[INCOMPLETE] The Beginner's Guide to System Building

[ScottStevens]

Beginner's Introduction to System Building

So you want to build a computer, eh'? Well, getting into the big world of computer's is a fairly steep step for some people, so this guide will serve to help you figure out what to get. It will be revised on a fairly regular basis, so it'll be good to re-read it now and then.

For Starters...

There's always a few obvious factors to take into consideration when building a system. The main points are the following:

• Purpose: What will the system be used for?
  
• Longevity: How long is the system expected to last?
  
• Modularity: Does the system need to be upgradeable?
  
• Budget: How much has been alotted for the system?
  

There's one single thing you should always keep in mind when you are building something: stay unbiased. Every manufacturer, every company, and every model from those groups have their pros and cons. There is almost never a 'best' when it comes to technology. It's good to have a personal opinion, but always sticking with one thing will leave you out of potentially better hardware.

A NOTE: These are purely guidelines and are supposed to introduce people to building systems - it is not the builder's bible and should only be used to give a generalized idea. I failed to mention that in the first place, and have revised this post as a result.

Now, keeping those things in mind, let's jump into the bread and butter of computers.

The Purpose

First and foremost, you need to know what the system is being used for. This section will be categorized to highlight the key requirements of different types of systems.

For Budget Gamers

1. At least 4 physical cores. [APPEND] An i3 processor has 4 logical cores, and is still a viable option for gamers.
   
2. At least 6GB of RAM.
   
3. A least a GT 630/Radeon 6570 graphics card.
   
4. At least 500GB of storage running at 7200RPM.
   

Here is some elaboration (if you feel like reading it) explaining why these are the minimal requirements. First and foremost, it is required to have at least 4 physical threads as this will ensure that you have enough processing power to handle in-game physics that don't take advantage of OpenCL/CUDA, along with an upgrade to your graphics card in the future. Having 4 physical cores will allow you to move to higher-end setups without much worry of running into a bottleneck. Although not all games take advantage of all 4 cores yet, having them now will prevent you from requiring an upgrade later.

6GB would be considered the minimal as, for the majority of systems running Windows 7 or later, it will leave enough headroom for the game to run while you have applications such as a web browser, Steam/Origin, TeamSpeak/Ventrilo and etc.

A GT630 or Radeon 6570 will allow games to run at about Medium settings at a 1366x768 resolution. It won't run the majority of games at the maximum, but it will run lower settings at a reasonable framerate. They are fairly inexpensive and provide the appropriate performance for many current games. Integrated GPU/CPU combos (APUs) have built-in graphics and are fantastic for budget builds.

A 7200 RPM drive is generally enough to load applications at a reasonable speed, and to load different levels of games. This is not true for every game though, as many games will require an SSD to load at higher speeds. Personally, I find 500GB to be adequate for the majority of people, but this most definitely will not be true for everyone.

*This guide is incomplete as there is only a Gamer's section. I will add more later on to touch on many more categories.*

[Dim]

Some things I agree with in this guide, some I do not.

For example, the 'minimum requirements for gamers' part isn't very accurate. It depends largely on the game you are playing, and the i3 3220 is a great budget chip for gaming, believe it or not, since many games do not utilize four cores.

To me, most builds should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and there's no harm in posting in the New Builds and Planning section.

[ScottStevens]

Some things I agree with in this guide, some I do not.

For example, the 'minimum requirements for gamers' part isn't very accurate. It depends largely on the game you are playing, and the i3 3220 is a great budget chip for gaming, believe it or not, since many games do not utilize four cores.

To me, most builds should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and there's no harm in posting in the New Builds and Planning section.

Hence why I justified the statement with future-proofing; it's better to have the four physical cores now and need them later, despite not all games utilize them yet. From what I've been reading, quite a few games cannot utilize the HT cores on i3 processors, hence why I excluded them from the recommendation. What else do you disagree with? I would like feedback on this subject to further enhance this guide.

[Dim]

Some things I agree with in this guide, some I do not.

For example, the 'minimum requirements for gamers' part isn't very accurate. It depends largely on the game you are playing, and the i3 3220 is a great budget chip for gaming, believe it or not, since many games do not utilize four cores.

To me, most builds should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and there's no harm in posting in the New Builds and Planning section.

