Help me build a gaming computer?

[Envy]

But you're not showing any names of these said cards.

Who the fuck do you think you are? I'm not helping you for one shit. I couldn't care less about you. I'm helping Seven, not you. If you actually think that I'm going to respond to your cynical questions, then go fuck yourself in your ass.

 

[Daimi]

Who the fuck do you think you are? I'm not helping you for one shit. I couldn't care less about you. I'm helping Seven, not you. If you actually think that I'm going to respond to your cynical questions, then go fuck yourself in your ass.

I'm someone who knows a little something about computers, and I'm not asking for your help, I'm trying to prevent you from giving seven half assed information about something you know nothing about. I thought people in High Class were supposed to act right.

But : ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

[Seven]

Please calm down guys. /:
I don't like seeing members fight. But Envy, if you have any suggestions I am certainly open to them.

 

[Envy]

I'm someone who knows a little something about computers, and I'm not asking for your help, I'm trying to prevent you from giving seven half assed information about something you know nothing about. I thought people in High Class were supposed to act right.

Assuming that I know nothing about computers... The GTX 970 is awfully better than the 290X. Shows how much you know, right?

 

[Daimi]

Please calm down guys. /:
I don't like seeing members fight. But Envy, if you  have any suggestions I am certainly open to them.

I'm not being hostile here, I'm just quoting what I said before "Preventing him from giving you half assed information, and making you waste your money, or wasting your time etc."

It'd be different if he actually showed something on the table though.

 

[meow░w░w▒w▒w▓w▓]

yes hello tech expert meow reporting in and i suggest an IBM Model 5150 Computer for the highest quality gaming experience

 

[Daimi]

Assuming that I know nothing about computers... The GTX 970 is awfully better than the 290X. Shows how much you know, right?

Okay.

"I know it's 4GB but it all runs slower than advertised and 0.5GB of it runs even slower than the rest.
The fact is it really isn't that big of a deal as far as performance goes, the biggest issue comes down to the false advertising, if they would have advertised the 970 as having 3.5Gb nobody would say it's a bad card.
But there's an actual BANDWIDTH issue. Not just memory issue. Ultimately due to the design of the crossbars and the memory controllers, it is not possible for 1 crossbar port to carry the full load of 2 memory channels in all circumstances. The crossbar port and its attached ROP/L2 unit can access both memory channels at once, splitting up the 4 operations among them, but there is only 1 read return bus and 1 write data bas, and hence in practice it cannot issue identical operations to both memory channels at once . As a result NVIDIA has segmented the GTX 970’s memory into the now-familiar 3.5GB and 512MB segments. In the case of the 3.5GB segment, this behaves otherwise identically to a fully enabled card such as the GTX 980, with the 1KB stride being striped over 7 crossbar ports, and hence 7 DRAM modules. Meanwhile the 8th and final DRAM module sits in its own 512MB segment, and must be addressed by the crossbar on its own.
This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once when doing a pure read or a pure write. In the case of pure reads for example, GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. The same is also true for writes, as only one segment can be written to at a time." (quoting Aesthetics from HF as he's very knowledgeable)
and seeing as nearly all AAA games uses above 3.5GB and future proofing is not existent on this card. Sure its not problem when you crank AA all way down to bare minimum, but who buys $400 card to do bare minimum, especially when cards can do more than just that for the same price.
Therefore, the 290x outperforms it when it comes to resolution and AA."
@Eevee

 

[Envy]

Okay.

"I know it's 4GB but it all runs slower than advertised and 0.5GB of it runs even slower than the rest.
The fact is it really isn't that big of a deal as far as performance goes, the biggest issue comes down to the false advertising, if they would have advertised the 970 as having 3.5Gb nobody would say it's a bad card.
But there's an actual BANDWIDTH issue. Not just memory issue. Ultimately due to the design of the crossbars and the memory controllers, it is not possible for 1 crossbar port to carry the full load of 2 memory channels in all circumstances. The crossbar port and its attached ROP/L2 unit can access both memory channels at once, splitting up the 4 operations among them, but there is only 1 read return bus and 1 write data bas, and hence in practice it cannot issue identical operations to both memory channels at once . As a result NVIDIA has segmented the GTX 970’s memory into the now-familiar 3.5GB and 512MB segments. In the case of the 3.5GB segment, this behaves otherwise identically to a fully enabled card such as the GTX 980, with the 1KB stride being striped over 7 crossbar ports, and hence 7 DRAM modules. Meanwhile the 8th and final DRAM module sits in its own 512MB segment, and must be addressed by the crossbar on its own.
This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once when doing a pure read or a pure write. In the case of pure reads for example, GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. The same is also true for writes, as only one segment can be written to at a time." (quoting Aesthetics from HF as he's very knowledgeable)
and seeing as nearly all AAA games uses above 3.5GB and future proofing is not existent on this card. Sure its not problem when you crank AA all way down to bare minimum, but who buys $400 card to do bare minimum, especially when cards can do more than just that for the same price.
Therefore, the 290x outperforms it when it comes to resolution and AA."
@Eevee

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-290X-vs-GeForce-GTX-970#conclusion

 

[Daimi]

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-290X-vs-GeForce-GTX-970#conclusion

Are you aware that you have trisomy 21?

