I was stating that, when playing, I am using more than the shown GB of RAM. I do not claim my computer is slow. As you can see, less than 15% overhead required for daily tasks. The single game open is taking 1.2GB of RAM right now.
Sometimes, people use their computer for additional things. This is now you attempting to create the argument of who uses 4GB rather than stating reasons that the original poster should or should not go from 4GB and higher.
You are isolating your case based off of your experiences, which from the sounds of it, are not limited but in comparison to my own and others here, are limited. In your situation you may not require more than 4GB. In my situation, I do.
Sometimes running a web server/hosting files and constant caching requires this additional RAM. I would love to see you say that someone running a Linux/Unix based box does not require more than 1GB RAM because it uses so little. Prefetching/Caching is perhaps beyond you sir.
As I said, any and all processes running are required on a daily basis for this specific machine's use and it is my daily machine.
----------------------------------------
To the original poster:
I hope that, if you have read through any of this nonsense, that you see where your uses may lie and that you can make an educated guess as to what your standards and requirements are for the new machine.
My suggestion is definitely the motherboard upgrade over anything else. It is much easier to replace RAM than an entire motherboard later on.
Doesn't matter how whimsical you make your speech sound, you still don't need more than 4GB.... just sayin.
Open everything you run...take a screenshot and prove to me how you are even filling up 3GB of memory...go try it now...
Oh and might I add, while you are playing an engaging video game.
I'm running at 4.18gb used right now .. the rest is cached to prefetching.
Applications running over my idle 1.6-1.72gb used : SC2 , Win Live email ( I'm at work ) , Two Firefox's , Ventrilo , Itunes and Mspaint.
You can exspect it to drop marginally when I shut my office down for the day, as soon as my buddies are ready to go for the evening you can exspect to have 2-3 voips running instead though.
Tekk actually doesn't have that many programs running in his startup , its probably to many for people who only run 4gbs though. We don't complain because we built our systems to be able to handle the load ... imagine that. My system doesn't so much as stutter when I'm gaming .. or I upgrade.
Excuse us for actually utilizing the systems we built ?
( Just shut Sc2 down ... it was using atleast 1.8gb ram, never knew )
Ha, good look on SC2. I didn't know it ate up that much either. I just run it because *gasp* I have the RAM to and never have to complain.
All in all, well said and defended. He doesn't seem to understand that everyone's uses are different. Also, due to my skinning, you can only see I believe 9 open applications, not including the background ones in the bottom right. These are simple, common tasks.
The reason that actual memory requirements for most people will stall for quite some time short of the 4 GB mark is largely due to the transition from 32-bit programs to 64-bit. A 32-bit program cannot address more than 2 GB of memory. Essentially all games are 32-bit programs. That means that the game cannot use more than 2 GB of system memory.
If you have 4 GB, then that leaves at least 2 GB for everything else on your system that you have while a game is running. That's more than enough for Windows 7 itself, plus a browser with dozens of tabs open, a spreadsheet, a voice chat program, and some other assorted junk.
Games tend not to come close to that 2 GB cap, either, so in reality, you have substantially more than 2 GB available for everything except the game. I'm guessing that game designers are hesitant to come near the 2 GB limit, as if you briefly go slightly over the limit, I'm not sure what would happen, but it would probably be bad. The program crashing is my best guess.
That cap will remain in place until games move to 64-bit programs. But there are some strong reasons for games not to do this just yet. For starters, a 64-bit program will not run on a 32-bit operating system. Make your game 64-bit, and you lock out a large fraction of your potential customers. According to the Steam Hardware Survey, more than 1/5 of gamers running Windows 7 use a 32-bit version. That includes a lot of relatively new computers, and people won't be able to run 64-bit programs until they replace the machine, likely years from now.
Thus, even if a game wants to make a 64-bit version of the game, they pretty much also have to make a 32-bit version. And that means you either have two very different code paths to maintain and debug, or else the 64-bit version has to be nearly identical to the 32-bit version and respect the same 2 GB memory cap. Or both. And two different code paths for a single game isn't practical for the overwhelming majority of the market.
By the time 64-bit operating systems are ubiquitous enough that game companies commonly feel free to make a 64-bit game that uses over 2 GB of system memory, a computer that you buy today will likely be obsolete and replaced. Even if not, 8 GB of memory then will be cheaper than 4 GB today. For that matter, 16 GB then might be cheaper than 4 GB today.
-----
When to move from 4 GB up to 8 GB in a build is a matter of budget and priorities. It's pretty obvious that someone looking to spend $2000 excluding peripherals should get 8 GB. Someone looking to get a $500 gaming computer excluding peripherals obviously should not. Where to draw the line depends considerably on how the person will use the computer, and is partially a matter of opinion.
