[PC Build Thread] Keep your human antivirus up to date

15455575960

Posts

  • LD50LD50 Registered User regular
    Yeah, I second 1440p. IMO the benefits of 4k are slim outside of very large panels, and the drawbacks on performance (and application support) are huge. Many games don't support 4k, many applications will have tiny tiny text in 4k. Display scaling can help with the latter problem, but there are also programs that don't play nice with display scaling (especially if you have multiple monitors where you need to set the display scaling differently on each screen).

    The only drawback on 1440p compatibility wise, is that there are some games out there that max out at 1080p for whatever reason, and upscaling 1080 to 1440 isn't pretty (although upscaling 720 does work, and ironically I've found more games capped at 720 than 1080 lately).

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    HDR > 4k

    HDR600 is probably the sweet spot for HDR so I'd look for a 120/144Hz gsync/freesync HDR600 monitor. I think you're options are a Samsung, Asus, or Acer monitor but its been a bi since I've looked into it. The HDR industry group maintains a list of certified products.

    That said, I think the issues with gaming at 4K are overstated in that I've yet to experience any in the year or so I've been gaming at 4k.

    camo_sig2.png
    wunderbar
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited July 31
    I’m just waiting on this monitor.

    https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38wn95c-w-ultrawide-monitor

    It appears to be the perfect monitor for both gaming and productivity.

    Casually Hardcore on
  • DrovekDrovek Registered User regular
    I’m just wait in this monitor.

    https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38wn95c-w-ultrawide-monitor

    It appears to be the perfect monitor for both gaming and productivity.

    I'm personally eyeing the Samsung Odyssey G7 32". I would really love to consider the G9, specially because it would rock in a racing rig. But as it is right now I'm nowhere near buying a rig and it would use pretty much my entire desk.

    steam_sig.png
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    HDR > 4k

    HDR600 is probably the sweet spot for HDR so I'd look for a 120/144Hz gsync/freesync HDR600 monitor. I think you're options are a Samsung, Asus, or Acer monitor but its been a bi since I've looked into it. The HDR industry group maintains a list of certified products.

    That said, I think the issues with gaming at 4K are overstated in that I've yet to experience any in the year or so I've been gaming at 4k.

    Agree. I'll take HDR 1080p over anything above without HDR.

    I was recently house sitting for my parents and I took my Xbox One S over there to play. They don't have any TV's with HDR and it has literally been years since I saw games without HDR on my Xbox and I couldn't believe how much worse it looked.

    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
    Dixon
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited July 31
    HDR < 4K

    In large part because PC video games actually support 2160p. Unlike HDR. Probably because higher resolutions are clearly understood standards on top of that. Owning an HDR600 monitor (BenQ EW3280U), I can go ahead and tell you that 90% of what I play relies on the monitor's built-in HDR "emulation"--which works pretty well. Which is a good thing, because the vast majority of games don't have any sort of programmed HDR support. And some of them that actually do, like Hitman 2 fucked it up. It's very hard to fuck up "support twice the height and twice the width of 1080p, which is not optional", the constraint is whether the user's hardware can handle it, just like whether the hardware can handle going from 1080p to 1440p, but more severely.

    If you're worried about games not supporting 2160p--it's actually way more common that 1440p ultrawide, for example, so stay the hell away from that--here's the bad news: it's vastly more common than actually having native HDR support in gaming. Probably on an order of magnitude more common. 2160p support is also more common than +60hz support among older games (take, for example, basically every Bethesda open-world game since just before Skyrim).

    Of these notable features, 2160p support at 16:9 ratio is way more common than the others. It's not even a contest. This doesn't make it always better, of course--just like there are games where HDR wouldn't do shit because they have specific color palettes to begin with. 2160p is just more flexible because we mostly play 3D games, and it's a very common resolution standard (especially after televisions completely bypassed 1440p).

