Getting A Cyberpower Pc. Any Advice?

[SonicSonedit]

taiiat

It's true that for common user I7 maybe unncessary but still I tend to run more than one process and sometimes even playing several games at once. Also you are wrong about excavation - I could see noticeable throttles on my ACER Extensa EX2510G-54TK (I take it to the business trips so I can play WF and other games) when there were a lot of enemies during excavation mission. Althrought laptop has a weaker version of I5, it still was very noticeable.

Well, the bottom line is, I paid for I7 less then 1/3 of what I paid for two of my R9 290s. So why the hell not?

Edited February 20, 2015 by SonicSonedit

[taiiat]

 

It's true that for common user I7 maybe unncessary but still I tend to run more than one process and sometimes even playing several games at once. Also you are wrong about excavation - I could see noticeable throttles on my ACER Extensa EX2510G-54TK (I take it to the business trips so I can play WF and other games) when there were a lot of enemies during excavation mission. Althrought I has a weaker version of I5, it still was very noticeable.

Well, the bottom line is, I paid for I7 less then 1/3 of what I paid for two of my R9 290s.

1:

if you're having Temperature throttling problems, you aren't sufficiently cooling it.

you'd be the first person i've seen to report their i5 "overheating" (i.e. getting hot enough to automatically throttle) and causing performance issues.

if your ambient temperature is extremely high, or if the cooler is not particularly great, i wouldn't be surprised if that was infact happening.

however, that is not the majority of experiences, absolutely keep in mind that the majority of experiences have Processors nowhere near even danger Temperatures, let alone throttling Temperatures.

and i now see you're talking about the Processor in a Notebook throttling.

this is far more normal, and the Processor in the Notebook is a joke compared to a Desktop Processor anyways.

please do not use Notebook experiences to dictate general computer usage. Notebooks are built with alien architectures and obscure connections to the point that their own Manufacturers often don't even support them, given in a 'take it as it is' situation.

Mobile GPU's are fully unsupported by their manufacturers. both Red Team and Green Team Mobile GPU's are given to the user in a 'if it works good if it does not too bad' state.

use Notebook experiences to give context to other Notebook experiences. remember to split Notebooks into their three classes, Ultrabooks(and similar designs), 'normal', and 'full Desktop replacements' (even though that's something of a fallacy because of the previous paragraph).

Desktops perform extremely different from Noteboooks.

2:

playing multiple Games at once is absolutely not a normal task. that changes things completely. you need to be able to be objective enough to not include those sorts of experiences with information you give to others because it is a niche circumstance, and does not represent how ANYTHING normally is used.

giving Computing advice has Objectivity at the utmost priority. information needs to be accurate, pertinent, and about what a user should actually expect.

[SonicSonedit]

taiiat

As I said I had more then enough cooling for my old I5 (desktop one). The one which I have in laptop now is another story, it has a sh**ty cooling system, agree. Still I didn't play much excavation before PC upgrade, so I can't really say how good would my old I5 perform on 40m mark where a hell load of enemies spawn and game starts to actually be fun.

About L4D2 server - I wasn't using autorization tools to run dedicated server, I just started a local server from lobby, exactly same as being host in Warframe. I really don't see how playing L4D2 high quality map with friends is "not normal", care to explain? 

Not to mention there is a lot of good, but poorly-optimized games like DayZ who will happily eat your I5 alive.

 

giving Computing advice has Objectivity at the utmost priority. information needs to be accurate, pertinent, and about what a user should actually expect.

The OP buys a set of two R9 270 for crossfire. You should take this into consideration before saying something like "You don't need I7".

 

Edit:

And playing 2 games at once is not that weird either, given how extremely boring first 20 minutes of survival are.

Edited February 20, 2015 by SonicSonedit

[Clawtank96]

 

Clawtank96

I have about same PC, with exact same CPU, almost same 2 video cards - R9 290 (except they are 4GB VRAM) in crossfire mode and 16GB DDR4 instead of DDR3.

I really don't see any point in noise reduction since stock fans on GPU make almost no noise and Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 which I use for CPU isn't noisy either.

Also your cooling system is completely unnecessary and nothing more than bragging.

And CD-RW? God it's 2015. Even in Russia no one uses CDs anymore.

I also suggest you to buy a faster HDD since you are not going with SSD.

 

Lol win 8.1 and mcaffee. Don't forget to format your hard drive as soon as you receive your PC to get rid of this disgusting trash.

 

Thank for the advice. I'm not really tech savvy, and some of the add-ons come stock with the machine. Ill change thinks here and there.

