PC configuration for EU 2014/15: recommendations/discussion.

Awesome, this thread has given me great and very practical advise.
Since this might be useful for others, who are also looking for recommendations on a new computer (to play EU): I'll try to change the title to make it easier to find in a search.
And will add a summary in the OP once I got everything up and running.

- The processors on the site all say: "Supported memory clock speeds: 1333, 1600 MHz."
And most of the MB say the same; only the expensive ones say higher (1866, 2000, 2133, 2200, 2400, 2600, 2666, 2800, 2933, 3000 MHz)
While the DDR RAM offered go up to 1866 and 2400 Mhz.
Can those extra Mhz above 1600 be utilized on those cheaper CPU's? Or is it maxed at 1600 Mhz anyway?

- Some motherboards say: "Supported HDD connections: SATA", while the more expensive ones say SATA III.
The HDD don't give details about whether they are SATA, II or III.
Does this matter? As in: will it fit? Or is it just a speed thingie?

- I'll go with adding 1 monitor, and reusing my old one for the browsing.
- No overclocking for me.
- 1 graphic cards is sufficient.
- 750 W for stability and future updates.

Hehe, glad that I decided to ask about it, even though I thought it was a nit-picky question.
After some reading I see that the basic Windows 7 can use 16GB DDR3 maximum.
And that for computers with more than 16GB DDR3, you should use Windows 7 PRO (64bit) or Windows 8 (64bit).
So to not be stuck again soon, I'll go with windows 7 Professional (64bit).
Because I don't think I'll like the way 8 is setup (with no 'classic' start button/desktop?).
I would even have stuck with XP if that wasn't discontinued and incompatible.

No, I was thinking there might have been something like a hardware 'booster' that could be added, to get closer to w/e numbers your provider claims you're getting.
But I guess that's something that's not existing (yet).
I'll wait to see how the connection is with the new rig: if I still get a lot of lag/CTD, I'll look into changing provider.


Thanks for that clarification Spike; I thought it was doubt about the technology, instead of practical reasons.
I don't have that many GB in applications, so it's nice to have another confirmation that a SSD is a good choice.

All in all, I think I'll go with this atm:
- i5 3200 Mhz
- 16 GB RAM 1866 Mhz (2x8)
- Radeon R9 290X
- 250GB SSD
- 2TB HDD
- 750W PSU
- 1 added 21.5" monitor
- Windows 7pro/8 (64bit)

I'm going to take these specs to various shops and see which one has a good (xmas) deal for this (incl delivery and warranty).
Before actually pressing the 'buy' button, I'll post it here. Just to make sure I'm not making a stupid mistake in the end.

 

Endorsing you decision for stay with Win7 for now, though Win8.1 does add some of those missed features back into release. I'm just not a fan of the Metro interface and I think we are not quite at the stage of desktops and mobile machines converging to a single UI.

Worth keeping an eye out for Win 10, due out sometime next year.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/software/operating-systems/windows-10-1267364/review

 

http://www.alternate.nl/html/product/listing.html?navId=17966&tk=6177&lk=9917

 

Well, even with my "good computer" and my 100GB connection i still experience somes lags, but that's come from E.U, so don't be surprise to still got somes delay, when you open the Storage or use the T.T on the Celeste servor, witch is slow atm or sometimes all across the Universe.

Also, the crash of E.U will still happen sometimes, but again isn't coming from you.

I'm exactly the same about W8, not at all attract by it. I don't think i will ever use it, and stay on W7, untill a new version come. But i think there is a way to edit it for have a clasic start button, and even Windows made an update to put it back, because many users complained.
But as i'm not a user of it, i'm not sure about all that.

What is the full name of the i5 ?

Make sure there's is 4 slot avaible in it, so you can add more if you fell the need (again here not sure they still make PC, with only 2 place, but i prefer you check out just in cas)

I'm sure Cly, will be able to give us somes answers about that.

 

Sorry about that. I guess it's been longer than I realized since I looked, but there used to be one that mentioned a few specific builds that people had used that worked well. I did a search and can't find the thread myself, so not much help. Some good suggestions on here, though.

 

This is down to the individual motherboard. In general though, if the RAM chip says it can run as fast as 1866 but the motherboard can only go as fast as 1600, then AS LONG AS THE RAM ALSO SUPPORTS 1600, both will run at 1600.

If the RAM is on a completely different kind of stepping, it's outside possible they might only line up at a lower speed. But in general RAM and motherboard speed stepping is about the same.

So the answer to your question is: it's maxed out, in most cases.

