My (possibly disastrous) attempt to build a PC

yeah, ok, fair enough.

still though, wouldn't you wanna play bigger units quantities???

Yes, I would, with more players then myself and AI... aaand we are stealing the thread.

@tatsujb The haswell i3 is usually 90% speed of haswell i5. That is because in haswell Intel added an additional alu per core, meaning there is far more spare resources for ht to make use of.

I'll have to find link again, but with 4 threads active, the bottom i5 was actually outrun by the top i3 in a few titles, everything else it was close with a narrow win for the i5.

As far as pa is concerned, the i3 is quad core so it will run the offline server just fine. What's somewhat depressing for me is that haswell i3 is categorically faster than my fx 8320 across the board, maybe baring a couple of heavily threaded rendering aps, and even then it's within striking distance.

x'D that's what off topic is there for! : D

this is nothing new, the same applies for i5 and i7

that's why I hate these names and find them to just be misleading com for PC-building rookies. or just people in general that aren't top kek.

it's unfair to them. they get trapped by stuff like "HDMI" "4K" "USB3", so on...

it's what I was originally saying 7 posts earlier :

by that you must understand atom is really awfull and any fourth gen cpus are very generally quite good.

Oh yeah I fully agree. What really annoys me is when Intel and amd mix brands. For example you can now get atom parts branded Celeron and Pentium, making it a minefield. Also the various 'u' versions of core cpus are much weaker than the standard.

AMD was simpler until last year, as for a good (and safe) option for a entry gaming laptop you could point people to anything branded A8 or A10, then in their wisdom they've released the A8 and A10 'micro' parts which are low power tablet components that are showing up in laptops (when they really aren't intended for that) and offer only a fraction of the performance of the full size parts with the same brand name.

I'm not sure who is worse either, amd / Intel for their confusing branding, or the oems for sticking these parts in full size laptops.

You know is bad when the laptop I purchased 5 years ago at 800 is still better from a performance view point than most new laptops that cost less than about 600... We appear to be getting less for our money now, and they wonder why people buy tablets instead?!

they all do it.

one cannot but notice it's really a money-siphon

All right, finally home!

What kind of motherboard, CPU, GPU, RAM, drives, case and cooling you want really depend on what you're intended purpose is. Earlier you said that you're building this to game, primarily FPS games, and probably not ancient ones. Please keep in mind that I'm trying to cover as much as I can without telling you what to get because this is your computer, not mine, and especially because I've made enough mistakes with various components that I might be able to help you avoid some.

I've seen a lot of posts about the GPU/CPU, but a good motherboard is very important as well. Think of your needs for the immediate build and what you plan to upgrade further down the line. You should look for PCI-e Gen 3 x16, at least one slot, two if you plan to SLI/CrossFire. You'll want at least 1 SATA III (6GB/s), preferably more. If you plan to RAID or add more drives in the future, getting fast SATA ports will help, especially if you use SSDs or separate drives for your games and OS. If you plan to add a sound card (which in my experience is totally a waste of money, even with a pro card and $800 stereo sound system) then you'll need to make sure you have the appropriately placed PCI/PCI-e x1 slots. I suggest making sure the board has 1 or more Front Panel USB 3.0 connectors and probably some USB 3.0 built into the back panel. Check to see if the RAM you're looking at is compatible (usually for speed, though some boards can't handle certain models at all). Finally, if you plan to overclock, VRM heatsinks are valuable, if you don't well, they still are, but you won't likely ever need them. Pretty much any reputable manufacturer will do; I prefer Gigabyte since I'm comfortable with their BIOS set ups but I hate their sound/USB (VIA Technologies) drivers. My 'boss' only uses ASUS boards and they're great too, and I imagine the same goes for MSI, ASRock (my friend loves his) and so on, just make sure to do your research and plan for the future.

