[How to] Building your own gaming PC?

[MrMarooca]

Thanks for the info on the sdd, from my understanding it is not that usefull considering their size, they are alot quicker at reading/righting and have an average life of around 150 years, but they can not be repeaired easily.
However you pay 3x more per gig then you do with a normal HDD.
so ima probly skip it and go for a 3TB instead of 2TB and a small SDD, and it comes out around 30 quid cheaper.

While it is optional, and some may consider it unnecessary,
I'd still reccomend even a super small SSD (~60GB) just for the OS. It will not only boot faster, but will also make generally everything you do with your OS faster. What would usually take me about 45 secs to fully boot the desktop without an SSD takes me around 15 secs with one.
It's nice if you're impatient, like me

[Craig]

I'd still reccomend even a super small SSD (~60GB) just for the OS. It will not only boot faster, but will also make generally everything you do with your OS faster. What would usually take me about 45 secs to fully boot the desktop without an SSD takes me around 15 secs with one.

I would too. But I'd recommend a 100GB SSD. It not only makes rebooting very fast, but there are a lot of O/S files that are constantly being read from during normal operation of the PC and the faster these files can be read, the faster everything else runs. The registry is the best example. I'd always go with an SSD now, it really helps.

If you do go with the SDD, because they are usually 100GB or less, it's very important not to fill it up with software installs. The OS really needs a good 50GB free on the SSD to maximize performacne.

The SSD is usually partitioned as the C:.
So whenever you install software on the PC (other than windows itself), always change the install drive to your standard HDD (usually D:), so the SSD is not filled up unnecessarily.

[Clerical]

I would too

Does it make a noticeable different in every day tasks, im not impatient enough to want to shave off a few secs of the boot up, so with that in mind is it still worth getting a 120GB SDD? If so ill get a 2TB + 120 SDD instead of a 3TB HDD

Also machine will be mainly used for HD editing/recording, my current comp does it fine now but im sure a comp 4-5 times better will make everything run alot smoother, Atleast thats what im hoping for XD

[Craig]

Does it make a noticeable different in every day tasks

I updated my post with more details, but in short, yes it does also help with normal running.

[Jack Of Shades]

I would too. But I'd recommend a 100GB SSD. It not only makes rebooting very fast, but there are a lot of O/S files that are constantly being read from during normal operation of the PC and the faster these files can be read, the faster everything else runs. The registry is the best example. I'd always go with an SSD now, it really helps.

If you do go with the SDD, because they are usually 100GB or less, it's very important not to fill it up with software installs. The OS really needs a good 50GB free on the SSD to maximize performacne.

The SSD is usually partitioned as the C:.
So whenever you install software on the PC (other than windows itself), always change the install drive to your standard HDD (usually D:), so the SSD is not filled up unnecessarily.

So even though an SSD is optional, it likely will help the O/S in every way as far as speed and boot speed. But, as you posted, you should always leave about half of the memory open to maximize the performance? (I.e since the SSD you mentioned was 100gb and you mentioned leaving about 50 gb free for the O/S) So since it is optional, if it's a first time computer being built...it wouldn't be detrimental to leave it out until more funds can be spent on a good one? I do want an SSD for my rig eventually, but I would rather span the price over a period of time. Rather than spending a large sum all at once.

[Craig]

So even though an SSD is optional, it likely will help the O/S in every way as far as speed and boot speed. But, as you posted, you should always leave about half of the memory open to maximize the performance? (I.e since the SSD you mentioned was 100gb and you mentioned leaving about 50 gb free for the O/S) So since it is optional, if it's a first time computer being built...it wouldn't be detrimental to leave it out until more funds can be spent on a good one? I do want an SSD for my rig eventually, but I would rather span the price over a period of time. Rather than spending a large sum all at once.

I think the SSD is only worthwhile as a dedicated O/S partition. So as long as you don't mind changing the O/S installation from the HDD to the SSD later when you're ready, then you'll be good to add it later. For people who aren't comfortable changing the O/S installation, I'd recommend getting the SSD up front.

About the free space, 50/50 is a good balance. If you really need to squeeze it, I'd say you'd be ok with 10-20GB free, but personally I wouldn't let it get below 20GB free.

Also, in my post above, I mentioned the registry as a good example, but thinking about that, it's possible the entire registry is always cached in RAM while the PC is running, so maybe it's not a good example after all. But I'm sure there are plenty of other O/S files that are constantly used and not cached.

[Jack Of Shades]

I think the SSD is only worthwhile as a dedicated O/S partition. So as long as you don't mind changing the O/S installation from the HDD to the SSD later when you're ready, then you'll be good to add it later. For people who aren't comfortable changing the O/S installation, I'd recommend getting the SSD up front.

About the free space, 50/50 is a good balance. If you really need to squeeze it, I'd say you'd be ok with 10-20GB free, but personally I wouldn't let it get below 20GB free.

Also, in my post above, I mentioned the registry as a good example, but thinking about that, it's possible the entire registry is always cached in RAM while the PC is running, so maybe it's not a good example after all. But I'm sure there are plenty of other O/S files that are constantly used and not cached.