Did you not read what I posted, or are you too dumb to comprehend it?

 

[Envy]

Are you aware that you have trisomy 21?

Did you not read what I posted, or are you too dumb to comprehend it?

Didn't bother. The ethos lies with the professionals. You know... The ones who do the comparisons for a living. Not some 13 year old on a website.

 

[Battle23]

I can build you a pc with that budget also check out Ibuypower

 

[Daimi]

Didn't bother. The ethos lies with the professionals. You know... The ones who do the comparisons for a living. Not some 13 year old on a website.

Okay... because raw data from the manufacturers isn't reliable. You just don't want to admit you're wrong. But w/e. OP: Just go with the build you got now, and don't change a thing on it.

 

[Envy]

Okay... because raw data from the manufacturers isn't reliable. You just don't want to admit you're wrong. But w/e. OP: Just go with the build you got now, and don't change a thing on it.

Raw data from manufacturers? Are you serious? The only data here is professionally tested by independent computer geeks. Also, the 290X overheats like a motherfucker. 

 

[Daimi]

Raw data from manufacturers? Are you serious? The only data here is professionally tested by independent computer geeks. Also, the 290X overheats like a motherfucker. 

That's why they other manufacturers make different versions of the 290x with better cooling. ;-;? They wouldn't sell something if it would die from its own heat.

 

[Envy]

@Seven
I went ahead and built a pcpartlist for you. Comprised of excellent parts for around $1250.
I chose to go with an i7 instead of an i5 because i7 offers something called hyper-threading (used to improve parallelization of computations or doing multiple things at once). i7 will be very useful in the future and long run as technology improves. This prevents you from having to upgrade later. I also decided not to spend 40$ extra on an overclocking version of the 4770 because overclocking is really unnecessary and you don't have enough fans to keep it cool anyways. I went with the Gigabyte GTX 970 because it offers 3 fans compared to the average two. But it's also quieter than two fan brands. So, in turn, you're getting a cooler and quieter gpu with the same performance. My motherboard is the Maximus Hero. It's a great gaming motherboard that offers excellent sound. You won't go wrong with it. I also decided to throw at you Corsair Vengeance Pro's DDR3-1860 2x8GB because they're reliable and powerful.

Here is the list:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/B3G2NG

 

[Seven]

@Seven
I went ahead and built a pcpartlist for you. Comprised of excellent parts for around $1250.
I chose to go with an i7 instead of an i5 because i7 offers something called hyper-threading (used to improve parallelization of computations or doing multiple things at once). i7 will be very useful in the future and long run as technology improves. This prevents you from having to upgrade later. I also decided not to spend 40$ extra on an overclocking version of the 4770 because overclocking is really unnecessary and you don't have enough fans to keep it cool anyways. I went with the Gigabyte GTX 970 because it offers 3 fans compared to the average two. But it's also quieter than two fan brands. So, in turn, you're getting a cooler and quieter gpu with the same performance. My motherboard is the Maximus Hero. It's a great gaming motherboard that offers excellent sound. You won't go wrong with it. I also decided to throw at you Corsair Vengeance Pro's DDR3-1860 2x8GB because they're reliable and powerful.

Here is the list:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/B3G2NG

I am willing to spend slightly less than that, anyway to make it cheaper?

 

[Particles]

@Seven
I went ahead and built a pcpartlist for you. Comprised of excellent parts for around $1250.
I chose to go with an i7 instead of an i5 because i7 offers something called hyper-threading (used to improve parallelization of computations or doing multiple things at once). i7 will be very useful in the future and long run as technology improves. This prevents you from having to upgrade later. I also decided not to spend 40$ extra on an overclocking version of the 4770 because overclocking is really unnecessary and you don't have enough fans to keep it cool anyways. I went with the Gigabyte GTX 970 because it offers 3 fans compared to the average two. But it's also quieter than two fan brands. So, in turn, you're getting a cooler and quieter gpu with the same performance. My motherboard is the Maximus Hero. It's a great gaming motherboard that offers excellent sound. You won't go wrong with it. I also decided to throw at you Corsair Vengeance Pro's DDR3-1860 2x8GB because they're reliable and powerful.

Here is the list:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/B3G2NG

@Seven, by all means go for this build.
 But only if you want to shoot yourself in the foot. Refer to this post of mine:

But there's an actual BANDWIDTH issue. Not just memory issue. Ultimately due to the design of the crossbars and the memory controllers, it is not possible for 1 crossbar port to carry the full load of 2 memory channels in all circumstances. The crossbar port and its attached ROP/L2 unit can access both memory channels at once, splitting up the 4 operations among them, but there is only 1 read return bus and 1 write data bas, and hence in practice it cannot issue identical operations to both memory channels at once . As a result NVIDIA has segmented the GTX 970’s memory into the now-familiar 3.5GB and 512MB segments. In the case of the 3.5GB segment, this behaves otherwise identically to a fully enabled card such as the GTX 980, with the 1KB stride being striped over 7 crossbar ports, and hence 7 DRAM modules. Meanwhile the 8th and final DRAM module sits in its own 512MB segment, and must be addressed by the crossbar on its own.
This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once when doing a pure read or a pure write. In the case of pure reads for example, GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. The same is also true for writes, as only one segment can be written to at a time." (quoting Aesthetics from HF as he's very knowledgeable)
and seeing as nearly all AAA games uses above 3.5GB and future proofing is not existent on this card. Sure its not problem when you crank AA all way down to bare minimum, but who buys $400 card to do bare minimum, especially when cards can do more than just that for the same price.

