Build me a super duper PC for €2500

D.A.S.L

OK, I know how to use a computer but I don't know how to build one. I've looked in PC World and I don't see anything like what I want. I want the best of the best here. I'm using 3DS Max and want something which will blow away games with a dual monitor setup too. I want the best processor, best motherboard, loads of RAM - a minimum of 8Gb, the best graphics card, big monitors, nice case, it would be nice if it was quite too. I need at least a 120Gb hard drive for the OS. I need a KVM so I can access my old PC too.

1. What is your budget? [max €2500]

2. What will be the main purpose of the computer? [Gaming/Video editing/3D Modelling] BF3 on Ultra

3. Do you need a copy of Windows? [Yes - Win 7 64bit Ultimate, I want to use BitLocker]

4. Can you use any parts from an old computer? [Keeping old PC but I need room for 2 x 2TB]

5. Do you need a monitor? [Yes 2]

5a. If yes, what size do you need. [the bigger the better]

6. Do you need any of these peripherals? [Keyboard/Mouse/Wireless Card]

7. Are you willing to try overclocking? [I want a really good processor but if I could overclock it too then great, I don't want a low processor overclocked if that makes sense]

8. How can you pay? [Bank Transfer/Credit Card/Laser/Cheque/Paypal]

9. When are you purchasing? [December]

10. If you need help building it, where are you based? [Would like it built for me - North Dublin City]


Thanks for the help guys!

Serephucus

This will be fun...

Item|Price
Total build cost: €2,320.72 + €30 shipping
Club 3D Radeon 6990 4096MB, AMD Radeon HD 6990, PCI-Express|€553.07
be quiet! Dark Power Pro 1000 Watt / BQT P8-PRO-1000W|€204.96
Corsair Hydro Series H60 (Sockel 775/1156/1366/AM2/AM2+/AM3/FM1)|€54.47
FRACTAL DESIGN Gehäuse DEFINE XL Titanium Grey|€125.45
2 x BenQ G2420HDBL (9H.Y3VLN.IBE)|€149.00
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit (SB-Version)|€151.10
Intel Core i7-2600K Tray, LGA1155|€265.92
Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD3P-B3, Intel Z68, ATX|€146.96
32GB-Kit G.Skill RipJawsZ C3-12800U CL9-9-9-24 (DDR3-1600)|€189.00
Crucial M4 256GB SSD 6,4cm (2,5")|€331.79


I've given you an eight-core processor, that will quite easily overclock to 4.6GHz+, and a cooler that will able to manage that no problem.

I've also given you 32GB of RAM. Complete overkill, though I've no idea how much RAM 3DSMax will actually use with stuff, but hey.

I've also thrown in a 256GB SSD, as you have the money for it, and it's crazy fast in comparison to HDDs.

There's a 6990 there that'll tear through games (on the two 24" monitors), and the PSU has enough power to cope with a second one if you ever decide you need even more power.

I've thrown in a copy of Win7 as well, and I've left room for you to stick in your own keyboard and mouse (though you don't want a German-layout keyboard from there, get it from and Irish/English site).

Hopefully I haven't missed anything...

deconduo

I'd probably go with something like this:

Item|Price
Total build cost: €2,286.24 + €30 shipping
Intel Core i7-2600K Box, LGA1155|€269.98
ASRock P67 Extreme6 (B3), Sockel 1155, ATX|€141.77
Scythe Mugen 3, für alle Sockel geeignet|€32.67
Club 3D Radeon HD 6970 Dual Fan, 2048MB GDDR5, AMD Radeon HD 6970, PCI- Express|€298.26
Samsung SH-222AB bare schwarz SATA|€15.21
XFX PRO850W Core Edition Full Wired Power Supply|€88.05
NZXT Phantom Big Tower - Black , ATX, ohne Netzteil|€135.02
MS Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SB-Version Englisch|€158.75
3 x Dell UltraSharp U2412M (schwarz)|€262.13
32GB-Kit G.Skill RipJawsZ C3-12800U CL9-9-9-24 (DDR3-1600)|€189.00
Crucial M4 128GB SSD 6,4cm (2,5")|€171.14


Went for 3 monitors instead of 2, because eyefinity is awesome. However if you don't want this it can be changed. The case I put in is the one I would pick, but there's a lot of good ones at that price range if the look doesn't appeal to you. 32GB of RAM is way overkill, but its cheap so why not :P There's enough left in the budget to get a 256GB SSD if you want, instead of the 128GB one.

