Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, JustAnEngineer
kuzzia wrote:Did you just imply that SILVERSTONE is not a reliable PSU brand? Did you just imply that CORSAIR is a more reliable brand than SILVERSTONE?I'd choose this PSU over the Silverstone PSU. It costs the same, it's modular, and it's a reliable brand too.
flip-mode wrote:Your current loadout you picked is fine enough, as long as he doesn't want to upgrade the system later. Just a few nitpicks, most of which flip-mode covered:(a bunch of stuff I don't agree with)
flip-mode wrote:4GB is okay for right now, but 8GB is trivially more expensive and ultimately will make a better system. Just make sure to buy in matched pairs.Also, 4 GB of RAM is - to use the term woefully again - woefully inadequate, and extremely so. You're going to want 8 GB. 4 GB is not enough, 8 GB is definitely enough to get by with and will provide a much better experience.
flip-mode wrote:I'd strongly recommend an SSD right now. Skip the HDD, pick up a cheap 60-120GB SSD and use that. It's plenty of space for games (as long as you disable hibernation and trim your pagefile to a reasonable size), and so, so much faster. Mechanical drives are just terrible in comparison; as a semi-professional consultant and systems integrator, I can't recommend a single mechanical drive as the single drive in any system at this juncture.If you can use an old hard drive for the time being, that would be great, and then after a few months of saving, your friend can upgrade to an SSD (I suggest the Intel SSD 335 240 GB or something similar).
flip-mode wrote:B75 is fine. It makes almost no difference -- unless you're implying he needs RAID support? H77 is more expensive and not necessary -- see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1155. I do agree about 4 DIMM slots, mostly, but it's not a big deal, especially if he's not too concerned about upgrading the machine later. I can't see 8GB of RAM being insufficient anytime soon.I also think your choice of motherboard is a mistake. Why the B75 chipset? H77 chipset would be a better option, and something with 4 DIMM slots instead of just 2. Something like this:
flip-mode wrote:Because it IS well-balanced. Core i3 is a nice mid-range CPU with great gaming performance, and the GTX660 is a nice mid-range GPU. They go together well. I wouldn't call a Core i3 a "monster" CPU, nor would I call the GTX660 a "monster" GPU. It's barely faster than my old GF104 parts.I'm not sure how Kuzzia can call this system "well-balanced".
flip-mode wrote:Again, you're assuming he wants the machine to be upgradeable. This looks a lot more like a "set it and forget it" type of build.(a bunch of stuff about upgrading)
flip-mode wrote:What are you implying? Not everybody runs Windows. Not everybody who does pays for it, or pays full price. There are numerous legitimate ways to get Windows at a hefty discount, including 100%.Oh, and I don't see the cost for a Windows license? :o Yar? :(
flip-mode wrote:Thanks! You make some good points too. It's all opinion after all! :DFeel free to listen to auxy. Her, um, graciously shared opinion is as valid as anyone's
flip-mode wrote:This is highly dependent on the game. Games using UnrealEngine3 and games like Rage, which stream in textures, can see a massive performance improvement from an SSD. Blacklight: Retribution, my game du jour, even includes a storage benchmark and has an option to enable special caching for SSDs.auxy is setting you up with a fast SSD hard drive, and those are fantastic, I have one. But, they won't make games play any faster
flip-mode wrote:and they'll suck up a bunch of your budget so you'll have to cut back elsewhere. SSDs are a drop in upgrade that can be done at any point in time. If you have access to a free hard drive to get you by for a little while, you can put more money into a good foundation for the build.
guilmon14 wrote:This kind of viewpoint is totally understandable; we're all conditioned to need 500+GB of storage in our machines or else it's inadequate. Consider this, though -- how many games do you really need installed at once?getting a SSD is not really going to be practical for this build because of price constraints
flip-mode wrote:What are you implying? Not everybody runs Windows. Not everybody who does pays for it, or pays full price. There are numerous legitimate ways to get Windows at a hefty discount, including 100%.[/quote]Oh, and I don't see the cost for a Windows license? Yar?
rogue426 wrote:I'd start with the latest Econobox from February 2013 TR System guide and tweak to your preferences.
Black Applesauce wrote:auxy wrote:What are you implying? Not everybody runs Windows. Not everybody who does pays for it, or pays full price. There are numerous legitimate ways to get Windows at a hefty discount, including 100%.
Avast, a one hundred percent discount! Grab it ye scurvy landlubbers!
I hope that's not what you're implying...
guilmon14 wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:I must speak up to recommend against this. In games that use more than two cores, Hyper-Threading helps make up a lot of the difference between the Pentiums and the Core i5, bringing the Core i3 much closer to the latter than the former.If the budget is really constrained, we might save $60 by giving up hyper-threading with a Pentium G860 or Pentium G2020.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Radeons... ┐(‘~`;)┌ Well, I'd avoid the 1GB card anyway.You're spending a large chunk of your budget on the GeForce GTX660. Dial it back to a Radeon HD7850 to save $64 or $24.