CPUs are interesting. The two major brands have very different strengths and weaknesses and even the different models, generations and socket types can be very different. I have messed with (Intel) C2D e5200 and e2200, i3-3240, i5-3570K, C2Q Q6700, i7-3770K and very briefly an i7-3930K which was the only one I have never gamed with. From what research I've done, an i7 is just 50% more money than the i5, and not 50% better for gaming since most games can't make efficient use of hyper threaded cores, and you likely won't need the extra physics performance (the i7 being about 40% better than the i5 in my testing). Not to mention the average FPS is less than 0.1 different between the two in gaming benchmarking (3DMark Firestrike). In fact, I imagine that even the i3 wouldn't lag too far behind given the same hardware except that it's limited to 2 cores that are hyper threaded (still better than no hyper threaded, however). If you're leaning Intel, I would suggest a 4 core CPU rather than a 2 core hyper threaded or a 4 core hyper threaded.
If you are considering AMD, you'll find that per cycle per core, AMD is significantly less efficient at calculations (in LinPack calculations they are way slower, for example), which is a factor as to why they are often clocked higher than Intel and users lean towards more cores. Conveniently, they're also way cheaper than Intel. They're also quite impressive at physics calculations because you'll have more cores at your disposal, even with their limitations. AMD CPUs also tend to run at higher voltages, thus using up more wattage and producing more heat, though the amount extra really isn't much to cry over, I'd say. If you're leaning towards AMD, I'd recommend a 6 or (probably a better choice) an 8 core CPU.
Intel owns the single threaded performance, but AMD does have the core advantage for multi-threaded performance and AMD generally cheaper. Also note that AMD motherboards feel like they have more features by default, I feel that their chipsets are actually better, especially considering the price, though it could differ by manufacturer.

As for the GPUs, I think that while they're easier than motherboards, the many manufactures make them way more confusing than choosing a CPU. Obviously, most of your budget is likely headed for the GPU if you're making a gaming computer and want to play at fairly high quality settings without lagging. Once again, AMD is the underdog, though that's if you ignore Intel (which I imagine you will!). AMD cards often are less powerful than Nvidia (GeForce) cards and tend to run hotter. GeForce is the current holder of the most powerful single GPU cards around, though it isn't vastly ahead like it was with the Titans. AMD tended to have more vRAM than GeForce, but at the resolutions they're mostly used (and what you are probably aiming for) it didn't really turn the tide. I don't know how much GPUs are in Europe, but find one in your price range and compare the opposite brand's similarly priced card to it. Don't forget to look up flaws, such as the one about the 970 pointed out above, so that you can understand what it is and whether it is relevant to your gaming. Also take note of the amount of vRAM the model has and try to compare similar statistics like pixel fill rate, texture fill rate memory bandwidth/bus width, ROPs/TMUs, shaders and DirectX/OpenGL/OpenCL support. Nvidia CUDA cores and AMD Stream Processors are not really comparable, just as a warning.
Also keep in mind the numerous manufactures and research everything you can think of about the brands you are looking at. They tend to have different clock speeds and boost speeds and sometimes they have different memory speeds. Every now and then, different models do or don't support multi-GPU configurations so look out for that if you plan to add a second card in the future. Also don't forget to look at how cool they run, how quiet and whether their custom heatsinks have any defects. (Falling apart, bad fans, unintentional noises, etc)

RAM is so much simpler than the rest and is usually less important unless you really go to the bottom of the barrel. People tend to want to buy the fastest possible RAM (in MHz) but many fail to realize that RAM speed depends on it's rated speed, it's CAS latency (primarily) and a few others. The lower the ratio of CAS to the speed is, the better, e.g. 2133MHz CAS 10 is not as good as 1600MHz CAS 7, while 2133MHz CAS 9 is better than the one with CAS 10. I've primarily used 3 brands of memory, Corsair, G.Skill and Crucial, though I've touched on some Kingston. From what I've read, the G.Skill is probably the best if you don't plan on overclocking it, at least for the price. I think Corsair may actually have better chips, and the rate them a bit lower, leaving more OC headroom, but I doubt you'll be interested in that.