If you want help building it I'm based in Dublin 2 so I'm not too far away

Serephucus

The reason I didn't go for three is that I've heard a lot of not-so-great things about it. Now, I haven't used it, so take it with a grain of salt, but you can get a lot of little glitches, and FOV ****-ups and the like from games that just don't like weird resolutions. 3DSMax however does make use of a second monitor quite well (I had a look at it once).

Hey wait, triple monitor gaming on a 6970? Me-thinks that card will choke.

Ah, that's what it was! Forgot the DVD drive, LOL


Oh, just as a side-note, you could also go with two GTX 570s in SLI for the same money. The perform pretty much the same from what I've seen, at least at 25x16.

deconduo

Serephucus wrote: »

The reason I didn't go for three is that I've heard a lot of not-so-great things about it. Now, I haven't used it, so take it with a grain of salt, but you can get a lot of little glitches, and FOV ****-ups and the like from games that just don't like weird resolutions. 3DSMax however does make use of a second monitor quite well (I had a look at it once).

Hey wait, triple monitor gaming on a 6970? Me-thinks that card will choke.

Ah, that's what it was! Forgot the DVD drive, LOL

Hmm, I thought I had 2 of the 6970s in there, but apparently not :P Back to the drawing board :P

IrishMetalhead

Could always wait till the 3930k comes out which should be the next week or two, 6 core i7 on the sandbridge achitechure, ohh yes hella fast, espiecally for video editing, slight bit overbudget and the only thing i didn't include is a hdd (because there a rip off atm) and a keyboard because you should just buy one locally as you'll need it to be in the irish\uk qwerty layout:

Item|Price
Total build cost: €2,509.29 + €30 shipping
Intel Core i7-3930K Box, LGA2011|€507.49
MSI X79A-GD65 (8D), Intel X79, LGA2011, ATX, DDR3|€253.98
Corsair Hydro Series H70 (Sockel 775/1155/1156/1366/AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3 +/FM1)|€65.74
2 x 16GB-Kit Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 MHz CL9|€80.57
Club 3D Radeon 6990 4096MB, AMD Radeon HD 6990, PCI-Express|€553.07
Crucial M4 128GB SSD 6,4cm (2,5")|€171.14
Samsung SH-222AB bare schwarz SATA|€15.21
NZXT Phantom Big Tower - Black , ATX, ohne Netzteil|€135.02
Cooler Master Silent Pro Series - 1000 Watt|€136.90
2 x ASUS VW247H|€154.61
MS Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SB-Version Englisch|€158.75
Logitech G300 Gaming Mouse|€31.49
TP-Link TL-WN722N|€10.14


BTW you could eventually buy a third monitor with displayport so you can eventually upgrade to eyefinity

nobody has blu ray drives on their lists
seems a bit bonkers to me spending 2.5k on a pc that cant play blu rays. but thats just me

deceit

Deleted User wrote: »

nobody has blu ray drives on their lists
seems a bit bonkers to me spending 2.5k on a pc that cant play blu rays. but thats just me

Thats one thing I took out of my pc as soon as I realised how little I use it. I dont think many people bother with movies on discs for pc anymore. With mine I just copied them to my server and sold the blueray drive. Now I dont even put any type of drive in my pc's.

deceit

deceit wrote: »

Thats one thing I took out of my pc as soon as I realised how little I use it. I dont think many people bother with movies on discs for pc anymore. With mine I just copied them to my server and sold the blueray drive. Now I dont even put any type of drive in my pc's.

suppose it depends on the person, I know I would use it only the odd time but you can still pick them up now for only €50.

any chance of pc games in the future being on blu ray discs?

