Help Building Computer?

Zaku77

Zaku77

CAGiversary!
Feedback
107 (100%)
I realize this is asking a lot, but can anyone help me build a PC? I have tried many times, but trying to make sure everything works together and what not has always just done my head in.

I know for a fact that I want this graphics card:
http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-...e=UTF8&qid=1342678726&sr=8-1&keywords=gtx+680

A 1TB Hard drive

Quad core processor of at least 3.0 ghz, but preferably more. I have no preference between AMD and Intel.

At least 8 GB of DDR3 ram, but more would also be good! lol

Whatever motherboard would work with that stuff.

A good sound card, but nothing incredible. I won't be hooking it up to surround sound. I jut want good sound output.

I need a wireless card because it's a ways away from the router.

I think a 700 watt power supply would be adequate, but I have no idea which ones are better.

That just leaves some sort of case and cooling.

I want to spend about $1000 not counting the graphics card.

I know it's asking a lot, but can anyone help?
Thanks in advance!!
 
Personally, I used this guide to build my first computer about a year and a half ago. I think it's pretty damn helpful. There's also a Build a PC thread in the PC section too. They were pretty helpful when I built the computer.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-your-own-pc,2601.html

And that GPU you want is most likely going to be a waste of money. Unless you plan on streaming 1080p quality video, then your graphics card is never going to be fully utilized. "Futureproofing" your GPU is also just a waste of money if that's your reasoning. You're better off dropping $250-$300 on a card now and then upgrading it in 2-3 years when it either sucks or it dies on you. I'm using a GTX 560ti and even with Skyrim fully maxed out and a Twitch.tv stream full-screened on my 2nd monitor, my card stays at ~60% usage at a healthy temperature. If you will be streaming or doing some things that require that much power, then by all means spend the money on the GPU. Those are just my 2 cents on the matter.
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3770k-overclock-geforce-gtx-680,3212.html

Some variation of that build is something to look for. Unless you're a sound or music professional, you don't need a sound card. You'll want an SSD with any major build nowadays, otherwise the hard drive will be your biggest bottleneck (The above linked build has an SSD and a 2TB green drive. Install Windows on the SSD.) . Any regular PCI wi-fi card should be fine, should run $20 or less.

I know it's a little higher than your goal price, but you can knock off $100 by not getting that expensive CPU cooler (As long as you don't plan to overclock. I'm assuming if you're asking for build help you aren't.), because the processor you buy will come with one.

And that build doesn't factor in the cost of Windows, but I'm assuming you already have a copy since you don't mention it.

DarkRider has a point though, if you don't need the power, don't invest in such a high-end computer. And the guide he linked is an updated version of the one I used to build my first computer. It's a great guide.
 
I disagree with Jason on the sound card :p. You don't need something high end. A $40 sound card is more than enough. There is a clear cut difference between on board sound and a sound card and if you like quality, then buying a sound card is the way to go. If you're the type of person that wouldn't notice the difference or even care, then don't bother.
 
The quality of your speakers/headphones will make a lot bigger difference then using a discreet sound card these days. Unless you like mixing your own audio in FL Studio or something, I'd just skip it.

Intel CPUs are the way to go right now, they have fewer cores but tend to actually provide better performance overall. You'll want a motherboard with an 1155 socket (NOT an 1156) for the newer chips. Get the i5 2500k/3570k or i7 2600k/3770k depending on how much you want to spend (the cpu gens are about identical in performance, but the 3000 series eats less power fyi).
 
This is a lot of good advice. Let me show you what I have decided on, and hopefully get some feedback. I want this desktop specifically for gaming. If there is another card that would work as well for gaming, but isn't superfluous as you say this one is, then I am all ears!

(edit: I looked that the 560 ti and it looks great. Does this mother board that I have chosen support sli? :D)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136246

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119197

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704059

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148840

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233256

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131854

http://www.amazon.com/Viewsonic-VX2...d=1342673830&sr=1-2&keywords=1080p+hd+monitor (2 of these)

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-...672154&sr=1-6&keywords=nVidia+GeForce+GTX+590 (the graphics card)


And I have yet to pick out a soundcard.