    Also, 1080p on 1440p looks kind of like crap. It'll actually look substantially worse than either a 1080p display at that resolution, or 1080p on a 4K monitor. I've actually discussed as to why this is the case in the Monitor Thread:
    Synthesis wrote: »
    el_vicio wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    el_vicio wrote: »
    Jimmy King wrote: »
    That LG 32QK500 is 2560x1440 and damned tempting. I'm on the verge of pulling the trigger on that one this evening unless someone is all "NOOOOO!!!! YOU CAN DO WAY BETTER!"

    I'm in need of an upgrade and that thing really does look nice, if...maybe a bit big for my desk. On the other hand...hm. How does 1080p stuff look on 1440p monitors? Is it noticably ugly? Because I know that I can't run all my stuff at 1440p, that's for sure, and video content (at least what I watch) is 1080 as well. 27" might be a better option in terms of upscaling, I assume?

    e: I'm on a 24" 16:10 monitor, so it has to be bigger than that. New(ish) 16:10s are hard to come by, and generally too pricey for what you get. Staying at 24" would be the worst though, cause I'd miss the space

    1440p would be sensible as an upgrade path, and is popular for (PC) gaming (since 1440p television support is a joke). But 1080p content? Eeeh...depends? It's an mathematical fact that true UHD displays (2160p, in other words) unsurprisingly handle 1080p content better than 1440p, but that doesn't you'd necessarily notice (I suppose, generally, depending on the nature of the content it's going to look kind of "muddy" with poorer sub-pixel detail, the same way 1440p content looks on a 2160p display).

    It's tough to recommend buying another 1080p display, unless you wanted to pair it with an existing one. Given the surprisingly small price difference for middle-range office monitors (like LG's line), I think you'd be a lot better off getting a 2160p monitor for 1080p content. But I am assuming the price difference is small just because UHD monitors have been around for this many years (when I picked up my 27" LG UHD monitor, the QHD model was barely $50 cheaper, if that). You wouldn't be using the native resolution there either, but at least the image would look better.

    Or you could run stuff at 720p, which would look "better" (assuming 1440p is not doable).

    Huh, that's interesting. I'll look around for budget 4k monitors then. If 1080p content would look muddier, isn't that a downgrade in a sense? Man, monitors got weird

    "Muddier" is just the easiest way to describe it. A better way would be "You are not going to get 1:1 pixel mapping of a 1080p image on a 1440p monitor." That is basically simple, brutally unforgiving map.

    You will get 1:1 on a 2160p monitor....just quadrupled? There will be four pixels for every one there was normally. It will not be any more system demanding. It won't look any better either (on a larger display, it will look less sharp, but on the same size display you'll probably be challenged to notice unless you can actually compare it to the same content at 2160p, which will look literally four times as sharp). Granted, this is assuming the monitor doesn't have total crap scaling, which maybe I shouldn't be taking for granted.

    No amount of scaling is going to fix 1080p to 1440p, as far as I know. It's a completely different issue. It's possible you won't notice. Or you will. This is one of the reasons I recommend seeing monitors in person if possible.

    I don't think it will actually be a "downgrade" because, after all, you could still play a 1080p game, for example, in windowed mode (assuming that's supported, which isn't 100% the case), and have 1:1 pixel mapping. You'll just be using about half the screen's area. On the bare bones utility side, the price difference between LG (or Samsung's or Dell's) 60 hz QHD monitors and 60 hz UHD monitors is pretty small. This isn't considering 144 hz QHD displays, which are more expensive than either (but, after all, have +60hz refresh rates...but if you're playing a game at 1080p, I'm going to assume you're not breaking 60 FPS often or at all).

    Basically: 4K downscales to 1080p good. 1440p downscales to 1080p bad. There are people who swear by native pixel counts for LCD panels (unlike in the CRT age). And 720p is an option (even though gaming in 720p is basically going halfway back to the previous console generation) for 1440p.

    Your options aren't many. You can play the game at 1440p (which....is about as commonly supported at 2160p, but not as commonly supported as 1080p), or you can play at 720p, which is basically going back 15 years in terms of technology.