IrishMetalhead

pc games wil lmore then likely be only downloadable in the near future, that's kind of whats killing the optical drive

Serephucus

Personally, I much prefer that. The last time I used my DVD drive - and pretty much the only time, other than the odd one burning something for someone that doesn't have a USB stick handy - is when I'm reinstalling / booting from an OS on a disk.

PseudoFamous

As soon a real fibre network is finished in Europe and America, optical drives will be obsolete. I'd estimate that by 2015, the majority of new computers won't even have one. Bluray will be the last disc based media you'll see.

Tea_Bag

aaaand everyone fails on the ram.

first 2 builds you guys chose quad channel ram on a dual channel board, and then IMH makes the right choice of SB-E (@that budget) but chooses dual channel sticks.

unless they're interchangeable and I've been reading dodgy tech sites? :P :pac:

IrishMetalhead

on the item description on the ones i posted says 4x4gb which means them quad channel:

http://www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=40702&agid=1193

dunno where you saw it says dual channel on them anywhere.

edit: saw where it says dual channel now but it shouldn't matter at all if they all operate on the same frequencies and clock latencies, and correct me if i'm wrong here but isn't quad channel only 2 pairs of matching dual channel? other then the name

desaparecidos

With a bit of thought you could spend around 1500 and get the same real world performance as the needlessly over the top suggestions above.

IrishMetalhead

well tbh if he's using it for video editing and 3d rendering then then he would completely benefit these over the top suggestions espiecally for video editing the extra ram and cpu power would be a huge help for rendering vids also the 6990 would be perfect for his 3d modeling and not to meantion tis comp should last him a hella of a long time.
now if he was just using it for game then i'd agree, the 2500k and 4GB of ram (not even 8GB but RAM is cheap atm) with a 6950 or a 560ti would be all that you need.

shuyin1

I'd wait for ivybridge if you can, i7K/6000 series seems great now but spending 2.5k for old tech is a waste. 22nm ivy plus 3d tri-gate and amd 7000 might be worth some considerations.

deceit

Tea_Bag wrote: »

aaaand everyone fails on the ram.

first 2 builds you guys chose quad channel ram on a dual channel board, and then IMH makes the right choice of SB-E (@that budget) but chooses dual channel sticks.

unless they're interchangeable and I've been reading dodgy tech sites? :P :pac:

dual, triple and quad channel ram is all the same ram just packaged in sets of 2,3 and 4 sticks.

Serephucus

1 stick of RAM = single channel.
2 sticks of RAM = dual channel.
3 sticks of RAM = triple channel.
4 sticks of RAM = quad channel.

Assuming you have a board that will use it, of course. If you buy a triple channel kit, and then add another stick onto an X79 build, you have quad channel RAM. Simple as.

deceit

Serephucus wrote: »

1 stick of RAM = single channel.
2 sticks of RAM = dual channel.
3 sticks of RAM = triple channel.
4 sticks of RAM = quad channel.

Assuming you have a board that will use it, of course. If you buy a triple channel kit, and then add another stick onto an X79 build, you have quad channel RAM. Simple as.

This is exactly why I hate when resellers charge more than 50% extra in price when getting triple channel over dual as all your doing is adding another stick of ram to it. They try say that its to make sure you get matched sticks but even that doesnt even matter too much anymore unless your doing really high overclocks on the ram.

kfish2oo2

desaparecidos wrote: »

With a bit of thought you could spend around 1500 and get the same real world performance as the needlessly over the top suggestions above.

Exactly. The price/performance ration is not a linear scale, its curved upwards. The higher the performance, the lower the price/performance ratio. Building a computer is only the first step, if you do it properly. The steps that follow are mostly upgrades.

