KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[KocLobster]

2 minutes ago, Camacha said:

Be aware that the Red Pro is a 7200 RPM drive, as is the Black. The spindle speed is one of the major contributors to noise. When I look at the respective performance numbers, the difference is fairly negligible. The 3 TB WD Red is known as one of the quietest drive around. I have a bit of trouble digging up a relevant noise comparison, but you might want to look into that before making up your mind. If the Pro drives score great too in that regard, why not? Also, do let me know, I would be interested myself

The Reds are officially intended to be used in NAS systems, which is a small system with a couple of hard drives which is attached to the network. That way any system in your house can access the same files easily over said network. The drives can be used perfectly fine for non-NAS use too, though, and turn out to be very frugal and quiet drives. Silent PC Review is a big fan of these drives because of their noise characteristics.

 

Please, keep the discussion civil. Also, claims without proper benchmarks are dangerous. Personal experience has been proven to be a fickle thing, though benchmarks in this case would be useless anyway. You are comparing a TLC drive to a SLC one, possibly with RAPID enabled too. I refer to the post you quoted for the explanation why TLC is inherently inferior. Not to mention the two different systems.

 

Just look at real world tests done between the MX200 and the Samsung 950: even though the Samsung uses PCI-e, the MX200 only boots 0.5 seconds slower. That is not something you will notice. All other real world benchmarks show similar results. The Intel 750 results are appalling and why I mentioned that NVMe drives sometimes perform worse than their SATA counterparts.

I'm running off to the gym and the store so I don't have time to make a full reply to your last two posts..but by spindle speed you mean the RPMs? 7200 is louder than 5400 then? Why would an extra TB be quieter than the HD I picked, is it because the 3TB WD Red is a 5400RPM drive?

Everything is pretty set in stone as far as I'm concerned, with the exception of storage. Still kind of up in the air on the SSD/HD..you're both clearly experts but differ on opinion of which drive performs better...anyways, will be back later.

 

No matter what I end up purchasing, I will be sure to revisit this thread and post pictures of me building the machine and my opinions on anything you're curious about (like if I got a part you haven't used before and want to know how loud/quiet it is). Keep in mind this purchase is still about 4 weeks away or so.

[Alphasus]

Camacha, some interesting info: The MacBook Pro retina 15 boots in 6 seconds. The current SSD Mac Pro does it in 30. I wonder if Windows can't use the full io speed of the pci e SSDs? Because it should be a cakewalk, but it seems like Windows just won't. Maybe some Linux testing is in order, if anyone could...

[Camacha]

33 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

I'm running off to the gym and the store so I don't have time to make a full reply to your last two posts..but by spindle speed you mean the RPMs? 7200 is louder than 5400 then? Why would an extra TB be quieter than the HD I picked, is it because the 3TB WD Red is a 5400RPM drive?

Yes, RPM is pretty crucial when it comes to noise. The Red Pro is basically the same drive, but running at a higher speed. This makes them being noisier more likely. Though theory and reality sometimes differ a bit, so I would be most interested to find any relevant measurements being made.

Note there are other factors when it comes to noise too, like platter count, but I will not bore you with that.
 

Quote

Everything is pretty set in stone as far as I'm concerned, with the exception of storage. Still kind of up in the air on the SSD/HD..you're both clearly experts but differ on opinion of which drive performs better...anyways, will be back later.

I can be pretty clear about that: the Samsung 950 will perform better. However, since we are talking about storage, performance is not everything. Reliability is important too - do not forget, it is your data on there. The long story short:

- The Samsung 950 is, in real world scenario's, slightly faster - though without purposefully measuring it should be impossible to see any difference
- The Samsung 950 uses a more modern standard, which is cool for the sake of it
- The Samsung 950 performs great in synthetic benchmarks, which is cool for the sake of it

- The Crucial MX200 has added power protection - less chance of corrupting your drive and data
- The Crucial MX200 is a MLC drive and even a SLC one when not fully written to - yet more added reliability
- The Crucial MX200 is cheaper

That seems to be it. If you ask me, I feel data should be reliable before being fast, but it really depends on your personal preferences. Neither SSD is a bad choice; both are well known and loved among enthusiasts.

