Computer Building vs Buying

[Barberakb]

From what I have seen, it depends on what type of gaming you are wanting to do.
If it is just casual gaming then you are better off spending $600-800 and buying your computer.

If it is more serious gaming and you want to run all the new games at max graphics you should build one.
But would probably need at least 1K

 

[wadesworld]

Unless you're someone actually skilled in computer engineering, building a computer is a waste of time/effort in my opinion. I'm not saying it's hard because it's actually fairly easy, but if you don't know what you're actually doing and what each component is designed to do, you won't know what to do if something goes wrong. A lot of $500-$700 pc's these days are actually really decent for gaming and photoshop work. Also, Mac's are always inferior to PC's as far as gaming is concerned. The graphics cards on all current macs are pretty mediocre compared to what PC manufactuers put in their machines.

Depends on the system. My MacBook Pro runs the games my kids and I play together FAR better than their PC laptops. Why? Because my MacBook Pro has a quality graphics chip in it and their PC laptops have crappy chips (despite having discrete GPU chips, not integrated graphics).

With that said, if one is looking to build a desktop system primarily for gaming, there's no question the way to go is the PC. The most powerful graphics cards come out for the PC first and of course there's more selection of games. Doesn't bother me because I have more games on my Mac than I have time to play, but for those who are hardcore PC gamers, a desktop PC is definitely the way to go.

 

[Billygoat]

Dan,

I tried to send you a PM but not sure it worked. If you can PM me your email addy, I can email you a spreadsheet of suggested parts.

 

[Canadan]

Dan,

I tried to send you a PM but not sure it worked. If you can PM me your email addy, I can email you a spreadsheet of suggested parts.

I got the PM bg, just haven't had a chance to respond yet. Another crazy weekend in the Canadan household. I'll send one shortly.

 

[baldguy]

Unless you're someone actually skilled in computer engineering, building a computer is a waste of time/effort in my opinion. I'm not saying it's hard because it's actually fairly easy, but if you don't know what you're actually doing and what each component is designed to do, you won't know what to do if something goes wrong. A lot of $500-$700 pc's these days are actually really decent for gaming and photoshop work. Also, Mac's are always inferior to PC's as far as gaming is concerned. The graphics cards on all current macs are pretty mediocre compared to what PC manufactuers put in their machines.

sorry, but this just isn't true. It doesn't take any real skill in computer engineering to build a desktop computer. The parts can be bought and assembled by just about anyone with some free time and access to youtube. I have nearly 20 years of experience as a systems engineer and I'm not necessarily any better at putting together a desktop than anyone else. the computers we all have in our houses are simply not very complicated.

Also, it's a very common but completely incorrect misconception that PCs are superior to anything else when it comes to gaming. That's the result of some very skilled marketing, but it simply isn't true. It is just a case of
"perception breeds reality" - Microsoft insists on doing everything different from the rest of the computing world, and they have garnered the lion's share of the desktop market purely through good marketing. Because they do things so much differently, it makes life as a developer very difficult if that developer wants to build a game for both PC and other platforms. So, many of them just end up building for PC - that's where they are most likely to make money. Anyone with any real experience or skill in the area will tell you that OpenGL is just as good, even better at many things... but DirectX is a necessity to keep the paychecks coming in. Yes, more games are available for PCs, but it's not because PCs are any better at playing games.

Oh and re: graphics cards... I don't know where you got that idea. Good graphics cards are available on any platform.

to the OP's question: build versus buy is something that I struggle with every day professionally. Different realms, but the same concepts apply. Generally, building is always cheaper. There are rare cases of bulk-buy economies-of-scale, but if you really look at the quality of the components in those cases you will see that the deal might not be that great. Buying has its benefits, too. Time saved, less risk taken, and one company to go to when something goes wrong. If you're the type who likes to tinker, then by all means - build it yourself. It can be fun and rewarding, if you're into that sort of hobby. If you'd prefer to spend your time simply using the machine... buying might be a better option. With a max $700 budget, a very good build can be accomplished that would meet the needs of most people. Especially if you're recycling any old parts (case, power supply, etc).

Example: my most recent build is an 8-core 4.4GHz AMD with 32G RAM and 8 drives (yes, 8) for a total of just over 21T raw storage. All told, it cost about $1700 and it will be my workhorse for at least 3 years. It would have cost me over $4k to buy a server with similar specs and similar components from Dell. I was able to save that much money for about 1 day's effort driving around to a few stores and putting everything together. Well worth it to me... but it's in my home. If this was destined for a customer's datacenter, I would have bought the Dell.

