I want to build me a new computer (warning noob alert)

polywomple · 2012-07-20, 12:59 PM

So this would be the first computer i've ever built myself, and I'm pretty unfamiliar with this stuff so bare with me.

I'm look at something around 800-900$ and these are the parts I've come up with

- GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard link

- AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor link

- 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 link

- GeForce GTX 550 (2 possibly) link

- 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) link

- Antec Three Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case link

- 2TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive link

- I may take the power supply from my old computer, which I believe is a 700W

I guess my main question is, is all this compatible? Am I making any stupid mistakes?

My second question is, does it matter what brand videocard I choose with this particular motherboard?

Thanks!

Rbstr · 2012-07-20, 01:10 PM

Save your money and go with 8gb of ram (2x 4gb sticks) and drop the SSD
Use the money to get a 560ti at least and an Intel i5

A graphics card at this budget level is probably way more important than that SSD...unless you're at a low monitor resolution. What does your monitor support?

As far as brand-matching things: It's not important. You can have a gigabyte videocard and an MSI motherboard no big deal.

polywomple · 2012-07-20, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Save your money and go with 8gb of ram (2x 4gb sticks) and drop the SSD
Use the money to get a 560ti at least and an Intel i5

A graphics card at this budget level is probably way more important than that SSD...unless you're at a low monitor resolution. What does your monitor support?

As far as brand-matching things: It's not important. You can have a gigabyte videocard and an MSI motherboard no big deal.

My monitor is 1920x1080, forgot to mention.

Bags · 2012-07-20, 01:24 PM

You shouldn't get 2 cheapo video cards for PS2, and then a cheap SSD that has 20% 1 star reviews imo.

Vancha · 2012-07-20, 01:32 PM

This RAM.
This SSD.
This HDD.

That's $145 extra to put on the GPU.

Motherboard
CPU

Far better than what you were going to get for $20 more.

With the case, that leaves you about $320 for the GPU, which scrapes HD 7950 territory.

Edit: See if you prefer this case. Four fans rather than two and from the looks of it, better cable management.

polywomple · 2012-07-20, 01:38 PM

Oh crap sorry guys I forgot to mention I'm supporting two monitors. My second monitor is a cintiq tablet. Don't know if that effects anything (I don't think it does?)

NumbaOneStunna · 2012-07-20, 02:07 PM

I would not go AMD at this point. I am not a fanboy at all but for the price/performance you simply cannot beat an i5.

On the other hand, I still have a bomb ass Asus Sabertooth 990FX setup thats waiting for piledriver. Infact I bought the Sabertooth just for the release of the AMD FX processors but those were a major flop.

polywomple · 2012-07-20, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by NumbaOneStunna

I would not go AMD at this point. I am not a fanboy at all but for the price/performance you simply cannot beat an i5.

On the other hand, I still have a bomb ass Asus Sabertooth 990FX setup thats waiting for piledriver. Infact I bought the Sabertooth just for the release of the AMD FX processors but those were a major flop.

im just curious (because I honestly don't know)

what makes an Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz better than a AMD 3.6GHz Eight-Core, for example? I would think at first glance the latter, but I'm getting the opposite impression?

NumbaOneStunna · 2012-07-20, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by polywomple

im just curious (because I honestly don't know)

what makes an Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz better than a AMD 3.6GHz Eight-Core, for example? I would think at first glance the latter, but I'm getting the opposite impression?

i5 has substantially higher IPC (instructions per clock)

Basically the i5 (especially Ivy Bridge) can do more work at 3.4ghz than the AMD Bulldozer.

If you really want an AMD processor, get a Phenom II X6 or wait for Piledriver, its expected to have 20-30% higher IPC than Bulldozer.

Rbstr · 2012-07-20, 04:12 PM

The tablet won't pose any issues.

Go with vancha's suggestions, except scrap the 64gb SSD, which I think is to small to be of any real use, and get a GTX670 graphics card.

You could also save some money and get an i5 3550 instead of the 3570k. Especially if you don't care to overclock.

Originally Posted by polywomple

what makes an Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz better than a AMD 3.6GHz Eight-Core, for example? I would think at first glance the latter, but I'm getting the opposite impression?

Because you really can't use clockspeed or number of cores to compare between CPU's that don't use the same design. You have to look at benchmarks (Really, you can know the FLOPs or other measures in a sort of theoretical manner but that doesn't always translate to program performance...and companies won't necessarily tell you).
They're even built on top of vastly different transistor geometry and semi-conductor techniques.

Vancha · 2012-07-20, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Go with vancha's suggestions, except scrap the 64gb SSD, which I think is to small to be of any real use, and get a GTX670 graphics card.

Even without games and just as a boot drive with some programs it'd be more than appreciable, surely?

GLaDOS · 2012-07-20, 06:08 PM

I am even more of a noob than this guy, have pretty much no experience in these matters, but I'm still thinking of building a computer instead of just buying one in a store, because I've heard it's much cheaper. I'm trying to stay in the $500-$600 range, and want a laptop. Does anyone have any idea of what I should be looking for? I just don't know where or how to start.

EDIT: Just saw the stickied thread, (I found this one using the search) so I'll go check that out now. Sorry about that.

Rbstr · 2012-07-20, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Even without games and just as a boot drive with some programs it'd be more than appreciable, surely?

That the SSD is only 64gb is actually sort of irrelevant to my advice here (which is my mistake...because that is what I said initially).
If you play only a couple of games at a time and they have a lot of loading it would be useful. But as useful as the 670?

Loading times are just not a very large fraction of the computer experience...how many times do you turn your computer off and on in a day? It makes no sense to prioritize it unless your other parts are seeing diminishing returns or you've got a good reason from a non-gaming or secondary usage standpoint.

Vancha · 2012-07-20, 07:24 PM

It's my understanding that it makes loading everything feel snappier, from browsers to media players.

Is that as useful as a 670? No. Is it as useful as the difference between a 7950 and a 670? Dunno...

Mutant · 2012-07-23, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by NumbaOneStunna

If you really want an AMD processor, get a Phenom II X6 or wait for Piledriver, its expected to have 20-30% higher IPC than Bulldozer.

IPC wont be 30% better, Your letting your expectations run wild and you will get disappointed with piledriver much like everyone did with bulldozer.

Trinity is showing 10-15% IPC improvement but lacks the L3 cache so a few more % might be possible, but it wont be a lot.

(which is a nice bump when you consider SB > IB was 5-10%)

Overall performance may be 30% better, I would hope AMD can up the clocks a bit ect..