Solved

Do you think this is a good computer build? I spent over 2k on it.

Hello, i built a PC at the start of the year for 2k, but i don't think it good enough, the games i play, have really bad graphics for some reason on ultra.
Please take a look at the parts i bought.

Mother board = MSI Z87-GD65 GAMING MOTHERBOARD

CPU - i7 4770k
http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz

Memory - CORSAIR Vengeance Pro Red 16GB 2133 mhz
http://www.cplonline.com.au/corsair-16gb-2x8gb-ddr3-2133mhz-venegeance-pro-black-cmy16gx3m2a2133c11r.html

Hard drive - WD WD20EFRX Red NAS Hard Drive 2TB
http://www.cplonline.com.au/wd-2tb-wd20efrx-red-sata3-64mb-for-nas.html

Case = Coolermaster CM Storm Trooper Full Tower Case
http://www.cplonline.com.au/coolermaster-cm-storm-trooper-with-window-sgc-5000-kkn1.html

Powersupplie - Aerocool Strike X 1100W Gold 80+ PSU
http://www.cplonline.com.au/aerocool-strike-x-1100w-gold-80-psu-en53761.html

Graphics card - Gigabyte r9 radeon 270x 4gb
http://www.centrecom.com.au/gigabyte-r9-270x-4gb-gddr5-2dvihdmidp

When i play games and put the settings on max settings, the graphics don't look great, even with the new games like watch dog, and its not smooth too.
Should i change my graphic card?
34 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about good computer build spent
  1. Yes, I don't know why you have such Overkill other components, but that build should be paired with a R9 290 or GTX 780, at least. Next time, come here before you buy the thing.
  2. this build wont play diddly squat. don't use a storage drive for your OS. they are built to be slower in terms of seeking and moving reading heads to prolong life. get a WD blue or black drive. also, that PSU is burning a lot of extra power for no reason. a low loads its efficiency is below 70%.
  3. You should upgrade your GPU to a GTX 780 Ti or R9-290X. Also get an SSD for Windows and a WD Black for games. And please, switch the CPU to a 4790k since it clocks faster and has less heat and OC issues compared to a 4770k.
  4. terroralpha said:
    this build wont play diddly squat. don't use a storage drive for your OS. they are built to be slower in terms of seeking and moving reading heads to prolong life. get a WD blue or black drive. also, that PSU is burning a lot of extra power for no reason. a low loads its efficiency is below 70%.


    Anonymous said:
    You should upgrade your GPU to a GTX 780 Ti or R9-290X. Also get an SSD for Windows and a WD Black for games. And please, switch the CPU to a 4790k since it clocks faster and has less heat and OC issues compared to a 4770k.


    Very unfortunately, he already built it.
  5. Like others have said, with a 2k budget, I would have put a little more of that money into graphics if its gaming you are after.
  6. Yes, i will change my graphic card, i am thinking about Geforce black titan but is that worth it? or should i get GTX 780 TI? I will get a SSD too.
  7. Can you guys please link me where to buy the GTX 780 TI and a good SSD?
  8. 4770k was the best CPU at the time, when i bought it. i got it for $400.
  9. shouldnt it be geforce?
  10. get the 780ti
    the titan is definitely not worth it
  11. Peter0007 said:
    shouldnt it be geforce?


    Yes, but is has a aftermarket cooler, a ASUS DCUII. Will run cooler than a reference model. What SSD will depend on budget and how much storage (maybe just OS? or a lot of large programs as well)
  12. I want a very fast SSD, one that will make my computer run fast and boot up fast, my budget is $200. This is my local computer shop www.centrecom.com.au, but i bought my parts build in the city. There are so much GTX 780i i don't know which one to get, i want the best one??? any one?
  13. What the best gtx 780 ti?
  14. ^^If you want to go for Samsung PRO series, go for the 850 PRO, not the 840, otherwise suggest a 840 EVO
  15. Peter0007 said:
    Yes, i will change my graphic card, i am thinking about Geforce black titan but is that worth it? or should i get GTX 780 TI? I will get a SSD too.


    The 780Ti would be worth it. Get it off of Amazon.co.uk.
  16. Alpha3031 said:
    ^^If you want to go for Samsung PRO series, go for the 850 PRO, not the 840, otherwise suggest a 840 EVO


    I don't know anything about the 850 pro but it gets lower reviews than the 840 pro.
    The EVO uses triple level cell technology. While cheaper it is less reliable and has less write life.
    With a budget like that you better not cheap out and half 1/3 the lifespan
  17. smeezekitty said:
    Alpha3031 said:
    ^^If you want to go for Samsung PRO series, go for the 850 PRO, not the 840, otherwise suggest a 840 EVO


    I don't know anything about the 850 pro but it gets lower reviews than the 840 pro.
    The EVO uses triple level cell technology. While cheaper it is less reliable and has less write life.
    With a budget like that you better not cheap out and half 1/3 the lifespan


    1. He already bought it
    2. I do not think he plans to spend another 2K.
    3. MLC is Completely normal for Consumer Drives.
    4. Your last sentence makes very little sense.

