Consider purchasing a budget motherboard only if you don't plan to overclock it.
Consider purchasing a budget motherboard only if you don't plan to overclock it.
I have a budget of €850 and my current setup includes an i5 4690, MSI gtx 970 with 4gb RAM, 8gb TOSHIA 1tb HDD, a Cooler Master N300 case, an Asrock H97 motherboard, a Corsair 650w bronze 80+, and I was considering a Z motherboard and K processor. However, I realized I have no interest in overclocking and likely wouldn’t do it. I’m wondering if I need a more expensive motherboard or if the H97 will suffice. Overall, is this PC a solid build that could last me at least three to four years?
Recovering_Console_Peasant :
Gingerbread :
the h97 isn't a budget motherboard, it's more than sufficient. The CPU should last you around four years, and the GPU will need to run at lower settings in two years, though it remains powerful. Overall, it's a solid pick.
Setting lower settings soon?
Assigning such numbers to a build is largely speculative. Consider this perspective: Most AAA games this year were optimized for both Ultra and high settings, achieving around 60 FPS. If you pushed them to the limit, they'd drop to roughly 40 FPS. The outcome hinges on DX12's performance benefits and developers' game design choices. You won't be playing Star Citizen at maximum settings when it launches.
I wouldn't recommend a cheap motherboard as the top choice, but if you're not pushing overclocking limits, you can save some money there.
The decision isn't just about overclocking; expensive boards often come with extra features and connectors that might not be necessary for your needs. I'd evaluate what ports you need—USB 3.0, USB 3.1, other connectors, built-in Wi-Fi, etc.—and decide accordingly.
That said, an H97 board should suffice.
It's worth thinking about whether you need a lot of USB 3.0 ports or if you're open to newer options like USB 3.1. Other considerations include inbuilt Wi-Fi and the overall build quality for high settings on 1080p. Just don't expect major improvements at higher resolutions or be let down when trying to run the latest games by year's end.
the h97 isn't just a budget option—it's more than sufficient. The CPU should last you about four years, and the GPU will need to run at lower settings in two years, though it remains powerful. Overall, it's a solid pick.
Gingerbread:
the h97 isn't just a budget motherboard, it's more than sufficient. The CPU should last you about four years, and the GPU will need to run at lower settings within two years, but it remains quite powerful. Overall, it's a solid option. Lower settings in just two years?
The recommended options aren't necessarily the most expensive, but if you're not pushing your system beyond normal limits, you can save some money. The choice isn't limited to overclocking; other features and connectors on pricier boards might not be necessary for your needs. I’d evaluate what ports you need—USB 3.0, USB 3.1, Wi-Fi—and so on. An H97 board should suffice.
It’s worth thinking about the RAM options too, such as whether an i5 6600 fits on a H170 or Z170 board, which supports DDR4 and can boost performance with newer games. For example, Fallout 4 or GTA V demonstrate that faster RAM improves results.
For power supply, I suggest looking at a solid option from the list provided. A good build will handle high settings smoothly on 1080p for some time. Don’t expect dramatic improvements at higher resolutions, and you shouldn’t be disappointed if you can’t run the latest titles at full capacity by year’s end. I’m comfortable with high settings myself—I’ve been able to play games without issues until now, so I’m confident I’ll handle new releases in mid to high settings.
Recovering_Console_Peasant :
Gingerbread :
the h97 isn't just a budget motherboard, it's more than sufficient. The CPU should last you around four years, and the GPU will need to run at lower settings in two years, though it remains powerful. Overall, it's a solid option.
Setting lower settings only in two years?
Giving a specific number for this build feels like guesswork. Consider this perspective: Most AAA games launched this year ran on a blend of Ultra and high settings, achieving around 60 FPS. If you pushed them to the limit, they’d drop to about 40 FPS. The outcome really depends on how much DX12 improves and how developers optimize their titles. You won’t be playing Star Citizen at maximum settings when it launches, but you’ll likely enjoy Battlefield 5 or Call of Duty with great settings for a while longer.
The truth is, will you always be targeting these kinds of games, or will you occasionally play more moderate titles? The answer is probably a mix. Therefore, the build you have now should keep you functional for at least two years before you start thinking about tweaks to boost performance or balance settings.