Excluding peripherals, before moving to 8 GB of memory, I'd prioritize:
Core i5 2500 or better processor
A relatively cheap aftermarket processor heatsink and fan
GeForce GTX 560 Ti or Radeon HD 6950 or better video card
A good solid state drive with over 100 GB of usable capacity
A high end power supply (loosely, the Seasonic or Super Flower gold platforms)
A high quality P67 motherboard that is substantially overengineered for what is needed at stock speeds
Now, a lot of those are debatable. I put more value on reliability than most gamers, which is why I have a UPS and do daily incremental data backups along with periodic image backups of my SSD. And I wouldn't even recommend prioritizing all of those over 8 GB of memory to other people, though a gaming system really does need the processor and video card, at least.
-----
Actually, what really matters for usage patterns is how the person buying the computer will use it. Check how much memory you're using at the busiest times, in the way that you use your current computer. If you're never touching 3 GB today, then 4 GB is plenty. If you're already pushing past 4 GB in use today and running into noticeable slowdowns from paging to disk, then you need to get 8 GB in the new computer.
I was stating that, when playing, I am using more than the shown GB of RAM. I do not claim my computer is slow. As you can see, less than 15% overhead required for daily tasks. The single game open is taking 1.2GB of RAM right now.
Sometimes, people use their computer for additional things. This is now you attempting to create the argument of who uses 4GB rather than stating reasons that the original poster should or should not go from 4GB and higher.
You are isolating your case based off of your experiences, which from the sounds of it, are not limited but in comparison to my own and others here, are limited. In your situation you may not require more than 4GB. In my situation, I do.
Sometimes running a web server/hosting files and constant caching requires this additional RAM. I would love to see you say that someone running a Linux/Unix based box does not require more than 1GB RAM because it uses so little. Prefetching/Caching is perhaps beyond you sir.
As I said, any and all processes running are required on a daily basis for this specific machine's use and it is my daily machine.
----------------------------------------
To the original poster:
I hope that, if you have read through any of this nonsense, that you see where your uses may lie and that you can make an educated guess as to what your standards and requirements are for the new machine.
My suggestion is definitely the motherboard upgrade over anything else. It is much easier to replace RAM than an entire motherboard later on.
Best of luck!
Yeah it's definitely helped. I'm planning on getting a cheaper keyboard and putting that money to use in a better motherboard and higher ram. Maybe a different power supply too.
that wil work but ASUS really has bad costumer service and they are famous for their high amount of laptop / computer screens that tend to break from the inside after some time.
Yeah it's definitely helped. I'm planning on getting a cheaper keyboard and putting that money to use in a better motherboard and higher ram. Maybe a different power supply too.
Corsair branded PSU/power supplys are made from some of the better ones out there, so no worries on that. If you want to stick with the modular power supply (the kind that allows you to add and remove cables as you need, rather than it coming with a billion cables you may not use), then the one you chose is not bad. Personally I don't always care about modular connections but it may be a bit cramped in your case unless you route your wires behind one of the side panels very well.
If you decide to not go with a modular power supply, you can definitely go with:
Definitely not bad and nets you an additional $30 to use.
That extra $30 can bring you to GTX 560 levels, which will be one of the most noticeable differences in your gaming experience.
As was previously said, the Sandy Bridge processors from Intel would be my recommendation around this price point because they make such a huge difference compared to even last year's i3, i5, and i7 processors. Something like this may be worth your while:
I can't stress enough how important airflow will be in your build, if you choose not to go with modular AND stick with that case you need to spend a good while ensuring everything is ziptied down and not clumping the critical areas.
I can't stress enough how important airflow will be in your build, if you choose not to go with modular AND stick with that case you need to spend a good while ensuring everything is ziptied down and not clumping the critical areas.
Agreed.
Not sure where else to pull from unless the OP has additional room for the budget.
If you do have room, go for the modular and save yourself an extra hour of setting up zip ties and routing so many wires and getting mad when some cables won't move where you want because the others are too stiff and block your other wires hahaha.
Edited this out : The cases are to similar to really compare against each other. One offers increases space to support airflow , the other a management system and less space.
For casual computer users, I don't see a need for more than 4GB. For power users, 4GB+ is good.
In my case, I like to run virtual machines. I run a Linux host, and a Windows 7 guest. My Windows 7 guest has 2GB allocated. Then on top of that, with 8GB of physical memory, I can run a few more guests. In addition, I can play a video game. I can also run Inkscape and Monodevelop, and various other apps.