I find in general 1080p is a much better resolution to play in, and not very much more expensive at all, although you did state it was debatable.

Another part is "your average gamer shouldn't care about settings" -- the 3220 is a little less performing than, say, a 3570K, but if the average gamer doesn't care about settings it's still enough.

Sometimes, an AMD APU is a good option if you're looking at a very low-budget build.

It all depends on budget relative to your goal; maybe update this guide to reflect ideal builds for specific games (such as lower end builds for Minecraft, medium builds for stuff like League of Legends and Skyrim, and higher end builds for games like Farcry 3 and Battlefield 3.

[Helltech]

I appreciate this effort, but a lot of this post is more opinion and less fact.

One could argue that 1366x768 is a headache to play on. You argue the fact that 768 is a normal laptop resolution, but it really isn't anymore. Maybe a few years ago.

The amount of graphics processesing power you need comes from the types of games you play. Some games can run perfectly fine on an APU, and some can't even run on a 660.

I could very easily argue that the Wither 2 and Skyrim take so long to load on 1000rpm (not even the 7200 that you mention) that one "needs" an SSD. Hell those games were the sole reason I upgraded to one. I wasn't waiting around for those load times. Again, an opinion, but I'm not stating it as fact.

"Your average gamer shouldn't care about settings". What? That is totally opinion.

Depending on the games you play you may need more RAM.

It is better to scope out the interests of the person you are helping and guide them to a build that perfectly suites them, instead of trying to generalize it.

[Checkitman22]

It won't run the majority of games at the maximum, but your average gamer shouldn't care about settings.

Contrary to popular belief, if you're not insanely worried about background qualities of your games, you won't notice a massive difference between 1366x768 vs. 1920x1080.

Oh dear, no no no. I would not be happy playing a game that looks like its from N64 because I turned all the settings down just to get a choppy 30fps. Also coming from someone who went from 1280x1024, to 720p, to 1080p, to 1600p, after using each for over a year I can tell you there is a MASSIVE difference in resolution amounts.

[ScottStevens]

I appreciate this effort, but a lot of this post is more opinion and less fact.

One could argue that 1366x768 is a headache to play on. You argue the fact that 768 is a normal laptop resolution, but it really isn't anymore. Maybe a few years ago.

The amount of graphics processesing power you need comes from the types of games you play. Some games can run perfectly fine on an APU, and some can't even run on a 660.

I could very easily argue that the Wither 2 and Skyrim take so long to load on 1000rpm (not even the 7200 that you mention) that one "needs" an SSD. Hell those games were the sole reason I upgraded to one. I wasn't waiting around for those load times. Again, an opinion, but I'm not stating it as fact.

"Your average gamer shouldn't care about settings". What? That is totally opinion.

Depending on the games you play you may need more RAM.

It is better to scope out the interests of the person you are helping and guide them to a build that perfectly suites them, instead of trying to generalize it.

Hence why they are minimal things - I am not saying that all users should use that resolution, nor that it is the optimal resolution. The majority of laptops below the $700 range are 1366x768. These are minimal requirements for a gamer, and are purely mean that optimally you don't want to go any lower. I think I failed to get that point across, and I apologize. I'll be appending changes to clarify that point. What I mean by "your average gamer shouldn't care about settings" means that if you're building a system, and you can't go for the highest end hardware, that framerate is more important than running the game at max settings.

This a general guide and, as listed as the bottom, is fully debatable and should not be taken as a be all or end all sorta' thing. It's meant for users to read over to get an idea of what they should take into consideration. Once again, I do not mean for it to be the system builder's bible, it's purely an introduction.

[Helltech]

Hence why they are minimal things - I am not saying that all users should use that resolution' date=' nor that it is the optimal resolution. The majority of laptops below the $700 range are 1366x768. These are minimal requirements for a gamer, and are purely mean that optimally you don't want to go any lower. I think I failed to get that point across, and I apologize. I'll be appending changes to clarify that point. What I mean by "your average gamer shouldn't care about settings" means that if you're building a system, and you can't go for the highest end hardware, that framerate is more important than running the game at max settings. This a general guide and, as listed as the bottom, is fully debatable and should not be taken as a be all or end all sorta' thing. It's meant for users to read over to get an idea of what they should take into consideration. Once again, I do not mean for it to be the system builder's bible, it's purely an introduction.[/quote']

I'd greatly beg to differ on that 700 dollar range comment. Regardless of that however, I don't think just "being used to" a certain resolution, and being bliss of other resolutions is necessarily a good thing. I really have a hard time playing on less than 900p. Like it actually takes away from the game for me.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=20

[Checkitman22]

I appreciate this effort, but a lot of this post is more opinion and less fact.