Thanks guys
 
[quote name='Zaku77']This is a lot of good advice. Let me show you what I have decided on, and hopefully get some feedback. I want this desktop specifically for gaming. If there is another card that would work as well for gaming, but isn't superfluous as you say this one is, then I am all ears!

(edit: I looked that the 560 ti and it looks great. Does this mother board that I have chosen support sli? :D)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136246

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119197

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704059

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148840

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233256

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131854

http://www.amazon.com/Viewsonic-VX2...d=1342673830&sr=1-2&keywords=1080p+hd+monitor (2 of these)

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-...672154&sr=1-6&keywords=nVidia+GeForce+GTX+590 (the graphics card)


And I have yet to pick out a soundcard.

Thanks guys[/QUOTE]

I have that exact case and LOVE it, excellent choice.

That motherboard is really nice, but it's prolly overkill. Unless you really, really need the features on it, I'd suggest this one - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157265 . You lose a couple USB 3.0 and SATA 6gb/s ports and one of the PCIEx16 3.0 ports, but you don't need a 3rd one IMO. Both motherboards support SLI as well.

Memory is also prolly overkill unless you're overclocking. If not, I might suggest this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231312 . Either set of memory will work with the motherboard I suggested, so no worries either way. Not a huge difference in price and both sets of memory are good, just trying to give options.

Again, you don't need the nicer CPU cooler unless you plan to overclock. The processor will come with one, and Intel has really improved the quality of the base fan in the last few years.

I cannot stress enough that you really, really should get an SSD. I'd recommend getting something like this - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148442 , and also get http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148681 for storage. FYI, that case doesn't have a 2.5" drive bay, so you'll prolly want something like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817994087 to fit the SSD in.

EVGA makes the best video cards IMO, so very good choice there. I recommend an overclocked 670 like this one http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-Dual-Lin...776986&sr=1-2&keywords=nVidia+GeForce+GTX+670 over getting a 680 or two 560ti's, because the price increase-to-performance increase isn't really worth it.

The disc drive, CPU, wi-fi card and power supply are all good choices. Screens seem nice.

Overall, looks like you're on track to having a great PC.
 
SLI and Crossfire are over rated as mentioned above. Assuming you are going to want to run 3800x1080 (or is it 1200) on that pair of monitors? You would probably be better off with a single, higher powered card - not to mention that there some games that either do not benefit from SLI/Xfire or simply will not work with either.

I'll disagree with the SSD as a "must have". Nice - yes, but not a must have. If you are simply using this to play games then there are other places to spend money. I would consider a SSD more of a "must have" on a laptop over a desktop. There are places for it and it may speed up loading times, but if you have never had one you will not notice the difference. A nice 7000rpm drive will suffice, especially in the $1k price range.

I also agree that the MB is overkill. If you are going to spend that much, go to the LGA 2011 socket MBs for higher PCIe bandwidth. Personally I would just get a cheaper LGA 1155 MB. Gigabyte, ASUS, ASRock, MSI, etc....there are plenty in the $100-160 range that will be more than adequate. My only "must have" would be to ensure that you get a Z77 chipset board.

On-board sound, if you pick the right MB, should suffice. They've come a long, long way.

The 3570 is nice - got one from Microcenter when they had their deals on that and the MB.
 
You are spending way too much on the video card. Shave at least $200 off that thing. You do not need a $500 video card. That thing is going to be basically sitting there half-used.

The most I would spend on a video card is ~$200. Spend around $800 including the video card but not including the monitors. We spent even less, $600, on our gaming PC and it runs everything fine at our preferred resolution, 1440x900.
 
[quote name='Spokker']You are spending way too much on the video card. Shave at least $200 off that thing. You do not need a $500 video card. That thing is going to be basically sitting there half-used.

The most I would spend on a video card is ~$200. Spend around $800 including the video card but not including the monitors. We spent even less, $600, on our gaming PC and it runs everything fine at our preferred resolution, 1440x900.[/QUOTE]

He's gonna be rocking two 1080p monitors. If it's within his budget there's nothing wrong with a 670.

