We've got an exciting System Guide update for you all today.
Last time, we were stuck with a stagnant processor market and overinflated graphics card prices. Now, we're looking at new CPUs and revived competition in the desktop GPU market. Not only that, but Intel has released a new series of chipsets, and motherboard vendors have whipped up a whole family of fresh boards based on them. Those boards offer the possibility of an upgrade path to Broadwell, Intel's next generation of processors.
If that doesn't warrant a guide update, then we don't know what does.
In addition to all of these welcome changes, we've followed some of your feedback and broadened our processor, case, and power supply recommendations to cover more price points, sizes, and vendors, respectively. The result is perhaps our best—and most thorough—System Guide to date.
The rules and regulations
A short disclaimer: this is a component selection guide, not a PC assembly guide or a performance comparison. If you need help with the business of putting components together, look at our handy how-to build a PC article—and the accompanying video:
For reviews and benchmarks, we suggest heading to our front page and starting from there.
On the next several pages, we'll discuss the main categories of components needed to build a PC: processors, motherboards, memory, graphics cards, storage, cases, and power supplies. We'll then recommend a handful of carefully selected parts split into three tiers: budget, sweet spot, and high end.
For the budget tier, we won't seek out the absolute cheapest parts around. Instead, we'll single out capable, high-quality parts that also happen to be affordable. The sweet-spot tier is self-explanatory; it's where you'll find the products that deliver the most bang for your buck. Finally, our high-end tier is a mirror image of the budget tier. There, we'll seek out the fastest and most feature-packed components, but without venturing into excessive price premiums that aren't worth paying.
Each recommendation will involve a mental juggling of sorts for us. We'll consider variables like benchmark data, our personal experiences, current availability and retail pricing, user reviews, warranty coverage, and the size and reputation of the manufacturer or vendor. In most cases, we'll favor components we know first-hand to be better than the alternatives.
Finally, each recommended component will have a "notable needs" box. In that box, we'll point out any special requirements one should consider when building a full system with that part. For instance, we'll address socket type and form factor compatibility between different processors, motherboards, and cases.
Now that we've addressed the how, let's talk about the where. See that "powered by Newegg.com" logo at the top of the page? Newegg sponsors our System Guides, and more often than not, it will serve as our source for component prices. However, Newegg has no input on our editorial content nor sway over our component selections. If we want to recommend something it doesn't carry, we'll do just that.
We think sourcing prices from a huge online retailer gives us more realistic figures, though—so much so that we quoted Newegg prices long before this guide got a sponsor. Dedicated price search engines can find better deals, but they often pull up unrealistically low prices from small and potentially unreliable e-tailers. If you're going to spend several hundred (or thousand) dollars on a PC, we think you'll be more comfortable doing so at a large e-tailer with a proven track record and a decent return policy.
|Windows 8.1 overtakes XP in market share, Win7 still on top||71|
|Star Wars: Battlefront alpha gameplay videos leak||19|
|North America's IPv4 address supply is running dry||39|
|Renée James steps down as Intel president||16|
|NoScript vulnerability allows malicious scripts to run unchecked||12|
|Canada Day Shortbread||45|
|Retail Fury X coolers still whine, don't include fix||156|
|GlobalFoundries completes IBM microelectronics acquisition||43|
|Scott, you should've coined a name for this benchmark style. Maybe "Frame Damage Per Second," "Scott-free percentile," or "Wasson the screen." But now...||+59|