Speaking of reliable data: I have not seen any backup solutions yet How do you plan to secure your relevant data?

 

37 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

I edited my post to keep it civil. I am sorry. Guess my testing was somewhat unbalanced.

No harm done

 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Camacha

[Alphasus]

41 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

I'm running off to the gym and the store so I don't have time to make a full reply to your last two posts..but by spindle speed you mean the RPMs? 7200 is louder than 5400 then? Why would an extra TB be quieter than the HD I picked, is it because the 3TB WD Red is a 5400RPM drive?

Everything is pretty set in stone as far as I'm concerned, with the exception of storage. Still kind of up in the air on the SSD/HD..you're both clearly experts but differ on opinion of which drive performs better...anyways, will be back later.

 

No matter what I end up purchasing, I will be sure to revisit this thread and post pictures of me building the machine and my opinions on anything you're curious about (like if I got a part you haven't used before and want to know how loud/quiet it is). Keep in mind this purchase is still about 4 weeks away or so.

Camacha is providing real benchmarks, and likely has a more valid point than I. But, for whatever reason, my anecdotes disagree with benchmarks.

22 minutes ago, Camacha said:

- The Samsung 950 is, in real world scenario's, slightly faster - though without purposefully measuring it should be impossible to see any difference
- The Samsung 950 uses a more modern standard, which is cool for the sake of it
- The Samsung 950 performs great in synthetic benchmarks, which is cool for the sake of it

- The Crucial MX200 has added power protection - less chance of corrupting your drive and data
- The Crucial MX200 is a MLC drive and even a SLC one when not fully written to - yet more added reliability
- The Crucial MX200 is cheaper

That seems to be it. If you ask me, I feel data should be reliable before being fast, but it really depends on your personal preferences. Neither SSD is a bad choice; both are well known and loved among enthusiasts.

Speaking of reliable data: I have not seen any backup solutions yet How do you plan to secure your relevant data?

I would recommend using RAID to mirror the Red/Red Pro and the SSD, and getting another solution for specific data.

[Camacha]

45 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

I would recommend using RAID to mirror the Red/Red Pro and the SSD, and getting another solution for specific data.

Anything other than RAID 0 can be a great addition to your backup plan. As long as one is aware RAID is not the same as backup and you also have proper backup capabilities in place, adding another layer of data security is a great idea.

[KocLobster]

I've never actually ran a RAID array before, never needed to. This is just going to be a personal computer, I didn't even think a backup was prudent honestly. Seemed overkill to me. I don't know much about backing up whole HDs, backing something up for me is usually copy and paste into a folder named Backups, lol. Or having a program do it for me on a regular basis.

For a RAID array, or any other kind of backup system, am I going to need another storage drive?

Given the reasons listed, honestly I think I am going to go with the Crucial MX200. Reliability sounds good, and I think we're starting to get into the overkill area at this point. There is absolutely no way I personally will be able to tell the difference between the 950 and the MX200.

 

Switched out the HD for this:

WD Red 2TB NAS Hard Disk Drive - 5400 RPM Class SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache 3.5 Inch - WD20EFRX

The lower RPMs doesn't mean lower performance (noticeable performance, not benchmark)?

Edited March 18, 2016 by KocLobster

[Alphasus]

5 hours ago, KocLobster said:

I've never actually ran a RAID array before, never needed to. This is just going to be a personal computer, I didn't even think a backup was prudent honestly. Seemed overkill to me. I don't know much about backing up whole HDs, backing something up for me is usually copy and paste into a folder named Backups, lol. Or having a program do it for me on a regular basis.

