I just got a good job and will be floating in money shortly, so I want to upgrade my rig.

The most intensive thing I will be using it for is streaming games. The games themselves aren't particularly intensive (Dota2, Brood War mostly) but I would like to be able to play them at 60FPS at least, while streaming. I am considering getting a 144hz screen, but not yet decided on that. Money isn't particularly a problem, although I don't want to go overboard (say 2k max USD and we can be fairly flexible). I also do sometimes CPU-intensive calculations and 3D modelling but those aren't generally a problem.

I have mouse/keyboard/screens/peripherals.

I will need a new case as I will sell my current build to someone else.

I don't need SSDs, as I have 2, but I want a new storage drive. 1-2TB is fine, I don't store a lot of big media.

I would like to go Intel this time, as I generally hear they are better for streaming. 32GB RAM is probably fine.

As always, http://pricespy.co.nz is usually my go-to for finding NZ prices, but http://www.newegg.com/global/nz now exists, so that could also be useful. Amazon is also fine. It is worth noting that anything over $400 NZD fetches a hefty customs tax when importing, usually making it not worth it if it's $400+.

Need: Mobo, PSU, CPU, GPU, case, RAM, storage HDD.

Would like: advice on 144hz monitors if anyone knows anything about them here.


I am happy to wait for post-Christmas sales; no hurry.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 14 2015, 11:10 am by Jack.

*ugh* get 8 GB RAM. The rest is pretty standard, so I'm sure Roy will whip up a standard build in no time.

You don't need 144 Hz for modeling or dota 2, let alone bw. You need 144 Hz for extra smooth shooters, or other games where a good part of the screen moves very quickly. So unless you are gonna play shooters a lot, why bother?

I got the Acer XB270HU. 27 inch. IPS panel. 1440p resolution and 144hz. 4ms response time. G-sync.

Thoroughly recommend, but it ain't cheap. Also it uses G-sync which will lock you into an Nvidia GPU purchase unless you don't care about that feature.

GPU I recommend 970 if you only want 1080p gaming, or the 980 Ti for 1440p gaming. I personally have 970 SLI because I purchased a 970 first and then later down the line got the new monitor and realised the 980 TI would have been the smarter choice, and so had to commit to SLI so I could push out extra frames.

Also not sure if you care or not but if you are going for 144hz you can't get 4k resolution. Right now 4k res monitors all maxed at 60Hz.

32GB RAM - I hope you actually need that amount of RAM. For the average gamer 8GB has been the current stock standard, with 16GB usually being overkill. RAM speed (Mz) is also something gamers don't usually worry about as it makes very minimal if any difference to frames per second.

CPU: Question is do you want the bleeding edge Skylakes or the previous gen Haswell microarchitecture. This component will dictate which mobo you get (socket type) and the RAM you go with (DDR3 or DDR4). I personally have the i7-4790K (Haswell) on the LGA 1150 socket.

PSU: EVGA has good rep. Modular cabling is the best for sexy cable management. Wattage: depends what sort of things you're running in your PCI slots. I think 600W is fine for most people. I have 750W which handles even SLI.

Case: https://www.pccasegear.com/products/28285 https://www.pccasegear.com/products/28286

Storage HDD: Can't say I've ever paid much attention to this. I just go for the cheapest and make sure the reviews don't show any warning signs.

MY PC building video:


I think any competitive real time game would benefit from extra visible frames per second. The problem is with latest games it's actually quite difficult to get even a powerful graphics card to get 144+ frames per second with graphical settings maxed. This problem becomes even worse as you start using resolutions higher than 1080p.

SLI bridges this gap somewhat, but quite frankly it still isn't good enough. Older games, though, like Team Fortress 2 and CSGO, I easily max out 144fps on maximum graphics with my current PC.
Depends on the optimisation too. Star Wars Battlefront, for instance, is a very graphically impressive game, and brand new, yet I manage to max out 144 fps on it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 14 2015, 12:53 pm by Oh_Man.

