Desktop in a rig

I dont game anymore since I get caught up and lose track of the hours, I get to the point where I look at the clock "oh sheet 2 hours before im supposed to wake up"

 

I like to try and get at least 6 hours a night sleep, prefer more but normally does not happen often.

 

i have the free version of win7. it's starting to get outdated. no updates what so ever. msft has it rigged for the first update that sends it into reboot mode.

 

And for hex-core processors, and for 64GB of RAM, and for 3-way video cards.

Kinda. The $2K laptops on that page are "good" gamers. A "very good" gaming laptop is like this or this (if you configure with two 980's on that second link.) For unimpeachable reasoning I always go back to what is most graphically demanding when buying or building a laptop or desktop at that moment in time. And so, right now Crysis 3, Assasin's Creed Unity, Watchdogs, etc would be good representations of that high water mark. And 50 or 60 FPS or greater in Ultra settings on a high watermark game means that it'll be 3 or 4 years before games come out that start forcing you into the "medium" or below region. The 980M is arguably the best mobile graphics, but even their manufacturers say that two of them in SLI will "slightly" outperform one of the same 980's in a desktop version. A single 980M card in a laptop is going to be unplayable frame rates in Ultra on some games.

So it's somewhat tied to what the buyer or builder's goal verses budget is. Not really a matter of "good or better or great" adjectives as much as it is "what is my high water mark for this system and how to I build to get to that."

The original post question and following comments included lots of "desktop" and some "4K "and high res monitor style of statements. And since no laptop with the same model of components (at a higher cost) will outperform the desktop box with the same desktop version of those components, one must always decide between portability and power. Since portability and power requirements are a MAJOR factor in a truck - laptops are most often the compromise for good reasons. (interesting side article that Alienware is going to offer an amplifier box to try to close the gap though)

Well this one is relative to what you "throw at it really." And please forgive mentioning Crysis 3 again (but it's such a cool graphics performance tester.) Throw that one at it on Ultra and it'll look like your guy has a neuro-twitching disorder. (related benchmark chart.)

However, that is actually a really solid build at home there. And it still has good legs if you ever throw something at it that does bug you just adding a new video card. If it is doing what you need it to, then keep it that way. I'm still running an i7-920 processor (OC'd to 4 Ghz) and until it becomes the bottleneck I'll keep it.

For those who made it through this post and still want to geek on some of the larger comparison charts used here: one / another / and one with lots of laptop graphics breeds for gaming tested...

 

back in the day, i've always used amd. back then, my 2.0 would run circles around intel's 2.6.

haven't kept up with processors to know the difference in specs anymore.

 

AMD is fine for a desktop. I wouldn't own another in a laptop, too hot.

 

I have not kept up either but I was always an AMD man, every computer including my current laptop is AMD

 

Actually, you were not asking the correct question because you are not comparing apples-to-apples. The way you phrased it is similar to saying "which is faster, a Ford Focus or a Chevy Camaro?" To think about your question in those terms, the correct question is "which is faster, a Ford Mustang or a Chevy Camaro?" You see what I am saying? Your AMD processor build has the Focus in it. There is almost a $400 price difference between your processors. In your two build links, the Intel one would smoke the AMD one.

SO, now what? You need to look at comparable cars that are in the same class and then look at the prices. Is one of them crazy-priced when the other around the same speed is much more reasonably priced?

So, since the video cards and the Ram will go in with either processor, then you need to think of it like this:

1. Which processor do I want to build around? (research and decide speed verses cores verses dollars and pick one)
2. Then Google around to see what motherboard is mentioned most pared with that processor. Almost always, you will see the same two or three motherboards mentioned over and over. SOME Amazon reviews will be helpful, and MOST NewEgg reviews will also help with that too. But for a gaming rig make sure it has at least 2 PCI Express 3.0 video slots (8X or higher on both slots)
3. Once you know the processor and motherboard, then buy the correct RAM for it. Most Ram is very forgiving in either one, but there will definitely be a recommended speed rating for any given motherboard. As far as the amount, 8 Gb will game fine. 16Gb will give you some additional wiggle room but not likely raise your frame rates in 99% of games over the 8 gb, and 32 Gb is overkill for a gaming rig (at the time I am writing this) in my opinion. 32Gb is much more of a consideration though if you plan to do massive video rendering (not to be confused with game video!) So with that logic, I would get 16gb of the fastest rated speed RAM for the motherboard you choose.

Finally, the AMD verses Intel question. This one starts arguements like the Apple verses Microsoft question...

I worked at one of those two companies for 11 years. And for 9 of those years I was building systems using processors from the other one. So what I am saying is that I am not "brand biased" but I am performance-per-dollar biased! For many years AMD embraced the enthusiast folks by unlocking the "speed and voltage knobs" on their processors and allowing you to crank up the speed of an AMD to match or beat an Intel processor that costed twice as much or more. Intel let this go for quite a while before they started to see a more significant part of the enthusiast market shrink, and then they changed their ways a few years back. (click this link if you want to see how that share went.)

So if you fast-forward to now, BOTH companies are making consumer (i.e. locked) and enthusiast (i.e. unlocked and embracing high performance) versions of their processors. So as a gamer you look typically in the enthusiast realm. (just look for words like "unlocked" and "overclocking" and "head-room")

At any given moment in time there will be a couple of juicy nuggets. Those are processors from either brand that have a reasonable price and lots of head-room. I mentioned earlier that I am still running and old Intel i7-920 to this day. This was one of those nuggets at the time. It was stock clocked at 2.67 Ghz and I've been running it at 4 Ghz for the last 5 years. The Intel 4690K is one such example right now. But if you are NOT going to overclock, then go with the performance at stock speeds like a 4790K. (remember that I am referring to performance-per-dollar in this part. If dollars are not an issue, then spend more to get higher clocks and more cores.) Personally I feel that Intel has more nuggets out right now.

How to research all of these with the hundreds of choices:
1. Tom's Charts
2. CPU Boss (put in any two processors and compare) Love this site
3. GPU Boss (put in any two graphics cards and compare) Did I mention I love this site?

ps. Earlier there was discussion about mobile graphics power verses desktop graphics power. Here is a link comparing the mobile version of the GTX-980 to the same model in a desktop - Link) And again - the more expensive laptops are good gamers and CERTAINLY easier to have in most trucks. But you can't break the laws of physics when it comes to 300 watts available power and 750 watts. You better have a good APU or a lot of batteries though!

disclaimer: I am not associated with either of those "boss" sites mentioned. That is a coincidence.