I'm a developer, so I tend to push my computer to its limits. I can develop .Net applications in Linux with Mono, then test them on my Windows 7 guest. Or the other way around.
If you think you'll need more than 4GB, then get more. Otherwise save your pennies.
That is a lower tier gaming PC at the moment. You will not be able to run the latest games with a high resolution and all the candies on (or even half). However, if you are satisfied with that, I suppose its ok for less than a year or so.
With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
That is a lower tier gaming PC at the moment. You will not be able to run the latest games with a high resolution and all the candies on (or even half). However, if you are satisfied with that, I suppose its ok for less than a year or so.
With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look.
He should be able to run all the latest and greatest games pretty darn close to max with his current build, his Gpu is perfectly adequate for anything he can throw at it. He will have to keep his resolution to a acceptable size .. but other than that the system will perform.
I run a comparable system to the one he is building, with a few minor diffrences and I can run everything I want on high settings at 1900x1200 ( native ). There is a huge diffrence between bleeding edge technology and its actual use when it comes to gaming. The fiscally minded buyer should always look for the price point on his purchases, don't settle on an inadequate build ... but don't over pump it with hardware that won't ever be utilized.
I see a lot of recommendations that are good but what the OP seemed to imply.. they are outside of the scope..
At the moment I'd agree that the 2500k and 2600k are pretty much the benchmark place to be. However, running relatively moderation resolutions (which are likely on the monitor listed) combined with the 6850... I doubt you are going to notice much of an increase going from the AMD build to the 2500/2600.
Taking that "blue" hard drive out of the build and going for a better performance hard drive will be noticed.
The power supply is a bit expensive.. but corsair is my brand of choice. That said my 850W corsair PSU cost about the same as the 650 listed. When you are looking at various PSU's mentioned in this thread look at the 12V rail Amp ratings... you are likely going to put more of a load on that rail and that is one reason I like Corsair PSU's.
Related to memory I don't see a reason for the OP to go beyond 4GB in their build. What I would recommend is they look at the GSkill 2x2 kits that are CAS 7... for about 11 dollars more. (ripjaw series pretty much).
You can have a very nice low cost build there and alleviate all the bottle neck you can as well. Later on you can always add a better video card etc perhaps when the next generation of cards comes out.
Its a solid build tho I would take one of these...
lol no paticular reason beyond the fact I love the case. I used it when I bought one of the AMD X3's a while back... I had some of the ballistix ram with the flashing LED's .. it was a trip at night.
That is a lower tier gaming PC at the moment. You will not be able to run the latest games with a high resolution and all the candies on (or even half). However, if you are satisfied with that, I suppose its ok for less than a year or so.
With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look.
He should be able to run all the latest and greatest games pretty darn close to max with his current build, his Gpu is perfectly adequate for anything he can throw at it. He will have to keep his resolution to a acceptable size .. but other than that the system will perform.
I am sorry, but that is just a fantasy. His machine will be outdated very quickly. That always happens when you buy the lowest tier of current components. In fact, I currently have more powerful machine (even tho its about two years old) than he is about to buy and still can't run games with anywhere near the max, so please stop lying.
Even the card I suggested to him is not going to fix the issue completely (however, it does have a good price/performance ration atm), but at least he would be able to run current games with comfortable resolution for a year or so.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
That is a lower tier gaming PC at the moment. You will not be able to run the latest games with a high resolution and all the candies on (or even half). However, if you are satisfied with that, I suppose its ok for less than a year or so.
With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look.
He should be able to run all the latest and greatest games pretty darn close to max with his current build, his Gpu is perfectly adequate for anything he can throw at it. He will have to keep his resolution to a acceptable size .. but other than that the system will perform.
I am sorry, but that is just a fantasy. His machine will be outdated very quickly. That always happens when you buy the lowest tier of current components. In fact, I currently have more powerful machine than he is about to buy and still can't run games with anywhere near the max, so please stop lying.
You're off your rocker champ,
My System :
ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 AM3 AMD 880G SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL x2
SAPPHIRE 100282-3SR Radeon HD 5850 (Cypress Pro) 1GB 256-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support
AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Deneb 3.5GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor HDZ970FBGMBOX
COOLER MASTER Silent Pro RS850-AMBAJ3-US 850W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS12V v2.92 SLI Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active
You need to do some research in perfomance bottlenecks for gaming before you begin to question what my machine can and can't do. Every game installed on my system runs at High settings in 1900x1200.
You want to back up your claims or are you just going to wave your ignorance all over this thread?
How about listing the details of your " 2 year old machine" that is better than his?
Also to this " With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look. "
The 560 Ti score marginally better than the 6850 ... thats a few percent increase in performance, for what? There is no game out there currently that will push this card to the extreme in typical resolutions. Thats also almost a $90.00 jump in price .
