Need Gaming machine that can stream and video render

[ro9ue]

I was going to try to go with this (PCpartpicker recommended build): http://pcpartpicker.com/guide/tYgXsY/great-gaming-build

Basically want to run GW2/ESO at max settings and stream. But to make it a worthwhile investment it needs to be good at running Adobe Creative Cloud programs, most importantly Photoshop running hi res digital files and video rendering from After Effects.

Budget: As close to $1000 as possible.
Games / Settings Desired: Max or High for GW2, ESO and Smite.
Any other intensive software or special things you do (Frequent video encoding, 3D modeling, etc): Graphic Design stuff so the breadth of the Adobe Creative Cloud programs, heavily use After Effects (video rendering) and Photoshop with large files. Would like to be able to stream as well. Basically looking for a machine that can be a work horse but also allow me to game and stream.
Country: USA
Do you need an OS?: Yeah, would like 8.1. Not sure the advantages of each version though.
Do you need peripherals (e.g. monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, etc)? Yes on Monitor, No on keyboard, mouse and speakers.


Ideally include a list of parts, we see the same request almost every day. There are other topics that have parts lists that you can copy and modify.

So here is the list but lots of holes.
MoBo:
CPU: Intel i5 4690k – $239.99
RAM:
GPU: GeForce GTX 970 4GB Video Card
SSD:
HDD:
PSU:
Heatsink:
Case:

I think the only thing I know for sure is I want the i5 4690k and the GTX 970. Everything else I'm not sure on. I'd like to maybe have a good upgrade path as well. Like start with 1 970 and add another later (is that possible/easy?) and maybe get 1 stick of ram 8gb and get another matching stick later.

Also what's up with the 2 hard drives? Does the OS use both or is one just in there to store files and you run off SSD? Not sure how that works.

[Fascinate]

1000 really isnt enough of a budget with a 4690k/gtx 970/OS/Monitor. That said this is as close i could get it, SSD is out of the question for your budget:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($215.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($84.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($60.95 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card ($328.99 @ Directron)
Case: Zalman Z9 ATX Mid Tower Case ($37.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-14 DVD/CD Writer ($14.98 @ OutletPC)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($93.99 @ NCIX US)
Monitor: Acer S220HQLAbd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1054.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-23 01:31 EST-0500

SLI for the most part is a gimmick, id recommend against it. You want to include 2 sticks of ram straight away in a build so they function in dual channel mode, you still have an upgrade path there as it has 4 ram slots.

[ro9ue]

1000 really isnt enough of a budget with a 4690k/gtx 970/OS/Monitor. That said this is as close i could get it, SSD is out of the question for your budget:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($215.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($84.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($60.95 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card ($328.99 @ Directron)
Case: Zalman Z9 ATX Mid Tower Case ($37.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-14 DVD/CD Writer ($14.98 @ OutletPC)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($93.99 @ NCIX US)
Monitor: Acer S220HQLAbd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $1054.85
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-23 01:31 EST-0500

SLI for the most part is a gimmick, id recommend against it. You want to include 2 sticks of ram straight away in a build so they function in dual channel mode, you still have an upgrade path there as it has 4 ram slots.

Awesome thanks so much!

Question on the SSD. The hard drive should be a pretty easy upgrade later down the road right? If I come up with another $500 in a few months I can throw an SSD in and use it along side the old one?

I'm not 100% clear on how the dual drive thing works though.

[Build]

Do not get a 970..... just Google 970 ram problems. Or just look in the computer forums. Nvidia screwed up the 970's RAM.

Get a 290x, and you will save enough for a 128 or 256 gb SSD. My 290x Sapphire kicks ass.

[Kagthul]

Do not get a 970..... just Google 970 ram problems. Or just look in the computer forums. Nvidia screwed up the 970's RAM.

Get a 290x, and you will save enough for a 128 or 256 gb SSD. My 290x Sapphire kicks ass.

Yeah, those issues that are so prevalent that tens of thousands of users have been affect-.... Oh, wait. Those totally overblown issues that you pretty much have to delinerately try to trigger. The 970 is perfectly fine. Youre not going to see an issue with it in the practical lifetime of the card.