For a RAID array, or any other kind of backup system, am I going to need another storage drive?

Given the reasons listed, honestly I think I am going to go with the Crucial MX200. Reliability sounds good, and I think we're starting to get into the overkill area at this point. There is absolutely no way I personally will be able to tell the difference between the 950 and the MX200.

 

Switched out the HD for this:

WD Red 2TB NAS Hard Disk Drive - 5400 RPM Class SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache 3.5 Inch - WD20EFRX

The lower RPMs doesn't mean lower performance (noticeable performance, not benchmark)?

I have seen noticeable differences between my friends 5400 rpm drive and my 7200 rpm drive. Usually mine will be 20% or less faster(load times on games like war thunder). Your decision, but you should by and external drive regardless and back up to that.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Alphasus

[Red Iron Crown]

Obligatory observation: RAID is not a backup solution. RAID is for fault tolerance and high availability, it protects against exactly one type of incident: Drive failure. For all other scenarios (malware, user error, OS corruption, etc) it provides zero protection. 

A second drive is better used as a backup target (preferably not in the same machine or at least in an external enclosure) than to make a RAID mirror. Ideally one would supplement this with offsite backup (I use CrashPlan peer-to-peer for this but there are other services out there).

[KocLobster]

Honestly, I have never ever used an external hard drive, have never needed to backup a whole system, and personally I don't think it's necessary. Worst case scenario: I reformat. With that said, what do you suggest? Should I be looking at portable external hard drives or desktop external hard drives? (Those are two separate categories on Newegg). I've noticed that these external HDs are much more expensive. I don't think I will need to buy one, but in case I do, I'd like to already know which I should go with.

[GDJ]

55 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

Honestly, I have never ever used an external hard drive, have never needed to backup a whole system, and personally I don't think it's necessary. Worst case scenario: I reformat. With that said, what do you suggest? Should I be looking at portable external hard drives or desktop external hard drives? (Those are two separate categories on Newegg). I've noticed that these external HDs are much more expensive. I don't think I will need to buy one, but in case I do, I'd like to already know which I should go with.

Just my 2¢ from a guy that's been monkeying around with computers and electronics since the mid 1980's, don't go with a portable external drive for constant use. I find that with some computers they can dismount at random times (USB2 comes to mind) and since they tend to rely on the relatively low power that USB can supply, they also tend to have slower drives in them (5400 RPM or so). Probably not the best choice for game playing. Great for storing photo's, backups, music, etc. They fall short on the speeds needed for gaming.

As for my external drive, it's a Vantec NexStar3 USB2/eSATA/Firewire 800 case. It uses a 4 amp wall-wart as a power supply, and it has been excellent for the 7 years I've owned it. HDD is a Samsung 650G 7200 RPM. This case accommodates the standard 3.5" format drives, which is nice for cost.

SSD's are fantastic, great speed, and can retain data for quite a while. HOWEVER, some SSD's can lose data if they aren't powered up once every 3 months. As long as you power them up, say, once a week, you're golden. If you only use it once in a while, stick with a standard HDD.

Basically it boils down to what you intend to use the external drive for. If it's for backups or data you want to keep for a long time, and look at it once in a while, a standard portable HDD is the cheap effective ticket. If the drive is for gaming and to keep files you use daily off your main rig, then look for a powered external SSD setup. Also evaluate your budget. 5400 RPM drives are cheaper, 7200 RPM are a bit more, 10000 RPM drives are a bit pricey.
SSD's are cheap now from 120 gig to 256 gig, but they climb exponentially in price as they approach the Terabyte range.

Anyways, just my 2¢ here. Hope I helped a little bit.

Edited March 19, 2016 by GDJ

[Spaceception]

This may be interesting for some of you

 

[KocLobster]

@Spaceception

I've never heard of these guys or the channel; this video series was actually very entertaining. Thanks for directing me to these videos!