How about you actually do some research .. here is a good place to start :
ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 AM3 AMD 880G SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL x2
SAPPHIRE 100282-3SR Radeon HD 5850 (Cypress Pro) 1GB 256-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support
AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Deneb 3.5GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor HDZ970FBGMBOX
COOLER MASTER Silent Pro RS850-AMBAJ3-US 850W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS12V v2.92 SLI Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active
You need to do some research in perfomance bottlenecks for gaming before you begin to question what my machine can and can't do. Every game installed on my system runs at High settings in 1900x1200.
I have few parts that are older and few that are younger,
IP35 MB with e8400 at ~4GHz
OCZ DDR2 2x4GB PC2-6400 Reaper CL4 (had to check this)
MSi GTX295 1700MB
60GB SSD (Vertexm about a year old) + 2 x 1TB Samsung F3
OCZ 700W PSU
And some other junk. Processor, MB and memory are a bit older than yours,
My new updates coming next week from Germany will be:
i7 2600k
Asus P8P67
Asus GTX 560 ti cu top
8MB corsair cl8 ddr3
SSD 120GB Agility
2TB Samsung F4
and other junk
And even with that I know that I won't be able to run every game at 1900*1200 with highest settings.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
You want to back up your claims or are you just going to wave your ignorance all over this thread?
How about listing the details of your " 2 year old machine" that is better than his?
Also to this " With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look. "
The 560 Ti score marginally better than the 6850 ... thats a few percent increase in performance, for what? There is no game out there currently that will push this card to the extreme in typical resolutions. Thats also almost a $90.00 jump in price .
How about you actually do some research .. here is a good place to start :
The normal GTX 560 yes, but not that model I mentioned. It is about 33-35% performance increase to 6850, which quite significant when it comes to frame rates in games.
Here is a review of those cards. Check results yourself.
You want to back up your claims or are you just going to wave your ignorance all over this thread?
How about listing the details of your " 2 year old machine" that is better than his?
Also to this " With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look. "
The 560 Ti score marginally better than the 6850 ... thats a few percent increase in performance, for what? There is no game out there currently that will push this card to the extreme in typical resolutions. Thats also almost a $90.00 jump in price .
How about you actually do some research .. here is a good place to start :
The normal GTX 560 yes, but not that model I mentioned. It is about 33-35% performance increase to 6850, which quite significant when it comes to frame rates in games.
It absolutely is not ... as long as he is over 60fps you will NEVER notice a diffrence, EVER.
It is also not even close to that much of a performance increase ...
What ever m8, run your games with highest settings at 1900*1200 in your fantasy land.
I am out from this discussion, could luck for the OP. I still think you should check that card I mentioned, there have been some very good offers for them at least here in Europe.
here is somethign to ponder for few extra dollars:
"The GTX 560 Ti is a card that is in a position to really make a case for an upgrade. You get performance that is better than the HD 6870, GTX 470, and GTX 460 — all cards that at one point had been or are currently at the $250 price point. The thought process with the naming leads you to believe that the GTX 560 Ti is going to replace the GTX 460, when in fact it is the drop in replacement for the GTX 470. On its own merits, the reference card offers considerable performance improvements due to its revamped architecture and increased clock speeds that allow it to be a game changer for those working on their 3-year upgrade cycle looking to save some loot. The success of the GTX 460, with its serious overclocking credentials, led NVIDIA to really design this offering for the gaming enthusiast. The GTX 560 Ti gets a four phase power circuit, 5Gbps rated GDDR5 memory, all the transistor level tweaks of the GF110, and a cooling solution that really keeps the GF114 core running cool. Even when the voltage and clock speeds were maxed out, the core never went higher than 75 degrees Celsius under load. That alone is impressive for a Fermi-based card. My, how times have changed! As a card designed to hit the right price point for gamers, the rest of the NVIDIA ecosystem needs a mention as well since combining two of the GTX 560 Ti's will bring additional options to get you into an immersive gaming environment. You have 3D Vision to give you that stereoscopic 3D rush, Surround that can be combined with 3D Vision to add to that experience, PhysX for added realism in games that support it, and the GF114's parallel computing architecture that can use CUDA for accelerated image processing in games. All in all, a win.