 

[deuce]

I have built a couple of my home desktop computers. However, to be honest ... nowadays it's pretty darn cheap to get a decent spec'd computer and not have to sink in the time to order, ship, and build from scratch. I'll still tweak here and there to save money (bump up HD's and RAM) but that's about it.

 

[milehighgolfer]

Just sorted through all the parts for a new build for my son at my house. We built one last year that is at his mom's house and it has run flawlessly.

Good gaming rig for $900: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/rwilson555/saved/86ZzK8

 

[wadesworld]

Oh and re: graphics cards... I don't know where you got that idea. Good graphics cards are available on any platform.

Baldguy, I'm as big a Mac advocate as you'll find. However, having met directly with manufacturer's reps at NVidia and what was then ATI, I can tell you the PC side is where the bread is buttered. The card manufacturers make their cards for the PC first, and then their Mac support teams create the drivers for OS X. The Mac is always a little behind the curve because of this. Additionally, because there's only one model of Mac that will take an external video card, getting the highest-end video card in a Mac requires a quite pricey system.

Now, are iMacs and MacBook Pro's quite capable of excellent game performance? Absolutely. Will it not matter one bit for most consumers? Absolutely. And is it a lot more costly to build a really high-end PC gaming system than people think? True as well. When you really put top-notch components in, you'll be getting into high prices too. Just because a buddy crammed the cheapest parts he could find into the cheapest case he could find and called it a "gaming system" doesn't make it so.

But, with all that said, if your goal is to stay on top of the latest and greatest graphics cards and computer game releases, the PC really is the only choice. For someone like me, I enjoy using my Mac FAR too much to give it up just so I can play the latest shooter - which is available on XBox anyhow. As I said, earlier, I have far more games on my Mac than I have time to play, so it just isn't that big a consideration for me. Enjoying using my machine and the awesomeness of having Unix for my day job far outweighs any lure of PC gaming for me.

 

[baldguy]

[/COLOR]

Baldguy, I'm as big a Mac advocate as you'll find. However, having met directly with manufacturer's reps at NVidia and what was then ATI, I can tell you the PC side is where the bread is buttered. The card manufacturers make their cards for the PC first, and then their Mac support teams create the drivers for OS X. The Mac is always a little behind the curve because of this. Additionally, because there's only one model of Mac that will take an external video card, getting the highest-end video card in a Mac requires a quite pricey system.

Now, are iMacs and MacBook Pro's quite capable of excellent game performance? Absolutely. Will it not matter one bit for most consumers? Absolutely. And is it a lot more costly to build a really high-end PC gaming system than people think? True as well. When you really put top-notch components in, you'll be getting into high prices too. Just because a buddy crammed the cheapest parts he could find into the cheapest case he could find and called it a "gaming system" doesn't make it so.

But, with all that said, if your goal is to stay on top of the latest and greatest graphics cards and computer game releases, the PC really is the only choice. For someone like me, I enjoy using my Mac FAR too much to give it up just so I can play the latest shooter - which is available on XBox anyhow. As I said, earlier, I have far more games on my Mac than I have time to play, so it just isn't that big a consideration for me. Enjoying using my machine and the awesomeness of having Unix for my day job far outweighs any lure of PC gaming for me.

everything you said is correct, but a couple of things: 1) There are more platforms than just PC and Mac 2) There are very, very few games that require the bleeding edge of graphics processing. Even those games will run fine on N-1 or even N-2 generation cards with very slightly reduced quality in textures, shading, etc.

The way apple builds their computers requires very stable and proven hardware combinations. Their market demands quality and stability more than it demands the bleeding edge of performance. They only use high-quality stuff and so yes, their products tend to cost a bit more than what you can get in the low-end market. The same components with any other operating system is generally the same price or even more, since with at least one software company you are often paying for the OS in addition to the hardware. Given the level of stability they demand from their hardware vendors, the bleeding edge of graphics cards just isn't something you will likely find in an Apple product any time soon. But again... nobody really needs the bleeding edge for anything except the geek factor. Without benchmarking tools, the average human cannot tell the difference most of the time.