If he's gonna cut the GPU budget, I'd recommend getting http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Rade...2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342922782&sr=8-2&keywords=7870 . But I think the 670 for $400 is a seriously good choice right now if you want a high-end card.

I don't recommend getting the 680 though.
 
1440 x 900? Seriously? On two monitors? I somehow doubt anyone is getting two monitors to have the wow factor of 1440 x 900.

The budget has been set and that is what he is willing to spend. Unless you have a compelling reason why, such as same performance for less cost or see something egregious, why force an opinion like that on someone else? That's the only reason I made my MB comment above. For the price, there is little-to-no performance gain over a MB about half the cost. If you are going to spend almost $300 on a MB, it is a waste to do so without going to the LGA 2011.

I agree with the 670 vs 680 argument as well and even throwing in the higher end AMD cards. Whatever you are more comfortable with, but it rarely pays to be "bleeding" edge with video cards. The price/performance is just not there. The "sweet" spot is usually somewhere between 180-350 for performance depending on the iteration and timing. I'd say find the games you really like and pick your platform based off of which brand performs better. At this time, for the higher end, the best cards are the 670 and 7870 (price/performance). Can you get better performing cards? Yes, but do they get you huge gains - no.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']He's gonna be rocking two 1080p monitors. If it's within his budget there's nothing wrong with a 670.

[/QUOTE]

It's still a waste of money though. I think the only reason we're being so persistent is because he's on CAG. A website created with the sole purpose of saving people money (and making CheapyD money obviously). I'm running 2 1080p monitors with a 560ti. Even while playing Skyrim and fully maxing out a 1080p stream on my other monitor, I very rarely go above 65% usage. A 670 is just overkill. It will most likely never even be half used.

OP is just falling into the trap that everyone falls into when building their first computer. They buy overkill parts and waste a bunch of money to have their CPU/GPU sit around at 30% usage. Then, 3 years down the line they regret it because their parts are pretty much obsolete. Might as well save money if you can and buy parts that are good for whatever you actually want to use the computer for.

@OP - 16 GB of memory is overkill. Get 8 gb. I can almost guarantee you you'll probably never use the full 8 gb nor need an extra 8. If I'm wrong, simply go buy another 8 when you do need it.

If you're going to spend $100 on a case anyway, I would go with an NZXT case just because they look better (IMO). The HAF 922 is pretty good though.
 
Are you running 1900x1080 or 3800x1080? There's a huge difference and it takes more to drive the latter. So you are saying on your 560 that you have everything set at high or ultra settings? Besides, the GPU and CPU are the two spots to spend money on. At a certain cost point you reach minimal returns, but everyone has their own budget.

The difference between 8 to 16GB of RAM is dirt cheap (historically cheap) right now. Why not spend $30 and get a matched pair instead of worrying about compatibility issues later? I know it's CAG, but if you do anything other than gaming, the extra RAM can come in handy. I have 16GB and have < 7GB free simply with browsers open, a mail client, and a photo viewer.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']He's gonna be rocking two 1080p monitors. If it's within his budget there's nothing wrong with a 670.[/QUOTE]
Did he specifically say he's going to game on two monitors? We have dual monitors for home office crap, but we only use one for gaming.

I can't for the life of me figure out the appeal of dual monitor gaming anyway. In first-person-shooters, your crosshair will be in the gap.

I think the guy is in for some buyer's remorse if he goes through with his plans. He can do whatever he wants, but he has posted a thread soliciting advice and information. There's no such thing as "forcing" opinions on anyone in such a situation.

My philosophy on PC gaming is this. You may be able to spend twice the money, but will you have twice the fun? Cost/benefit is a fine art. It's especially easy to do today since mid-range PC hardware is so far ahead of the games it's ridiculous. I suppose you can blame this extended console generation for that. At 1440x900, I'd even make the argument that a a low-end Radeon 6770 and $90 quad-core are sufficient for high quality gaming. You are certainly going to get better performance and image quality out of it than an Xbox 360 or PS3.
 