Not only did I look at the stock-clocked reference card from NVIDIA, but also the ENGTX560 Ti DirectCUII TOP from ASUS that takes the performance to another level with its 900MHz core clock speed right out of the box. What I got with this card was a card jam-packed with ASUS-exclusive features that make the card like the Bionic man — Better, Faster, Stronger! ASUS built this card with its Xtreme Design feature set as well as its new SAP (Super Alloy Power) components that include proprietary construction methods for the chokes, MOSFETs, and capacitors. This technology uses highly magnetic, heat resistant, and anti-corrosive metals to reduce power loss, enhance durability, and in the end, have a cooler running component. The end results are chokes that run 35 °C cooler, capacitors that see a 2.5x increase in useful life, and a Super Hybrid engine that gets a 15% performance boost. Lowering the heat output and increasing component life are good things. ASUS took care of the heat from the GPU with its DirectCUII heat pipe, direct contact cooling solution. Instead of a single fan, ASUS equipped this version with dual dust-proof fans that should allow you to keep the card cooler for an extended duration. Everything about this card from ASUS is meant to increase reliability for the long term. You also get GPU Guard, which includes a method of preventing PCB flex with both an adhesive under the GPU socket and a structural brace attached to the spine. These are all features available for a slight upcharge over the suggested e-tail cost of the reference GTX 560 Ti. By slight, we are talking $20. Improved cooling alone is worth that!
The performance was good right out of the box with both of these cards and when it came time to overclock them, I was able to hit over 1GHz on the GF114 cores of both cards and well over 1150MHz on the GDDR5 memory. These bumps in performance from overclocking were not just small bumps, but significant jumps in performance, allowing the GTX 560 Ti from NVIDIA and ASUS to wipe the floor with the HD 6870, its direct competitor. Either AMD has some price drops coming soon or it will be conceding the $250 price point to the performance of the GTX 560 Ti."
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
Comments
I was stating that, when playing, I am using more than the shown GB of RAM. I do not claim my computer is slow. As you can see, less than 15% overhead required for daily tasks. The single game open is taking 1.2GB of RAM right now.
Sometimes, people use their computer for additional things. This is now you attempting to create the argument of who uses 4GB rather than stating reasons that the original poster should or should not go from 4GB and higher.
You are isolating your case based off of your experiences, which from the sounds of it, are not limited but in comparison to my own and others here, are limited. In your situation you may not require more than 4GB. In my situation, I do.
Sometimes running a web server/hosting files and constant caching requires this additional RAM. I would love to see you say that someone running a Linux/Unix based box does not require more than 1GB RAM because it uses so little. Prefetching/Caching is perhaps beyond you sir.
As I said, any and all processes running are required on a daily basis for this specific machine's use and it is my daily machine.
----------------------------------------
To the original poster:
I hope that, if you have read through any of this nonsense, that you see where your uses may lie and that you can make an educated guess as to what your standards and requirements are for the new machine.
My suggestion is definitely the motherboard upgrade over anything else. It is much easier to replace RAM than an entire motherboard later on.
Best of luck!
Ha, good look on SC2. I didn't know it ate up that much either. I just run it because *gasp* I have the RAM to and never have to complain.
All in all, well said and defended. He doesn't seem to understand that everyone's uses are different. Also, due to my skinning, you can only see I believe 9 open applications, not including the background ones in the bottom right. These are simple, common tasks.
Eh, to each his own hahaha.
The real question is - What is utilization?
DUN DUN DUN!
Have a good day folks.
The reason that actual memory requirements for most people will stall for quite some time short of the 4 GB mark is largely due to the transition from 32-bit programs to 64-bit. A 32-bit program cannot address more than 2 GB of memory. Essentially all games are 32-bit programs. That means that the game cannot use more than 2 GB of system memory.
If you have 4 GB, then that leaves at least 2 GB for everything else on your system that you have while a game is running. That's more than enough for Windows 7 itself, plus a browser with dozens of tabs open, a spreadsheet, a voice chat program, and some other assorted junk.
Games tend not to come close to that 2 GB cap, either, so in reality, you have substantially more than 2 GB available for everything except the game. I'm guessing that game designers are hesitant to come near the 2 GB limit, as if you briefly go slightly over the limit, I'm not sure what would happen, but it would probably be bad. The program crashing is my best guess.
That cap will remain in place until games move to 64-bit programs. But there are some strong reasons for games not to do this just yet. For starters, a 64-bit program will not run on a 32-bit operating system. Make your game 64-bit, and you lock out a large fraction of your potential customers. According to the Steam Hardware Survey, more than 1/5 of gamers running Windows 7 use a 32-bit version. That includes a lot of relatively new computers, and people won't be able to run 64-bit programs until they replace the machine, likely years from now.
Thus, even if a game wants to make a 64-bit version of the game, they pretty much also have to make a 32-bit version. And that means you either have two very different code paths to maintain and debug, or else the 64-bit version has to be nearly identical to the 32-bit version and respect the same 2 GB memory cap. Or both. And two different code paths for a single game isn't practical for the overwhelming majority of the market.