Here's a great example: the "best" performing Intel CPU - the i7-3960X is about 5% faster than the i7-990X and the 990X is about on par with the i7-2600K.

Benchmarking software will put the 3960X considerably faster in certain benchmarks (I'm talking things like physics, abstract computation, multi-threaded rendering) which, when averaged would put the 3960X far ahead of its brethren - but, crucially, when you compare just the actual real world program performance, the 3960X is only marginally better (on average maybe 5%) better than a i7-2600 or i7-990X. So whats the price difference, you ask?

The i7-2600K retails for around €270. The i7-990X retails for around €900(!) and the i7-3960X has a suggested retail price of €750. That's nearly €500 more for a 5% performance boost, or €630 more for even less!

CPU's aren't the only computer components with these issues; GPU's suffer the same curved price/performance ratio. The difference between a HD 6950 and a HD 6970 is again, about 5%. The price difference isn't that extreme, but there's still a grossly disproportionate gap in pricing; a 6950 can easily be found for €200 while a 6970 will set you back closer to €280. You're paying 20% more for a 5% performance increase.

nesf

kfish2oo2 wrote: »

CPU's aren't the only computer components with these issues; GPU's suffer the same curved price/performance ratio. The difference between a HD 6950 and a HD 6970 is again, about 5%. The price difference isn't that extreme, but there's still a grossly disproportionate gap in pricing; a 6950 can easily be found for €200 while a 6970 will set you back closer to €280. You're paying 20% more for a 5% performance increase.

I agree with you on CPUs but I'd slightly disagree on GPUs, if you're running higher than 1080p you get a bit more than a 5% bump from the more expensive cards.

Serephucus

desaparecidos wrote: »

With a bit of thought you could spend around 1500 and get the same real world performance as the needlessly over the top suggestions above.

Actually, most of them aren't. The only one that really is is the 32GB of RAM.

If he's gaming on three monitors, he'll need at the very least a 6970, and with that, he'll be lucky to pull 20FPS with most modern games a high settings, so a 6990 is the minimum I'd go for. You could get two 6970s, for a little less money, but then you're introducing CF problems, and using up another slot on the board.

The 2600K isn't overkill at all, because a lot of what he's doing will benefit from hyperthreading, and the 2500K is what's recommended in almost every other build, so that's not over the top at all.

The PSU is enough to support a second GPU should he need it in the future, which he very well might considering it's probably only "decent" now for what he's wanting to drive.

The 256GB SSD, yeah, maybe that was a bit much, he could probably get a 128GB drive, and cache a 1TB/1.5TB for about the same, but then you're into controller issues and sporadic speed-up of applications.

I think it's actually very reasonable, considering my first build was €3.5K and I got a lot less for it. (We were all n00bs once, don't say anything.)

kfish2oo2

nesf wrote: »

I agree with you on CPUs but I'd slightly disagree on GPUs, if you're running higher than 1080p you get a bit more than a 5% bump from the more expensive cards.

I actually hadn't considered that - I tend to pay more attention to lower resolutions as my monitor is quite small. You're bang on though - when the high end cards are used as intended (on high resolution monitors) the differences in price start to make a lot more sense.

Serephucus wrote: »

Actually, most of them aren't. The only one that really is is the 32GB of RAM.

If he's gaming on three monitors, he'll need at the very least a 6970, and with that, he'll be lucky to pull 20FPS with most modern games a high settings, so a 6990 is the minimum I'd go for. You could get two 6970s, for a little less money, but then you're introducing CF problems, and using up another slot on the board.

Also bang on. Triple screen gaming requires a lot of video memory, and single card solutions are always the best compatibility wise. If the OP wants to max out games at 5kx1080, he might actually need to go the quad Crossfire/SLI route. Either way, a 3/4GB video card, tonnes of RAM and a high end CPU is pretty much a must for rendering complex graphics.

nesf

kfish2oo2 wrote: »

I actually hadn't considered that - I tend to pay more attention to lower resolutions as my monitor is quite small. You're bang on though - when the high end cards are used as intended (on high resolution monitors) the differences in price start to make a lot more sense.