 

Also i didn't see Macaffee, Definitly burning that S#&$ to the ground

[Clawtank96]

you're paying for things you don't need in some places, and in others, you're buying things that you don't want.

i also would recommend not buying prebuilt computers if you're technically inclined at all, because the premium you pay for it is only worth it for the super high end premium companies.

however you haven't detailed what you do and what you need to do with your computer. so making suggestions is difficult at best.

a general suggestion that i could make for a high end system however.

i5 4690k

8-16 gigs of RAM (~1600Mhz range is way more than sufficient for a system that isn't using an iGPU, more is a waste of money)

SSD boot drive

SSD game drive

Hard Drive(s) for data storage

GTX970 / R9 290x

an external DAC being fed from an optical cable

a closed circuit Liquid CPU Cooler

a case with good airflow design, with quiet but effective fans, totaling to Positive pressure to help keep dust out

Et Cetera.

but still, hard to make suggestions without knowing what you need, want, Et Cetera.

Edit:

if you're going to be forced to take McAfee, i would just not buy from them at all.

or, rather, you're probably best off just not. because of the bloatware you're going to need to cut out of the Operating System.

a lot of work.

I'm planing on making a gaming computer that can last me for around 5 years before i have to upgrade again, but i would like to play GTA 5 on at-least medium graphics.(not that tech savvy so I came here to ask for advice from the masters)

[TrashSpider]

Mcafee get rid of it.

as shifted said, screw the SLI get one dedicated good nvidia card.

Ugh that thing slows down computer like mad. 

[(PSN)Pharen]

 

I thinking of this layout, any advice?

 

-snip-

 

Honestly, you should go for an AMD FX8350 CPU, 8 cores unlocked starting at 4.0GHz, and with a decent CPU cooler you can overclock them high, AMD's love overclocking. As for R9 270's wouldn't it be both cheaper and more powerful for a single R9 290? Also an 850W PSU will not support all that hardware, you'll need 950 minimum.

Edited February 20, 2015 by (PS4)Pharen

[taiiat]

The OP buys a set of two R9 270 for crossfire. You should take this into consideration before saying something like "You don't need I7".

yes, i take that into consideration, that with no offense at all, the person doesn't really know what they're doing.

2x R9 270's is a waste of time. it's not their fault though, CyberPower let them select something stupid like that.

I'm planing on making a gaming computer that can last me for around 5 years before i have to upgrade again, but i would like to play GTA 5 on at-least medium graphics.

ah. well, what kind of computer would you like this to be in 5 years? there's plenty of flexibility to end up at the front of the line then, or have it tapering off for practicality.

i'm going to assume based on the first parts suggestion you posted, that your preferred budget is somewhere in the $1500 range.

with that in mind, and for how long you'd like to have the machine do things well.

you're probably going to need to stray away from prebuilt companies in order to achieve this. the hardware is going to be expensive on it's own, the labor costs and upcharging isn't going to help you.

assembling a computer is a lot easier than one might think. the hardest part is deciding where to rout cables for things so they stay out of the way and don't block airflow. good cases have routing holes though, which generally makes it a cinch.

you literally can't assemble a computer wrong unless you use a hammer. everything only fits one way.

so here's a basic list of things that i would suggest. you're going to pay some serious premiums if you want to have a machine that will sit for 5 years.

note, there's no GPU on this list. this is because you WILL replace the GPU atleast once if a machine is to be used for 5 years.

therefore, i don't know what kind of money you're willing to shell out for a GPU that in a few years you will be replacing.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/v83LHx

normally i wouldn't go the enthusiast board route, but you need to for a machine to have a lifespan like you're asking for. hell, even this is a bit outdated for what you're asking for, i probably should have built around LGA2011-3 rather than LGA2011.

again, keep in mind asking a set of computing hardware to be in the 'good' performance bracket for 5 years is a tall order.

Edit:

Honestly, you should go for an AMD FX8350 CPU

buying components that were okay in late 2011 - mid 2012 is not recommended for the lifespan this consumer wants out of their computer.

that sort of lifespan demands being overkill today in order to be good tommorow.

Edited February 20, 2015 by taiiat

[SonicSonedit]

taiiat

I'm pretty sure that OP, just like me, wants a PC that will able to run game on ultra for at least 2-3 years and run games at top settings for at least 5 years. I'm pretty sure that double R9 270 will be able to run ultra for at least a couple of years and surely will run HIGH settings for the next 5 years with no problems. Yes, DX12 is coming, but what will it be? DX11 didn't give any real perfomance increase compared to DX9 and all of the features of DX11 are availabe for DX9 with no performance reduction. Remember the FarCry DX9 block fiasco?