By the time 64-bit operating systems are ubiquitous enough that game companies commonly feel free to make a 64-bit game that uses over 2 GB of system memory, a computer that you buy today will likely be obsolete and replaced. Even if not, 8 GB of memory then will be cheaper than 4 GB today. For that matter, 16 GB then might be cheaper than 4 GB today.
-----
When to move from 4 GB up to 8 GB in a build is a matter of budget and priorities. It's pretty obvious that someone looking to spend $2000 excluding peripherals should get 8 GB. Someone looking to get a $500 gaming computer excluding peripherals obviously should not. Where to draw the line depends considerably on how the person will use the computer, and is partially a matter of opinion.
Excluding peripherals, before moving to 8 GB of memory, I'd prioritize:
Core i5 2500 or better processor
A relatively cheap aftermarket processor heatsink and fan
GeForce GTX 560 Ti or Radeon HD 6950 or better video card
A good solid state drive with over 100 GB of usable capacity
A high end power supply (loosely, the Seasonic or Super Flower gold platforms)
A high quality P67 motherboard that is substantially overengineered for what is needed at stock speeds
Now, a lot of those are debatable. I put more value on reliability than most gamers, which is why I have a UPS and do daily incremental data backups along with periodic image backups of my SSD. And I wouldn't even recommend prioritizing all of those over 8 GB of memory to other people, though a gaming system really does need the processor and video card, at least.
-----
Actually, what really matters for usage patterns is how the person buying the computer will use it. Check how much memory you're using at the busiest times, in the way that you use your current computer. If you're never touching 3 GB today, then 4 GB is plenty. If you're already pushing past 4 GB in use today and running into noticeable slowdowns from paging to disk, then you need to get 8 GB in the new computer.
-----
"SC2 , Win Live email ( I'm at work )"
You play StarCraft II at work?
Yeah it's definitely helped. I'm planning on getting a cheaper keyboard and putting that money to use in a better motherboard and higher ram. Maybe a different power supply too.
that wil work but ASUS really has bad costumer service and they are famous for their high amount of laptop / computer screens that tend to break from the inside after some time.
I have an awesome job, yet its boring most the time.
Hurry up and wait is a daily rule.
Corsair branded PSU/power supplys are made from some of the better ones out there, so no worries on that. If you want to stick with the modular power supply (the kind that allows you to add and remove cables as you need, rather than it coming with a billion cables you may not use), then the one you chose is not bad. Personally I don't always care about modular connections but it may be a bit cramped in your case unless you route your wires behind one of the side panels very well.
If you decide to not go with a modular power supply, you can definitely go with:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005&cm_re=650w_corsair-_-17-139-005-_-Product
Definitely not bad and nets you an additional $30 to use.
That extra $30 can bring you to GTX 560 levels, which will be one of the most noticeable differences in your gaming experience.
As was previously said, the Sandy Bridge processors from Intel would be my recommendation around this price point because they make such a huge difference compared to even last year's i3, i5, and i7 processors. Something like this may be worth your while:
Case - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146025
CPU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115073
Mobo - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128487
Graphics Card - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130604
RAM - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179
PSU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005
HDD - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136767
Monitor - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236100
Speakers - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16836121014
Subtotal - $987.91
I tried to keep it within $100 of your original build.
NZXT Apollo Black SECC Steel Chassis ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Item #: N82E16811146025
Return Policy: Standard Return Policy
-$30.00 Instant
$89.99
$59.99
NZXT Apollo Black SECC Steel Chassis ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Item #: N82E16811146025
Return Policy: Standard Return Policy
-$30.00 Instant
$89.99
$59.99
NZXT Apollo Black SECC Steel Chassis ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Item #: N82E16811146025
Return Policy: Standard Return Policy
-$30.00 Instant
$89.99
$59.99
I can't stress enough how important airflow will be in your build, if you choose not to go with modular AND stick with that case you need to spend a good while ensuring everything is ziptied down and not clumping the critical areas.
Agreed.
Not sure where else to pull from unless the OP has additional room for the budget.
If you do have room, go for the modular and save yourself an extra hour of setting up zip ties and routing so many wires and getting mad when some cables won't move where you want because the others are too stiff and block your other wires hahaha.
Edited this out : The cases are to similar to really compare against each other. One offers increases space to support airflow , the other a management system and less space.
Sorry for the confusion.
It's a nice DX11 system, are you sure that the motherboard has all the inputs that you need? Does your processor come with a heatsink already?