Alright so, getting it starting off would be wiser than waiting? I mean, I'd hate to use more money too soon...but if it's easier on the installation process, why not?

I think I'll stick with 50/50, I'd rather not test the limits of my new rig right away. Not until I understand how all the components work with  each other properly. I'd rather play it safe, than screw something up in the long run. So 50/50 is a safe bet, thanks for that advice.

So the RAM is the main component then in that example? And alright, I'll see what this O/S will do when I start working on my PC. If the RAM is where it's cached (the entire registry you mentioned) I suppose a proper RAM needs to be installed as well. Just in case? Again, still learning so pardon my lack of knowledge, Craig.

[Craig]

Alright so, getting it starting off would be wiser than waiting? I mean, I'd hate to use more money too soon...but if it's easier on the installation process, why not?

It's a trade off between ease and cost. If you don't want to spend the extra money on the SSD right away, then don't, just know that later when you do buy the SSD, someone will have to move the O/S from your HDD to your new SSD. I've never done this myself so I can't say how hard it is to do, or if it is more complicated than a fresh install of the O/S. Also I guess Windows vs Apple vs Linux etc will each involve different knowledge on how to best do it.

So the RAM is the main component then in that example? And alright, I'll see what this O/S will do when I start working on my PC. If the RAM is where it's cached (the entire registry you mentioned) I suppose a proper RAM needs to be installed as well. Just in case? Again, still learning so pardon my lack of knowledge, Craig. [/font][/i]

Don't worry about what I said about the RAM, it doesn't affect what components you buy or how the computer is setup.

[Jack Of Shades]

It's a trade off between ease and cost. If you don't want to spend the extra money on the SSD right away, then don't, just know that later when you do buy the SSD, someone will have to move the O/S from your HDD to your new SSD. I've never done this myself so I can't say how hard it is to do, or if it is more complicated than a fresh install of the O/S. Also I guess Windows vs Apple vs Linux etc will each involve different knowledge on how to best do it.

I am sticking with Windows. And okay, so I think I'd rather spend more and install the SSD right away rather than later. I would like to learn how to do this process, but I think starting off it would be better to stay simple.

Don't worry about what I said about the RAM, it doesn't affect what components you buy or how the computer is setup.
Oh okay, I appreciate the advice on this so far.

[GoatOnTheMoon]

Not a big fan of reddit, Con. I've used them before on different topics and the sources were always inaccurate and misleading.

My friend Matt and I built his PC using r/buildapc and his works great so I haven't had a problem with it. You just need the right help.

[Agykoo]

You might find this interesting http://ssdendurancetest.com/

From what I know they arent unreliable at all, but like HDD's some might last 10 years others a year lol technology can be unpredictable.

that site is rather confusing to read ^_^, that's probly just me tho.

googling around I can find sites ranging form there fail rate is bad, to its inconclusive, to SSDs outlast harddrives by 2x. (but also as you said based on maker, intel/samsung seems to be the best for SSD)

finding more sites that look more technical tho. it seems they are no where near as bad as they used to be, but, some still have terrible fail rates, as well as chances of fail form random things. for exp, some, the power going out could mean a total fail of the ssd. batt back up can help, but I have been in more then one power outage that lasted longer then my batt back ups.

it also sounds like they suffer form an internal memory leak. that the more they are used the ever so tiny bit slower they get, not noticeable at first but as time goes on (years) they get much slower is what I am reading.

There is a consensus tho over the sites I have seen, HDD/SSD, has ZERO impact on FPS for video games. it only effects load times, and I perosnaly don't see an issue with load times or even notice them on a HDD.

for me, I just don't see a reason yet to get an ssd, I don't notice load times for games, os still boots just finely fast for me, most games for me are also rather large (as I play mostly RPGs). I don't notice the OS slowing any thing down.

the way I see it, is there ment for super fast load times, but besides the OS what is it gona be used for? I keep reading they shoudlent be used for day to day writes (because that increases fail rate drastically). so I am just paying extra for a faster load time on the OS?
looking at sites like newegg, even the best rated SSDs have a large amount of "failed after 3-6 months".
that's a concern to me, expaicly for the money.

I want to like SSDs, but because of price and fail rates still. I am gona have to pass on them for now. ^_^

[Jack Of Shades]

My friend Matt and I built his PC using r/buildapc and his works great so I haven't had a problem with it. You just need the right help.

Oh you're most definitely right, Nefty. Problem is weeding through all the BS to get to the information. :/ I may try again at some point, see if I can figure out some new info from the site.

that site is rather confusing to read ^_^, that's probly just me tho.

googling around I can find sites ranging form there fail rate is bad, to its inconclusive, to SSDs outlast harddrives by 2x. (but also as you said based on maker, intel/samsung seems to be the best for SSD)

finding more sites that look more technical tho. it seems they are no where near as bad as they used to be, but, some still have terrible fail rates, as well as chances of fail form random things. for exp, some, the power going out could mean a total fail of the ssd. batt back up can help, but I have been in more then one power outage that lasted longer then my batt back ups.

it also sounds like they suffer form an internal memory leak. that the more they are used the ever so tiny bit slower they get, not noticeable at first but as time goes on (years) they get much slower is what I am reading.