    840 EVO, Double the storage for approx. the same price
    http://www.cplonline.com.au/samsung-840-evo-series-250gb-ssd-mz-7te250bw.html
  18. Pro is meant for heavy workstation use and Evo for notebook/desktop usage. Biggest difference is steady sequential throughput, which limits the Evo to 130 MB/s after 3 GB when internal SLC cache is full. Both drives are reliable.

    The Pro has 5 years warranty and the Evo 3 years.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1983518/samsung-840-evo-pro-ssd.html

    To account for the lower endurance of its TLC NAND, the 840 Series allocates more flash capacity to overprovisioned spare area that can be used to replace bad blocks. That's why the drive advertises 250GB instead of the 256GB available in the 840 Pro. For what it's worth, Samsung says it was overly conservative when defining the 840 Series' spare area. The firm claims its first-gen TLC chips were more resilient than expected, which is why the newer, TLC-based 840 EVO uses that extra 6GB as a fancy write cache, instead.

    http://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment/3

    After 22 TB

    http://techreport.com/review/25320/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-22tb-update

    After 100 TB, A highly unlikely scenario for OP.

    http://techreport.com/review/25559/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-200tb-update
  19. That information makes the EVO sound even worse.
    So not only does it have less endurance but it also slows to the speed of a mechanical drive after 3 GB? LOL

    Quote:

    . He already bought it

    Not an SSD
    Quote:



    I want a very fast SSD, one that will make my computer run fast and boot up fast, my budget is $200.

    Quote:

    MLC is Completely normal for Consumer Drives.

    "Normal"
    Some people expect better than satisfactory
  20. smeezekitty said:
    That information makes the EVO sound even worse.
    So not only does it have less endurance but it also slows to the speed of a mechanical drive after 3 GB? LOL

    Quote:

    . He already bought it

    Not an SSD
    Quote:

    I want a very fast SSD, one that will make my computer run fast and boot up fast, my budget is $200.

    Quote:

    MLC is Completely normal for Consumer Drives.

    "Normal"
    Some people expect better than satisfactory

    There isn't even a test after 3 GB, where are you're conclusions from? It lasts longer than 3 MLCs
    He is not going to write 900 TB of Data on to that drive, and will therefore suffer no (noticeable) performance decrease
  21. Quote:

    There isn't even a test after 3 GB, where are you're conclusions from?


    From your post.

    Quote:

    Biggest difference is steady sequential throughput, which limits the Evo to 130 MB/s after 3 GB when internal SLC cache is full. Both drives are reliable.



    He asked for a "good SSD". The 840 Pro is the better drive. Keep in mind the consumer grade older 830 used the same tech.
    The only reason the lesser 840 and 840 evo were made was cost cutting. It isn't a better drive
  22. Sorry, that guy probably meant 340 MB/s http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-840-Pro-256GB-vs-Samsung-840-Evo-250GB/1408vs1594

    But it's such an obvious typo, I didn't spot it because I was only skimming.

    A good SSD, in my opinion, is performance/price, which is what I based my suggestion. and I repeat, the 850 PRO is easily better than the 840 PRO, in terms of pure performance and/or write endurance.

    http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-840-Pro-256GB-vs-Samsung-850-Pro-256GB/1408vs2385

    But not suitable for his needs, as he isn't running a server.
  23. So what SSD should i get?
  24. 840 EVO. Easy. Assuming you won't torture your SSD, that is. If you don't expect to write more than 10 GB on your SSD every single day for more than 100 years, you'll be fine with the EVO. If you expect to write more than 25 GB of stuff on to the disk every day for 100 years, sure, get a 850 PRO.
  25. Peter0007 said:
    So what SSD should i get?


    The 840/850 Pro is still the better drive.

    You have to wonder why the older 830 used the same tech as the 840 pro. The only reason the created the
    EVO was to cheap out
  26. smeezekitty said:
    Peter0007 said:
    So what SSD should i get?


    The 840/850 Pro is still the better drive.

    You have to wonder why the older 830 used the same tech as the 840 pro. The only reason the created the
    EVO was to cheap out


    Think about it, he can get twice the storage for about the same price.
  27. Which should i get? I am going to get it on friday.
  28. Here are the samsung ssd i can get http://www.centrecom.com.au/solid-state-drives?orderby=11&brand=13 from my shop.
  29. Best answer
    Peter0007 said:
    Here are the samsung ssd i can get http://www.centrecom.com.au/solid-state-drives?orderby=11&brand=13 from my shop.

    The 250 GB EVO would be my suggestion.
Ask a new question

Read More

Computers Components Build Motherboards