@Alphasus @Camacha

Ahhhh..I had a somewhat large post written out and it got deleted before I was able to post it!

After reading a bit more on backups and external drives, in my opinion, for the type of system I am building and what I'll use it for, and my personal preferences, I will not be bothering with or wasting money on a RAID array, external HD, or backup storage. I have never actually had a drive fail before and never had something so significant happen that I had to reformat and lost everything. The type of stuff I need backed up is actually quite small, and I can easily use Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. for my external/remote backup needs. Honestly, if I lost everything and had to reformat it wouldn't be that big of a deal, especially since my important stuff would already be backed up. External drives are quite expensive,

With that said, I just really wanted to thank you two for all the help and time you guys devoted to assisting me and providing suggestions for my build. You were invaluable sources of information and help. I don't know if anyone is specifically interested, but in a couple weeks I will revisit this thread and post my final decision on the build and all the parts I will use (you pretty much already know every last part I'll be getting anyways). I'll also be documenting the build when I get all the parts; I'll take photos of the un-boxing, the parts, putting it together, the whole build, etc. just because it sounds like fun. I'll also include benchmarks at the end, as well as answer any questions you might have (I think one of you was curious just how loud a certain part I was planning on getting was, for example).

Edited March 20, 2016 by KocLobster

[Alphasus]

3 hours ago, KocLobster said:

@Spaceception

I've never heard of these guys or the channel; this video series was actually very entertaining. Thanks for directing me to these videos!

@Alphasus @Camacha

Ahhhh..I had a somewhat large post written out and it got deleted before I was able to post it!

After reading a bit more on backups and external drives, in my opinion, for the type of system I am building and what I'll use it for, and my personal preferences, I will not be bothering with or wasting money on a RAID array, external HD, or backup storage. I have never actually had a drive fail before and never had something so significant happen that I had to reformat and lost everything. The type of stuff I need backed up is actually quite small, and I can easily use Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. for my external/remote backup needs. Honestly, if I lost everything and had to reformat it wouldn't be that big of a deal, especially since my important stuff would already be backed up. External drives are quite expensive,

With that said, I just really wanted to thank you two for all the help and time you guys devoted to assisting me and providing suggestions for my build. You were invaluable sources of information and help. I don't know if anyone is specifically interested, but in a couple weeks I will revisit this thread and post my final decision on the build and all the parts I will use (you pretty much already know every last part I'll be getting anyways). I'll also be documenting the build when I get all the parts; I'll take photos of the un-boxing, the parts, putting it together, the whole build, etc. just because it sounds like fun. I'll also include benchmarks at the end, as well as answer any questions you might have (I think one of you was curious just how loud a certain part I was planning on getting was, for example).

OK then.Have fun! I would like to see that build, and hear how loud the NF-A15s are. Check back later! You are very welcome by the way!

Edited March 21, 2016 by Alphasus

[KocLobster]

So I ended up changing my mind. Seeing how the grand total for everything right now in this build was totally only around $1600, I decided I wanted to spend the extra ~$150 extra on my GPU. So I want to get a 980. This is the card I'm looking at: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 04G-P4-2983-KR 4GB SC GAMING w/ACX 2.0, 26% Cooler and 36% Quieter Cooling Graphics Card Let me know if you think there's a better one, but I feel pretty confident this is what I should go with. EVGA for sure, at least.

