Gaming Picking Parts for new computer

[jargus]

I'm planing on buying or building within the next year or so. I've been doing research but am not what I should get for PSU or motherboard. I'm not sure which parts would be compatible with each other or if there is anything I'm overlooking. I plan mainly to use it for rendering HD video in Sony Vegas and maybe some PC gaming. Currently I have no set budget but would probably cap around $1200. How well do the parts I've decided on so far work together and what else do I need?

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600K 3.4GHz http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115070

GPU: nVIDIA GTX560 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130634

RAM: CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820233186

OS: Windows 7 64-bit

SSD: OCZ Vertex 3 VTX3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC (for booting Windows and and launching programs) http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820227706

HDD: SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache (for saving and accessing files) http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822152185

Motherboard: ASRock Z68 EXTREME4 GEN3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157264

Sound Card: ASUS XONAR DG http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829132020

I'm thinking of USB 3.0 but it isn't necessary. Also missing a sound card. I don't a very high end one but one that produces clear sound. I already have a monitor I can use. What else am I missing and what should be changed and how well do all these parts work together? I figured if anybody knew best it would the experts here at the 'temp.


EDIT 1 - Added motherboard and sound card

 

[qlum]

for a soundcard you could go with a asus xonar dg, its cheap and its quite an upgrade over the default sound.

 

[omgdaniel]

For a PSU, just get a 500w. It'll be enough to power it and not too expensive. If you're looking to SLI later down the road, get a 800w and you'll be set.

As for a motherboard, and P67, Z68, H67 are all LGA Socket 1155, which is what the Intel i7 2600k is.
I'd recommend: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157264 - Asrock Extreme4 Gen3 (Gen 3 boards have PCI-e 3.0 and are Ivy Bridge ready [Intel's next processor line])
or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131790 - Asus P8Z68 Pro/Gen3.

 

[Fishaman P]

Jesus Christ, by PC gaming, did you mean on a 30" 2560x1600 monitor!?!

An Intel Core i5 2500(K), 4GB+ of DDR3 RAM, a 600W PSU, and either an NVIDIA Geforce 550Ti or AMD Radeon HD 6770 should be PLENTY for even the avid gamer.

That'll knock off AT LEAST $500 from your current build.

 

[omgdaniel]

Jesus Christ, by PC gaming, did you mean on a 30" 2560x1600 monitor!?!

An Intel Core i5 2500(K), 4GB+ of DDR3 RAM, a 600W PSU, and either an NVIDIA Geforce 550Ti or AMD Radeon HD 6770 should be PLENTY for even the avid gamer.

That'll knock off AT LEAST $500 from your current build.

He did mention he would do HD video rendering, which would benefit greatly from 8 threads, if the software supports its.

 

[jargus]

Thanks for responses so far guys. How well would this PSU work with my parts so far: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021

Also would I need a cooling fan or is it sufficient enough as is? Other than that I think the only major parts left are of optical drive and casing

 

[marcus134]

nice psu, but overkill, unless you plan to add ton of other stuff, 500 to 600 should be enough.

Also would I need a cooling fan or is it sufficient enough as is?

It really depends on the case you choose.

 

[philip11]

I say if you haven't chosen processor pick AMD It's faster than Intel Also if you've got enough money get a Quad Core I hear those are REALLY Fast.

 

[Rydian]

AMD It's faster than Intel

AMD lost the performance crown years ago, but which company has the fatest at all doesn't matter, it's whatever's in the price bracket.

 

[shadowkillerdrag]

If you building it within the next year I woudl suggest waiting until hard drive prices slowly go back to regular price. You should get a 550ish power supply, I am assuming your not going to overclock the cpu? And you should be good all the other parts look pretty good

 

[Originality]

I say if you haven't chosen processor pick AMD It's faster than Intel Also if you've got enough money get a Quad Core I hear those are REALLY Fast.

This post makes me feel like troll-bait.

Intel CPUs can process around 30-50% more instructions per second than AMD CPUs. Speed isn't important, it's how much work gets done that's important. Also quad core does not mean fast, it means it can multitasking better. It may help for multithreaded tasks like video rendering, but that's about strength not speed.

For HDDs, I've heard the prices won't return to normal for at least 2 years.

I'll post my suggestions when I get home. My lunch break isn't that long.

 

[shadowkillerdrag]

Wow 2 years? I thought it was more around 6 months to a year, but meh gonna be a pain getting decent storage for a good price the way things are.
And as with what everoyone else said intel cpus have better clock per performance over their AMD counterparts and with Bulldozer doing less than stellar grabbing a 2600k is your best bet unlesss you want to get the enthusiast 2011 platform with the 3930k, significantly more expensive DX.

