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.

Originally Posted by you
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

Check my location - I am usa based. I doubt UK has microcenter which had i7-7700k for $249.
-
Can't comment on the UK.
-
Btw the OP is also USA based.

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.

Originally Posted by Gorath
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.

Originally Posted by you
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.

Originally Posted by jdthoosier
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.

Probably but if he wants more the mb likely has two open slots. $80 for another 8GB.

Originally Posted by jdthoosier
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.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
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?

I'd go with Dell 2515. It is 1440p but no free/g sync

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.

Depends on the product. Playing UgoIgo, sure, hard to spot the difference. Other products…

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.

any word on the Intel core I9?

My rig is 4 years old is just barely NOT VR ready, So I'm itching for something new.

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-Ha…liste-1143392/

In the table you can select filters and for example check which is best for gaming only.

The i5 can stream video just fine but naturally trans-encoding is faster with the i7.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
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-Ha…liste-1143392/

In the table you can select filters and for example check which is best for gaming only.

Originally Posted by you
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.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
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.

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.