Also, I realized I don't know anything about high end graphics. I don't know the different qualities and their relation to others (like 1080p, 4k, etc.). I believe 4k is about 4 times more quality wise than 1080p, but that's about the only thing I know. I also realized that maybe I'm not spending enough on my monitor if I want to run 4k for example? If I get this nice of a GPU and computer, maybe I shouldn't settle for less than 4k? Is 4k reasonable for this build, or is there a step higher than it?

edit: I did a bit of researching on my own, and if I understand correctly, I should probably shoot for 1440p. 4k monitors will simply be too expensive, and I personally think it would be overkill. 1440p seems to be the high end of "realistic". I also understand I definitely don't want a monitor with less than 144Hz refresh rate, which the monitor I selected did not have. I don't know how much this matters, or if technically it's not 1440p if I don't select this option, but I can't really afford to spend over $400 on a monitor, so any monitors with native resolutions of 2560 x 1440 I just can't splurge on. I couldn't find anything cheap enough, they were all at least ~$400. However, they are a lot of good looking, cheap, 144Hz monitors with 1920 x 1080 native resolutions that are under $300. I suppose this is where 1080p vs 1440p vs. 4k comes from? If so, I can't afford any of those 1440p monitors. Well, at least right now. I'll probably have about half as much money to spend on whatever I want, around $1000, in another ~3 months. Maybe then I can splurge on a better monitor. I'm rambling, sorry....This is the new monitor I'm looking at: ASUS VG248QE Black 24" Gaming Monitor, 144Hz 1ms (GTG), 3D Monitor, Height & pivot adjustable, 350 cd/m2, Built-in Speakers

Edited March 23, 2016 by KocLobster

[Elthy]

Especialy with higher resolutions you should consider AMD.

[Alphasus]

7 hours ago, KocLobster said:

So I ended up changing my mind. Seeing how the grand total for everything right now in this build was totally only around $1600, I decided I wanted to spend the extra ~$150 extra on my GPU. So I want to get a 980. This is the card I'm looking at: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 04G-P4-2983-KR 4GB SC GAMING w/ACX 2.0, 26% Cooler and 36% Quieter Cooling Graphics Card Let me know if you think there's a better one, but I feel pretty confident this is what I should go with. EVGA for sure, at least.

Also, I realized I don't know anything about high end graphics. I don't know the different qualities and their relation to others (like 1080p, 4k, etc.). I believe 4k is about 4 times more quality wise than 1080p, but that's about the only thing I know. I also realized that maybe I'm not spending enough on my monitor if I want to run 4k for example? If I get this nice of a GPU and computer, maybe I shouldn't settle for less than 4k? Is 4k reasonable for this build, or is there a step higher than it?

edit: I did a bit of researching on my own, and if I understand correctly, I should probably shoot for 1440p. 4k monitors will simply be too expensive, and I personally think it would be overkill. 1440p seems to be the high end of "realistic". I also understand I definitely don't want a monitor with less than 144Hz refresh rate, which the monitor I selected did not have. I don't know how much this matters, or if technically it's not 1440p if I don't select this option, but I can't really afford to spend over $400 on a monitor, so any monitors with native resolutions of 2560 x 1440 I just can't splurge on. I couldn't find anything cheap enough, they were all at least ~$400. However, they are a lot of good looking, cheap, 144Hz monitors with 1920 x 1080 native resolutions that are under $300. I suppose this is where 1080p vs 1440p vs. 4k comes from? If so, I can't afford any of those 1440p monitors. Well, at least right now. I'll probably have about half as much money to spend on whatever I want, around $1000, in another ~3 months. Maybe then I can splurge on a better monitor. I'm rambling, sorry....This is the new monitor I'm looking at: ASUS VG248QE Black 24" Gaming Monitor, 144Hz 1ms (GTG), 3D Monitor, Height & pivot adjustable, 350 cd/m2, Built-in Speakers

Go with the 980 for 1080p if you think that you will need the VRAM. If not running linux, look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681420216