[Build]

Yeah, those issues that are so prevalent that tens of thousands of users have been affect-.... Oh, wait. Those totally overblown issues that you pretty much have to delinerately try to trigger. The 970 is perfectly fine. Youre not going to see an issue with it in the practical lifetime of the card.

If I had a choice between a card that had no problems, and one that does, but I probably won't run into, I would take the one that definitely doesn't have problems. To each their own though.

[Fascinate]

Build the thing is you wont ever run into the problem, its absurdly overblown and was only discovered by a person who was running a custom benchmark at 4k resolution. Not only will you never run into problems at 1080p or 1440p you wont run into any issues at 4k unless you are doing something crazy on your PC. Its a non issue and people who bring it up are either misinformed or amd fanboys trying to start something.

[Lathais]

If I had a choice between a card that had no problems, and one that does, but I probably won't run into, I would take the one that definitely doesn't have problems. To each their own though.

It's not really a problem at all. People are freaking out over nothing. The only issue it that the last 512 GB of RAM are ~20% slower than the rest. People will not be using up more than 3.5GB of VRAM except in extreme situations. The GTX970 outperforms the 290x, uses less power therefore generates less heat and is less expensive. No reason to choose the 290x over the GTX970.

[Bigvizz]

It's not really a problem at all. People are freaking out over nothing. The only issue it that the last 512 GB of RAM are ~20% slower than the rest. People will not be using up more than 3.5GB of VRAM except in extreme situations. The GTX970 outperforms the 290x, uses less power therefore generates less heat and is less expensive. No reason to choose the 290x over the GTX970.

^this there's no reason to not get a 970.

[Kagthul]

The problems are primarily being triggered by people trying to use a high-midrange card as a single-card solution for 4k, which it was quite simply never meant for.

at 1080p/1440p you have to TRY to trigger the "problem".

Since the 970 isn't a practical solution for 4k anyway, by the time you're likely to upgrade your monitor to 4k, you will have upgraded the card (the card's "practical" lifetime).

I play at 1080p and the 970 allows me to run everything ive thrown at it maxed out, is whisper quiet, sips power, and is cheaper than the 290x.

No reason not to get it, unless you're trying to future proof for 4k, in which case you're better off getting the 980 anyway.

[Remilia]

It's not really a problem at all. People are freaking out over nothing. The only issue it that the last 512 GB of RAM are ~20% slower than the rest. People will not be using up more than 3.5GB of VRAM except in extreme situations. The GTX970 outperforms the 290x, uses less power therefore generates less heat and is less expensive. No reason to choose the 290x over the GTX970.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/g...y-allocation/2
Not really, at least as anandtech explains it. Essentially the last 512MB RAM can not be accessed due to it being a XOR gate between the two sets of memory, exclusive in other words. It's not really a 256bit in the general sense that it's a 224GB/s transfer rate. What it becomes is a 196GB/s read/write rate for the 3.5GB or a 28GB/s read/write rate for the 512MB. Of course what happens is when it needs to access the 512MB it stutters because it went down massively in access rate.
Since each 512MB RAM for the video card is 32bit, it needs 8 chip to reach the 256bit bus. However one chip can't be accessed at the same time as the other it becomes essentially either 224bit or 32bit bus rate.
Since a lot of games don't want to access that 512MB you have 224bit as opposed to a 256bit bus.

It apparently requires a lot more work to be able to make use of it to not hinder performance as much than if it does spill into the last 512MB. Of course depends on what things are going into that 512MB. If all 4GBs of information on the VRAM is trying to be accessed a lot of times it'll definitely drag it down.

How much someone cares about this is a different thing.

[Lathais]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/g...y-allocation/2
Not really, at least as anandtech explains it. Essentially the last 512MB RAM can not be accessed due to it being a XOR gate between the two sets of memory, exclusive in other words. It's not really a 256bit in the general sense that it's a 224GB/s transfer rate. What it becomes is a 196GB/s read/write rate for the 3.5GB or a 28GB/s read/write rate for the 512MB. Of course what happens is when it needs to access the 512MB it stutters because it went down massively in access rate.
Since each 512MB RAM for the video card is 32bit, it needs 8 chip to reach the 256bit bus. However one chip can't be accessed at the same time as the other it becomes essentially either 224bit or 32bit bus rate.
Since a lot of games don't want to access that 512MB you have 224bit as opposed to a 256bit bus.

