• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2000$ Gaming PC Recommendations

A

adnank77

Member
My friend is buying a PC and he's kinda confused in specs.

He needs threee different recommendations which will fall into the same Price Range:

Option 1: PC without Monitor (He'll use his 32" TV @ 1080p)
Option 2: PC + Gaming Monitor (1080p is enough)
Option 3: PC + 3 Gaming Monitors (5760x1080).

I know option 1 will have more specs while option 3 would be kinda compramize .. However, Option 2 is least favourate since he's already having an extra TV and not really convinced to pay money to get him same resolution again ..

Your inputs are valuable ..
 
He can forget about option 3 on this budget. $2K better for a 1440p monitor + PC. Triple monitors is much more demanding, I'd estimate a $2.5K budget is needed for smooth gaming.

Secondly, I don't think it's worth considering different builds for options 1 and 2, since both builds would use the same monitor resolution, and $2K is too big of a budget for a 1080p gaming rig. You can max out 1080p games for $1.2K.

It'd help if you copied this sticky and posted answers. Also, please list games that your friend is intending to play, and whether he needs to buy any peripherals other than the monitor.
 
One possibility at Option 2 is a lightboosted 120Hz monitor which would bring a smoother experience verses Option 1 where he is using a TV. TV's often have pretty terrible latency and blur in games so they really aren't great devices for gaming. Its also not great to be sitting a few feet away from such a large and very low res screen, the pixels are quite obvious.
 
With 2k to spend, I'd go with what lehtv said, pick up a 1440p monitor for ~500-600 (Dell u2713hm or ASUS PB278Q, whichever is on-sale for <$600 right now, they typicall alternate) and build a rig for ~1400. You get pretty noticeably diminishing returns on non-peripheral hardware above 1400/1500 or so, and a nice monitor will last your friend a while.

Also, 2nd'ing lehtv's request for stickied questions/answers and list of potential games. 🙂
 
Last edited:
The Alias said:
I always go with this for new pc gamers that say they want to spend on a gaming pc : http://pcpartpicker.com/user/theblackdawn21/saved/22cF

this is a compact, high end pc . along with windows 8, 120hz monitor, mechanical keyboard (cherry mx browns a.k.a the quiet kind), and a roccat kone pure . So then you can absorb yourself in o.cing and ultra smooth gaming
Click to expand...

Why go with a CPU that's two generations old at this point, and less spending on the GPU than the SSD?
 
The OP's profile says that he's in the UAE, so if that's accurate, we unfortunately don't really know what parts are available. Of course, that means the answers to the sticky questions are all the more important!
 
DSF said:
Why go with a CPU that's two generations old at this point, and less spending on the GPU than the SSD?
Click to expand...

a : it's the coolest out of the 3 generations and it's in a small case so temps so heat generation is a major factor

b : the performance difference is not noticeable in games and can be oc'ed to negate whatever difference you'd notice and stay cool

c : really good deal on that p67 motherboard

as for the gpu, you'll be able to have more games on your ssd . The 7950 is more than adequate for a smooth gaming experience at 1080p plus it oc's like a monster
 
The Alias said:
a : it's the coolest out of the 3 generations and it's in a small case so temps so heat generation is a major factor

b : the performance difference is not noticeable in games and can be oc'ed to negate whatever difference you'd notice and stay cool

c : really good deal on that p67 motherboard

as for the gpu, you'll be able to have more games on your ssd . The 7950 is more than adequate for a smooth gaming experience at 1080p plus it oc's like a monster
Click to expand...
It's also more expensive than the current generation when you take into account combo deals, negating the price of the motherboard. The hyperthreading is unnecessary for games.

If you're planning on overclocking that's going to drive the heat up anyway.

I have no problem with the 7950, I have one myself. I just think a 500GB SSD is highly unnecessary. Most games see little to no benefit from loading off an SSD.

The PSU is also way oversized. You could get what you need for one half to one third of the price.

Anyway, I'm not trying to derail the thread. It's not a bad build, but it does take a different philosophy than most and in my opinion includes a fair bit of wasted money. I just don't want the OP to think it's a build that one should run out and purchase without the full picture.
 