I suppose what I'm trying to clarify is that he's spending $230 on the processor. If you're spending more on a processor then the graphics card, you're doing it wrong. (For a gaming computer, that is.)

If he wants to cut down the graphics budget, that's fine, but I wouldn't go lower than a 7870 if he's keeping that processor.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']I suppose what I'm trying to clarify is that he's spending $230 on the processor. If you're spending more on a processor then the graphics card, you're doing it wrong. (For a gaming computer, that is.)
[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right. He should temper both the CPU and the graphics card.
 
i spent 130 on my sound card and dont regret it one bit

the nice thing about the 100$+ sound cards is it has an optical input which Most Gamers have better PC speakers than TV speakers and can just run an optical out of the tv to the pc sound card and walla, all cable xbox blue ray is now coming out of your 200$ pc speakers with baseboost and crystallize effects. :)
 
unless you need:
1. Native ASIO drivers (not really needed with how good ASIO4ALL has become)
2. An actual audio interface (xlr, line inputs, etc.)

there is no reason to buy a soundcard.

edit:
holy shit reading some of these suggestions is blowing my mind. :lol:
 
[quote name='Spokker']
My philosophy on PC gaming is this. You may be able to spend twice the money, but will you have twice the fun? Cost/benefit is a fine art. It's especially easy to do today since mid-range PC hardware is so far ahead of the games it's ridiculous. I suppose you can blame this extended console generation for that. At 1440x900, I'd even make the argument that a a low-end Radeon 6770 and $90 quad-core are sufficient for high quality gaming. You are certainly going to get better performance and image quality out of it than an Xbox 360 or PS3.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what planet or decade you are coming from with that statement. I think my dad and you should get together. He told me he couldn't tell the difference between sporting event broadcast in SD and HD.

1440x900 WILL NOT have better performance or image quality than either the PS3 or 360 - and especially not on a 6770. Did you actually try that with Crysis 2? How about Skyrim? Borderlands? Left for Dead 2? Alan Wake? Portal 2? Dues Ex: Human Revolution?

Now, if all you are playing is TF2, or games that old, you're probably right. Welcome to the 2010's. Oh, I do agree on the two monitor point about the crosshair in the middle, that's why I got 3. Still, why so hardcore on the 1440x900?

Crystal - I concur. I'm baffled people even recommend a sound card, especially coughing up $100+. If you're talking about running optical out to blah, blah, blah...go big or go home. Spend the extra money on a GPU that supports HDMI (sound also) out and run the darn thing though you home theater system. Heck, my 6870 supports it - and that is far superior to the 6770 - and I run 1900x1200.

Skip the add-on soundcard and spend the money elsewhere or save it. For a gaming rig it is a complete waste of money. It's like going to a car dealer and paying MSRP.
 
The Xbox 360 runs many games in sub-720p resolutions. Xbox games often rely on trilinear filtering more than ansiotropic filtering. It reminds me of OpenGL Quake.

Here's a good explanation on how a PC version of a game stacks up to the Xbox 360 version, straight from the developer's mouth. They elaborate more on it in post #6.

http://community.remedygames.com/showthread.php?t=7725

If I can run Alan Wake on the highest settings at 1440x900 and get 30-45 FPS with a Radeon 6770, and I do, then yes, I have achieved better image quality and performance over the Xbox 360 version. I'm not surprise. The Xbox 360 is 7-year-old hardware. I can easily drop Alan Wake down to 720p, output it to the TV, play with an Xbox 360 controller and get 60 FPS. I do admit the CPU and the card are slightly overclocked but this is probably not a huge gain. Load times are also way better on PC. New Vegas load times are night and day on PC vs. Xbox 360, even with the game installed to the Xbox HD.

I don't have most of the other games you mentioned (played Portal 2 on Xbox 360 because it came out 2-3 months before I got the PC) but I did play Dues Ex: HR to completion on PC. It ran very well with everything on the high setting. I think I toggle off SSAO in most games because I don't really see the difference, but I don't know if I did so with Dues Ex. I mean, look, I played through the single player campaign on high in BF3, and I turn it down to medium for the 64-player multiplayer maps. I can place in the top 3 on my team and have a lot of fun.

