World of Warcraft @ 4K - Cheap Build

[Morgnarak]

After watching this...



Which shows nearly two years ago being able to build a 4K Gaming PC for under $1,000, I'm interested in building a 4k Gaming PC at the cheapest possible price to play only World of Warcraft on at Ultra Settings with decent fps(30-60) in raids/city's going into legion.

Budget wise is under $1,000 of course but going lower would be great if possible. I already own a 4K Screen so that's not included in budget.

[Artorius]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.50 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z170A-X1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($92.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($58.99 @ Adorama)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($87.54 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.75 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 390X 8GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($339.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($48.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $1002.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-17 20:25 EDT-0400

[Morgnarak]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.50 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z170A-X1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($92.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($58.99 @ Adorama)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($87.54 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.75 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 390X 8GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($339.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($48.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $1002.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-17 20:25 EDT-0400

While the above build is very nice going lower in price would be great. In the video with the part's he listed and showed after looking them up he basically spend a few hundred dollars alone on his 4k screen. I don't need the screen so I would think it be possible to build one for about 600-800 dollars, especially since this is 2 years later. Using AMD is no problem as well if it will bring down the price.

[Artorius]

While the above build is very nice going lower in price would be great. In the video with the part's he listed and showed after looking them up he basically spend a few hundred dollars alone on his 4k screen. I don't need the screen so I would think it be possible to build one for about 600-800 dollars, especially since this is 2 years later. Using AMD is no problem as well if it will bring down the price.

This would still do almost the same:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-6320 3.9GHz Dual-Core Processor ($158.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($51.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Crucial 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($29.99 @ Adorama)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.75 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 390X 8GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($339.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($48.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $724.59
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-17 20:50 EDT-0400

And the AMD option is not only because of price, there's no sense into buying a Nvidia card right now. They've just not future proof and perform worse at every single category minus the GTX950 x R7 370 one.

[chazus]

I ought to point out that they used a $250 card (R9 285), whereas the 390 and 390X are nearly twice as powerful. Even the 380 is a good 10-15% better.

I also ought to point out that they built a system based around 4K gaming that are GPU dependant for the most part. An AMD setup with WoW at 4K is just not a thing I'd like to experience, especially in raids and cities. If you really want to pinch pennies, I'd suggest going with a 390, 8gb of ram, an EVGA 600w PSU, and possibly a cheaper board. But even then, you're looking at ~940. I'd probably opt for the i3 setup before the AMD, and knock it down to ~820.

[Deleted]

I'd also go with Artorius first build even get a little better board. Asking for 4k even at less budget you're only asking for troubles down the road. Also getting a 50$ mobo and fitting an R9 390X (2nd build-even tho it works). is something that i would never ever do.

[Artorius]

Just to clarify, @Morgnarak .

You shouldn't under almost any circumstances go with a AMD CPU for a WoW build.

You also shouldn't buy a Nvidia graphic's card right now unless you're buying a GTX950 and then wait for the new cards, which should be more future-proof than current ones without asynchronous compute and therefore bad dx12/vulkan/metal performance.

WoW needs 2 threads of the highest IPC possible and then the highest clock possible, so both the i3 and i5 are fine but I'd go with the i5.

What Chazus said. You can run most games at 4K with a super weak CPU, but WoW doesn't work the same way and therefore the build is different.

[Alindra]

You also shouldn't buy a Nvidia graphic's card right now unless you're buying a GTX950 and then wait for the new cards, which should be more future-proof than current ones without asynchronous compute and therefore bad dx12/vulkan/metal performance.

I understand how AMD is more future-proof with hardware support for async compute (and thus DX12 and Vulkan capabilities) - and that's without mentioning the performance of older nVidia cards with newer drivers - but how does that tie into WoW specifically? I ask because it's well known that WoW runs best on Intel CPUs, but I'm not sure if there is something similar for GPU. I doesn't seem like it'd be a compute heavy game, and who knows how soon they'll update their engine to DX12 / Vulkan.

I'm rooting for AMD because I much prefer their philosophies (open source drivers and technologies) and I think nVidia needs some competition to keep them honest.

(I'm running on a 680, and I've contemplated upgrading my graphics card, but it seems like waiting for the next generation would be a better idea. Of course, I also do some video rendering, so losing cuda compute would stink.)

[Artorius]

I understand how AMD is more future-proof with hardware support for async compute (and thus DX12 and Vulkan capabilities) - and that's without mentioning the performance of older nVidia cards with newer drivers - but how does that tie into WoW specifically? I ask because it's well known that WoW runs best on Intel CPUs, but I'm not sure if there is something similar for GPU. I doesn't seem like it'd be a compute heavy game, and who knows how soon they'll update their engine to DX12 / Vulkan.

