Need Help please

I am trying to buy my first computer (mainly for gaming) and was wondering if the HP Envy desktop was worth the money for the product.

 

Hi Drifter and welcome to Majorgeeks.

HP Envy is an entire line of computers with several desktop models. You will need to be specific.

That said, when looking for a gaming machine, you need good graphics, preferably a card, lots of RAM (at least 8Gb with a dual channel motherboard, 6Gb with a triple), a decent hard drive, CPU, good PSU, and lots of large (120mm or larger) case fan options.

 

hey drifter
i have been a pc gamer for a long time now and in my experience if you want to pc game you really should stay away from most manufactured pc's ... not to say that some aren't good but i find they are very mediocre and usually any prebuilt that can run games so they look like a game console are outrageously priced.

i recommend if you have a friend that can build pc's you should talk to them and see if they can throw your computer components together for you.

if you are going to just buy a pre built definitely make sure you don't skimp on the video
card, and make sure there is plenty of cooling.

good luck and i hope everything works out for you

 

Some specs you should be looking for, for your gaming pc:

minimum of 8 GB RAM, recommend at least 16 GB.

intel i7 recommended, possible the 4770 (k preferrably) or at least 3770 k

GPU - check nvidia's site - http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_family.html
the better gpu you can buy, higher up on their list, the better.
you can get the gtx 640 with 2 GB GDDR RAM for $140

A Good Sound Card - a good game is nothing without good sound to back up the high quality graphics. Suggestions;
Creative Sound Blaster ZX SBX PCIE Gaming Sound Card with Audio Control Module SB1506
Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D THX PCIE Fatal1ty Champion Sound Card SB1354
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD Internal Sound Card with THX SB1270

1200 or 1000 Watt power supply.
you can calculate your power needs with this calculator; keep in mind future needs and upgrades;
http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

any other goodies you might need like built in wifi/wifi card, gigabit ethernet, blu-ray burner for backing up your crap, USB 3.0, Primary SSD (120 GB min for OS and programs) or SSHD and secondary HDD (2 TB min) or secondary can be added later.

mobo - must match cpu socket - and usually, no information for bundled systems like from Dell or HP;
for 4770k;
Asus Sabertooth Z87 LGA 1150 Motherboard
Asus Z87-Deluxe DDR3 1600 LGA 1150 Motherboard
ASUS MAXIMUS VI HERO DDR3 1600 LGA 1150 Motherboard
MSI Computer Corp. Motherboard ATX DDR3 1333 LGA 1150 Motherboards Z87-GD65 GAMING
Gigabyte Z87 LGA 1150 CrossFireX HDMI DVI ATX Motherboard (GA-Z87-D3HP)
for 3770;
ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
AS Rock LGA1155 DDR3 SATA3 USB3.0 Quad CrossFireX and Quad SLI A GbE ATX Motherboard Z77 EXTREME4
GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard

 

There's a "prebuilt" gamer with the minimum specs mentioned by Blujay for $842.27 at Amazon.com with free shipping. It doesn't come with a monitor though.

 

Unless you are going with dual (or tri) graphics cards, I think 1000+ watt PSU is way overkill. But do agree 100% with using the eXtreme PSU Calculator Lite to determine your minimum and recommended power supply unit (PSU) requirements. Plan ahead and plug in all the hardware you think you might have in 2 or 3 years (extra drives, bigger or 2nd video card, more RAM, etc.). Be sure to read and heed the notes at the bottom of the calculator page. I recommend setting Capacitor Aging to 10% and both TDP and system load to 100%. These steps ensure the supply has adequate head room for stress free (and perhaps quieter) operation, as well as future hardware demands.

And for sure, get a good PSU from a reputable maker and that it is 80 PLUS certified. I would MUCH rather have a quality 750W 80+ Certified PSU from Corsair or Antec than a 1000W generic.

That said, NO HARM is done buying a PSU that is way overkill for your system - except to your budget and wallet. The computer components will draw from the PSU only what it needs. So if the components need 450W (which is a lot), they will draw 450W regardless if the PSU is a 550W PSU, or a 1200W PSU. And the PSU will draw from the wall 450W, plus another ~10 to 30% due to PSU inefficiencies, again regardless the PSU capacity.