Or. We could take a look at x99 for you. Perhaps I could try this.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor  ($351.98 @ Newegg) 
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U14S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($74.99 @ Newegg) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-X99-SLI ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard  ($133.98 @ Newegg) 
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  ($79.99 @ Newegg) 
Storage: Crucial MX200 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($85.55 @ Newegg) 
Storage: Western Digital Red Pro 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($134.99 @ Newegg) 
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card  ($342.98 @ Newegg) 
Case: Fractal Design Define R5 w/Window (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case  ($129.98 @ Newegg) 
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA GS 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($69.99 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-A15 PWM 140mm  Fan  ($22.98 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-A15 PWM 140mm  Fan  ($22.98 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-A15 PWM 140mm  Fan  ($22.98 @ Newegg) 
Case Fan: Noctua NF-A15 PWM 140mm  Fan  ($22.98 @ Newegg) 
Monitor: Asus VC279H 60Hz 27.0" Monitor  ($171.99 @ Newegg) 
Total: $1668.34
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-23 05:56 EDT-0400

That is a much more futureproof cpu, looking at the trend for more cores. All 6 cores will function nicely, and it costs as much as a 6700k skylake build. But, this build is also easily overclock-able. All 5820k CPUs can often hit 5930k speeds, which are 200 mHz faster. That motherboard also supports multiple GPUs very well, with many PCI-E lanes. Overall, this would perform well for many years beyond, because games have begun to need more cores. You can always drop in a 2nd 970, but I do recommend a 980 instead for SLI, because you will hit the 3.5 GB limit. Perhaps a R9 Nano? i7 5820k chips can support up to 3 GPUs and a PCI-E SSD.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Alphasus

[briansun1]

11 hours ago, KocLobster said:

So I ended up changing my mind. Seeing how the grand total for everything right now in this build was totally only around $1600, I decided I wanted to spend the extra ~$150 extra on my GPU. So I want to get a 980. This is the card I'm looking at: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 04G-P4-2983-KR 4GB SC GAMING w/ACX 2.0, 26% Cooler and 36% Quieter Cooling Graphics Card Let me know if you think there's a better one, but I feel pretty confident this is what I should go with. EVGA for sure, at least.

Also, I realized I don't know anything about high end graphics. I don't know the different qualities and their relation to others (like 1080p, 4k, etc.). I believe 4k is about 4 times more quality wise than 1080p, but that's about the only thing I know. I also realized that maybe I'm not spending enough on my monitor if I want to run 4k for example? If I get this nice of a GPU and computer, maybe I shouldn't settle for less than 4k? Is 4k reasonable for this build, or is there a step higher than it?

edit: I did a bit of researching on my own, and if I understand correctly, I should probably shoot for 1440p. 4k monitors will simply be too expensive, and I personally think it would be overkill. 1440p seems to be the high end of "realistic". I also understand I definitely don't want a monitor with less than 144Hz refresh rate, which the monitor I selected did not have. I don't know how much this matters, or if technically it's not 1440p if I don't select this option, but I can't really afford to spend over $400 on a monitor, so any monitors with native resolutions of 2560 x 1440 I just can't splurge on. I couldn't find anything cheap enough, they were all at least ~$400. However, they are a lot of good looking, cheap, 144Hz monitors with 1920 x 1080 native resolutions that are under $300. I suppose this is where 1080p vs 1440p vs. 4k comes from? If so, I can't afford any of those 1440p monitors. Well, at least right now. I'll probably have about half as much money to spend on whatever I want, around $1000, in another ~3 months. Maybe then I can splurge on a better monitor. I'm rambling, sorry....This is the new monitor I'm looking at: ASUS VG248QE Black 24" Gaming Monitor, 144Hz 1ms (GTG), 3D Monitor, Height & pivot adjustable, 350 cd/m2, Built-in Speakers

Why, no less than 144Hz? 4K isn't really worth the price at this point. Nothing scales very well with it. And it take a lot of power to run. I never really saw the apple of 1440p over 1080p. I would personally get a Dell UltraSharp U2415. It's only 60hz, but it has very good color accuracy and is 1920x1200(16:10). A 144hz monitor won't do very much if your ingame FPS isn't close to it. Don't know how much that will affect you though. As for GPU the 980 should work fine, but you could also get the nano that Alphasus mentioned or just a plain R9 Fury.