Just the few things to check and you're good to go!
https://i.imgur.com/Dc8dU3M.png
For casual computer users, I don't see a need for more than 4GB. For power users, 4GB+ is good.
In my case, I like to run virtual machines. I run a Linux host, and a Windows 7 guest. My Windows 7 guest has 2GB allocated. Then on top of that, with 8GB of physical memory, I can run a few more guests. In addition, I can play a video game. I can also run Inkscape and Monodevelop, and various other apps.
I'm a developer, so I tend to push my computer to its limits. I can develop .Net applications in Linux with Mono, then test them on my Windows 7 guest. Or the other way around.
If you think you'll need more than 4GB, then get more. Otherwise save your pennies.
That is a lower tier gaming PC at the moment. You will not be able to run the latest games with a high resolution and all the candies on (or even half). However, if you are satisfied with that, I suppose its ok for less than a year or so.
With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
He should be able to run all the latest and greatest games pretty darn close to max with his current build, his Gpu is perfectly adequate for anything he can throw at it. He will have to keep his resolution to a acceptable size .. but other than that the system will perform.
I run a comparable system to the one he is building, with a few minor diffrences and I can run everything I want on high settings at 1900x1200 ( native ). There is a huge diffrence between bleeding edge technology and its actual use when it comes to gaming. The fiscally minded buyer should always look for the price point on his purchases, don't settle on an inadequate build ... but don't over pump it with hardware that won't ever be utilized.
A few general responses.
I see a lot of recommendations that are good but what the OP seemed to imply.. they are outside of the scope..
At the moment I'd agree that the 2500k and 2600k are pretty much the benchmark place to be. However, running relatively moderation resolutions (which are likely on the monitor listed) combined with the 6850... I doubt you are going to notice much of an increase going from the AMD build to the 2500/2600.
Taking that "blue" hard drive out of the build and going for a better performance hard drive will be noticed.
The power supply is a bit expensive.. but corsair is my brand of choice. That said my 850W corsair PSU cost about the same as the 650 listed. When you are looking at various PSU's mentioned in this thread look at the 12V rail Amp ratings... you are likely going to put more of a load on that rail and that is one reason I like Corsair PSU's.
Related to memory I don't see a reason for the OP to go beyond 4GB in their build. What I would recommend is they look at the GSkill 2x2 kits that are CAS 7... for about 11 dollars more. (ripjaw series pretty much).
You can have a very nice low cost build there and alleviate all the bottle neck you can as well. Later on you can always add a better video card etc perhaps when the next generation of cards comes out.
Its a solid build tho I would take one of these...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129021
lol no paticular reason beyond the fact I love the case. I used it when I bought one of the AMD X3's a while back... I had some of the ballistix ram with the flashing LED's .. it was a trip at night.
I am sorry, but that is just a fantasy. His machine will be outdated very quickly. That always happens when you buy the lowest tier of current components. In fact, I currently have more powerful machine (even tho its about two years old) than he is about to buy and still can't run games with anywhere near the max, so please stop lying.
Even the card I suggested to him is not going to fix the issue completely (however, it does have a good price/performance ration atm), but at least he would be able to run current games with comfortable resolution for a year or so.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
You're off your rocker champ,
My System :
ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 AM3 AMD 880G SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL x2
SAPPHIRE 100282-3SR Radeon HD 5850 (Cypress Pro) 1GB 256-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support
AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Deneb 3.5GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor HDZ970FBGMBOX
COOLER MASTER Silent Pro RS850-AMBAJ3-US 850W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS12V v2.92 SLI Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active
You need to do some research in perfomance bottlenecks for gaming before you begin to question what my machine can and can't do. Every game installed on my system runs at High settings in 1900x1200.
I am sure they do, as a slide show
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
You want to back up your claims or are you just going to wave your ignorance all over this thread?
How about listing the details of your " 2 year old machine" that is better than his?
Also to this " With few dollars more you could get a card like GTX 560 Ti Cu Top (overclocked version). Which should able you to run games with slightly better look. "
The 560 Ti score marginally better than the 6850 ... thats a few percent increase in performance, for what? There is no game out there currently that will push this card to the extreme in typical resolutions. Thats also almost a $90.00 jump in price .
How about you actually do some research .. here is a good place to start :
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts/Gamer-Index,2673.html
I'm Still waiting ......