I'm rooting for AMD because I much prefer their philosophies (open source drivers and technologies) and I think nVidia needs some competition to keep them honest.

(I'm running on a 680, and I've contemplated upgrading my graphics card, but it seems like waiting for the next generation would be a better idea. Of course, I also do some video rendering, so losing cuda compute would stink.)

Blizzard is a contributor of the Khronos group (Vulkan), and it's of their most interest to bring lower-level APIs to WoW to mitigate the CPU bottleneck problem. They'll port their engine as soon as they can.

If we're talking about low-end cards, then sure go with Nvidia. When we put those ridiculously powerful cards to run WoW, then it doesn't rly matter at all.

Look at this if you're not convinced:



But going with AMD you'll have better performance down the road, even if right now it doesn't matter.

[Alindra]

Blizzard is a contributor of the Khronos group (Vulkan), and it's of their most interest to bring lower-level APIs to WoW to mitigate the CPU bottleneck problem. They'll port their engine as soon as they can.

If we're talking about low-end cards, then sure go with Nvidia. When we put those ridiculously powerful cards to run WoW, then it doesn't rly matter at all.

Look at this if you're not convinced:



But going with AMD you'll have better performance down the road, even if right now it doesn't matter.

I asked not because I'm biased or had an axe to grind, but because I honestly didn't know the answer. I've typically used nVidia hardware so I'm not familiar with AMD's graphics cards. I did a quick search on AMD vs Intel WoW performance, but I was getting results that were 2+ years old. I fail at Google, apparently.

I didn't realize that Blizzard was such a prominent contributor to Khronos. After all, they use DirectX on Windows (no surprise there) and Apple created Metal which could/will hamper Vulkan support there. That said, as big of a benefit it would give them, it's not a trivial amount of work to retool an engine from a mostly single-threaded design to multi-threaded. There are so many landmines and assumptions that are no longer valid. That's short-term and not long-term that you were talking.

(I work on several OpenGL applications, so I'm familiar with the CPU bottlenecking on graphics calls problem that WoW has.)

[chazus]

Keep in mind... Having a great GPU is kind of redundant in a WoW system, 4K or not... Since you won't see 60+ fps in heavy areas/raids often anyway. Even with quad SLI 980ti's or something.

[Fascinate]

You really cant trust any WoW benchmarks, too much variation in testing.

As an example that same website does individual GPU benchmarks and usually includes WoW in it, and nvidia wipes the floor with AMD. Here is just a 970 asus strix review under WoW:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...RIX_OC/22.html


In this bench the 970 wipes the floor against a similarly powerful 290x, 150 fps vs 120 fps at 1080p. At 1440 the 290 catches up and even overtakes the 970 by a couple fps LOL.

Just dont put any faith in WoW benchmarks, too much variation.

[chazus]

Actually, nvidia cards DO run better on WoW to some degree. They also run Diablo and SC2 amazingly as well.

The problem is... none of that matters because with a sufficiently powerful card (~950, 960, 380, etc), the bottleneck is the CPU anyway. You'll only see those differences staring at the ground, or in low pop, low mob areas. It's a broken metric but unfortunately one that is used often.

Basically for questing, effectively.

I wish there were some kind of 'scripted' wow raid that you could use to test FPS. Similar to FFXIV's test.

[Fascinate]

I mean you can get fairly close by using flight paths on a dead server with no one around.....but that isnt a realistic scenario either lol.

And the CPU isnt even the actual bottleneck, its the API. Draw call bottlenecking with dx11 is why we get stutter in raids, dx12 is the hope that crap gets fixed. I have doubts it will, but here is to hoping.

If a miracle happens, a dual core pentium will be enough for WoW easily. (more than it is now)

[Artorius]

Nvidia will give you more FPS at mundane areas or when you're just chilling at cities, or questing. But we're talking about 120 vs 140 so it doesn't really make any difference. At highly populated scenarios both will drop to the same framerate, and that's where the CPU bottleneck is.

The difference is more prominent when we're comparing weaker cards like the 950 or the 370, where it'll make a difference for sure. But for cards like the 390X or the 980 it doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean you can get fairly close by using flight paths on a dead server with no one around.....but that isnt a realistic scenario either lol.

And the CPU isnt even the actual bottleneck, its the API. Draw call bottlenecking with dx11 is why we get stutter in raids, dx12 is the hope that crap gets fixed. I have doubts it will, but here is to hoping.

If a miracle happens, a dual core pentium will be enough for WoW easily. (more than it is now)

Yes, that's why we still recommend AMD cards. They're better at lower-level APIs like DX12, Vulkan or Metal.