There is a consensus tho over the sites I have seen, HDD/SSD, has ZERO impact on FPS for video games. it only effects load times, and I perosnaly don't see an issue with load times or even notice them on a HDD.

for me, I just don't see a reason yet to get an ssd, I don't notice load times for games, os still boots just finely fast for me, most games for me are also rather large (as I play mostly RPGs). I don't notice the OS slowing any thing down.

the way I see it, is there ment for super fast load times, but besides the OS what is it gona be used for? I keep reading they shoudlent be used for day to day writes (because that increases fail rate drastically). so I am just paying extra for a faster load time on the OS?
looking at sites like newegg, even the best rated SSDs have a large amount of "failed after 3-6 months".
that's a concern to me, expaicly for the money.

I want to like SSDs, but because of price and fail rates still. I am gona have to pass on them for now. ^_^

Yeah Agy they are TOTALLY optional, but after some research a lot of folks REALLY stand by them. They are like a Mandatory optional at this point, and some do last a while. The issue is heating it seems, even with a system that is custom built...apparently over heating can happen. Even if one is not overclocking any of their components, too much power and energy can do it regardless. Some SSD's supposedly can do this. Apparently, if the SSD draws more power, it dissipates more heat. I'm still doing more research on the matter, but from what I hear they are worth it. Not just from the other forum members, but professional PC builders. They say with a decent RAM, an SSD is the number one most noticeable upgrade a person can get. But it's still entirely up to you what you wish to do with it. I am merely doing it for mine to save me time and issues on installing it later. And taking advice from Craig's early post.

RANDOM TIP! Power Supplies. If there is one thing you should NOT scrimp on when it comes to investing in a new rig, it's the power supply. Because without that NOTHING works, obviously. So it's best to not go cheap on these. I've heard Corsair has great power supplies.

[Jack Of Shades]

Jack's Gaming Rig(Beginning)

Below is what I've decided to stick with, but with a minor adjustment I will mention at the bottom.

Motherboard

Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P ($90)

CPU

AMD FX-6300 6-Core ($100)

RAM

Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz ($65)

Graphics Card

EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SuperSC ACX 2.0+ 2GB ($210)

Hard Drive

WD Blue 1 TB ($50)

Optical Drive

Asus 24x DVD Burner ($21)

Case

Rosewill Challenger ATX Mid Tower ($57)

Power Supply

Corsair Builder Series CX 500 Watt ($58)


Total Cost: $651 (USD)

===================================================================

Graphics Card(Change)
Instead of an EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SuperSC ACX 2.0+ 2GB I may get this EVGA GeForce GTX 750Ti with G-SYNC Support 2GB GDDR5 128bit, Dual-Link, DVI-I, HDMI, DP Graphics Card as it runs almost as good for about 70 bucks cheaper.

Modified Total Cost: $580.99 (USD)

Found out, with my modified Graphics Card and the prices on Amazon, the total would be around $555.44 USD. Which is not bad from the supposed power and capabilities of this PC.

[Agykoo]

Oh you're most definitely right, Nefty. Problem is weeding through all the BS to get to the information. :/ I may try again at some point, see if I can figure out some new info from the site.

Yeah Agy they are TOTALLY optional, but after some research a lot of folks REALLY stand by them. They are like a Mandatory optional at this point, and some do last a while. The issue is heating it seems, even with a system that is custom built...apparently over heating can happen. Even if one is not overclocking any of their components, too much power and energy can do it regardless. Some SSD's supposedly can do this. Apparently, if the SSD draws more power, it dissipates more heat. I'm still doing more research on the matter, but from what I hear they are worth it. Not just from the other forum members, but professional PC builders. They say with a decent RAM, an SSD is the number one most noticeable upgrade a person can get. But it's still entirely up to you what you wish to do with it. I am merely doing it for mine to save me time and issues on installing it later. And taking advice from Craig's early post.

RANDOM TIP! Power Supplies. If there is one thing you should NOT scrimp on when it comes to investing in a new rig, it's the power supply. Because without that NOTHING works, obviously. So it's best to not go cheap on these. I've heard Corsair has great power supplies.

I honestly didn't see any heat issues with SSD, the 2 things that stood out for me for there fail rates were interrupt in power supply (lolwut). and just to much usage.
besides a faster boot time (dispte what craig says about it effecting everything). I just don't see it since it has zero impact on video game performance aside form load times, and load times are lighting quick already for me with an old HDD.

hopfuly in a few years they will get better tho and come down in price more ^_^

[Jack Of Shades]

I honestly didn't see any heat issues with SSD, the 2 things that stood out for me for there fail rates were interrupt in power supply (lolwut). and just to much usage.
besides a faster boot time (dispte what craig says about it effecting everything). I just don't see it since it has zero impact on video game performance aside form load times, and load times are lighting quick already for me with an old HDD.

hopfuly in a few years they will get better tho and come down in price more ^_^

Might just stick with an HDD then, instead of a SSD. I am still debating myself now. Some say one thing, and then others say another thing. Confusing at times.