It apparently requires a lot more work to be able to make use of it to not hinder performance as much than if it does spill into the last 512MB. Of course depends on what things are going into that 512MB. If all 4GBs of information on the VRAM is trying to be accessed a lot of times it'll definitely drag it down.

How much someone cares about this is a different thing.

That article is almost a month old. There have been driver updates that fix some of the issues. Granted, that last bit of RAM is still slower, but it is usable. In some situations where people are trying really really hard to "break" the card, once it spills into that last 512 there can be some stuttering.

[Deleted]

That article is almost a month old. There have been driver updates that fix some of the issues. Granted, that last bit of RAM is still slower, but it is usable. In some situations where people are trying really really hard to "break" the card, once it spills into that last 512 there can be some stuttering.

Are you guys all done with showing off who has the biggest cock/virgina?

Lets try to adress the computer build and help out the man instead of starting your own little nerd debate over hardware.

[Arbiter]

Awesome thanks so much!

Question on the SSD. The hard drive should be a pretty easy upgrade later down the road right? If I come up with another $500 in a few months I can throw an SSD in and use it along side the old one?

I'm not 100% clear on how the dual drive thing works though.

You don't need $500 for an SSD. ~$110 will get you a decent size SSD to use for booting and most used games/programs where you can use the HDD for mass storage for everything else. You'll have to reinstall Windows or migrate it to the SSD but yet it's pretty simple. I do recommend spending a little more on a monitor if at all possible though. No point in all that hardware just to have a shitty monitor to display it on. You can find some good IPS 1080p panels for ~$200. At the very least keep it in mind for a future upgrade.

Are you guys all done with showing off who has the biggest cock/virgina?

Lets try to adress the computer build and help out the man instead of starting your own little nerd debate over hardware.

What's a virgina?

[ro9ue]

Lets try to adress the computer build and help out the man instead of starting your own little nerd debate over hardware.

Lol. I'm unsure about the 970 now, but still might get it. I think the only major thing I'm still unsure about is the dual hard drive set up. I have a small budget but really want a SSD, but I see people's builds with a smaller SSD paired with a larger 7200RPM drive. How does that work? Do I install the OS to the SSD and map it to the other drive sort of like a built-in external for storing files?

Also as far as terminology, is a "Heatsink" the same thing as a "CPU cooler"? or are they different things that are both required?

[Lathais]

Are you guys all done with showing off who has the biggest cock/virgina?

Lets try to adress the computer build and help out the man instead of starting your own little nerd debate over hardware.

This discussion does impact choice of GPU for the build. Why so aggressive?

- - - Updated - - -

Lol. I'm unsure about the 970 now, but still might get it. I think the only major thing I'm still unsure about is the dual hard drive set up. I have a small budget but really want a SSD, but I see people's builds with a smaller SSD paired with a larger 7200RPM drive. How does that work? Do I install the OS to the SSD and map it to the other drive sort of like a built-in external for storing files?

Also as far as terminology, is a "Heatsink" the same thing as a "CPU cooler"? or are they different things that are both required?

For SSD and HDD, there is no mapping LOL, it's just a separate drive. You want OS and most played games on SSD. HDD is just there for storage of photos, videos, less played games and whatnot. Only thing on SSD should be OS and a few games. Everything else goes to HDD.

Yes, CPU Cooler = Heatsink.

[Arbiter]

Yes, CPU Cooler = Heatsink.

Yes and No. CPU coolers include a heatsink, but Heatsink is a general term. RAM sticks often have heatsinks on them, motherboards have heatsinks on them, GPUs have heatsinks on them, and CPUs have heatsinks on them.

A CPU heatsink would be the big metal block (usually) that sits on the CPU itself. The cooler itself tends to come with a fan attached to it in order to move air through it to cool the heatsink down.