I'd like to point out that while this is true for gaming it is not for 3D modeling, usually anyway. I am unaware what kind of modeling Jack does, I believe it's not too advanced from what I've seen him stream, but when you do model high poly geometry you really do need as much RAM as you can get. You also need a good GPU which I think you've got covered. If you're planning on rendering you need lots of processing power and depending on what kind of rendering it is, it's better to just have a small render farm instead of a monster machine. Either way with 16GB you'll be fine. Even MAX cannot properly manage more than that ammount of resources. IMO even if you model high poly stuff more than 16GB is kind of a waste. Good to have, but chances are you're not going to be using it.

The total comes out to roughly $1125 USD, which is well under your budget of $2000 (which is about $2950 NZD). So you're probably thinking about where you can upgrade. The answer is the graphics card first: you can upgrade this all the way up to a 980 Ti before needing to look at upgrading other parts. From there, you can bump up your CPU to the 6700K, get a larger HDD, buy accessories such as fans, bump up your motherboard, and then even double your RAM. Following this path, this is about what you can get on a $2000 budget:


If you wait for deals, you could easily get this within your budget. Hell, you could skip the HDD upgrade if it doesn't matter to you and buy everything under budget today.

Ah the good old "faster is always better" argument. tl;dr: No.
60 Hz => frametime = 1/60s = 17ms => mean time before a new game situation becomes visible the next frame (MTF): 8.3ms;
144 Hz => frametime = 1/144s = 7ms => MTF = 3.5ms
Difference: 4.9ms
Compare to human reaction time: ~160ms
You're not gonna play better because you see something 5ms earlier when you need 30 times as long to react on it.
Humans are not computers where the person that is 3% faster will always win, they'll not even win 3% more often, because fluctuation in reaction times and a plethora of other factors. Games are not just reaction tests. They often rely on teamwork, strategy, training and mechanical skills much more than on reaction. In Dota, for example, reaction time often doesn't matter much because a) you see him coming or b) he'll uncloak / blink on top of you and chain their spell so there's no reaction window. Fights in dota are usually pretty predictable.
That leaves us with input lag. But with ~5ms more input lag even pro cs gamers will be hard pressed to notice a difference. Some may or may not be able to tell, but it's not something you or I would notice.

Okay so why do 144 Hz monitors exist then, if not to make me play better?
I like this article on it. Basically most people will perceive fast moving pictures much smoother at higher refresh rates. Neither in dota nor in bw we have that kind of fast moving pictures, so the improvement will be minimal (but not non-existent). As I've said, shooters justify such a purchase, for everything else it's little more than an expensive gimmick.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 14 2015, 10:33 pm by NudeRaider.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it matter how long the reaction time is if the reference point is the initial stimulus? It could be 10ms or 500ms, but if it's a relative constant, it can be disregarded. I drafted up a quick image on this:


It's a small advantage, but one which applies to every reaction in every scenario. People may not be machines, but with two equally skilled players, the one with a slight advantage in equipment will statistically come out ahead.

Shooters are the easiest example to see this advantage, but games like DotA require timing at many pivotal points, like reaction to someone who emerges from the fog with a stun spell before they can incapacitate your hero instead.

However, like you say, input lag is the most important (and most poorly documented) factor for high-competitive game play. http://www.displaylag.com/ is a great site for looking it up, though most reputable gaming monitors are surely satisfactory in this regard.

Basically, if you're among the 0.01% that are serious about competitive play, faster is, in fact, better.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 15 2015, 5:07 pm by Roy.

I think a 6700K would be better as he'd need the extra threads for streaming games.
As an owner of that cooler, I'd recommend against it. If you'e going for an AIO, try to get a double fan AIO if you want the benefit of quieter cooling.
If he's going for 3D modeling, throwing more VRAM on a card is better, no? The 390 is basically a 290 with double the VRAM and better power delivery/heat management.
It also looks like a sick furnace for your hot, powerful 290. Benchmarks go in, and heat comes out.
Agreed.
Also agreed.

If he didn't care about G-Sync, he'd get a cheaper monitor without G-Sync
We get it, you built a PC using black and white parts.

The Frostbite 3 engine has had ample time to mature

First-pass x264 encoding is identical for both the 6600K and 6700K, but the 6700K definitely has a noticeable advantage for multi-pass encoding. It's an upgrade worth considering (after the GPU, of course).

Look at his options, though: would you recommend spending $7 more for the 212 EVO? I picked it because it's cheaper than it should be. For its price, it blows the competition out of the water.

