I guess I read the 1440p for 144hz. The BD-Drive was from the build he posted originally. I went with the CM case to save some cash but still give him ample space and cooling. There is even a 120mm fan just for the HDD. As far as the noise level of the Velociraptor goes, you only really hear it when it initially spins up. Plus, it will be in a case with a bunch of case fans. How much do you really think you will hear it?
Here is the modified list. The BenQ was the cheapest quality 1400p display I could get. It is wide screen, IPS, LED Backlit, and has a 4ms response time.
I feel like this needs a bit of clarification, despite what people are saying SSDs are not an utter necessity, I would however wait for M.2. Ultra drives (which are 4x faster) to drop in price, which should happened when more companies release their own versions.
Also people the advice on the 980s is very bad, the 980s are very bad from a value proposition, and not that much better in performance than a 970 or a 290. You would be objectively better off, from both a performance and value perspective to go for multiple GTX 970s, and I don't think it is very realistic to expect a single graphics card to last 4-5 years. And I would still recommend upgrading every 2nd generation.
Similarly regarding that CPU, the 4790k does not make much sense from a value perspective, going from that to the superior x99 platform is only a $200 increase on ~$650 and you get 50% more performance, and a much better platform. It is likely that there will not be much in the way of a meaningfull upgrade from that for 2.5-3 years at that price level or below on the intel side.
The i7 is still preferable because your going to have this build for 4 to 5 years. If you were building this computer 2 years ago I would have recommended an i5 because that's what I did and it worked out great. But games become more demanding and high resolution makes games more demanding. With such a beast setup you mean to tell me you aren't going to play games like bf4, The witcher 3, Batman Arkham knight and what ever else the next 5 years will bring. The i7 will help keep you in that range. When I was building my pc 2 years ago I was under a very similar mind set I just want this computer for gaming and nothing else all my movies and music and tv shows they wont be on this computer its just for games. Since then my tastes changed I like video editing and programming and recording game play all im saying is 5 years is a long time and tastes change the i7 will help to accommodate that.
Fair point, arma 3 maybe. That has got to be the most CPU intensive game out there, I can play it on singleplayer fine, but once I hit multiplayer I get >20FPS CPU 100% max. It's pretty stupid, can't see why it should run so bad. Just poorly written I guess...
That's not a $200 each difference 2 way 290x, $840 3 way 970, $915
My argument had nothing to do with the comparison in processing power, but entirely about whether or not 4GB is enough for ultra HD 1440p and 4K gaming, and it's not. Sure, most games aren't actually that demanding. But if you're going to be spending this much money... why the hell not play demanding games? if you aren't, dont' buy hardware that won't be fully utilized. I would just recommend 2 980s for 1440p/4k, but seeing as how they are even more expensive than the 290x...
The new SSDs sound nice, but, again, will the difference matter to people? Basic SSD is already nice. I'll have to see what comes out in the near future to say.
And to address the massive white text... WHY just WHY would you EVER go to a higher resolution just to turn down the graphics settings??? This is counter productive! It isn't just about pixels. Go play a game at 1440p with max textures, shaders, etc and then go play low settings at 4k. I'd take the 1440p any day.
Yeah but he is in canada.... Which sucks... Also decent 290s can be had around $240 occasionally in states, making the r9 290x 8GB 175% of the cost of a 290.... Its pretty exhorbanant pricing.. If you look at the benchmarks the 4GB is enough to run a demanding game like Crysis 3 at 4K. I question why certain console ports use so much VRAM when they look nearly the same on all platforms, and look inferior to games like crysis.
And yeah, just turn down the texture resoloution on those games, it's just one setting, and only an issue for two console ports, and honestly I doubt it will make much of a difference, and chances are he won't even play those games. I mean clearly more VRAM is better but not at 175% of the cost of the 4GB variants...
And yeah, the M.2 Ultra SSDs are 4x as fast, so I guess it makes everything load, much, much faster. And yeah can leave other people to add more feedback.
It runs 'poorly' because the engine simulates EVERYTHING. Literally. Every bullet actually travels from the barrel until it falls out of the sky or hits something. Same with mortar and artillery. Every bullet fired and so on.