Basically. RIP 970. 290X is the better card for now and for future proofing (for the price point)

I'd strongly advise you to keep the build that you last came up with. It's brilliant.

 

[Seven]

@Seven, by all means go for this build.
 But only if you want to shoot yourself in the foot. Refer to this post of mine:

But there's an actual BANDWIDTH issue. Not just memory issue. Ultimately due to the design of the crossbars and the memory controllers, it is not possible for 1 crossbar port to carry the full load of 2 memory channels in all circumstances. The crossbar port and its attached ROP/L2 unit can access both memory channels at once, splitting up the 4 operations among them, but there is only 1 read return bus and 1 write data bas, and hence in practice it cannot issue identical operations to both memory channels at once . As a result NVIDIA has segmented the GTX 970’s memory into the now-familiar 3.5GB and 512MB segments. In the case of the 3.5GB segment, this behaves otherwise identically to a fully enabled card such as the GTX 980, with the 1KB stride being striped over 7 crossbar ports, and hence 7 DRAM modules. Meanwhile the 8th and final DRAM module sits in its own 512MB segment, and must be addressed by the crossbar on its own.
This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once when doing a pure read or a pure write. In the case of pure reads for example, GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. The same is also true for writes, as only one segment can be written to at a time." (quoting Aesthetics from HF as he's very knowledgeable)
and seeing as nearly all AAA games uses above 3.5GB and future proofing is not existent on this card. Sure its not problem when you crank AA all way down to bare minimum, but who buys $400 card to do bare minimum, especially when cards can do more than just that for the same price.

Basically. RIP 970. 290X is the better card for now and for future proofing (for the price point)

I'd strongly advise you to keep the build that you last came up with. It's brilliant.

I probably will, it is about $200 cheaper.

 

[Envy]

@Seven, by all means go for this build.
 But only if you want to shoot yourself in the foot. Refer to this post of mine:
But there's an actual BANDWIDTH issue. Not just memory issue. Ultimately due to the design of the crossbars and the memory controllers, it is not possible for 1 crossbar port to carry the full load of 2 memory channels in all circumstances. The crossbar port and its attached ROP/L2 unit can access both memory channels at once, splitting up the 4 operations among them, but there is only 1 read return bus and 1 write data bas, and hence in practice it cannot issue identical operations to both memory channels at once . As a result NVIDIA has segmented the GTX 970’s memory into the now-familiar 3.5GB and 512MB segments. In the case of the 3.5GB segment, this behaves otherwise identically to a fully enabled card such as the GTX 980, with the 1KB stride being striped over 7 crossbar ports, and hence 7 DRAM modules. Meanwhile the 8th and final DRAM module sits in its own 512MB segment, and must be addressed by the crossbar on its own.
This in turn is why the 224GB/sec memory bandwidth number for the GTX 970 is technically correct and yet still not entirely useful as we move past the memory controllers, as it is not possible to actually get that much bandwidth at once when doing a pure read or a pure write. In the case of pure reads for example, GTX 970 can read the 3.5GB segment at 196GB/sec (7GHz * 7 ports * 32-bits), or it can read the 512MB segment at 28GB/sec, but it cannot read from both at once; it is a true XOR situation. The same is also true for writes, as only one segment can be written to at a time." (quoting Aesthetics from HF as he's very knowledgeable)
and seeing as nearly all AAA games uses above 3.5GB and future proofing is not existent on this card. Sure its not problem when you crank AA all way down to bare minimum, but who buys $400 card to do bare minimum, especially when cards can do more than just that for the same price.
Basically. RIP 970. 290X is the better card for now and for future proofing (for the price point)
I'd strongly advise you to keep the build that you last came up with. It's brilliant.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation
Ah, I see where you got your information from. You do realize that if the 970 did release false information, they would be subject to a huge lawsuit, correct? And false, the 970 has 2 crossbars, not one.

---

I probably will, it is about $200 cheaper.

That build won't last you that long. You will then have to rebuild a new computer. 

 

[Particles]

Where do you get your "facts" from? There is no statistical evidence to support your claim remotely.

Simply do a google search for nVidia GTX 970 bandwidth/memory problem... it'll come up with many webpages with statements from nVidia themselves admitting that they're misselling the card and that it isn't the spec the said it is.
And when you bring the architecture into it and the way the card works, it flops compared to what nVidia's numbers were.
A few examples:
http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/79925-nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-problems/
Pretty much same report http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...nvidias-penultimate-gpu-have-a-memory-problem
Most detailed one (including the crossbar issue) http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970