    But yes, 1080p games on a 1440p generally look terrible. Avoid doing so, please.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • DixonDixon Screwed...possibly doomed CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited July 31
    I would say HDR all the way, it just always makes the games look better, the color and lighting is just leagues ahead. The only game where it was weird was destiny because there are really dark spots. But overall the game still looked better, just made mp harder.

    I play on my 65" with 1080p, 120hz and HDR1000 and wouldn't go back. I'll go 1440/4k once I can get 120 and HDR. My 2070 though I don't think can handle [email protected]

    The interesting thing will be DLSS. The 2.0 version looks amazing and gives quite a boost. I hope this just becomes a standard.

    When playing games without HDR, they just so look overly saturated and it seems unnatural. RDR2 with HDR is downright beautiful.

    Dixon on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Unless you play games with bad HDR implementations, which outnumber good HDR implementations.

    It basically looks terrible in Hitman 2, to the point where everyone turns it off on PC. I wonder how it is on console.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx antifa anti american nazi socialist terrorist fascist alien warmonger Registered User regular
    edited July 31
    HDR is a must have.

    Eventually the implementations will be good, but right now it is still finding its footing.

    Even games without HDR will look better on an HDR monitor, and thats largely because a lot of monitors implement some kind of native brightness range beyond normal 100-200 nit screens.

    I don't remember the last PC game that didn't support 1440p. The last one I can even think of got modded to support it anyway (Dark Souls 1). Any game built on a modern 3D engine will have theoretically unlimited resolution support.

    If you're looking at an XX80 series card then 4k will probably be fine, but you'll always get better performance out of 1440p. Honestly on a 27" monitor, 2k to 4k is the embodiment of diminishing returns.

    jungleroomx on
    Make. Time.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited July 31
    I don't remember the last PC game that didn't support 1440p. The last one I can even think of got modded to support it anyway (Dark Souls 1). Any game built on a modern 3D engine will have theoretically unlimited resolution support.

    Indeed. I can't remember the last game that didn't support 2160p--except the original PC release of Dark Souls, which didn't go over 1080p.

    Oblivion supports 2160p. Oblivion. The game that came out in 2006. All games support 4K, and if they don't, they won't support 1440p either.

    Ultrawidescreen is a separate matter, as anyone with a 21:9 monitor will attest.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Given how long I use monitors for me it makes sense to invest in tech that isn't super useful right now but probably will be in the future. To the point where I'd underbuild a computer to get monitor features I think will be beneficial in the long term (so based on the upcoming consoles 4k, HDR, free sync/gsync).

    Its hard to hit a constant 60fps at 4k, but it won't always be.

    HDR implementation isn't universal or even universally good in the games that implement it, but it probably will be at some point.

    Even if it takes a year or two I'm probably going to use my monitor for a decade or more unless it breaks or there's a drastic change in tech and we're all using holotables or ocular implants or something.

    camo_sig2.png
    SynthesisjungleroomxBullhead
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I know that's why I bought a my BenQ EW3280U.

    When I bought my first UHD monitor a couple years back (when I bought my GTX 1080, later replaced by a GTX 1080 Ti courtesy of BitCoin speculation), HDR implementation was embryonic on PC (as oppose to what it is now), and there were probably just two or three models worth a damn that were actually HDR600 capable.

    I'm sad I couldn't get HDR1000, but admittedly, my television is capable of that and more (really, console HDR implementation is so much better than what we get on PC, it's laughable and sad). The EW3280U's color reproduction was, obviously, more important than HDR, but having good HDR emulation is basically a must-have for PC HDR.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Are hdr1000 monitors even available for under $1.5k? From what I understand, the response rates monitors need mean that it's a lot more difficult and expensive compared to tvs

    steam_sig.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited July 31
    Spoit wrote: »
    Are hdr1000 monitors even available for under $1.5k? From what I understand, the response rates monitors need mean that it's a lot more difficult and expensive compared to tvs

    They definitely are, but with caveats: they aren't 4K (so 27" in 1440p, which if that's what you're looking for, is fine for your needs). Or their color reproduction or other aspects of them kind of suck. I gave serious thought to buying a Philips Momentum, which is a 43" monitor with HDR1000 that's basically a small-er LED TV for ~$800US, which is close to what I paid for my BenQ. Unfortunately, the evenness of the brightness/dimming zones was pretty bad compared to "good" monitors. Which if that doesn't matter to you, hey, that's a pretty good gigantic monitor. Other monitors take various other shortcuts wherever they can.