I have few parts that are older and few that are younger,
IP35 MB with e8400 at ~4GHz
OCZ DDR2 2x4GB PC2-6400 Reaper CL4 (had to check this)
MSi GTX295 1700MB
60GB SSD (Vertexm about a year old) + 2 x 1TB Samsung F3
OCZ 700W PSU
And some other junk. Processor, MB and memory are a bit older than yours,
My new updates coming next week from Germany will be:
i7 2600k
Asus P8P67
Asus GTX 560 ti cu top
8MB corsair cl8 ddr3
SSD 120GB Agility
2TB Samsung F4
and other junk
And even with that I know that I won't be able to run every game at 1900*1200 with highest settings.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
The normal GTX 560 yes, but not that model I mentioned. It is about 33-35% performance increase to 6850, which quite significant when it comes to frame rates in games.
Here is a review of those cards. Check results yourself.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_asus_gtx560ti/
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
That system is not better than his ....
It absolutely is not ... as long as he is over 60fps you will NEVER notice a diffrence, EVER.
It is also not even close to that much of a performance increase ...
Here is another chart for you :
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts/Enthusiast-Index,2674.html
Notice the Frames ? 85 - 72 , with the low grade being 62.
Buying top end hardware is a waste of money , you won't ever utilize it as nothing out currently can. Hell our quad cores are WASTED.
never get Logitech anything (invest in Razer mouse and keyboard). and get a really good, spaceous mobo to futureproof your box.
What ever m8, run your games with highest settings at 1900*1200 in your fantasy land.
I am out from this discussion, could luck for the OP. I still think you should check that card I mentioned, there have been some very good offers for them at least here in Europe.
here is somethign to ponder for few extra dollars:
"The GTX 560 Ti is a card that is in a position to really make a case for an upgrade. You get performance that is better than the HD 6870, GTX 470, and GTX 460 — all cards that at one point had been or are currently at the $250 price point. The thought process with the naming leads you to believe that the GTX 560 Ti is going to replace the GTX 460, when in fact it is the drop in replacement for the GTX 470. On its own merits, the reference card offers considerable performance improvements due to its revamped architecture and increased clock speeds that allow it to be a game changer for those working on their 3-year upgrade cycle looking to save some loot. The success of the GTX 460, with its serious overclocking credentials, led NVIDIA to really design this offering for the gaming enthusiast. The GTX 560 Ti gets a four phase power circuit, 5Gbps rated GDDR5 memory, all the transistor level tweaks of the GF110, and a cooling solution that really keeps the GF114 core running cool. Even when the voltage and clock speeds were maxed out, the core never went higher than 75 degrees Celsius under load. That alone is impressive for a Fermi-based card. My, how times have changed! As a card designed to hit the right price point for gamers, the rest of the NVIDIA ecosystem needs a mention as well since combining two of the GTX 560 Ti's will bring additional options to get you into an immersive gaming environment. You have 3D Vision to give you that stereoscopic 3D rush, Surround that can be combined with 3D Vision to add to that experience, PhysX for added realism in games that support it, and the GF114's parallel computing architecture that can use CUDA for accelerated image processing in games. All in all, a win.
Not only did I look at the stock-clocked reference card from NVIDIA, but also the ENGTX560 Ti DirectCUII TOP from ASUS that takes the performance to another level with its 900MHz core clock speed right out of the box. What I got with this card was a card jam-packed with ASUS-exclusive features that make the card like the Bionic man — Better, Faster, Stronger! ASUS built this card with its Xtreme Design feature set as well as its new SAP (Super Alloy Power) components that include proprietary construction methods for the chokes, MOSFETs, and capacitors. This technology uses highly magnetic, heat resistant, and anti-corrosive metals to reduce power loss, enhance durability, and in the end, have a cooler running component. The end results are chokes that run 35 °C cooler, capacitors that see a 2.5x increase in useful life, and a Super Hybrid engine that gets a 15% performance boost. Lowering the heat output and increasing component life are good things. ASUS took care of the heat from the GPU with its DirectCUII heat pipe, direct contact cooling solution. Instead of a single fan, ASUS equipped this version with dual dust-proof fans that should allow you to keep the card cooler for an extended duration. Everything about this card from ASUS is meant to increase reliability for the long term. You also get GPU Guard, which includes a method of preventing PCB flex with both an adhesive under the GPU socket and a structural brace attached to the spine. These are all features available for a slight upcharge over the suggested e-tail cost of the reference GTX 560 Ti. By slight, we are talking $20. Improved cooling alone is worth that!
The performance was good right out of the box with both of these cards and when it came time to overclock them, I was able to hit over 1GHz on the GF114 cores of both cards and well over 1150MHz on the GDDR5 memory. These bumps in performance from overclocking were not just small bumps, but significant jumps in performance, allowing the GTX 560 Ti from NVIDIA and ASUS to wipe the floor with the HD 6870, its direct competitor. Either AMD has some price drops coming soon or it will be conceding the $250 price point to the performance of the GTX 560 Ti."
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."