Also games graphics quality will be pretty much locked for a few years because of XBone and PS4. Well except a few games like Star Citizen, this game will let me know, will be double R9 290 enough to run it on ultra or not :D

[(PSN)Pharen]

yes, i take that into consideration, that with no offense at all, the person doesn't really know what they're doing.

-snip-

buying components that were okay in late 2011 - mid 2012 is not recommended for the lifespan this consumer wants out of their computer.

that sort of lifespan demands being overkill today in order to be good tommorow.

How is 8 cores STARTING at 4.0GHz considered "okay". Mines at 5.2GHz, and I would say without a shadow of a doubt that's far higher than your setup.

[taiiat]

I'm pretty sure that OP, just like me, wants a PC that will able to run game on ultra for at least 2-3 years and run games at top settings for at least 5 years. I'm pretty sure that double R9 270 will be able to run ultra for at least a couple of years and surely will run HIGH settings for the next 5 years with no problems.

funny, that. two R9 270's isn't even reliably sufficient for doing that TODAY, let alone in the future.

you don't take two Budget GPU's and link them together and call yourself in a good place. buying Budget GPU's and linking them has always been a waste of time. performance is vaguely equal to the card above it in price bracket, but took two GPU's, Crossfire / SLI (which aren't guaranteed to run well pending what application it is), uses a lot more Electricity, creates a lot more Heat, and didn't really save you any money.

if he wanted to be safe, he would get a high end, borderline enthusiast (or even enthusiast) GPU now, and then in a few years either pair it with another one of them, or preferably just move up a couple generations to that times' modern equivalent jof the GPU he had already.

the Consoles will keep the scope of things down some, yes.

but between the mostly s...ty ports, and PC not being limited by Consoles, games are always still asking for a lot of power.

the same game that has a Render Detail Draw Distance of 7 Meters on Consoles, would probably have that Draw Distance be more like 50 Meters on a PC.

Consoles may limit a few visual avenues, but perceived visual quality is not the only thing that determines how much a piece of hardware is going to struggle to keep up with what the application demands.

as for Direct X 12 - if it's really going to allow more direct interaction with the Hardware (and Microsoft isn't just lying), this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. being able to talk to Hardware more directly will make an enormous performance improvement. literally everything would get faster.

the closer we can get to having applications written in Assembly, the better every application will perform, and the more reliable it will be, the less interpolation there will be that will crash on various Hardware and Software setups - it's a critical point we've been needing that in recent years we've just decided to solve by shoving more Horsepower in computers to try and compensate for the continued slowing of interpolation API's.

this also means there's more free headroom, so we could also go down the route of being able to have more and more load without reducing performance, which is also great.

just as within a few years we'll have the capability of having shoebox sided Desktops that have full power components that run dead cold, and can handle 1600p Gaming no sweat.

but that's off topic. off topic an off topic topic. :)

by the way, you're insane if you think a set of current GPU's will be in the 'performs great' bracket in 5 years.

currently, ~5 year old GPU's include:

Nvidia GeForce GTX200 series

AMD Radeon HD5000 series

if you picked up one of those cards, would you expect to play games with settings cranked up? ofcourse not. because they're extremely outdated and they can't handle it even remotely.

GPU's don't last that long. period. three years is about the reasonable life cycle of a GPU.

How is 8 cores STARTING at 4.0GHz considered "okay". Mines at 5.2GHz, and I would say without a shadow of a doubt that's far higher than your setup.

because Computers aren't as clear cut as you think.

if you want to get a vague estimate of raw processing power (which is difficult to compare, but you seem to want to try), a short explanation:

the ALU's in AMD's architecture are assembled as 4 packages of 2 ALU's. each set of two ALU's shares an FPU and memory resources(small resource per package, moderate resource per Die).

in order to fit these ALU's into packages that small, each set of 2 ALU's has about the same 'sheer Horsepower' as one Core in an Intel CPU - which are one package of all the Cores, Cores that don't share FPU's and share a much, much larger working set memory bank.

the main advantage of AMD's Architecture is that one Thread can steal both of the FPU's on the Package if it needs it. the other Thread will wait, and that thread gets both of them. it's a peculiar setup, and it works great for highly, highly threaded applications that need a lot of simple calculation, but not a large amount of data.

each Thread is limited on the resources it has available to it, though. this could slow down the working set capabilities. however, for less Threaded tasks, the two Threads in each Package will bond together and act as a single unit, which helps their limited resources a lot. but still limited.

pair that with AMD's aging Chipsets, the Northbridge of which is still living in the dark ages, and you have some minor bottlenecks pending what type of Application you're running. gladly, Intel realized Northbridge issues and quickly ironed that out in the first Desktop 'Core' Series. infact, almost all of the performance difference between LGA775 and LGA1155 was Northbridge improvements. the CPU's didn't change much in comparison to the Motherboards. that's not to say the Processors didn't change, but the Northbridge improvements (and moving about half of the NB tasks inside the CPU) were huge steps forwards.

the moral of this story is that one type of CPU is designed for one kind of task, and the other type for a different kind of Task. they beat each other at their designed tasks.