SATA is a "way of transferring data". So as long as all pieces say SATA, your connector will work and your disks will be usable.
However, the higher the number you can get at both ends, the faster your disk access will be.

You can always google the HDD name and see if you can find a review site which will tell you what SATA speed it's at.

Solid choice.

That should be a nice and stable system, highly performant for EU and you should in fact be able to experience it on Very-High Res even without trouble. Just set the Connection speed modestly to start with, and play a bit with the Draw Distance and so on and see how you go. Good luck with the shopping and enjoy

Oh yes. And Happy Christmas

 

The 3200 on the site we were looking at was labelled "Intel Core i5 4460 Haswell (4x 3200 MHz) Quad Core"
This seems to be a well-respected i5 chip on the sites I checked.

They had a slightly faster Intel Core "i5 4690K Haswell (4x 3500 MHz Unlocked!) Quad Core" which was my original suggestion (because I like power for it's own sake sometimes and because I tend to ask my machines to have a lot of stuff open at once quite often

 

Common misconception, I hear this all the time, but Windows 8 most definitely does have a normal desktop. You don't have to use the epic fail "PC trying to be a tablet" mode if you don't want to. It takes one click after signing in to go to your traditional desktop. Make sure your file types are set to open with the traditional programs so you don't have those pesky tablet crippleware programs pop up. Windows 8 runs all your windows 7 programs in the traditional way, starts up much, much faster, and has better security features than 7.

As for the start button, you don't need it. All the features are accessible from the right corner menus.

 

Yep better to take the 4690.

 

You have two options in my mind, use Windows 8 and install Classic Shell which restores a traditional start menu, or install the Windows 10 Technical Preview. Windows 8+ will give far better performance, 7 was a bit of a hog.

 

Np, at least nice to know that I didn't fail with my searching skills.
And now this thread has up-to-date information anyway.

Ok, so then it's no use to spend more on higher Mhz RAM, if the MB can't make use of the extra.
Might go for a slightly better MB then.

Doh, so many different standards, speeds and strengths.

I thought the Intel Core "i5 4690K Haswell (4x 3500 MHz Unlocked!) Quad Core" choice was mainly for overclocking. Which I don't want to do.
But prize wise it doesn't make that much of a difference, so I might wind up with either of them.

@Spawn
Thanks for the link, that's practically the same configuration I'm looking for.

Arghh, now I'm conflicted about Windows again.
So if the silly tablet mode can be turned off, I guess the 8.1 is a better choice after all.
Or perhaps I'll just try the Windows 10 Technical Preview.
And if I like that one, just wait for it to be released, and make do with 7 until then.
Since the link Kikki gave says it will be released next year. And so far it looks like a nice blend of the good sides of 7 & 8.
I only bought this Windows 7 a year or so ago. And I don't want to buy 3 versions in 2 years time.
I'm not a big MicroSoft fan in the first place (but unfortunately not dedicated enough to go with less practical alternatives). Still: no need to throw money in that vast ocean.

Thanks again for the feedback, especially since it's understandable for my 'level'.
Technical information is often either 'way over my head', or in 'Mickey Mouse' style.

 

I'm also looking to do a self-build soon. This thread has been really useful so a big thx to all for the help and suggestions posted here

 

http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/Intel+Core+i5-4460+Processor/review

3Dmark score is better, look where is 4690K there.

Even, if it's possibl to OC, isn't mean you have to do it But perf are a bit better, for not such big dif at price.

For windows just be carefull to get a x64 version like Cly said you.

 

Thanks, that's a handy link.
From those comparisons, the Intel Core i5-4690K and the AMD FX-9370 are top choices for me.
I'm starting to get a nice collection of new hardware links. :biggrin2:

 

you hear it all the time.. because its true and its a load of crap.

and Microsoft always does it like this:

windows 1/2 sucked
windows 3.11 nice
windows 95 sucked
windows 98 nice
windows me sucked
windows xp nice
windows vista sucked
windows 7 nice
windows 8 sucked
so skip 8 and get 9/10

 

Hmm I have run win 8 and win 7 since testing phase and for me, it out performs win 7. Wasn't hard to get used to the new interface and now I use it more then I would have thought. Fast and easy display with quick launch that can be customized in numerous ways to make it even better. This has to do with personal preference, but the performance is definitely there as well!

I'll add that I have used every version of windows, plus other version not windows, and Spawns list is very accurate, except win 8. :biggrin2:

Still, I can't wait for win 10... I'm a sucker that way!

 

Add: ME and Vista didn't suck, they down right blew goats! Worst prices of Nusul dung ever!