 

I agree. But sometimes, overkill can be a good thing, especially if you don't know what you're going to do with your PC... upgrade wise in the coming years. If you have a clear cut plan, that's a different story. A PC that is underpowered is a hellova thing! I'm sure you know well.

If you do have a clear cut plan, or can over estimate and it comes under a set power rating, then go for that rating.

Digerati, you really are a Major Geek, you taught me something very useful about PSUs, the 80+ rating. My PSU is 80 Plus Bronze, but I didn't know that that was significant!

I agree!

Just wanted to re-emphasis this. Even if your PSU is rated higher than the power usage of your PC, it wouldn't draw more power than needed from your supply.

 

It is very significant for several reasons. First, all power supplies "naturally" have a very non-linear (not flat) output efficiencies. That is, using a 600W supply as an example, it may be 85% efficient outputting at 450W, but have lousy efficiency (70%) at 100, 250, or 500W.

A 85% efficient PSU supplying a computer that draws 400W will draw 460W from the wall. But that same computer with a cheap PSU and a typical 70% efficiency will draw 520W from the wall. That extra 60W can amount to a couple $100/per year of wasted energy - energy wasted in the form of heat. Heat that must be expelled from the facility - perhaps via more expensive electric bills.

To achieve 80 Plus certification, a PSU must remain efficient when idle, when maxed out, and several points in between. This level of linear efficiency is technically hard to achieve and can only be done through good design and quality (tight tolerances) parts. This is how even PSU makers with less than stellar reputations (Rosewill comes to mind) can produce some quality PSUs - they have to or else the PSU will not pass the 80+ certification tests.

Right. The motherboard, RAM, graphics, drives, and CPU will only draw from the PSU what they need, and no more. But from the wall, the PSU will draw what the computer needs, plus what the PSU wastes in the form of heat due to PSU inefficiencies.

And FTR, PSUs will always be inefficient devices. 85% is considered excellent. But it still means 15w out of every 100w produced is wasted.

And yes, buying an underpowered PSU would be bad. You want headroom (even if no future upgrades will be coming) so the PSU will not be working full bore all the time. The better supplies are fully capable of that, but their fans will likely be spinning at full speed - and maximum loudness. And fan noise is not something most people enjoy listening to.

 

That 'prebuilt gamer' is less well-balanced than even Bluejays suggestions, the GT 620 is in no way a gaming card: http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GT+620/review

Getting the balance 'right' is important for both pocket book and performance.

Most modern games don't use HyperThreading or more than 3-4GB of RAM, so an i5/8GB system with an HD 7850/GTX 660 (or higher) would be a much better 'starter' or middle-ground gaming system with up to a 1920x1200 monitor.

For lower budgets, the above graphics cards still perform very well in a 3Ghz+ Ivy Bridge Pentium or i3-based system.

 

I find that Futuremark link unrealistic and unfair comparing a $44 card to those costing $100s more, and even nearly a $1000 more. They should compare it with comparable cards. The next card in the list cost over twice as much as the GT620.

One of my favorite sources - updated monthly is Toms Hardware, Best Graphics Cards for the Money, June 2013.

 

No, in the context of Bluejay's post, mdonah's linked build and the OP wanting a machine 'mainly for gaming', it, and the internal follow-up links, is a valid comparison.

Why would you want a gaming build, based on a modern CPU such as an i3, i5 or i7 and hobble it's gaming performance with such an old card?

The point I was trying to promote was that a balanced build makes a better gaming machine; adding an older card, such as the GT 620/GT 640 that had already been brought into the topic, will in no way 'match' a current i5/i7 CPU and transform it into a 'gaming' machine. Yes, it would probably improve game performance over the built-in CPU graphics but a modern card, such as those I mentioned, will make a huge difference, coming closer to matching a modern mid-range CPU's capabilities for gaming purposes.

 

I did not say I want that card, or that it is a good card. I am just saying it is not fair to compare a $50 card with $300 card, or worse, a $1000 card.