 

[Originality]

Actually both Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge E were disappointing.

Recommending a new system is very simple now:

Spoiler

Core i5-2500K for a gaming machine, Core i7-2600K for a video editing machine.
Also for the GPU, it's GTX 560 Ti all the way unless you need either triple monitors or a huge monitor.
Motherboard, MSI P67-GD53 for most people, or an ASUS Maximus IV Gene if you're using a SSD and need the drive virtualisation technology of the Z68 chipset.
RAM, cheapest DDR3 kit you can find, either get 4GB or 8GB. MHz or CL9 timings don't affect performance.
PSU, aim for at least 600W, and make sure it's from a well known brand like Antec, Corsair, Enermax or Tagan. Never take cheap brand less PSUs.
Case, something that suits your tastes.

That's all the general advice. From your build I would swap the Vertex 3 for a Samsung 830 SSD, and add Be Quiet! Dark Rock Advanced CPU cooler (or Corsair H80/100 if you want a small water-cooling loop and don't mind the fuss of setting it up properly). You've also not mentioned what case you'll be putting all that shiny new equipment in. I recommend a SilverStone Fortress FT02B-W. It has USB3 on the front panel.
EDIT: forgot to mention, add a $13 DVD drive to your build. One of my friends made the mistake of forgetting to buy one and had to go through the hassle of learning how to put Windows on a USB to install it that way.

 

[thieves like us]

if you're not looking to build for another 12+ months, much of the research that you're doing now will be for naught. you're better off to glance at articles but really start looking about 3-4 weeks before you're ready to purchase everything.

for one, prices will have fallen and two newer, better components may come out at the same price that you're currently budgetting for.

 

[philip11]

I say if you haven't chosen processor pick AMD It's faster than Intel Also if you've got enough money get a Quad Core I hear those are REALLY Fast.

This post makes me feel like troll-bait.

Intel CPUs can process around 30-50% more instructions per second than AMD CPUs. Speed isn't important, it's how much work gets done that's important. Also quad core does not mean fast, it means it can multitasking better. It may help for multithreaded tasks like video rendering, but that's about strength not speed.

For HDDs, I've heard the prices won't return to normal for at least 2 years.

I'll post my suggestions when I get home. My lunch break isn't that long.

Actully it means you have multible processors therefore making it faster

 

[Originality]

Once again, you're mistaken. A processor core is NOT another processor.

Spoiler

Each core is basically an execution unit (borrowing the term from the graphics core - for lack of knowledge of computer engineering and the specific terms involved) that carries out instructions. Each core shares the same cache space and memory is distributed between them. The important thing is that each core also relies on a queueing controller to distribute tasks between the cores for efficient execution.

Currently only servers have "another processor", in that they are multi-processor systems (e.g. have two physical Xeon CPUs on the motherboard). I don't know anything about how that works, but I imagine it's like the super computer built in America from hooking up a few hundred PS3s together and using OtherOS to run a custom program to divide the workload. Naturally they didn't update their PS3s past 3.41 and have to deal with Sony's B$.

Also, the idea that "more cores = faster" is false too.

Spoiler

Each core is only capable of a certain speed. If you have a single threaded task (like all older games used to be) then it will only run on one core, and the other cores will be unused (or given background tasks that take almost no effort to complete). As an example, the Core i7-980X was a hexa-core CPU with HyperThreading (giving it another 6 virtual cores). The only reason why it performed better in games than, say, the Core i7-950 was because each core had a slightly higher clock (what you'd expect for 3x the price). It's not like it performed 50% better either (from having 12 effective cores instead of the 8 in the 950), only 5-10% (equal to the increased clock rate). In addition, most games are still only coded for dual-core systems, so you will not see any increase in performance between a quad core and a 12-core system.

In fact, my Core 2 Duo E8400 performs better in most games than my brother's Core 2 Quad Q9550.

Of course, if you have a multi-threaded task like video editing (or my dad's chess program) then more cores means it can do more at the same time. That doesn't mean it's faster (although that is the end result), it just means that it is able to use all of its resources on the task. At the same time, the fact that Intel CPUs handle more IPS than equivolently clocked/cored CPUs also plays a big part in performance in video editing.
EDIT: ~edited to reduce info-dumps. Not everyone likes my long explanations.

 

[philip11]

Once again, you're mistaken. A processor core is NOT another processor.