For drives, both HDD/SSD/SSHD and cd/dvd, there's not much to say really. I use Seagate because they were cheaper than Western Digital and I'd say get the cheapest cd/dvd drive you can, unless you plan to use BluRay or use it very often for fairly large file writing. If you decide on a SSHD, keep in mind that the solid state part of them is only for caching, so you'll get better performance in general, but not by a huge amount, and also keep in mind that as the total capacity increases, the solid state cache does not (at least with Seagate models, though it could have changed). If you want a SSD, well, the rock. You're boot and loading times will be short but your capacity will be small, not to mention that you have a potentially smaller lifespan with them because of how the memory works. I use Kingston HyperX, their best, and one of my friends uses Intel, another uses Corsair. Mine have the lowest life expectancy, but they were cheaper and I think they'll outlive the ability of my PC. I've heard Samsung (and OCZ, now owned by Samsung) is good as well.

Cases are very subjective for the most part. Obviously you'll want the right size, likely ATX, with plenty of drive bays and good airflow. I've used Corsair and Cooler master cases pretty exclusively, but my friend (and others on these forums) love NZXT cases. My biggest suggestion is to make sure your GPU will fit, your CPU heatsink will fit and that you'll have plenty of drive bays and fan mount locations. Mine have like 7 or so, though I don't use side mounts on one because my heatsink (and previous GPU) is too tall to fit even a 12.5mm fan. If you want good fans, I use Corsair fans, they have a 2 year warranty, come in high static pressure (good for heatsinks or drive bays) and low static pressure (good if they're not being blocked by much) as well as high speed and low speed variants. They also have 120mm and 140mm options. I avoid Cooler Master fans as I've had bad luck with almost every one I've used on my cases, though the ones at my school seem to be fine. Noctua also has legendary fans, but I've found that they are over-rated and UGLY.

(10K character limit, jeez. Very coincidentally, I put the word "continuing" in just the perfect spot!)

Continuing from there: CPU cooling. Stock heatsinks on most CPUs are pretty crappy, usually just barely able to keep below thermal limits on sustained high loads, so it might be a good move to purchase an aftermarket heatsink. I use the Noctua NH-D14 with modded Corsair fans, a Corsair H60 with dual Corsair SP120s, a Cooler Master Hyper 212+ with dual SP120s and a Cooler Master Hyper 512 with the fans reversed (so the logo is correct). Unsurprisingly, the biggest heatsink runs the coolest (the Noctua) with the Hyper 212+ and H60 about equal, perhaps leaning towards the Hyper 212+. Pretty much all over the internet, the Cooler Master Hyper 212+ is the best bang for your buck heatsink, it is only around $30 USD and comes with a decent fan, and it isn't much worse than my $90 DD14 (<25% I believe). One of the benefits to the aftermarket heatsink is that they usually have better internal airflow since they'll help channel air to the back of the case rather than just blow it onto the motherboard.

Finally, the PSU. I have pretty much no actual suggestions here since it depends on your other components, but make sure you have around 50-100 watts extra, just in case. Make a point to look at the amperage on the 12v rail (single rail is best), but it's different depending on the wattage. I highly recommend a modular PSU if you can, semi-modular will suffice. I use Corsair (re-branded Seasonic) and I think it works great, though if you go Corsair avoid at all costs the CX builder series. It's quite likely to need to be replaced within just a few years. I've found that Cooler Master PSUs (also Seasonic, if I'm not mistaken) don't seem to fit my cases quite as well as XFX or Corsair, but I think it may just be that specific model, and once it's installed it works just fine.

That is just about all that I can think of to tell you really, and it's a wall by the looks of it! I hope it helps and if I wasn't clear about anything or you'd like some more advice or have questions about components that I may have experience with, feel free to give me something to do!

Additional (PS?): if you'd like, I can do my best to give physics scores via 3dmark and single-threaded/multi-threaded performance with a Linpack test on some CPUs I have access to.

