TR’s Christmas 2014 System Guide

powered by

It’s that time of year again. The streamers are up, the colored LEDs are a-flashin’, and the stockings are pinned to the mantelpiece.

Some of you may still have room under the tree, though. Maybe you’ve been too busy to shop, or maybe you just have a really big tree. Either way, there’s room—and if you ask us, there’s no better way to fill that room than with a brand-spankin’ new gaming PC.

So, forget trips to Best Buy or Bed, Bath, and Beyond. This is the guide you need for your last-minute Christmas shopping.

The hardware landscape hasn’t changed dramatically since our last guide update, but we’ve had to make a few tweaks to account for recent pricing and availability changes. We’ve also given a nod to the companies crazy enough to release products in December. (We’re looking at you, Samsung.) And we’ve configured a new sample build: the Cuboid, a small-form-factor PC that combines discretion with serious gaming brawn.

Last, but not least, this guide includes an up-to-date forecast for next year’s launches, so you can buy your eleventh-hour stocking stuffer without the specter of planed obsolescence looming too closely.

Sound good? Let’s begin.

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.

 

CPUs

We’re still leaning pretty heavily on Intel in the recommendations below. That’s because the company continues to offer the best overall CPU performance, the lowest power consumption, the best platforms, and the best upgrade path on the desktop. (Motherboards based on Intel’s 9-series chipsets should support next-gen Broadwell CPUs.)

That said, we have made an exception for AMD’s A8-7600 processor, which recent price cuts have turned into a reasonably good deal. While it doesn’t quite match the power efficiency of comparably-priced Intel CPUs, this chip is in the same ballpark, and it offers better integrated graphics performance. That’s worth something.

AMD also refreshed its FX lineup recently, but the new additions are still based on circa-2012 silicon that’s both power-hungry and uncompetitive overall. Worse, FX-series CPUs are tied to a three-year-old platform that lacks built-in support for PCI Express 3.0, SATA Express, and USB 3.0. Unless you’re a dyed-in-the-wool AMD fan, you’re best off steering clear.

Budget

Product Price Notable needs
Intel Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition $69.99 LGA1150 motherboard,

Z97 chipset for overclocking

Intel Core i3-4160 $119.99 LGA1150 motherboard
AMD A8-7600 $109.99 Socket FM2+ motherboard

The Pentium G3258, also known as the Anniversary Edition, is the first sub-$100, overclocking-friendly processor we’ve seen from Intel in years. It has only two cores, and it lacks both Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost, but we managed to overclock ours from 3.2GHz to 4.8GHz. At that frequency, the new Pentium can keep up with much faster, higher-priced chips in all but the most heavily multithreaded apps. It’s surprisingly capable in most games, too.

Unfortunately, some newer titles like Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age: Inquisition have trouble starting on systems with dual-core, dual-thread CPUs like the Pentium. The limitation seems to be an artificial one, since unofficial workarounds exist for both games. Nonetheless, gamers looking for a no-hassle experience may prefer to spring for the Core i3, which has two cores and four threads, or the A8-7600, which has four cores.

If you’re not interested in overclocking, the Core i3-4160 is a great budget buy. Its base clock speed is a little higher, at 3.6GHz, and it adds Hyper-Threading to the mix, which helps performance in multithreaded tasks. (The Core i3 also has AES acceleration, which the Pentium lacks.) Both of these chips are good choices for non-gamers, too, since they have basic integrated graphics built in.

Over in the AMD aisle, we have the A8-7600, which is probably the best value in the A series at the moment. It’s almost as fast as the A10-7800 despite being priced $30-40 lower, and it has the same ability to squeeze into a 45W TDP when paired with the right motherboard. That’s below the Core i3-4160’s 54W.

Sweet spot

Product Price Notable needs
Intel Core i5-4460 $189.99 LGA1150 motherboard
Intel Core i5-4690K $239.99 LGA1150 motherboard,

Z97 chipset for overclocking

Intel Core i7-4790K $331.99

The processors in this price range all have four fast cores—and much faster ones than the A8-7600’s. These babies deliver both speed and responsiveness in both single-threaded tasks and heavily multithreaded ones. The “K” models also have fully unlocked upper multipliers that open the door to easy overclocking.