Now, if I had spent $1,000 instead of $500 in June 2011, do the games become twice as fun? Not for me. When the time comes, I'll throw a 6870 and a quad-core CPU in the box, but I haven't reached that point where I feel something is lacking yet. At one point I did buy mid-range PCs because that's where the hardware was in relation to the games. Now I think budget PC gaming is a serious contender simply because of where the games actually are. OP can go enthusiast all he wants, but mid-range is the new high-end these days. One day Witcher 2 ubersampling will be mainstream, but we're not there yet.

Here's the PC if you are curious. http://i.imgur.com/ypbo9.gif

Yes, $100 is soaked up by the OS. I'm not 16 anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']
My philosophy on PC gaming is this. You may be able to spend twice the money, but will you have twice the fun? Cost/benefit is a fine art. It's especially easy to do today since mid-range PC hardware is so far ahead of the games it's ridiculous. I suppose you can blame this extended console generation for that. At 1440x900, I'd even make the argument that a a low-end Radeon 6770 and $90 quad-core are sufficient for high quality gaming. You are certainly going to get better performance and image quality out of it than an Xbox 360 or PS3.[/QUOTE]

If you don't have/want to spend a lot of money, then this is a great philosophy. That's what I did with my 2006 build and I'm still gaming on that same rig. I don't really care to game at max since PC games get progressively better so even with medium/low settings, they beat their console counterparts. I threw in about $120 (X2 3800 to a BE-2400, and a 850XT to 3850) of upgrades in 2008, and then last year threw in a new processor (Phenom X3 720, an AM3 but thank god AM2 mobos are backwards compatible).

I'm still waiting on a new graphics card. I'm amazed at how the 68xx cards are holding their prices. I've been waiting almost a year for them to hit a sub $100 point but it's just not happening. The 6850 hits $120 every month but never below that and the 6870 doesn't want to go below $130.
 
Nothing wrong with medium settings, especially if you play on a TV.

Not to say I'm playing everything on low/medium. Should I be disappointed? Some Alan Wake screenshots that I took just now with FPS shown. Is this not better image quality and performance than Xbox 360?

Night with combat: http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/920110421036914233/7377F70725EC436B3DED089A5AEFD63BDBA0BCC0/

Day: http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/920110421036915237/2F9AC612539B25A84496FC9D56A1D10B2A48E458/

Indoors: http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/920110421036915926/82B5771EA5F31F20DA5FFE5CB858E3B529B985AE/

Settings: http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/920110421036914684/73DD4C9CA340E1DEEF19814FA328589D4441879B/

The rest of the LOD settings are maxed. Resolution is 1440x900 and vsync is on. Here's my Speccy readout. The CPU is running at 3.3 ghz.

http://i.imgur.com/rWwhS.png
 
[quote name='jmbreci']For a gaming rig it is a complete waste of money. It's like going to a car dealer and paying MSRP.[/QUOTE]

Not always true. I started with integrated sound when I built my PC in 2007, but there was "interference"... Everytime I scrolled the mouse, I would hear a sound, so I eventually bought a cheap SB sound card and have been happy with it.

But in general, I would say do not plan on getting a discrete sound card, use integrated sound first and see if that works for you. If not, pop in a sound card later.
 
[quote name='cheapfrag']Not always true. I started with integrated sound when I built my PC in 2007, but there was "interference"... Everytime I scrolled the mouse, I would hear a sound, so I eventually bought a cheap SB sound card and have been happy with it.

But in general, I would say do not plan on getting a discrete sound card, use integrated sound first and see if that works for you. If not, pop in a sound card later.[/QUOTE]

You're quoting 2007? Buy me some Apple stock while you're there. :) Seriously, if you purchase anything above the cheapest MBs, you should not need a sound card. I don't think I've used one since 2007.