    Unsurprisingly, HDR1000 is only a measure of one aspect of a monitor, and not overall quality. It's also sufficiently buzz-wordy enough that many companies market monitors that do HDR1000--by the measurement of it--and nothing else.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • LD50LD50 Registered User regular
    Here's my take:

    HDR is way better than 4k for the following reason: Non HDR panels are shit.
    The HDR400 and HDR600 are just specifications for minimum performance.

    Non HDR monitor spec is 8 bits per channel of color data. Many non HDR panels don't actually support the full 8 bit gamut and instead only support 6 bpc and achieve 8 via dithering. Even if you're not going to use HDR, just having the monitor comply to the HDR600 spec requires 8 bpc support baseline with 10 bpc minimum, meaning better color reproduction without visible banding in gradients.
    Higher max brightness, and higher contrast at max brightness, for the same reasons.
    Better baseline contrast ratios. Pretty much all monitors achieve their rated contrast ratio via 'dynamic' contrast on top of whatever the panel's actual contrast ratio is. HDR spec requires that the monitor have a non-dynamic contrast ratio of at least
    Basically, if monitor COULD handle 8bpc, high brightness, and good contrast it probably would be HDR, as 'supporting' HDR only requires meeting the spec.

    emp123
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited July 31
    So, basically, don't ever buy a TN or VA panel. :lol:

    (And we don't talk about OLED for a reason.)

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    Did the OP at some point in the past have some baseline builds? Maybe years ago?

    Anyway I'm looking to get two fairly basic PC's for my kids to use for online school for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what the general "minimum" accepted build is these days. I don't expect them to be used for actual gaming (except Minecraft) but I need them to be decent enough otherwise that they're not chugging with a lot of streaming/internet/app use.

    Is there a point where prebuilt off the shelf PC's from best buy or whatever become a better option than building it yourself?

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • LD50LD50 Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    So, basically, don't ever buy a TN or VA panel. :lol:

    (And we don't talk about OLED for a reason.)

    Don't ever buy a TN panel. Samsung's new VA panels are better than IPS.

    jungleroomx
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    These absolutes being thrown around are over the top. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a 1440p monitor. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a TN panel.

  • LD50LD50 Registered User regular
    edited August 1
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    These absolutes being thrown around are over the top. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a 1440p monitor. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a TN panel.

    TN panels never make sense.

    Edit: except for cost. If you need a monitor on the cheap, TN is the way to go.

    LD50 on
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    LD50 wrote: »
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    These absolutes being thrown around are over the top. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a 1440p monitor. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a TN panel.

    TN panels never make sense.

    Edit: except for cost. If you need a monitor on the cheap, TN is the way to go.

    Sometimes, for some people...

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    LD50 wrote: »
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    These absolutes being thrown around are over the top. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a 1440p monitor. Sometimes for some people it makes sense to get a TN panel.

    TN panels never make sense.

    Edit: except for cost. If you need a monitor on the cheap, TN is the way to go.

    Sometimes, for some people...

    "Sometimes" is for the monitor thread. Here, we deal in absolutes.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    LD50V1mDrovekJebus314
  • MulletudeMulletude Registered User regular
    Did the OP at some point in the past have some baseline builds? Maybe years ago?

    Anyway I'm looking to get two fairly basic PC's for my kids to use for online school for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what the general "minimum" accepted build is these days. I don't expect them to be used for actual gaming (except Minecraft) but I need them to be decent enough otherwise that they're not chugging with a lot of streaming/internet/app use.

    Is there a point where prebuilt off the shelf PC's from best buy or whatever become a better option than building it yourself?