'lulz m0ar hertz' is not how computers are compared. they only matter to things in the same architecture of each other, outside of that, they mean basically nothing because they operate completely differently.

[(PSN)Pharen]

funny, that. two R9 270's isn't even reliably sufficient for doing that TODAY, let alone in the future.

-snip-

As much as you want to rubbish AMD the simple fact is that modern game engines make use of multiple cores, and 8 cores with 5.2GHz of processing power is always going to be more effective than 4 cores running at 4.2GHz, which is the general maximum of a Intel processor, unless you're going to fork out over 500 bucks for a processor alone. The FX8350 processor is old, i'll give you that, but it is still beating most Intel processors on the market today, and could never be called a bad processor.

[taiiat]

-snip-

i'm sorry, i already explained that one type of Processor is built for one type of task, and the other type built for a different type of task.

and i don't feel like explaining it again why "OMG all of these Cores at all of these Hertz!" is not how computers work.

both are acceptable for Video Games as a general rule however.

(though not for what this thread is talking about, what the OP is asking for is a very tall order, especially if it's going to include some 'historically' sketchy games on PC, as GTAIV definitely did not perform particularly great on PC, and if GTAV is going to be similar... yeah).

[SonicSonedit]

 

as for Direct X 12 - if it's really going to allow more direct interaction with the Hardware (and Microsoft isn't just lying), this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. being able to talk to Hardware more directly will make an enormous performance improvement. literally everything would get faster.

Not really. Most of the game developers *couch*especially DE*couch* don't really go deep into direct talking to hardware and use ready-make solutions. Ofcourse there are few exceptions like Unreal Engine and Source Engine. But they are few. Even CryEngine mostly uses surface API instead of talking to hardware directly.

 

 

the closer we can get to having applications written in Assembly, the better every application will perform, and the more reliable it will be, the less interpolation there will be that will crash on various Hardware and Software setups

Hahaha :D

Sorry but no, as a firmware programmer I can tell you that - the more you work directly with hardware instead of using drivers the less stable your application will be. Even smallest difference in hardware will cause it to malfunction. And you surely don't expect game developers to code over thousand different implementations of their engines for all the video cards out there, right?

 

 

it's a critical point we've been needing that in recent years we've just decided to solve by shoving more Horsepower in computers to try and compensate for the continued slowing of interpolation API's.

There are different kind of APIs. For example particle APIs. There are moronick ones like Nvidia PhysX and there are good custom made particle systems - just look at the UE4 particles.

There are also some in-between like the last CryEngine. It all really goes down to developement resoueces (time, man resources, money). And trust not that much game developers will waste a large amount of resources to make a good particles for example, why would you want to waste 1m$ and 2 months if you can simply go with Nvidia PhysX? Yeah it's not that good and uses more resources than it should, but it's the easy way. This is the main reason why games eat more and more resources while graphics are not really becoming any better last years. And DX12 won't really change anything here. Yeah some engines like UE4 and Source will take advantage of it, but majority of game developers will not because of the reason I mentioned. The good thing more and more people tend to build their games on UE4, which is good. 

[taiiat]

-snip-

being able to interpolate less gives the opportunity for much faster processing. whether it will happen is another story, but it's something we've been needing more and more as the layers of software and interpolation stack up.

[SonicSonedit]

being able to interpolate less gives the opportunity for much faster processing. whether it will happen is another story, but it's something we've been needing more and more as the layers of software and interpolation stack up.

True, maybe more developers will use the opportunity it provides, it's for the good. Still the ones who really wanted to do things right already did it, and the ones who are lazy will stay lazy. Still yes, there will be devs who will change the approach if DX12 will provide an easy way to create custom APIs to avoid overcomplicated slow APIs which are popular right now. Let's see how things will turn out :)

[(PSN)Pharen]

i'm sorry, i already explained that one type of Processor is built for one type of task, and the other type built for a different type of task.

and i don't feel like explaining it again why "OMG all of these Cores at all of these Hertz!" is not how computers work.

both are acceptable for Video Games as a general rule however.

(though not for what this thread is talking about, what the OP is asking for is a very tall order, especially if it's going to include some 'historically' sketchy games on PC, as GTAIV definitely did not perform particularly great on PC, and if GTAV is going to be similar... yeah).