 

Sidenote: To answer your question about the step above 4k it's 5k. Right now only Dell and Apple make them iirc.

Edited March 23, 2016 by briansun1

[Tech Support]

My friends, I love this community! you guys ( in particular Camacha ) helped me build my last PC, now I return to you all for more advice. I changed jobs recently and this has me travelling around Africa for months at a time; leaving my custom built PC to gather dust at home . The good news is, the new job pays more  ! So I need your advice on buying a good Gaming laptop, My budget is around $800 - $900 (I could stretch it a little if need be). My priorities are 

1. Performance
2. reliability and quality
3. Cost

I'll be buying the laptop in India, which has most of the models available in the states and Europe. Thanks in Advance !!

[briansun1]

1 hour ago, Tech Support said:

My friends, I love this community! you guys ( in particular Camacha ) helped me build my last PC, now I return to you all for more advice. I changed jobs recently and this has me travelling around Africa for months at a time; leaving my custom built PC to gather dust at home . The good news is, the new job pays more  ! So I need your advice on buying a good Gaming laptop, My budget is around $800 - $900 (I could stretch it a little if need be). My priorities are 

1. Performance
2. reliability and quality
3. Cost

I'll be buying the laptop in India, which has most of the models available in the states and Europe. Thanks in Advance !!

Is there a prefered screen size?

[KocLobster]

I can't really read your posts till later, but to clarify: I will need to go with 1080p...All 1440p monitors, or monitors with GSync are just too expensive. Also, after doing a lot more reading, I don't think I care enough about 1440p considering the extra cost. I'd like it, but not for an extra $350+ in monitor cost. 144Hz should be just fine for my needs. I don't know what I'm missing if I've never experienced it, and I'm used to a pretty excrementsty system that can barely handle Minecraft and can only manage KSP on low settings with no shaders (lol shaders GG. No). So, with that said I think I'd be literally impossible for me to tell a difference between 1080 and 1440. I can't afford 1440 unless I want to buy it a few months from now and sell the 1080 monitor ID be buying in a couple weeks.

Will read your posts later.

[Alphasus]

36 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

I can't really read your posts till later, but to clarify: I will need to go with 1080p...All 1440p monitors, or monitors with GSync are just too expensive. Also, after doing a lot more reading, I don't think I care enough about 1440p considering the extra cost. I'd like it, but not for an extra $350+ in monitor cost. 144Hz should be just fine for my needs. I don't know what I'm missing if I've never experienced it, and I'm used to a pretty excrementsty system that can barely handle Minecraft and can only manage KSP on low settings with no shaders (lol shaders GG. No). So, with that said I think I'd be literally impossible for me to tell a difference between 1080 and 1440. I can't afford 1440 unless I want to buy it a few months from now and sell the 1080 monitor ID be buying in a couple weeks.

Will read your posts later.

Summarizing, briansun mentioned that the r9 fury or 980 both work. I said, why not go x99 chipset and get an i7 5820k? Hexa core CPU, that way when games want more cores, as they are slowly, you are fine.

[briansun1]

46 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

I can't really read your posts till later, but to clarify: I will need to go with 1080p...All 1440p monitors, or monitors with GSync are just too expensive. Also, after doing a lot more reading, I don't think I care enough about 1440p considering the extra cost. I'd like it, but not for an extra $350+ in monitor cost. 144Hz should be just fine for my needs. I don't know what I'm missing if I've never experienced it, and I'm used to a pretty excrementsty system that can barely handle Minecraft and can only manage KSP on low settings with no shaders (lol shaders GG. No). So, with that said I think I'd be literally impossible for me to tell a difference between 1080 and 1440. I can't afford 1440 unless I want to buy it a few months from now and sell the 1080 monitor ID be buying in a couple weeks.