$170 HIS Radeon HD7850 1GB H785QN1G2M
or $200 -15MIR or $195 Gigabyte Radeon HD7850 2GB GV-R785OC-2GD
auxy wrote:I must speak up...
flip-mode wrote:auxy wrote:I must speak up...
What a surprise. :lol:
auxy wrote:What can I say? I'm chatty. ( ̄ω ̄;)
JohnC wrote:Absolutely! I'd never recommend reducing budgeting for CPU or GPU in favor of getting an SSD. That said...As much as I like my Crucial 512GB SSD, if a person has a strict budget limit for a gaming-oriented build, I'd say spending more $$$ on better GPU and/or CPU would be much more beneficial
JohnC wrote:This is false! (゚Д゚)ノ SSDs help immensely with game performance before everything is cached into RAM! In a do-or-die situation, that 500ms lag while your mechanical disk fetches a texture from the opposite side of the platter can be killer.Having an SSD will shave off a few seconds when loading a new map or changing "instanced" areas in MMO games, but won't give you any performance benefits if you, for example, participating in large PvP battle with 100's of people nearby
auxy wrote:JohnC wrote:Absolutely! I'd never recommend reducing budgeting for CPU or GPU in favor of getting an SSD. That said...As much as I like my Crucial 512GB SSD, if a person has a strict budget limit for a gaming-oriented build, I'd say spending more $$$ on better GPU and/or CPU would be much more beneficialJohnC wrote:This is false! (゚Д゚)ノ SSDs help immensely with game performance before everything is cached into RAM! In a do-or-die situation, that 500ms lag while your mechanical disk fetches a texture from the opposite side of the platter can be killer.Having an SSD will shave off a few seconds when loading a new map or changing "instanced" areas in MMO games, but won't give you any performance benefits if you, for example, participating in large PvP battle with 100's of people nearby
JohnC wrote:Well, that's because GW2 is a bad-ly optimized game. O(≧▽≦)OWhen I used to play GW2 I was still getting terrible performance drops even with SSD during large battles in WvW areas... Only thing that slightly improved the situation was decreasing some in-game settings.
auxy wrote:JohnC wrote:Well, that's because GW2 is a bad-ly optimized game. O(≧▽≦)OWhen I used to play GW2 I was still getting terrible performance drops even with SSD during large battles in WvW areas... Only thing that slightly improved the situation was decreasing some in-game settings.
JustAnEngineer wrote:It is, it is. I was just teasing, don't ban me! \( `∀´)/ There's an unwritten rule that TERA players have to hate on GW2 and vice versa.Guild Wars 2 is a great game. It's an excellent value.
auxy wrote:On-topic, I build a lot of sub-$400 systems with SSDs. I don't really know how you can say there's no room for an SSD. 「(°ヘ°)
auxy wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:It is, it is. I was just teasing, don't ban me! \( `∀´)/ There's an unwritten rule that TERA players have to hate on GW2 and vice versa.Guild Wars 2 is a great game. It's an excellent value.
On-topic, I build a lot of sub-$400 systems with SSDs. I don't really know how you can say there's no room for an SSD. 「(°ヘ°)
flip-mode wrote:By caring about the other components. OK, I have to ask: you are noticing that I'm only suggesting delaying the SSD so that a better set of core components can be purchased first, right? You know I'm not saying "don't ever get an SSD", right?
JohnC wrote:I agreed with this too, though, you know? Both of you are arguing against a point I never made or supported (the idea of reducing expenditure on CPU/GPU to get an SSD.) (・_・ヾIf you are concerned about gaming performance above all else you will gain more benefits from maximizing your CPU/GPU power.
derFunkenstein (who did not read the thread) wrote:See here - the link I posted earlier. Not much. Really just RAID is all you lose out on over H77 (and good SLI/Crossfire vs. Z-series chipsets).What is the difference between H77 and B75?
derFunkenstein wrote:I think the Econobox skimps on the GPU at the cost of, of all things, the motherboard. The alternative GPU is worth the step up in money. You can save a few bucks by going with a B75 motherboard - and I can't even tell the difference. What is the difference between H77 and B75? Gigabyte's new boards have what is widely regarded as a decent UEFI implementation, it's got 4 DIMM slots, and it's $75. As long as you're not planning on Crossfire (as it's x16/x4 for the PCIe slots), you're not giving up anything else. Still has 2x SATA 3.0 slots, still has native USB 3.0, has a header for the front of the case, so on and so forth. This system absolutely does not need a 600W PSU, either. I second the recommendation on the 430W Corsair with modular cabling. And get 8GB of RAM, as JAE said. 4GB is just not going to cut it - especially since there's no SSD; there will be lots of paging to slow mechanical storage.
auxy wrote:flip-mode wrote:By caring about the other components. OK, I have to ask: you are noticing that I'm only suggesting delaying the SSD so that a better set of core components can be purchased first, right? You know I'm not saying "don't ever get an SSD", right?JohnC wrote:I agreed with this too, though, you know? Both of you are arguing against a point I never made or supported (the idea of reducing expenditure on CPU/GPU to get an SSD.) (・_・ヾIf you are concerned about gaming performance above all else you will gain more benefits from maximizing your CPU/GPU power.