Also bang on. Triple screen gaming requires a lot of video memory, and single card solutions are always the best compatibility wise. If the OP wants to max out games at 5kx1080, he might actually need to go the quad Crossfire/SLI route. Either way, a 3/4GB video card, tonnes of RAM and a high end CPU is pretty much a must for rendering complex graphics.

He's also going to be doing some 3D work and so on. So needs are different to a straight gaming computer.

It's a bit like how when I was doing maths moddling stuff at home I needed a high end processor way over what I needed for gaming at the time.

kfish2oo2

nesf wrote: »

He's also going to be doing some 3D work and so on. So needs are different to a straight gaming computer.

It's a bit like how when I was doing maths moddling stuff at home I needed a high end processor way over what I needed for gaming at the time.

Thats what I meant when I said "rendering complex graphics" The biggest difference between a gaming computer and a 3D workstation is that workstations benefit from a lot more RAM and a faster CPU - but recently as more and more 3D packages have started to properly support GPU acceleration, the CPU is not as important. Still, the i7-2600K is by far the best price/performance ratio and regularly tops benchmarking comparisons, so it suits this build just fine.

nesf

kfish2oo2 wrote: »

Thats what I meant when I said "rendering complex graphics" The biggest difference between a gaming computer and a 3D workstation is that workstations benefit from a lot more RAM and a faster CPU - but recently as more and more 3D packages have started to properly support GPU acceleration, the CPU is not as important. Still, the i7-2600K is by far the best price/performance ratio and regularly tops benchmarking comparisons, so it suits this build just fine.

*shrugs*

I've never done visual work, only mathematical stuff which is either CPU or I/O intensive depending on the job.

ScumLord

Should he not be looking at one of the Nvidia quadro cards?

Serephucus

Not if he's going to be gaming as well, no.

Though, I suppose he could get this, and then spend the other €300 on a bare-bones setup. :P

nesf

ScumLord wrote: »

Should he not be looking at one of the Nvidia quadro cards?

No, similar to why a gaming/maths PC wouldn't have a multi-CPU set up.

desaparecidos

3DS Max doesn't use a graphics card as much as you might thing it would. I'd stick with a "gaming" graphics card rather than a "workstation" one. 3DS will utilise the graphics card (pixel shader, CUDA if available) for certain aspects but it's mostly a CPU intensive application.

kfish2oo2

ScumLord wrote: »

Should he not be looking at one of the Nvidia quadro cards?

Quadro, FireGL whatever - professional workstation cards are usually (but not always) identical to much cheaper gaming equivalents. The difference in price is attributed to the vastly more complex drivers (which also tend toward OpenGL, rather than DirectX), compatibility with professional software solutions and sometimes faster memory. Reliability is also a key factor, and so professional cards tend to be designed for much longer usage cycles (several years rather than just one for gaming) and so have more refined cooling solutions and robust components.

However, the price cannot be justified unless in a corporate or professional environment. The workstation cards are designed for very specific and specialized purposes and therefore cost accordingly (just look at the Adobe software solutions - the price is so high because the intended purpose is so narrow). Freelancers or small companies will often get by on gaming cards to cut costs, and with technology like CUDA and Stream (or whatever the AMD equivalent is called) making their way into consumer grade cards, support for more complex operations like 3D modelling and rendering is ever growing.

The main issue for the OP is that, while the hardware might be identical or extremely similar, performance in games will not be anything close. Workstation cards will suck at it, because their drivers are geared much more towards OpenGL (which is what most 3D packages use).

He'd be better off getting a gaming card(s) because its vastly cheaper, has more applications and will allow him to buy better components that compensate for the lack of professional workstation drivers (ie CPU and RAM). Building an average computer with a workstation card is pointless, because the less powerful components will bottleneck the card.