    If the only game they might play would be minecraft, a couple chromebooks might be just fine for that type of use.

    Also, Ryzen cpu's that end with a g have built in graphics. Not sure on Intel. That could be a way to keep a build inexpensive.

    XBL-Dug Danger WiiU-DugDanger Steam-http://steamcommunity.com/id/DugDanger/
    V1m
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    If I want the best hdr monitor then I buy a 48 inch lg OLED, mount it on the wall, and buy a cheap monitor and mount it below it.

  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    Mulletude wrote: »
    Did the OP at some point in the past have some baseline builds? Maybe years ago?

    Anyway I'm looking to get two fairly basic PC's for my kids to use for online school for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what the general "minimum" accepted build is these days. I don't expect them to be used for actual gaming (except Minecraft) but I need them to be decent enough otherwise that they're not chugging with a lot of streaming/internet/app use.

    Is there a point where prebuilt off the shelf PC's from best buy or whatever become a better option than building it yourself?

    If the only game they might play would be minecraft, a couple chromebooks might be just fine for that type of use.

    Also, Ryzen cpu's that end with a g have built in graphics. Not sure on Intel. That could be a way to keep a build inexpensive.

    I would agree with chromebook. They make great basic web browsing machines, and play minecraft through the android/google play version.

    As long as there isn’t some Windows app that you have to have, it works fine.

    As for Intel CPU’s with a GPU, literally every model of intel CPU except those that have a “f” in the model number, so a Core i7 10700k has a GPU and the Core i7 10700KF does not.

    Most of the CPU’s intel sells have the GPU, the “F” variants are more rare.

    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    The Ryzen APUs absolutely thrash the Intel versions in regards to actual 3D performance though. A Zen2 APU has about the equivalent 3D power of a 1030GTX.

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    It really depends on the use case. As Greg Salazar recently noted in a video, Intel CPU's with the iGPU enabled still absolutely trounce AMD in Premier Pro, even at higher core counts, even with a top end dGPU installed. This is down to Premier being optimized heavily for the Intel platform, but it's still a very real, very wide, gap.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    I should have specified I meant from a gaming perspective. I fairly doubt his kids are heavy Premier Pro users.

  • SoundsPlushSoundsPlush yup, back. Registered User regular
    wunderbar wrote: »
    As for Intel CPU’s with a GPU, literally every model of intel CPU except those that have a “f” in the model number, so a Core i7 10700k has a GPU and the Core i7 10700KF does not.

    Man, I hate Intel SKUs.
    Did the OP at some point in the past have some baseline builds? Maybe years ago?

    You might be looking for something like this: https://www.logicalincrements.com/#!/

    s7Imn5J.png
  • MugsleyMugsley Registered User regular
    @The Dude With Herpes I bought used/refurbed Dell laptops for both my kids (9 and 11).

    Once I got the computers in, I swapped the hard drives for SSDs and added RAM where I could.

    One has an integrated camera and one doesn't, so keep that in mind if your kids need to do Zoom the next school year.


    If you want desktops, you can probably build something new with a 2400G for about $300 per box (give or take). If you're willing to work through Craigslist or FB Marketplace, you could get something for a bit cheaper.

  • DyasAlureDyasAlure SeattleRegistered User regular
    could someone help me find a cost effective computer that can play civ VI? I want the basic run, not top of line stuff. a pre built is fine. hp, dell, ?. I am open to ideas, but end goal is just to play civ 6. I have keyboard, mouse, monitor. thanks in advance.

    My%20Steam.png?psid=1My%20Twitch%20-%20Mass%20Effect.png?psid=1=1My%20Youtube.png?psid=1
  • MulletudeMulletude Registered User regular
    DyasAlure wrote: »
    could someone help me find a cost effective computer that can play civ VI? I want the basic run, not top of line stuff. a pre built is fine. hp, dell, ?. I am open to ideas, but end goal is just to play civ 6. I have keyboard, mouse, monitor. thanks in advance.