It's also an extra $150 NZD. Considering modeling is a side concern and gaming is the primary concern, I went with price/performance in regards to gaming. For incremental upgrades based on budget, I would probably go 290 -> 390 -> 390X -> 980 Ti. I just consider the 290 to be his minimum and the 980 Ti to be his maximum.

Correct, the actual duration of reaction time is irrelevant. What's relevant is the fluctuation. I used the duration to show how small a fluctuation already compensates for faster refresh rate: (Sorry for not making this very clear)
You'll notice I never said it's not a factor, I say it's one of the smallest factors to consider.

Something like "equally skilled players" doesn't exist. Heck, not even the same person will play exactly the same every day, or even every (consecutive) game, or perform the same every reaction test within the same game.
It will statistically help you win the reaction battles. But since there are other (usually much larger) factors winning the reaction battle will often be not enough to tip the fight in your favor.

"requires timing" -> input lag. Which is probably borderline noticeable.
"The easiest to see" because those games are the closest to true reaction tests and thus the effect is the greatest. In Dota, your 5ms advantage is NIL if you don't expect the guy to come out of the fog and already have the cursor and screen in that area compared to the guy with his meager 60fps who knows he's coming and is just waiting for him.


On that, I fully agree.

I didn't notice that, because you did say it wasn't a factor:


You said right here that there would be no benefit.



Or only have to react once a game. For every single action, reaction speed is a factor, regardless of the skill. While one reaction in the scope of a game would be statistically insignificant, thousands upon thousands of tests of reaction speed is going to quickly average out to 3% better performance. And whether or not the players are equal is irrelevant, because it makes you a better player which could very well give you the advantage over equally skilled players.

Further, consider that your opponent's reaction speed is around 190 ms as well, meaning that given the same stimulus, the person with the quicker reaction speed will have an advantage. This makes a 4.9ms advantage incredibly beneficial.



You don't seem to understand what a "reaction" is. For every stimulus there is a reaction.

Maybe if you had been paying more attention to the substance of Roy's post instead of talking down to him to cover perceived insult, I wouldn't have had to repost this same exact point Roy made:


I colored the parts you seem to be struggling with, since you think that seems to help.

Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Dec 17 2015, 4:25 pm by Sacrieur.

Incidentally I do play at a pretty competitive level. I'm watching the discussion with interest but at this stage I will buy the 144hz at a later stage. If anyone has recommendations on a particular model that would be appreciated.

Relatively minor ms differences do make a big difference when added up in games like Dota; there's an argument to be made that such improvements are more important for FPS but Dota at a competitive level is a pretty fast-paced game where reactions are pretty important.

I'll get back to you all about the rest of the PC, pretty busy right now though.

Are those Corsair fans anything special or are the no-name generic fans I have spares of sitting around fine as well?

What are my options for in-between graphics cards (390 and 390X were mentioned) and what do I lose out for getting one of those instead of the 980 Ti?

They're generally regarded as some of the best and quietest fans that are optimized for air flow. My Corsair 750D comes with some of the 140mm variant sans the LEDs and don't hear them at all on max, even when I have my case opened. It should be noted that different colors of LED fans exist, and the versions without LEDs have interchangeable color rings that you can paint to match an exact color.

You're fine with the other fans. The point is that while upgrading with such a large budget, increasing airflow should eventually become a concern, but if you already have extra fans to mount, you don't need to spend more money on it unless you want to.

The cards along your upgrade path look as follows (ordered from lowest to highest tier):

AMD R9 290 - 4GB, good price/performance, lots of power and quite a bit of heat
Nvidia GTX 970 - 3.5GB + 0.5GB (slower), good price/performance, runs efficient and cool
AMD R9 290X - 4GB, good price/performance, lots of power and lots of heat
AMD R9 390 - 8GB, good price/performance, lots of power and a quite a bit of heat
AMD R9 390X - 8GB, good price/performance, lots of power but relatively cool
Nvidia 980 - 4GB, bad price/performance, runs efficient and cool
AMD Fury - 4GB HBM (new tech), bad price/performance, lots of power and quite a bit of heat
AMD Fury X - 8GB HBM (new tech), average price/performance, lots of power and heat but liquid cooling comes standard
Nvidia 980 Ti - 6GB, average price/performance, quite a bit of power but efficient
Nvidia Titan X - 12GB, bad price/performance, lots of power and quite a bit of heat

Price/Performance remarks are based on the going rates in the US.