Also, there are certain consumer level cards that can be flashed to run workstation BIOS - and some AMD cards have a dual BIOS switch, so its an option the OP can explore.

partyatmygaff

There's a slight but noticeable difference in image quality between a render produced by a gaming card and a render produced by a workstation card. You can see this sometimes in 3D renders. Those produced by a consumer graphics card may have strange slight artifacts that you won't get on a professional graphics card. I'm not sure if the reason is hardware or software but nevertheless there is a difference of some sort. Gaming cards are designed for speed and decent quality. Workstation cards are designed for speed, accuracy and faultless quality.

There's also the difference in reliability. A gaming card isn't designed to be able to be run continuously. Workstation cards however are expected to be able to run at full load for hours if not days on end.


So in short... if your job centres around 3D modelling then get a workstation graphics card. If not, stick to a powerful gaming graphics card.

ScumLord

kfish2oo2 wrote: »

Quadro, FireGL whatever - professional workstation cards are usually (but not always) identical to much cheaper gaming equivalents.

I've always wondered, the only experience I have had with them is a Pc we got at work to run autodesk inventor which had a quadro card.

Serephucus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There's a slight but noticeable difference in image quality between a render produced by a gaming card and a render produced by a workstation card. You can see this sometimes in 3D renders. Those produced by a consumer graphics card may have strange slight artifacts that you won't get on a professional graphics card. I'm not sure if the reason is hardware or software but nevertheless there is a difference of some sort. Gaming cards are designed for speed and decent quality. Workstation cards are designed for speed, accuracy and faultless quality.

There's also the difference in reliability. A gaming card isn't designed to be able to be run continuously. Workstation cards however are expected to be able to run at full load for hours if not days on end.


So in short... if your job centres around 3D modelling then get a workstation graphics card. If not, stick to a powerful gaming graphics card.

Valid points. I'd say though unless you're doing mission-critical stuff, you're probably fine with a gaming card. Now, I've never used a Quadro/Tesla card, so I don't know about artifacting/weirdness with rendered shots.

kfish2oo2

I've done a few renders, and honestly I have never noticed artifacting from my gaming card, nor the colleges Macs (which also use gaming cards, rather than workstation cards), even at 4k resolution. I think the artifacting issue would be more case specific to particular rendering packages, as some are designed specifically for workstation architectures while others are more friendly in terms of general compatibility.

I will say though, that workstation cards very definitely produce better results for ray tracing.

D.A.S.L

Hi guys, thanks for taking the time to make your replys, it was interesting reading. It's very much appreciated. I just found out the brother-in-law has built a PC or two, so I'm going to get him to build it for me but thanks for the offer deconduo it was very kind of you.

I got my brother-in-law to overlook the thread and he seems to think IrishMetalhead's one is the best, so I think I'll go for that one and I think I will throw a BluRay player in just to be on the safe side. We use the main TV for films but it's not too expensive to get one anyway. I'll only be using 2 monitors as I don't have the space for 3. As far as I know a regular gaming GPU will work fine with 3DS Max, but I'll see how I get on with it.

Thanks for letting me know about IvyBridge, I'd like to wait but this build is on budget, so I'm going to go with it. It should last me 3 years comfortably.

Thanks again for all your help!

IrishMetalhead

well we all want to see how this puppy turns out so be sure to post pics when it's all done

shizz

Just wanted to post so that Im subscribed and to get the opportunity to say that I loathe you sir.... Loathe.

Serephucus

Will 3DSMax even use twelve cores? If not, you'll be wasting your money on X79. It's about €300 cheaper to go with a 2600K.

kfish2oo2

Serephucus wrote: »

Will 3DSMax even use twelve cores? If not, you'll be wasting your money on X79. It's about €300 cheaper to go with a 2600K.

It might not now, but support won't be far behind the release of the chips. Programs like 3DS Max are extremely processor heavy and so multithreaded support is usually a priority for the maintenance team. They can already make good use of 6 and 8 core chips.