DSF said:
If you're planning on overclocking that's going to drive the heat up anyway.

I have no problem with the 7950, I have one myself. I just think a 500GB SSD is highly unnecessary. Most games see little to no benefit from loading off an SSD.

Anyway, I'm not trying to derail the thread. It's not a bad build, but it does take a different philosophy than most and in my opinion includes a fair bit of wasted money. I just don't want the OP to think it's a build that one should run out and purchase without the full picture.
Click to expand...

the 2700k doesn't heat up nearly as much as ivy or haswell and as such it has a bit of playing room with oc'ing

with new pc gamers usually coming from consoles with a fair bit of money to spend, I want to provide a full enthusiast experience with all the positives from a console . So I want to provide the best overclocking platform I can (mobo and video card MUST have a great power delivery system and the psu must have as little variance as possible) and I want the system to be as fluid as possible (hence the stupidly large ssd plus 3 tb hard drive for media or if he wants to be the next seananners) plus bf4 is gonna be a beast and I don't want it EVER going under 60 after oc'ing at 2x msaa
 
The Alias said:
the 2700k doesn't heat up nearly as much as ivy or haswell and as such it has a bit of playing room with oc'ing

with new pc gamers usually coming from consoles with a fair bit of money to spend, I want to provide a full enthusiast experience with all the positives from a console . So I want to provide the best overclocking platform I can (mobo and video card MUST have a great power delivery system and the psu must have as little variance as possible) and I want the system to be as fluid as possible (hence the stupidly large ssd plus 3 tb hard drive for media or if he wants to be the next seananners) plus bf4 is gonna be a beast and I don't want it EVER going under 60 after oc'ing at 2x msaa
Click to expand...

You're got to make the distinction between heat and temperature. In terms of total heat output, an overclocked 2700K, 3770K, and 4770K are all about the same, with the later CPUs producing slightly less. In terms of temperatures, the later CPUs do run hotter due to their smaller die sizes.

In terms of overall performance, you can't forget the IPC differences between the generations. Sure, you can get a 2700K to 4.8 on air, but that's only 10% faster than the 4.3 you're going to get from a 4770K. The IPC improvements of the Haswell architecture easily make up the difference.
 
Temperature is a value that is not only dependent on joule output. Surface area and material conductivity also matter.

Heat, on the other hand, is measured in joules.
 
mfenn said:
In terms of overall performance, you can't forget the IPC differences between the generations. Sure, you can get a 2700K to 4.8 on air, but that's only 10% faster than the 4.3 you're going to get from a 4770K. The IPC improvements of the Haswell architecture easily make up the difference.
Click to expand...

just comparing sandybridge and haswell in games at the same clocks haswell has about a 10% advantage over sandy, BUT the temperature justify the performance difference in the slightest especially when the gpu will be bottlenecking 97% of the time .

The only reason overclocking ability, while still being cool, is such a concern for me is that I want to give a very easy overclocking experience not constrained by temps, bad power delivery, etc while retaining a small almost console like form factor
 
The Alias said:
just comparing sandybridge and haswell in games at the same clocks haswell has about a 10% advantage over sandy, BUT the temperature justify the performance difference in the slightest especially when the gpu will be bottlenecking 97% of the time .

The only reason overclocking ability, while still being cool, is such a concern for me is that I want to give a very easy overclocking experience not constrained by temps, bad power delivery, etc while retaining a small almost console like form factor
Click to expand...

First of all, if you're bottlenecking at the GPU, then the faster chip will use less energy and thus produce less heat because of the race to idle principle.

Second, again, core temperature does not equal heat. A Sandy Bridge system will run cooler at a given heat output Haswell simply because it has a larger die. However, a lower core temperature does not change the amount of heat that an ITX case has to handle.

Third, the OP has given no indication that his friend is interested in overclocking for the sake of overclocking. Thus, your entire argument based around ease of overclocking is moot. A valid argument would be to make the claim that Sandy Bridge will be higher performance after overclocking. However, that's a much more difficult claim to support.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top