[Fascinate]

Nvidia will give you more FPS are mundane areas or when you're just chilling at cities, or questing. But we're talking about 120 vs 140 so it doesn't really make any difference. At highly populated scenarios both will drop to the same framerate, and that's where the CPU bottleneck is.

The difference is more prominent when we're comparing weaker cards like the 950 or the 370, where it'll make a difference for sure. But for cards like the 390X or the 980 it doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, that's why we still recommend AMD cards. They're better at lower-level APIs like DX12, Vulkan or Metal.

I see you guys like to recommend AMD cards a lot on here, but i really cant understand why.

1. We dont know for a fact the current amd cards are going to have a large advantage in dx12 at this point in time. No game even uses it yet, and who knows how the api is going to change when they finally start to.
2. AMD uses lesser parts. This is FACT. Do you know why amd cards are cheaper, go look at heatsink materials/heatpipes/capacitors list goes on and on. They just plainly arent built as well as nvidia cards are.
3. Coil whine. Go look at reviews of all the current amd cards, almost none of them are 5 stars across the board, the reason for this is you have a spattering of negative reviews on almost all of them with people complaining of coil whine.....this is unheard of on the nvidia side.


I agree neither side is very attractive right now, the cards are so stale atm. But this is how it is, if you are waiting for the next gen you are in for a disappointment because were talking evolutionary upgrade and not revolutionary (maybe 20% max at the same price point).

[Artorius]

I see you guys like to recommend AMD cards a lot on here, but i really cant understand why.

I personally don't like how Nvidia operate, how they do their business and how their philosophy is. That doesn't mean though that I wouldn't recommend a Nvidia card for someone else if they were offering better products, but at this time they aren't. GCN is a solid architecture and more future-proof, on top of that AMD cards age better and in my head people aren't buying cards every year so it's a quite clear decision.

1. We dont know for a fact the current amd cards are going to have a large advantage in dx12 at this point in time. No game even uses it yet, and who knows how the api is going to change when they finally start to.

Well, we know that Nvidia current cards are horrible at it. That's it, current cards. They can very well release cards with proper support and then we won't favour AMD so much like we do today.

2. AMD uses lesser parts. This is FACT. Do you know why amd cards are cheaper, go look at heatsink materials/heatpipes/capacitors list goes on and on. They just plainly arent built as well as nvidia cards are.

What? That solely depends on the OEMs. What Nvidia and AMD do are the GPUs, the chips in the middle of the cards. Both have bad and good OEMs though, and the quality of the card in general depends on the OEMs. Their baseline prices are usually lower because AMD has made some crap decisions in the last few years and now they have to play super aggressive to try getting a little of the market share back.

3. Coil whine. Go look at reviews of all the current amd cards, almost none of them are 5 stars across the board, the reason for this is you have a spattering of negative reviews on almost all of them with people complaining of coil whine.....this is unheard of on the nvidia side.

Yeah this part is true, the Fury X for example is known to coil whine.

I agree neither side is very attractive right now, the cards are so stale atm. But this is how it is, if you are waiting for the next gen you are in for a disappointment because were talking evolutionary upgrade and not revolutionary (maybe 20% max at the same price point).

Next gen should still be 14nm FinFet though, that alone is a good step into more power efficiency which should make them able to produce way stronger chips at the same size of current ones. No HBM2 is bad news but at least we can expect AMD to show us cards with HBM, they've had their previous experience with Fiji. While Nvidia will most likely show us GDDR5 cards. Both should bring improvements in relation to their current products, and hopefully Nvidia will fix their hardware to be better with lower-level APIs.

[Fascinate]

It just seems to me AMD cards are built cheaper. Just by a visual inspection take a asus strix 970 vs a r9 390 strix the nvidia card just LOOKS better built. I really cant even explain why i feel this way, i just feel nvidia cards are built to a higher standard than amd is. On top of this, why are the majority of amd cards 2 year warranty vs 3 years on nvidia even on the lesser regarded OEM's?

And its not just the fury's that produce coil whine historically, go look at 290/390 reviews you will see a ton of negative reviews on newegg and amazon about coil whine on these cards.

Yes we are going down to 14nm at the very least but that means nothing tbh, a die shrink can lower power consumption but it isnt a architecture change. Looking on craigslist for a gtx 970 or a quality made 290 (sapphire seems to be top tier manufacturer on AMD side) for a good price is best way to go right now. Just a quick look on my local craigslist i found a sapphire 290x with a vapor cooler for 200 bucks, that is the smart money.

[Artorius]

The new cards aren't supposed to be die shrinks, if they are Nvidia is going to be in a horrible position.

[Fascinate]

The new cards aren't supposed to be die shrinks, if they are Nvidia is going to be in a horrible position.

Why is that?