One could argue that 1366x768 is a headache to play on. You argue the fact that 768 is a normal laptop resolution, but it really isn't anymore. Maybe a few years ago.

The amount of graphics processesing power you need comes from the types of games you play. Some games can run perfectly fine on an APU, and some can't even run on a 660.

I could very easily argue that the Wither 2 and Skyrim take so long to load on 1000rpm (not even the 7200 that you mention) that one "needs" an SSD. Hell those games were the sole reason I upgraded to one. I wasn't waiting around for those load times. Again, an opinion, but I'm not stating it as fact.

"Your average gamer shouldn't care about settings". What? That is totally opinion.

Depending on the games you play you may need more RAM.

It is better to scope out the interests of the person you are helping and guide them to a build that perfectly suites them, instead of trying to generalize it.

How about remaking the guide to building a budget gaming computer, or something like that. Because it is coming off the wrong way for sure.

[Helltech]

I would also like to note that a cheap 1366x768 and a cheap 1080p are about the same price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009350

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824118004

[ScottStevens]

Some things I agree with in this guide, some I do not.

For example, the 'minimum requirements for gamers' part isn't very accurate. It depends largely on the game you are playing, and the i3 3220 is a great budget chip for gaming, believe it or not, since many games do not utilize four cores.

To me, most builds should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and there's no harm in posting in the New Builds and Planning section.

That's quite the good idea, actually. I've revised the guide and changed it to an introduction instead, as the post is coming across very differently than I intended it. It is meant as a optimal minimum requirements. Hopefully that clarifies what I was trying to get a little better.

[ScottStevens]

I would also like to note that a cheap 1366x768 and a cheap 1080p are about the same price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009350

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824118004

I can see that. Once again though, the point of the post was missed; it was a minimalistic guide referring to the lowest you really want to go if you're going to build a system. That is what I intended when I created the post, although it came across much differently obviously. I do personally prefer to go for a case-by-case basis even for that, but that's not really the point of the post.

[Helltech]

I would also like to note that a cheap 1366x768 and a cheap 1080p are about the same price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009350

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824118004

But why even recommend 1366x768 if you can get 1080p for ten dollars more.

[ScottStevens]

I would also like to note that a cheap 1366x768 and a cheap 1080p are about the same price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009350

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824118004

I've removed that portion of the guide, as the point was being missed far too much. A few pieces of info: 1366x768 still holds strongly at about 15% for users, hence why I stated it in the first place. 1920x1080 is still much stronger at 25%, but that doesn't detract from the point that 1366x768 was still very popular. That is why I recommended it as a minimum.

Here is a graph showing the current statistics for screen resolutions. I am fully unsure of whether or not it's accurate, but it's partially what I based the opinion from. http://i.imgur.com/OifYAgc.png

[ElegantMess]

Here is a video that I did just in case others had questions regarding how to actually build a PC if they have never done it before. It's in 2 parts and I'll link them both, so hopefully this will help someone in there new venture or if you're just unsure of something, this does cover a complete build, from components to Windows install, BIOS, and setup.

[ElegantMess]

And here is Part 2 if you are interested in this PC Build. If you have any questions just let me know and I hope this helps, this PC was built for a customer but feel free to check out my current project on my channel. It has come along very nice and have done some awesome sound activated LED mod's to the case. Enjoy :)

[Locopock]

Build your own STEAM BOX! - How to build a gaming PC! ~ Jackfrags

Description:

I set my budget at £300 seeing as this is the average launch price of game consoles in the UK. Watch this video and learn what components to pick, how to build a gaming PC and also see the sort of performance you can get at 1080p resolutions!

I found this vid on youtube, thought it might help some people. This is NOT my VIDEO.

Games tested: ArmA 2: DayZ Mod, Battlefield 3, Dota 2, BO2 and CS:GO.

[NewKID]

You should change the resolution to 1080p because that is the current standard now. 768 may be the minimum but realistically most pc users have 1080p