Spoiler

Each core is basically an execution unit (borrowing the term from the graphics core - for lack of knowledge of computer engineering and the specific terms involved) that carries out instructions. Each core shares the same cache space and memory is distributed between them. The important thing is that each core also relies on a queueing controller to distribute tasks between the cores for efficient execution.

Currently only servers have "another processor", in that they are multi-processor systems (e.g. have two physical Xeon CPUs on the motherboard). I don't know anything about how that works, but I imagine it's like the super computer built in America from hooking up a few hundred PS3s together and using OtherOS to run a custom program to divide the workload. Naturally they didn't update their PS3s past 3.41 and have to deal with Sony's B$.

Also, the idea that "more cores = faster" is false too.

Spoiler

Each core is only capable of a certain speed. If you have a single threaded task (like all older games used to be) then it will only run on one core, and the other cores will be unused (or given background tasks that take almost no effort to complete). As an example, the Core i7-980X was a hexa-core CPU with HyperThreading (giving it another 6 virtual cores). The only reason why it performed better in games than, say, the Core i7-950 was because each core had a slightly higher clock (what you'd expect for 3x the price). It's not like it performed 50% better either (from having 12 effective cores instead of the 8 in the 950), only 5-10% (equal to the increased clock rate). In addition, most games are still only coded for dual-core systems, so you will not see any increase in performance between a quad core and a 12-core system.

In fact, my Core 2 Duo E8400 performs better in most games than my brother's Core 2 Quad Q9550.

Of course, if you have a multi-threaded task like video editing (or my dad's chess program) then more cores means it can do more at the same time. That doesn't mean it's faster (although that is the end result), it just means that it is able to use all of its resources on the task. At the same time, the fact that Intel CPUs handle more IPS than equivolently clocked/cored CPUs also plays a big part in performance in video editing.
EDIT: ~edited to reduce info-dumps. Not everyone likes my long explanations.

Then if that's true what makes one computer faster than the Other? RAM Does NOT What?

 

[exangel]

Then if that's true what makes one computer faster than the Other? RAM Does NOT What?

One word answer: Architecture

edit: more info.. may or may not help the OP

To those concerned with the now high-cost of HDD storage, I recommend considering a Blu-ray burner and a low end HDD. SSD is great for performance but still not viable for total HDD replacement in price-per-GB so that is something I'd call optional.

Some people are actually reverting to IDE hard drives for now with the use of adapters for their internal storage (to save money, and/or to salvage from older systems for extra storage), but keep in mind that basic Blu-ray media is ~24GB discs and are about $1 each, price falling accordingly as DVDs did when they were proliferating the market.

It may be annoying to burn discs every time you run out of space, but I have a couple other tips for saving space that go hand in hand with having a Blu-ray burner:
If one of the reasons you require storage is because you're torrent-happy, consider using services such as Spotify, 1channel, Netflix, etc for streaming your entertainment. And for video you do have locally stored, move it to BR media after you watch it to keep open storage on your internal drive.
For software, periodically clear your download folder onto BR backups, since you can usually just redownload things in their most recent versions anyway.

 

[qlum]

One other thing I think it is not to wise to disregard the AMD FX-8150 it only score marginally worse than the i7 2600k in sony vegas and this will most likely change with new versions of the software and with it scoring a bit better running on windows 8 and also the fact that the fx-8150 is quite a bit cheaper than the i7 may just make it a smarter choice for something as multithreaded as video rendering. I would not disregard the Bulldozer that easily for your goals.

 

[marcus134]

Then if that's true what makes one computer faster than the Other? RAM Does NOT What?

it resulting output at a given task.

Different computer builds gives different results on different software.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.html
See how a phenom X6 can close on the performances of a i7-2600k on 3ds max and eat dirt on blender

Video rendering workload can technically be spread on "n" threads. however if you use a video rendering software that isn't able to address more than 4 cores, then you won't gain speed of execution by adding more cores but by using a cpu that have higher ips.

People often believe that the frequency is a faithful indicator of performance while it only allow you to compare cpu within a line-up.
higher IPS can be achieved by augmenting ipc (instructions per cycle) while keeping or raising the frequency ( or even lowering it if the ipc raise is major, see P4 vs core2), it can also be raised by raising the frequency while keeping the ipc the same or they can also try to lower the ipc while raising the frequency high enough to cover it ( like P3 1ghz=P4 1,2ghz)

When it comes to gaming however things are different, using a random AAA 2011 game played at 1080p with 8xAA and tons of eye candy turned on, with a mid-range gpu, whether you have a 2,4 ghz core2 or a core i7 SB oc @ 4ghz, you won't see a difference in game performance as it will be bound by the gpu.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-18.html