 

The only comparisons I made were with those graphics cards that had already been brought up with the 2x I named as being much better in a modern gaming machine; the cost of those cards is in the $200 bracket as evidenced by your Tom's link.

In a well-balanced gaming machine, a better (more costly) card can be introduced by reducing some of the over-specced components (non-K and/or non-HT CPU's, a lower ranked 7-series motherboard, less RAM, possibly a less-costly but still quality PSU), to produce a higher-performing machine in the same price bracket.

It isn't about the cost of 1x component, it's about the best gaming experience for the same money across the completed build.

 

I understand your point, but if you read what I said, although I mentioned the 640, I said buying a card higher up on the nvidia list I posted, which would be nvidia's newer cards, would be recommended. That would be up to the buyer's budget. I simply quoted the gt 640 with 2gb ram, to show that good (ish) cards don't have to be expensive.

My personal theory, from experience is that graphics card prices drop drastically after launch.... kind of a logarithmic decade in price. So I would buy the best card for a reasonable price that would run all the games I want to play in 6 months to a year, and then upgrade afterwards, it usually works out much cheaper that way. That way, I will be able to get a bleeding edge card now, in a year at about 1/5 th the price... or even less. Then the new card will run next year's games.

 

your point makes sense, but it differs from my perspective;
you want to build a balanced machine now.. Full Stop.
I want to build a really good machine, with some budget, or crappy parts that will do all that I want to accomplish now, plus be able to easily be upgraded in the future. So I'm building it future proof - hence the i7 (4th Gen), 16 GB RAM and the overcompensating PSU...
but this will all depend on what the user/buyer wants anyway. Maybe he wants a balanced machine that you don't have to do crap with afterwards, in which case, for a gaming PC, in 3 years max, you'll need a new PC.
Or he wants to upgrade as the years pass, which can stretch the live of a gaming PC a couple more years before replacement.

 

*delete*

 

5 of the best pc games out right now and their minimum and recommended graphics requirements;

Civilization V: Brave New World System Requirements
min - :256 MB ATI HD2600 XT or better, 256 MB nVidia 7900 GS or better, or Core i3 or better integrated graphics
rec - 512 MB ATI 4800 series or better, 512 MB nVidia 9800 series or better

The Walking Dead: 400 Days
min -nVidia GeForce 8600 / ATI Radeon HD 2600
rec - nVidia GeForce 9800 GTX / ATI Radeon HD 4870

Dota 2
min - nVidia GeForce 8600, ATI/AMD Radeaon HD2600
rec - nVidia GeForce 9600GT, ATI/AMD Radeaon 3600

Rogue Legacy
min - ATI 1950 Pro / Nvidia 7900 GT
rec - AMD HD 4770 / Nvidia 8800 GTS

Mortal Kombat Komplete Edition
min - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS / AMD Radeon 3850
rec - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 6950

what this shows (other than I can use Google) is that as of right now, and possible a couple months from now, a GTX 560 or GTX 650 Ti, will work... for now, until the game creators decide to move up a notch. Then you can buy a better graphics card, when it's cheaper.

Going beyond this right now, will accomplish 3 things;
1 - as a gaming pc, you can wait longer to upgrade
2 - you want to run a lot very high graph programs; none of which come to mind right now since AutoCAD, which used to be one of the most intensive ones, need are now met by the simplest of graphics cards.
3 - Better CUDA core for CUDA multicore processing, which many applications support right now.

 

The problem with 'our' perspective is that we're failing to try to put ourselves into the shoes of the OP. What 'we' might buy could be way out of range of the OP, 'our' selection of 'best' games might bore the OP to tears - assuming the reason he wants his first PC for gaming is that he's considering moving from console gaming and wants to try some new games too.

The HP Envy that the OP is considering ranges from $850-1500, that rules out any bleeding edge you spoke of earlier. Check those stats too, GPU underpowered or ... ? I suggest that most serious gamers would not even consider laying out more for the CPU than for the GPU.

For the 8 or 16GB RAM question, you can simply add more, if and when there's a need to. Why start out with a badly balanced rig, that you know you will soon need to upgrade when you could do much better with some planning? 8GM more RAM at ~$70 or a graphics card at $2-300+ and sell the original at a loss of >$100?