    Recommended specs are an i5 and 8gb of ram, so that's a good start point for shopping.

    What would you like to spend max?

    XBL-Dug Danger WiiU-DugDanger Steam-http://steamcommunity.com/id/DugDanger/
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited August 2
    More specifically, the reccomended specs were a 2.5 GHz i5 (so, maybe from 2009).

    Edit: Based on the reccomended specs here: https://www.pcgamer.com/you-wont-need-a-burly-system-to-run-civilization-6/

    And the GPU comparison here: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-hd-7970.c296

    The first system with a GPU that doesn't have less performance than that recommendation on https://www.logicalincrements.com/ is the Modest build, upgraded to 8GB of RAM. That has plenty of CPU and GPU performance in excess of the recommended specs, and the Entry build below it is significantly less powerful than reccomended.

    If you have more room in your budget (and aren't interested in more graphically intensive games/resolutions) then an SSD would definitely be a upgrade worth looking in to.

    Tarantio on
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    DyasAlure wrote: »
    could someone help me find a cost effective computer that can play civ VI? I want the basic run, not top of line stuff. a pre built is fine. hp, dell, ?. I am open to ideas, but end goal is just to play civ 6. I have keyboard, mouse, monitor. thanks in advance.

    Civ VI runs on my XPS13 ultrabook. Not super well, but it runs. Anything with a Core i5 or Ryzen 5 will do the trick, and you don’t need a metric ton of GPU to have a decent experience. Just have at least 8GB of ram. I’d look for something with an i5, GTX 1650, and 8GB of ram as a baseline.

    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    Mulletude wrote: »
    Did the OP at some point in the past have some baseline builds? Maybe years ago?

    Anyway I'm looking to get two fairly basic PC's for my kids to use for online school for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what the general "minimum" accepted build is these days. I don't expect them to be used for actual gaming (except Minecraft) but I need them to be decent enough otherwise that they're not chugging with a lot of streaming/internet/app use.

    Is there a point where prebuilt off the shelf PC's from best buy or whatever become a better option than building it yourself?

    If the only game they might play would be minecraft, a couple chromebooks might be just fine for that type of use.

    Also, Ryzen cpu's that end with a g have built in graphics. Not sure on Intel. That could be a way to keep a build inexpensive.

    I assume they do web apps like zoom and such?
    Mugsley wrote: »
    @The Dude With Herpes I bought used/refurbed Dell laptops for both my kids (9 and 11).

    Once I got the computers in, I swapped the hard drives for SSDs and added RAM where I could.

    One has an integrated camera and one doesn't, so keep that in mind if your kids need to do Zoom the next school year.


    If you want desktops, you can probably build something new with a 2400G for about $300 per box (give or take). If you're willing to work through Craigslist or FB Marketplace, you could get something for a bit cheaper.

    Seems like the 3400g replaced the 2400? I'm not seeing the 2400g in many places, and it seems to be more expensive than the 3400. Or maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

    Im not too keen on classified sort of purchasing, so I can just go through normal retail channels and pay a bit more.

    What mobo chipset should I be looking at for that cpu?

    If I went with a mini itx board, a case/cpu combo can probably be pretty low wattage and still be fine, since it's not powering much, right?

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • MulletudeMulletude Registered User regular
    Mulletude wrote: »
    Did the OP at some point in the past have some baseline builds? Maybe years ago?

    Anyway I'm looking to get two fairly basic PC's for my kids to use for online school for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what the general "minimum" accepted build is these days. I don't expect them to be used for actual gaming (except Minecraft) but I need them to be decent enough otherwise that they're not chugging with a lot of streaming/internet/app use.

    Is there a point where prebuilt off the shelf PC's from best buy or whatever become a better option than building it yourself?

    If the only game they might play would be minecraft, a couple chromebooks might be just fine for that type of use.

    Also, Ryzen cpu's that end with a g have built in graphics. Not sure on Intel. That could be a way to keep a build inexpensive.