BTW, I wouldn't call myself an advocate for any particular vendor. I personally don't allow windows on my home network because I'm a security specialist and the inherent vulnerability of the windows OS is more risk than I want to take. Mac wised up years ago and went to a Unix-based OS which is significantly more secure (though certainly not impenetrable). Everything I have here at home is either linux or Unix (OSX included). Oh... and I play games just fine

edit: FWIW, my 3-year old 27" imac came with a pretty solid 2G ATI (AMD) 6970 video card, and intel i7, 16G DDR3, and an SSD. performance is pretty outstanding, especially given its age. I know it does everything I want it to without complaining. Including every game I've thrown at it on the highest settings. And it's never once had a virus, randomly crashed, or had to be rebuilt

 

[Canadan]

Just sorted through all the parts for a new build for my son at my house. We built one last year that is at his mom's house and it has run flawlessly.

Good gaming rig for $900: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/rwilson555/saved/86ZzK8

That looks like a really solid rig Randy!

 

[Canadan]

So I decided to check out one of the computer building sites, Xidax, to see what comparatively it would cost me to have them build my machine vs me piecing one together. They have a lifetime guarantee on their builds which seems pretty unheard of, and it only takes about two weeks to get the PC in hand.

Here's the setup I built on there:

Motherboard: MSI Z97M Gaming LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
CPU: Intel Core i5-4690 Haswell Quad-Core 3.5GHz LGA 1150 84W Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4600
Memory: CorsairVengeance Pro Series — 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3 DRAM 1866MHz C9 Memory Kit
Power: CORSAIR RM Series RM850 850W ATX12V v2.31 and EPS 2.92 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Optical: ASUS 24X DVD-RW Combo
Graphics: AMD Radeon R7 260X Graphics Card - 2GB GDDR5
HDD:Western Digital Black Series 1TB
SSD: Xidax performance 128GB
Cooling: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - CPU Cooler with 120 mm PWM Fan
OS: Windows 8.1 64 bit

Prices out to 1,500 on their site (shipped), and individual parts (I believe it includes shipping) prices out to 1,220 on newegg etc. So I'm paying an extra 300 for the build, a heck of a warranty, CPU and GPU paste, custom overclocking to optimize settings -- And a couple free games.

For all you gurus of computery awesomeness, how does this look? I want it to handle everything I can throw at it, between games, heavy usage on things like video editing, photoshopping, and standard computing like web surfing, emailing, music playing, etc.

 

[Mulligan9111]

So I decided to check out one of the computer building sites, Xidax, to see what comparatively it would cost me to have them build my machine vs me piecing one together. They have a lifetime guarantee on their builds which seems pretty unheard of, and it only takes about two weeks to get the PC in hand.

Here's the setup I built on there:

Motherboard: MSI Z97M Gaming LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
CPU: Intel Core i5-4690 Haswell Quad-Core 3.5GHz LGA 1150 84W Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4600
Memory: CorsairVengeance Pro Series — 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3 DRAM 1866MHz C9 Memory Kit
Power: CORSAIR RM Series RM850 850W ATX12V v2.31 and EPS 2.92 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Optical: ASUS 24X DVD-RW Combo
Graphics: AMD Radeon R7 260X Graphics Card - 2GB GDDR5
HDD:Western Digital Black Series 1TB
SSD: Xidax performance 128GB
Cooling: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - CPU Cooler with 120 mm PWM Fan
OS: Windows 8.1 64 bit

Prices out to 1,500 on their site (shipped), and individual parts (I believe it includes shipping) prices out to 1,220 on newegg etc. So I'm paying an extra 300 for the build, a heck of a warranty, CPU and GPU paste, custom overclocking to optimize settings -- And a couple free games.

For all you gurus of computery awesomeness, how does this look? I want it to handle everything I can throw at it, between games, heavy usage on things like video editing, photoshopping, and standard computing like web surfing, emailing, music playing, etc.

If possible, I'd bump the GPU up a little bit. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202046&cm_re=R7_280-_-14-202-046-_-Product Would give you a lot better performance and longevity for only an extra $120-150. I just think you might be a little disappointed with the 260x after dropping $1500 on a new machine. Just my opinion though.

 

[Canadan]

Any particular reason for the sapphire over the GeForce GTX 750ti or 760?

 

[Mulligan9111]

Any particular reason for the sapphire over the GeForce GTX 750ti or 760?