In case you were unaware, game creators moved up several notches a while ago - Crysis series, Hitman Absolution, ... heck, have you even tested any of the latest gaming benchmarks?

What's your rig by the way?

 

I agree, the specs will all depend on what the OP can afford. He didn't give a figure, but I like the way you estimated it.

My rig... right now, my rig needs replacing, but I moved away from PC gaming a long time ago, I'm into console gaming now. From my estimates, keeping up with pc upgrades for the latest games were becoming too expensive, so I opted for console gaming, that way, the designers will have to design around my console and I only have to 'upgrade' when a new console comes out, which is much less often than for pc gaming.

For now, my old rigs, a Dell 4600 (bought before I even knew what was inside a PC, much less build one) and an XPS m1530 laptop - functions just fine for what I want them too: mostly web browsing and office applications.

My gaming 'rigs' are a PS3, and Xbox 360... I already pre-ordered the PS4 and Xbox One, but I'm not sure I'll go through with either yet, I have until November to decide. I have noticed that a year after launch all consoles have a price drop, so maybe I'll wait for that... that or just buy the PS4 for now.

what's your rig?

 

Mine's this one, built for power efficiency, quietness, general purpose, rather than outright gaming; mini-ITX, CPU at 3.6 Turbo not 3.7 as shown, LoVo RAM and running off a 360W Gold Seasonic

 

sweet! now i see why you were bitchin about me mentioning some lower end cards. I myself prefer nVidia all the way, but your AMD card benchmarks pretty good... just under the GTX 660.

 

It is important to note that game makers know and understand most users cannot afford $2000 or $1000 gaming rigs (or $7400!!!). Many have budgets less than $500. Many are looking for $500 notebooks to game on. Some want to spend less than that.

For that reason, game makers code their games to provide decent "game play" even with lessor hardware. You may not get the resolution, background detail or animations, fewer "objects", a smaller "field of view" - but still good entertainment value.

This is one reason I balked at comparing a $50 card to a $1000 card. It serves the OP no purpose. Because folks of different means have very different budgets (and priorities) (and preferences) I agree we, as helpers/advisors, must not project our preferences (based on our financial status) on to others when giving advice if our preferences (and budgets) are not similar to the OPs.

For example, system requirements for Hitman Absolution is:

Minimum: CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core Intel or AMD processor
RAM: 1GB of system memory

Recommended: CPU: 2.6 GHz quad core Intel or AMD processor, Core i5 or Phenom X2
RAM: 2GB​

Hardly monster rig specs.

 

It's also important to note that for anyone moving to PC gaming from a console (as I suspect the OP is), is that there is a high expectancy that the PC port/original will look better and play snappier than that on the consoles.

To take your HA example (where, mysteriously, you left off the graphics hardware required), to reach a 'better than console IQ', the high graphics setting is needed (Ultra looks very nice). On my rig (CPU-heavy, linked above) that only gives 30fps minimum, 37fps max. with 30% CPU/100% GPU loads in the benchmark. Playable, yes - but most 'gamers' aim for 60fps minimum for best playability.

As jolly wrote back in #3:

 

No mystery. Just an oversight as the point is the same as the graphics specs are not that much either.

Minimum: VGA: DirectX 10 compatible card with 512 MB RAM. Nvidia 8-series or AMD Radeon 3000 series graphics cards.

Recommended: VGA: DirectX 10 compatible card with 1GB of video memory, Nvidia 400-series or AMD 5000-series.​

That said, I agree that skimping on video horsepower is not the right place to skimp. I'll take a weak CPU with great graphics over a strong CPU and weak graphics any day (as long as I have enough system RAM and a quality PSU).

 

I think this conversation is bouncing all over the place, mainly because of lack of input from the OP. It is afterall, what he/she wants and can afford. But that said, the term 'Gaming PC' usually says higher end and to me cutting edge or as best as you can afford... and there's the problem... no dollar value to work with.

Also on a side note, I know most games would run well or reasonably well on an i5, but for a gaming PC, I wouldn't recommend anything other than i7.