    I assume they do web apps like zoom and such?
    Mugsley wrote: »
    @The Dude With Herpes I bought used/refurbed Dell laptops for both my kids (9 and 11).

    Once I got the computers in, I swapped the hard drives for SSDs and added RAM where I could.

    One has an integrated camera and one doesn't, so keep that in mind if your kids need to do Zoom the next school year.


    If you want desktops, you can probably build something new with a 2400G for about $300 per box (give or take). If you're willing to work through Craigslist or FB Marketplace, you could get something for a bit cheaper.

    Seems like the 3400g replaced the 2400? I'm not seeing the 2400g in many places, and it seems to be more expensive than the 3400. Or maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

    Im not too keen on classified sort of purchasing, so I can just go through normal retail channels and pay a bit more.

    What mobo chipset should I be looking at for that cpu?

    If I went with a mini itx board, a case/cpu combo can probably be pretty low wattage and still be fine, since it's not powering much, right?

    Zoom for sure, my son's school handed out chromebooks last year after covid hit and they used Zoom for their daily teacher meetings.

    XBL-Dug Danger WiiU-DugDanger Steam-http://steamcommunity.com/id/DugDanger/
  • MugsleyMugsley Registered User regular
    Fractal Meshify C TG for $80 US + $5 shipping at Newegg (with code)

    https://slickdeals.net/f/14239940-fractal-design-meshify-c-black-high-airflow-compact-dark-tint-tempered-glass-mid-tower-case-newegg-86

    I have the non-TG version and can easily recommend this for anyone putting a build together.

    LucascraftBouwsT
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Is there an exact date for when Nvidia is planning on announcing their new cards?

  • CormacCormac Registered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Is there an exact date for when Nvidia is planning on announcing their new cards?

    Nope. Likely some time this Fall though.

    Steam: Gridlynk | PSN: Gridlynk | FFXIV: Jarvellis Mika
    jungleroomx
  • wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    Mulletude wrote: »
    Did the OP at some point in the past have some baseline builds? Maybe years ago?

    Anyway I'm looking to get two fairly basic PC's for my kids to use for online school for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what the general "minimum" accepted build is these days. I don't expect them to be used for actual gaming (except Minecraft) but I need them to be decent enough otherwise that they're not chugging with a lot of streaming/internet/app use.

    Is there a point where prebuilt off the shelf PC's from best buy or whatever become a better option than building it yourself?

    If the only game they might play would be minecraft, a couple chromebooks might be just fine for that type of use.

    Also, Ryzen cpu's that end with a g have built in graphics. Not sure on Intel. That could be a way to keep a build inexpensive.

    I assume they do web apps like zoom and such?
    Mugsley wrote: »
    @The Dude With Herpes I bought used/refurbed Dell laptops for both my kids (9 and 11).

    Once I got the computers in, I swapped the hard drives for SSDs and added RAM where I could.

    One has an integrated camera and one doesn't, so keep that in mind if your kids need to do Zoom the next school year.


    If you want desktops, you can probably build something new with a 2400G for about $300 per box (give or take). If you're willing to work through Craigslist or FB Marketplace, you could get something for a bit cheaper.

    Seems like the 3400g replaced the 2400? I'm not seeing the 2400g in many places, and it seems to be more expensive than the 3400. Or maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

    Im not too keen on classified sort of purchasing, so I can just go through normal retail channels and pay a bit more.

    What mobo chipset should I be looking at for that cpu?

    If I went with a mini itx board, a case/cpu combo can probably be pretty low wattage and still be fine, since it's not powering much, right?

    Chrombooks will run anything on the web. The only things that won't run on a chromebook are windows specific apps. So if there's some Windows app/tool that you have to have, then it won't work. But if all you need is google docs, online tools, etc, then it works.

    Chromebooks also support the Play store's android apps, which is the vector to get minecraft. That fills some of the functionality gap, though android support on Chrome OS is.... spotty. Some apps work well, others are small phone size windows that don't integrate well. Games that support landscape apparently do work well though, like Minecraft.

    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
Sign In or Register to comment.