I was just sticking with your AMD family since you had picked out the 260x. If you are looking at Nvidia as well, then the 770 GTX would be the one I'd look at and can be had for right around $320. As you know games these days are very graphic card intense, so I just don't think you want to skimp on a graphics card for your build, especially with the money you are looking to spend.

Here is a link which when you scroll down about half way you can see the comparisons between the performance of the R9 280 and the 770GTX: http://www.overclockers.com/his-r9-280-iceqx2-review

 

[Canadan]

I appreciate the thoughts Mulligan.

I'm not sure how much I am willing to spend yet, just trying to get a baseline on buying built or building, and whether the difference is worth me doing it myself.

 

[Mulligan9111]

I appreciate the thoughts Mulligan.

I'm not sure how much I am willing to spend yet, just trying to get a baseline on buying built or building, and whether the difference is worth me doing it myself.

I have to say, that lifetime warranty they offer is just crazy good. If it were me I don't think I could pass up that type of warranty, especially if they are overclocking for you.

 

[rtparty]

My old build just crapped out the other night so I'm looking at upgrading as well right now.

My build is not nearly as nice as yours Dan but I don't need any gaming or anything. I only play the old command and conquer series when I get on the computer. My setup will be under $400 for a baseline setup. Pre built would probably be around $600 or so. Building is super easy and plenty of THPers on here know their stuff.

 

[Canadan]

I kind of drove up the components on that build to see just how far up I could go without losing my mind. I built another in their smaller X2 build and it came out to be 1,200 from Xidax vs 950 to build. I sacrificed a few things though... 8GB instead of 16GB of ram, i3 vs i5, graphics card. I think when push comes to shove, I'll spend the extra couple hundred for the next tier rather than trying to go bare minimum.

That's pretty darn competitive as compared to parting it out (I searched on PCPartPicker for prices, and I think they pull the most competitive prices).

 

[rtparty]

Definitely go up on the processor. IME the i5 is way, way better than the i3.

I stick to AMD for my own stuff but that's just preference. I have no facts or stats.

What sites are you using to find the best prices? Newegg has some nice bundles right now

 

[Canadan]

Definitely go up on the processor. IME the i5 is way, way better than the i3.

I stick to AMD for my own stuff but that's just preference. I have no facts or stats.

What sites are you using to find the best prices? Newegg has some nice bundles right now

PCPartPicker pulls from a lot of different sites, but it seems like their go to for best price ends up being newegg in most scenarios.

I've never really had a preference on things, although I constantly hear that intel's processor build is unrivaled.

 

[Mulligan9111]

PCPartPicker pulls from a lot of different sites, but it seems like their go to for best price ends up being newegg in most scenarios.

I've never really had a preference on things, although I constantly hear that intel's processor build is unrivaled.

Ever since multi-core processing Intel has been king in my opinion.

 

[Miller Time]

Sounds like one hell of a setup, Dan. Enjoy it!

 

[baldguy]

I'd definitely go with more CPU. it's generally not a big jump in price for a big increase in performance. I'd also stay away from MSI for the motherboard, but that's just personal preference from years back. I had so many MSI boards fail that I swore them off and never looked back. ASUS is great. AS Rock is even better - they use better components for nearly everything. You can get a really, really good AS Rock motherboard with a very fast 8-core AMD processor for less than $300.

edit: the ASRock 990FX series of motherboard is a very strong board. I use these in all of my server builds even though they are built for gaming. I currently have an Extreme4 and an Extreme9 in service and both have been flawless with serious feature sets. The Extreme9: http://www.microcenter.com/product/424751/ASRock_990FX_Extreme9_AM3-AM3_ATX_AMD_, with a 4.4GHz 8-core AMD is a steal, imo.

 

[rtparty]

Ever since multi-core processing Intel has been king in my opinion.

I don't want to get off topic but why do you say that?

Honest, sincere question. I'm not loyal to either really and haven't stayed on top of any of this stuff for a few years

 

[Mulligan9111]

I don't want to get off topic but why do you say that?

Honest, sincere question. I'm not loyal to either really and haven't stayed on top of any of this stuff for a few years

Honestly it's just based on performance benchmarks ever since Intel came out with their dual-core processors. Intel processors handle multi-tasking (multi-thread computing) a lot better than AMD's processors. In my opinion, and based on those performance benchmarks, AMD is still quite a ways away from catching up with Intel.