Spokker - who runs 1440x900 on new monitors, especially 23+"? Obviously your TV's native resolution is 1900x1080. You're losing image quality by not running it in it's native resolution. Sorry but it will not look better than 1900x1080. I don't care if this is CAG. You are crazy saying that 1440x900 is "THE" resolution - especially on a monitor that supports 1900x1080. Maybe for you, but probably not for most people who have a monitor that supports 1080 at their disposal.

This is all I need to say about the 6770 vs 6870:
6870 mops the floor

The 6870 delivers twice the throughput and is the better buy between the two at ~$150 and will last longer. The 6770 is dead as far as a new purchase if you want it to last.

You're resolve on the 6770 and 1440x900 makes it sound like we are suggesting outlandish items. I haven't quoted anything extreme. Your budget machine is fine, but you will have to upgrade it more often - not sure if that saves you money in the long run. If you are by a Microcenter, go get a i5-3570 and just about any z77 MB and you are set for the next 3 years of gaming. A budget system will not last that long.

Just because a Festiva has 4 wheels, will drive on the road, and costs less doesn't mean that the Fusion isn't a better car. (And I'm not a Ford fan)
 
I have a 1440x900 LCD monitor and it's 19 inches. 1080p would be wasted on something that size. If I had gotten a high end video card then I would feel compelled to get a big high end monitor that I don't want. There are interaction effects to consider.

If I output to the TV, I output in 1080p or 720p depending on the game (720p is better than Xbox 360 in many cases). I never said 1440x900 is THE resolution. I never said the other suggestions are outlandish, with the exception of the $500 video card. I never said the 6870 doesn't mop the floor with the 6770. Then again, hwcompare is purely theoretical and image quality and performance is highly subjective across frame rates, anti-aliasing and resolutions, among other things. For example, I don't want SSAO and I don't need SSAO.

My claim is that you can play games and run them well on a $400-$500 budget gaming PC and I have proven that. Good PC gaming is not outrageously expensive. The point I'm trying to make is that if someone can get such good results with a 6770, then you don't need the $500 video card and it would be wise to go down to something more mid-range like the 6870 or whatever the Nvidia equivalent is.

You are correct that I would not purchase a 6770 in August 2012, but I made my purchase in June 2011.

Your budget machine is fine, but you will have to upgrade it more often - not sure if that saves you money in the long run.
Click to expand...

My budget PC will last as long as this console generation does, which is at least through fall 2013. The trend in gaming is dumbed down ports from consoles. It's been over a year and I see no upgrades on the horizon. I'm satisfied with everything I've been running, from BF3 to Alan Wake to Dues Ex: HR. By the way, I tried Borderlands during the free weekend. Silky smooth with everything maxed out. Not all of the games you listed before are even that graphically demanding.

If you are by a Microcenter, go get a i5-3570
Click to expand...
I would never spend over $200 on a CPU for gaming. That's ridiculous. I mean, the trend in gaming for many years now has been to offload more and more of the workload onto the GPU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way.

[quote name='jmbreci'] I think my dad and you should get together. He told me he couldn't tell the difference between sporting event broadcast in SD and HD.[/QUOTE]

According to the Imaging Science Foundation the four most important qualities of a television image are the following in this order.

1. Contrast ratio
2. Color saturation
3. Color accuracy
4. Resolution

Once you get the first three right, then you can worry about 1080p. And once you get to that point, you have to worry about viewing distance.

A calibrated 32 inch 480p CRT television, at 9-10 feet, will show little to no difference between 480p, 720p and 1080p sources. I think a lot of people are wasting money going for "HD" while ignoring the first three qualities.
 
[quote name='jmbreci']You're quoting 2007? Buy me some Apple stock while you're there. :) Seriously, if you purchase anything above the cheapest MBs, you should not need a sound card. I don't think I've used one since 2007.
[/QUOTE]

Good for you! I'm sorry for expressing my opinion. "Conventional wisdom" back in 2007 was that integrated sound was adequate... it wasn't in my case for my Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3P MB with Realtek ALC889 integrated sound. So I bought a sound card and have been happy since.

As I said before, I would agree that there is no need to plan for a discrete sound card initially... if you're not happy with it, then buy a sound card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top