Will read your posts later.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. I never said you should buy  a 1440p monitor.(Actually I would generally advise the opposite.) I was asking about the 144hz

Edited March 23, 2016 by briansun1

[KocLobster]

2 minutes ago, briansun1 said:

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. I never said you should buy  a 1440p monitor.(Actually I would generally advise the opposite.) I was asking about the 144hz

No, I didn't get a chance to really read it yet, I was making that post as clarification for my earlier post. I wanted to be clear 1440p is not in my budget.

[KocLobster]

Sorry, this is going to be a large post..

@Alphasus

Was able to properly look over all the new posts. Just curious, but why does it seem so many (or maybe it was just you, I can't remember) are trying to push me into getting AMD over Nvidia? (Please don't misunderstand me, this is pure curiosity, I'm not angry or trying to be rude by any means; I ask because I genuinely don't know). That R9 Nano has 4096-bit, HBM memory...that seems like an explosion better than GDDR5 256bit cards, does it not? I do want to mention again that I would prefer Nvidia. I have no experience with AMD cards; I have always had Nvidia, have never had any issues with them, and have always had a smooth experience. Of course that isn't to say AMD wouldn't be the same, but just that I'd be more comfortable with Nvidia, and I feel like more people choose Nvidia over AMD (pure speculation). Also, I see a lot of people hold EVGA very highly, and they only make Nvidia cards. This is what I really have my sights on: EVGA GTX 980. I generally filter Newegg results by Most Reviewed, and try to pick components from brands I have firsthand experience with, as well as very highly rated/reviewed brands/specific components.

As far as 6 cores go, I was also thinking about this lately. While I don't see myself needing 6 cores right now or soon, I could need them in the future. I typically don't do much multitasking; generally the biggest workout I give a CPU is running one game and maybe a web browser with streaming video at the same time. That's it; I don't edit or play with video software, or anything else that is generally considered very CPU intensive. Also, most games, and most games I play, are more GPU dependent than CPU (which is why I am now very much leaning towards a GTX 980, not a 970, as a minimum). Like I said earlier, I mostly play Minecraft and KSP right now, and once I get this new computer, I'll also start playing GTA5, maybe go back to some CS:S and The Long Dark as well.

So anyways...I would like a 6 core processor, but don't think I can afford one. Unfortunately, there are only two 6 core processors on Newegg, and you picked the cheapest one. It's still an extra $110 more than the 4 core CPU we picked earlier...I don't know if I can swing that AND get the 980 over the 970 like I want to do. Also, just so you know, our shopping carts differ a little. I want this power supply, a G2 series, not GS. It's a bit better. I want this monitor, it's better than the one I picked earlier, with a 144Hz refresh rate and a 24" screen instead of 27" (very much the 'sweet spot' for 1080p, apparently). Finally, I also want this GPU, the EVGA 980, for all the reasons we've already talked about. I've also got a keyboard, headphones, and thermal paste (not important to include, but does affect price). That's what's in my shopping cart that isn't in yours, and it brings the total to $1918 after tax and shipping costs. So I'm basically already over budget; which is okay because it's only by ~$100, but I can't really spend anymore. I still have to have money for a cheap desk, computer chair, and a little wiggle room. My absolute total budget was $2200, which is why I want this system to cost ~$1800.

Sorry for such a long post, I probably could of put more effort into keeping things shorter. TL;DR: I really want to stick with the GTX 980, and I just can't afford a 6 core CPU right now, nor do I think I would truly need one for quite some time. I suppose if I wanted, I could get a 970, or other AMD card, and then I could afford getting a 6 core CPU, but I don't want to make that trade-off. Like I said, I'm more concerned with my GPU than my CPU; most things I plan on doing/playing are much more GPU intensive than CPU intensive.

edit: forgot to also mention I'd much rather stick with Skylake than go down to Haswell. I have no experience with either but Skylake is newer and I hear better things about it...not that it matters anyway because of budget restraints

Edited March 24, 2016 by KocLobster

[Spaceception]

Would you call this accurate?