Oh! Keep in mind that I don't know everything, particularly about the newest parts, so if I've made a mistake, let me know. Not to mention that doing you're own research is truly the best way to decide on what's best.

@websterx01 That bit about gpu's is somewhat misleading.

AMD have the uncontested worlds fastest single card (r9 295x2), the nvidia counter (titan z) is notably slower.

AMD also offer the best value (read faster) card at most price points. saying they're less powerful isn't really fair. Nvidia have one gpu faster than amd, the gtx 980. Everything below that you get more for your money with amd. the other thing to keep in mind is amd cards generally have wider memory interfaces (rather than amount) compared to nvidia, meaning they fair better at high resolutions, or with multiple screens. Ok you may only have a 1080p screen now, but better screens are coming down in price and frankly I think the cuts nvidia have made are going to bite then in the ***

Well, it's actually a dual GPU on a single PCB, so I am correct that Nvidia has the fastest single GPU, and you are correct about the R9 295x2 monstrosity being the fastest single PCB in the world.

That used to be the case for the 7000's, but as it is now, the gap is much smaller between Nvidia and AMD for >1080p gaming. GeForce cards finally have a decent amount of vRAM, though the interface is likely to remain smaller, but the biggest problem is that the cards don't really perform well at high resolutions when you're running just one unless you sacrifice quality settings across the board.

I had thought that I made it clear that AMD is definitely cheaper, but it also has more shortcomings which is a solid part of the reason as to why they are cheaper. I also didn't mention that AMD's drivers are awful until like 3 or so months after initial release and are more prone to crashes than even beta Nvidia drivers. I also don't really know what his GPU price range is so I tried to stay generic and that's hard to do with so many different options and varieties. I use AMD for all my low-mid range cards and Nvidia for my high end graphics because they tend to be better towards the top. AMD also has way more options in mid-low unlike GeForce which takes forever to release their cards marked under $200 (like the 750/950 and below). Because AMD has more options, they are often a better value, but at the top end I've found Nvidia to stay ahead, even if AMD is catching up.

Something sad to consider about AMD, they only have like 25% (28.6 exactly) or so of the GPU market according to Steam (if I remember correctly), similarly to Intel. They are further along in the CPU market, but they are still under 50% (25.57% exactly) there too.

Edit: Don't forget that it's really tough to truly compare performance because many games are build with one GPU brand or another in mind. Metro performs better on Nvidia because it was designed for it, and it's one of the most common FPS tests I've seen to compare GPUs.

The drivers argument is rather out of date... I moved from nvidia to amd recently and I've not noticed any reduction in stability. Also where are you getting this notion that nvidia is faster? They have a total of 1 card that outpaces amds top end (the 980). Everything below that trade blows depending on title as you say, with amd consistently offering more fps for the money. The one advantage nvidia had right now is power efficiency on the 9xx cards, however that is rather over stated when you actually look at reviews (nvidia using a different metric to define board power). Ironically up until the release of the gtx 980 the perf / w champ card was the r9 270 (at 1080p, on the desktop)

If anything nvidias main skill is marketing, like apple they've managed to create an atmosphere where people perceive them to be somehow better, ahead, higher quality.... I personally prefer to buy based on how much performance I can get for my money. Last gen the gtx 560 was the sweet spot, this time round I picked up a r9 280 as it was crazy value at £140 including 3 games.

Obviously you need to look at reviews, then look at the prices of stuff in the shop. as for market share, remember those figures are dgpu only. When you bring integrated into the picture, amd ship way more gpu silicon than nvidia (and Intel even more so). Then you've got to consider amd are in all the current consoles, where I'd add most fps games hail from.

I suppose from that perspective its a good job nvidia are the 'leaders' in dgpu, they don't have much else.

