New build after long break

fowler002 · 21 Dec 2011 at 20:12

JTrickle said:
No.

I said spend less and get an ssd. Which is £130.

So thats a £120 mobo and a £180 graphics card. SSD + £180 graphics trumps £270 graphics.

That £270 is going to be looking out of date in 3 months. There is a right time to spend £200+ on a graphics card and that time is at the release of a new manufacturing process.

in a gaming system a £270 graphics card trumps a £180 graphics card

the 6970 beating cards in the 7xxx series will cost ~£400

the 6970 will not stop playing all the games in 3 months at high settings just because new cards are out you know

if the op wants an option for xfire in the future for when the graphics card does stop playing the games at playable frame rates then just need to up the motherboard and psu to allow that and is dependent on the over available budget, the budget was never mentioned so I stuck to £800-£900 not including the monitor. if the op didn't need a hard disk then could use the £90 in changing mb and psu but seeing as he doesn't that's not an option.

MrMoonX · 21 Dec 2011 at 20:26

think I will keep the asrock MB and bump the ssd to 128gb keep the HDD and change the case and psu to the CM ones to get the £20 off, with two of the BenQ monitors it all comes in around £1200

I'm keeping the gfx card in there as its awesome, I'm not scrimping on the gfx

olivier renault · 21 Dec 2011 at 22:06

I would get a single large high-res screen first (1920 x 1200 or some such), and another cheapo one later if needs be. I have two monitors (2407WFP 1920x1200 + 2209WA 1680x1050), and although it is a nice setup, a single screen should do.

Show us your finalised build just to be sure

MrMoonX · 21 Dec 2011 at 22:15

olivier renault said:
I would get a single large high-res screen first (1920 x 1200 or some such), and another cheapo one later if needs be. I have two monitors (2407WFP 1920x1200 + 2209WA 1680x1050), and although it is a nice setup, a single screen should do.

Show us your finalised build just to be sure

1920x1200 screens are a bit pricey compared to two 1080 ones though

fowler002 · 21 Dec 2011 at 22:16

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-052-DE&groupid=17&catid=510&subcat=

only a little more than 2x benqs you chose

Threepwood · 21 Dec 2011 at 23:16

Still dont understand why you dont want a 27 inch.

95thrifles · 21 Dec 2011 at 23:23

shadesofgrey said:
Still dont understand why you dont want a 27 inch.

95thrifles said:
Monitor size is not as relevant as resolution is, 22" and 24" monitors almost invariably have same res of 1920 x 1080 (or 1200 if 16:10 rather than 16:9) as do a lot of the 27" ones too (incl one above), all increasing the physical size does is stretch out the pixels which can result in the image looking more blurry or washed out, in short there was nothing wrong with your first monitor selection, IMO

Threepwood · 22 Dec 2011 at 02:14

^^ and?

By the same logic any old size will do as long as it does 1920 x 1080. Might as well advise he picks up a 17"...

No, flawed logic. The OP would be far more impressed with a nice 27" than a little 22", *esp* at 16:9.

ManikMiner · 22 Dec 2011 at 02:28

27" is far far to big for gaming. The best choice i find is either 22 or 23"

Having to move my head to see from one side of the screen to the other is a pain in the ass. Also having 2 screens always trumps having 1 big one. If you want a big screen get a TV.

95thrifles · 22 Dec 2011 at 02:33

shadesofgrey said:
^^ and?

By the same logic any old size will do as long as it does 1920 x 1080. Might as well advise he picks up a 17"...

No, flawed logic. The OP would be far more impressed with a nice 27" than a little 22", *esp* at 16:9.

Its not flawed logic at all, its all to do with pixel pitch which is a quantifiable value

The majority of people prefer lower pixel pitch as it gives a sharper image, unless you either have poor eyesight or sit so far away from the monitor as to negate it

Threepwood · 22 Dec 2011 at 03:09

ManikMiner said:
27" is far far to big for gaming. The best choice i find is either 22 or 23"

Eww, 22 inch 16:9 is tiny

Farrr to small for gaming. See what I did there?

95thrifles said:
Its not flawed logic at all, its all to do with pixel pitch which is a quantifiable value

The majority of people prefer lower pixel pitch as it gives a sharper image, unless you either have poor eyesight or sit so far away from the monitor as to negate it

So he should get himself a 17" monitor that does 1920 by 1080 to enjoy the epic sharpness? No, I'm not arguing the logic of pixel pitch, that's the point.