Generally if you don't have heat/power concerns, the GTX 970 is avoided due to the "not truly 4GB VRAM" debacle. The 290X and 390 perform quite similarly, but the 390 is more efficient and is generally the same price or cheaper nowadays. The 980 only barely edges ahead of the 390X in terms of performance, but it is much more expensive, which makes it not a great pick most of the time (as an aside: I actually have a GTX 980 because of power constraints). The Fury beats the 980, though not by much, and there is once again a large price hike. The Fury X and 980 Ti are pretty comparable in both price and performance, but the 980 Ti comes ahead in many titles, which is compounded by its superior efficiency. Finally, the Titan X is more powerful than the 980 Ti, but the price premium on it makes it more of a novelty than an actual consideration.

Therefore, the general upgrade path I'd consider for high-end cards is 290 -> 390 -> 390X -> 980 Ti. You can do your own research for any of the cards mentioned above (or look at previous generations if you're able to find any) if you think they fit the bill better, though.

It looks like there aren't any 290s available on PCPP anymore; my recommendations at the moment are now the GTX 970 for $539 and the R9 390 for $594. (Comparison between them for reference.)

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jan 20 2016, 10:06 pm by Roy.

Since you mentioned you're ready to buy your PC in the Shoutbox, I went ahead and refreshed my part selection:

I'm eying for a GTX980. When can we expect the price to drop by about 20% due to new tech or something? Is this going to happen in the foreseeable future?

If I want a different case, what do I need to be looking out for? While I don't care thaaat much about external looks, if I'm going to be shelling out I may as well get a nice one. As to what I prefer, something minimalist without a lot of ugly grills and such (e.g. Coolermaster Silencio series) would be more ideal.


And for liquid cooling on the gfx card and CPU, how worth is it and should I do that instead?

If I don't care how fast my HDD is, am I better off going for a WD Green or Caviar Green instead of the Black? I really don't use the speed enough to care and value reliability and price much more (in that order) than speed (within reason of course).

For the PSU, PCPartpicker has a pretty poor NZ selection. Are any of these better? http://pricespy.co.nz/category.php?m=s255524646&o=produkt_pris_inkmoms#rparams=m=s255524689

(I just selected 600W-800W and brands I knew of, plus gold 80+ and modular). I don't mind shelling out for the PSU but don't see any reason to spend $50 more than I need to if there's a good option for less (e.g. Silverstone Strider ST65F-G perhaps?).

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Jan 20 2016, 10:41 am by Jack.

WD Blacks are pretty reliable. Speed differences are pretty small for the common drives nowadays.

HGST / Hitachi has had *by far* the best reliability stats last couple of years. So if that is your priority so a good option would be this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Hitachi-Deskstar-HDS723020ALA640-Internal-Warranty/dp/B00S0CE8CQ/

The case is all personal preference, but the cheaper you go, the more you sacrifice in durability, ease of use, and in some cases, airflow.

Ideally the case should have at least two installed fans (unless you also plan on buying more), typically at the front and back. Some popular mid-tower minimalist cases include the Fractal Design R4/R5, the NZXT S340, and the Phanteks Enthoo Pro M.

How much do you enjoy overclocking? If the answer isn't "a lot", then it's a waste of money. Pumps aren't silent, so don't buy into the noiseless hype, either.

Sure, pick the cheapest HDD you can find if you aren't terribly concerned about it. Recently I'd suggest staying away from certain Seagate models, but just check early death reviews on whichever drive you settle on.

The Silverstone has inferior ripple suppression on all three rails, inferior voltage regulation, and inferior efficiency than the PSU I selected; in testing it doesn't even reach 80+ Gold certification.

I picked the G2 because it's a very good power supply; the only immediate alternative I see is the SeaSonic G-750. If you don't plan on ever upgrading to SLI, you could get the lower-capacity SeaSonic G-650. Even though it's technically a discontinued model, it has outstanding performance that the OEM is known for delivering.