffice? I upgraded to 16G and also to the 512G SSD. I only did this because I could also get that 15% Ebates cash back to bring my price down overall.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
60
Location
USA
Thanks Gorath.

No serious personal stuff. All my job-related work is cloud-based now. Just a general purpose home PC with the ability to play some games. My budget is in the range of $1500 but I'd like to get a new monitor also. For a core PC, I'm seeing like $1250 (Black Friday specials) for a configuration such as:

i5 8400, GTX 1060, 16G memory, and 256G SSD/1TB SATA.

For what you want to do, this should be more than enough. This should play pretty much any game at 1080p.

If you're going for a new monitor, I highly recommend an Ultrawide. My personal opinion though.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
2,257
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Probably but if he wants more the mb likely has two open slots. $80 for another 8GB.

Would 8GB RAM even suffice? I upgraded to 16G and also to the 512G SSD. I only did this because I could also get that 15% Ebates cash back to bring my price down overall.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
Yeah, I'd probably also go for a 27" 1440p IPS panel which start right at your remaining budget.

I'm researching monitors now. That is the model I want to go for, but could you provide more details, e.g. freesync, gsync, etc?
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
60
Location
USA
Previously I thought like gsync and freesync must be quite good. Until I actually saw the otherwise same monitor of a 60Hz and 144Hz side by side. And while there is a difference for sure, it's already hard to spot. Also 144Hz with vsync (software) will stop tearing as well. But with this difference already being so small, I don't think that it's necessary to put 100-200€ on top of it for the tiny improvement of gsync (freesync is much cheapter but you need an AMD card).

So I'd say go for 144Hz if you really like to, but be very sceptical about the further money to spend for gsync.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,691
Depends on the product. Playing UgoIgo, sure, hard to spot the difference. Other products...
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
When I took a look at the difference between 60 and 144Hz I checked out Doom and FarCry Primal.
Ofc in a UgoIgo game you'd only see any difference when scrolling (like demonstrated in the Nvidia promo video which demonstrates it in SC2, which is the same story).

But regardless, if you got decent FPS and 144Hz gsync is a really expensive luxury.
Gsync possibly makes a bigger difference when you only have like 30fps as the idea is that the monitor matches the refresh whenever it receives a fully calculated picture from the graphics card (though I am not sure if even then it's diminished by the high refresh of 144Hz). But if you only have 30fps you are probably better off investing the 200€ into a better graphics card instead of gsync.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,691
the i9 makes no sense for any player and is even hard to recommend for semi-professional video editing.

The i5 8600k is basically the most powerful "reasonable" choice for gamers (299€)
The i7 8700k is the most powerful reasonable choice if you are sure you will also stream video edit and so on. It is not really any advantage to games over the i5 8600k. This costs 429€

After that you got the enthusiast CPUs starting with other i7s going to i9.
All of them are slower for games than the 8700k mentioned before. They just have more cores, which are clocked lower. Good for apps, bad for games. They cost 1000€ to 2000€ and also need a different and more expensive board.

For reference:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

In the table you can select filters and for example check which is best for gaming only.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,691
The i5 can stream video just fine but naturally trans-encoding is faster with the i7.

the i9 makes no sense for any player and is even hard to recommend for semi-professional video editing.

The i5 8600k is basically the most powerful "reasonable" choice for gamers (299€)
The i7 8700k is the most powerful reasonable choice if you are sure you will also stream video edit and so on. It is not really any advantage to games over the i5 8600k. This costs 429€

After that you got the enthusiast CPUs starting with other i7s going to i9.
All of them are slower for games than the 8700k mentioned before. They just have more cores, which are clocked lower. Good for apps, bad for games. They cost 1000€ to 2000€ and also need a different and more expensive board.

For reference:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

In the table you can select filters and for example check which is best for gaming only.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
The i5 can stream video just fine but naturally trans-encoding is faster with the i7.

Yeah, really depends on your settings ofc. OBS has a nice display on how much of your CPU is used, so with the right settings (chosing a better encoding quality whose difference you might or might not be able to recognize) you can also get the maximum out of an i7. ^^
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,691
the i9 makes no sense for any player and is even hard to recommend for semi-professional video editing.
Seems that more times you say (write) it, more people will want to buy and play games on it.
Never will understand why.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I9 is highly recommanded for dedicated streamers who use several streaming services at once to maximize revenues.
Streamers now stream on three channels at once.

When I took a look at the difference between 60 and 144Hz I checked out Doom and FarCry Primal.

Better to take a look at racing products as they provide adequate sequences.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Streamers are worse cancer than lootboxes.
One day you'll confirm what I told you - that streamers are milking you through stalling games' progression and it's never what the game would have felt like if was under your control.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Back
Top Bottom