@websterx01 Dayum! After reading all that I'm actually too tired to do my own research now Maybe tomorrow. But thanks for taking the time to break the character limit in my thread.
Also, funnily enough, the game I'll likely still be playing most is actually an ancient fps game (sadly no gpu or cpu will get me to that skill level ), which is one of the main reasons I want to ensure backwards compatibility

For backwards capatability, don't get an intel, then again aren't they only integrated gpus?

For SMNC, intel would be nice. Noticed your sig, unless that's sarcasm.

You never know what the future holds, so get the best you can now for the cheapest you can now. Because otherwise, why spend money at all if you currently can play all your games? If you have no new game needing new computing power, save off on buying a new computer until a new game comes out, you need a new computer then, and the junk you were going to buy to throw into a compute drops 30-80 bucks a piece and/or more powerful stuff drops in price and becomes "reasonable" now.

Well there are a couple of new games I really want to play. Reflex, the spiritual successor to the game I linked for example, or overwatch which kinda reminds me of good ol' smnc (A gorilla named Winston? Srsly?). My sig isn't really sarcastic, I still kinda want to play a couple of games once I have upgraded, just to see how the game feels with a good framerate and "oneframethreadlag" (or whatever that command was) disabled.

reflex is a bit more demanding. not much.

Quake however will run on your watch, it doesn't need backwards compatibility, it runs fine on premium hardware.

Reflex is pretty damn demanding.. xD

16GB of RAM, Quad core (Octo with hyper threading) 2.3GHz at least (can't remember the number atm) and a nice graphics card and I still couldn't run it full settings!

Those ******* blood splatter decals stack so badly and just lag everything if you get too close. XD

That was my suspicion already. I'd also like to be able to run it at constant 120 fps (although probably using an ugly but practical config).

Edit:

I'm not talking about quake live (which, amazingly, has some framerate issues on my current system) btw. The game in question (quake3 + cpma) might require some backwards compatibility I'm afraid.

@teju__ no no, I'm talking about quake three because I have a friend that plays it. apparently it runs fine on plenty of different hardware

Well, drivers have improved for sure, but I still had to take 3-4 tries just to successfully install Omega APU drivers, and I had to do it twice now. I also had many driver crashes and AMD's drivers are very sensitive to system instabilities--far more than Nvida's are. I know on my 6770 and 7770 there haven't been any crashes, but they are fairly old now, so the drivers have matured plenty. But hey, if AMD got their stuff together on standard GPU drivers, then that's awesome!

Also from what I've seen, the 980 beats all AMD cards. From there, 970 still is recommended more than the r9 290X but is very close. The R9 290 fills a gap between in pricing, but the 970 is still better. The 960 has it's own price point, well above the R9 280X even though the 280X is recommended above it. The 760 Ti is probably better but it also costs 50% more. This is the current trend between the R9 series and GTX 900 series GPUs. Nvidia is bad at covering a lot of ground, but where they do cover, especially comparing at a price point, they do win in many of the situations. AMD has closed the gap from the last time I considered buying, so that's nice, but Nvidia definitely holds a lead.

Actually, does anybody even own a 960/960 Ti? It seems like a really bad purchase, the 280X being both better and cheaper. You could maybe even get a 290 at the Ti's asking price. What are you doing Nvidia?

Edit: If I'm correct, AMD does hold the best performance for the money high end GPU, though everything about like a 960 is actually a bad buy if you really care about the ratio. I think the 750 or the 750 Ti is like the #1 card (and I believe the similarly price AMD is right beside it as well) to get from a price to performance standpoint.

Once again, this is AMD covering as much ground as it can, and making headway because of it I'd say. They have everything from high end down to slightly better than my phone and their pricing is often better. (Go AMD! I do like them by the way, even if it seems like I'm bashing them slightly )

@teju__ Computers are probably my favourite thing, especially hardware. And overclocking CPUs! I actually didn't cover everything that I had thought up for that, but it ended up with me forgetting and taking a 2 hour break in the middle of writing that because of real life plans, so I didn't touch on OC stuff or drivers really. I also had something else to say about RAM afterwards but I've totally forgotten now.