You're misrepresenting the AMD processor in this case, none of the modern Intel processors within 1-3x the price range can compete, and as it so happens, yes, more processing power does equal better performance, the AM3+ chipset does not cause bottlenecks as you claim, the motherboard is capable of using all the processing power that the FX8350 is capable of producing, although it would be highly risky to try and pump out more power than I am currently doing (5.2GHz per core)

 

You're clearly a butthurt Intel fanboy trying to justify the fact you paid twice the price for half the performance.

[taiiat]

-snip-

if you would like to be ignorant and believe that 'all the Hertz' is how you determine the performance of a computer Electronic, go right ahead.

but don't do it in a public place and try to impart that on others as factual information and then make recommendations for spending people's own savings on real purchases based off of those things.

if you would like to learn some interesting stuff, read the Architecture schematics for Processors yourself.

as you clearly are not going to listen to me briefly explaining the schematics.

i will not entertain incorrect information about computing.

if you aren't understanding what i am saying (which you clearly aren't, as you're getting defensive with insults when i make factual statements that explain that each type of Processor is made for a specific task and they are the absolute best at what they are created for, but that doesn't apply to Video Games because neither is directly created for them), i don't know what to tell you.

however i would recommend always fact checking the information you go on about anything, as especially on the internet, there is a lot of incorrect information out there that is trying to trick you.

there's plenty of places you can go to talk about Computing (that would hopefully end up educating you but aside from that) that you can have any opinion you want, without negatively affecting other people and trying to trick them into wasting their money. because this is reality, and that isn't cool because these purchases actually matter.

he wouldn't be asking if spending money in an intelligent manner for his needs wasn't important.

----------

and more on topic (which i'd like to avoid going so far off topic again), if the OP provides more information, more targeted suggestions can be offered.

feedback on existing suggestions is also encouraged.

[(PSN)Pharen]

if you would like to be ignorant and believe that 'all the Hertz' is how you determine the performance of a computer Electronic, go right ahead.

-snip-

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, you can make up all you want but the hard fact remains AMD has always made faster more efficient processors than Intel.

 

You can also make wild claims on processor types, but the only major difference between AMD and Intel is that some of the range of Intel processors use hyperthreading.

 

Hyperthreading as you will claim to know, allows one thread to be calculated amongst multiple cores for faster processing, however this is only useful in primitive programs such as older game engines and some CAD programs. Modern game engines allow the use of multiple cores, and as this computer is most likely being used for gaming then hyperthreading is redundant against a processor with more power and more cores. Maybe you should do some solid research first.

[taiiat]

AMD has always made faster more efficient processors than Intel.

*chuckles*

you've shown that you don't have credible information. i'm content now.

therefore this off topic argument (a one sided argument, you argue, i try to explain the truth) can be done.

[(PSN)Pharen]

*chuckles*

you've shown that you don't have credible information. i'm content now.

therefore this off topic argument (a one sided argument, you argue, i try to explain the truth) can be done.

You spew fanboy statements with no actual facts to back them up. You somehow cannot get your head around the fact that a more powerful processor has more power, funny that, such a basic concept, and yet it is beyond you.

 

The FX8350 funnily enough is the recommended processor for the witcher 3, which by most peoples understanding is the current day equivalent to crysis when it launched, IE ahead of it's time.

 

But guess what? not only is my aging processor significantly more powerful than your new I7, but AMD also has even more powerful processors out now too, funny that: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2420304,00.asp this one actually STARTS at 5GHz, a speed Intel doesn't even know exists.

[taiiat]

The FX8350 funnily enough is the recommended processor for the witcher 3, which by most peoples understanding is the current day equivalent to crysis when it launched, IE ahead of it's time.

this is because Witcher is mainly a GPU stressing game.

very GPU heavy weight, with just a moderate CPU load.

again, weighted very heavily towards GPU.

[(PSN)Pharen]

this is because Witcher is mainly a GPU stressing game.

very GPU heavy weight, with just a moderate CPU load.

again, weighted very heavily towards GPU.

AI are entirely powered from the CPU, and therefore a game that has advanced AI would require and advanced CPU. But maybe that's too hard for you to understand...

[taiiat]

-snip-

all of the systems in the game have been determined to run at an adequate level on a 2500k of a Phenom II 940. the Phenom II 940 being a... pretty old clunker nowadays. not something i'd recommend people use to play games on.

the area between the recommended minimum and recommended specs that Projekt Red has stated means that the game should run very well on a 3570k / Phenom II 1100T or FX-6300.

there may be frame dips at spots with the 1100T or 6300, but they should average good Framerates.