I can play single player, but as soon as I join a server, and we are litterally all sitting in spawn doing nothing, I get 20fps. Its pretty silly, performance should be same on singleplayer and multiplayer. Its just badly written.... I wouldn't buy a cpu for one game.
"...performance should be same on singleplayer and multiplayer." This tells me you don't understand the added processes that go into multiplayer. Generally speaking, multiplayer will always have worse performance than single player. That's a given. There are exceptions, like Starcraft 2 (assuming 1 person isn't lagging the whole game via internet connection rather than hardware strength) but those cases are because of game design and engine. You can't expect the same performance.
Actually it should be better, in regards to much of that CPU stuff (the ai and everything) being offloaded to the server. Yet I get CPU pegged at 100% sitting in a server with everyone idling in spawn. There is no reason for that sort of usage. Its just broken dude, no need to defend it, its just completely broken, that is all..
The ARMA franchise has always been a poorly written game which uses far more resources than it should, considering how good it looks....
I can't say much in terms of ARMA, as I've never cared to play it or read about it, but in general you will have worse performance in multiplayer than single. High % usage on CPU or GPU is very common "for no reason" in games. Hawken, for example, runs my GPU usage at 80-95% regardless of if I'm in the main menu, in a waiting lobby, or in the actual game (and my FPS is always 70+). I don't know why this is, not every game is like that, I'm just saying it doesn't matter. That's not to say it's a good thing or that it should be that way. Starcraft 2 doesn't do that, for a counter example. If ARMA is a particularly badly coded game, then... tough luck, I guess, unless it's some kind of hardware or software problem on your end, in which case you can troubleshoot things here on the forums. But, generally, don't ever expect multiplayer performance to be as good as single player unless it's a multiplayer based game with single player tacked on (CoD/BF/etc).
You fail to understand the difference between a simulator and an arcade game. Whe I said EVERYTHING, I meant EVERYTHING. It is a simulation combined with a little bit of arcade in order to make it appealing to the general masses. Just because you are sitting at spawn doing nothing does not mean nothing is going on and that nothing is being processed by your CPU. And NO everything is not offloaded to the Server.
For example, if you are sitting at spawn and someone sets off a nuke all the way across the map no where near you......your computer still processes the fact a Nuke went off. Because everything is rendered and processed by every machine connected to the server, aka Arma splits the load across all devices connected to the server kinda like a render farm. The problem is that not every machine on the render farm is identical so you get shitty perf. Plus, yyou shouldnt take the same settings you have for singleplayer and apply them to multiplayer if you are getting shit frames. I tweak my settings specifically for Multiplayer. I turn AA off for the most part. I have standard FXAA. And AA set to 2x. AF to 16X or Ultra. Most settings are on Ultra except for things like PIP which is set to standard. And clouds which are at standard.
I have a 4770k and a 7970ghz and arma 3 is on an ssd. I connect to servers with very low ping and I rarely have issues playing. I also tweak all the hidden settings.
Have you read the PC Perspective article I wrote where I interviewed Bohemia Interactive? Arma 3 Article
Unless you're overclocking I'd back down the cooler. Also do you NEED 16GB of ram? I'd back that off to 8GB, Same with the PSU a 650W/750W will be enough for SLI'd 980s I'd probably get a 750, but if you're seriously stuck on getting a second the 890 may not be a bad choice. and then put that saved money into a nice 120/250GB ssd I'd recommend Samsung, Kingston (only the hyperX), Adata, & Crucial
This is what I would do for that kind of money: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/BbvjQ7 (it is based off your original because I thought it would be better if I kept the case you used)
Part list: CPU: AMD FX-8370 (Please don't kill me for going AMD) GPU: AMD R9-290x Crossfire (More than you will ever need) RAM: 16GB 2133MHz (16GB may be unnecessary) PSU: 1050w 80+ Gold HyperX 120GB SSD
Notes: I really think that an i7 processor is completely unnecessary, even the AMD one in this build is very good. This build is a little cheaper than the one you suggested.