The Core i5-4460 belongs to the Haswell Refresh lineup, and it happens to be one of Intel’s most affordable quad-core desktop processors. This is a good, no-frills option if you plan to run at stock settings. Users hoping to overclock their CPUs will want to grab either the Core i5-4690K or the Core i7-4790K, which make up the Devil’s Canyon series.

Devil’s Canyon is meant to have more overclocking headroom than standard Haswell CPUs, thanks to a new thermal interface material (TIM) that sits between the die and heat spreader. We didn’t see much of a difference when overclocking our sample, but Intel seems to have high hopes in those rare chips that, through miracles of fabrication, are imbued with unusually high headroom. Those chips might have been held back by the original TIM in the first-gen Haswell series.

On top of that, Devil’s Canyon processors are clocked higher out of the box than their predecessors, and they support Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O, otherwise known as VT-d. Intel mysteriously left that feature out of the original Haswell K-series lineup. VT-d is also absent from the Pentium and the Core i3 in our budget selections.

High end

Product Price Notable needs
Intel Core i7-5930K $579.99 LGA2011-v3 motherboard, quad-channel DDR4 memory kit, discrete graphics, aftermarket cooler

This summer, Intel unleashed the Core i7-5960X, its fastest desktop processor to date. That monster is based on Haswell-E silicon with eight cores, 16 threads, 20MB of L3 cache, a quad-channel DDR4 memory controller, and 40 PCI Express Gen3 lanes built right into the CPU die. This is the desktop cousin of Haswell-EP, Intel’s fastest server processor yet, and it performs accordingly—with an unlocked upper multiplier to boot.

Too bad it costs just over a thousand bucks.

For almost half the price, the Core i7-5930K offers much of the same Haswell-E goodness. Yes, the cheaper chip has “only” six cores, 12 threads, and 15MB of L3 cache, but that still gives it a big leg up over the Devil’s Canyon series. The i7-5930K also has higher stock clock speeds than the i7-5960X, which might translate into even better performance than the thousand-dollar beast in many workloads. Because the i7-5930K is fully unlocked, you may be able to push it even higher by overclocking.

 

Motherboards

Buying a motherboard these days is pretty straightforward. There are only four major manufacturers to choose from, and their offerings have very similar performance and peripherals at each price point. The main differences between competing boards lie with their Windows software, onboard firmware, and overclocking tools.

  • Asus is the biggest of the four main motherboard makers, and it has the best Windows software and the most intelligent and reliable auto-overclocking functionality. Its firmware interface doesn’t look as nice as Gigabyte’s, but it’s otherwise excellent—and it offers the best fan speed controls around. Some Asus motherboards ship with cushioned I/O shields and header adapters that make it much easier to connect finicky front-panel headers. We think Asus mobos typically offer the most polished packages overall.
  • Gigabyte has the best firmware UI of the bunch, though its auto-overclocking intelligence and Windows software isn’t quite up to par with Asus’. The firmware fan controls are getting dated, too, but Gigabyte’s latest Windows software largely makes up for that deficit. Some Gigabyte motherboards ship with cushioned I/O shields, but we haven’t seen any with header adapters. You’ll have to hook up front-panel wires to the circuit board the old-fashioned way.
  • MSI‘s motherboards are solid, as are the company’s firmware and software. The retooled fan controls in the firm’s 9-series firmware are particularly good, though the auto-overclocking intelligence remains fairly conservative and somewhat rudimentary. Instead of determining maximum clock speeds iteratively and assigning different multipliers based on the system load, MSI uses pre-baked profiles with a blanket multiplier for all loads.
  • Finally, there’s ASRock, which generally aims its products at more value-conscious buyers. ASRock boards typically offer a great hardware spec for the money, and some of the Z97 models even sport four-lane “Ultra M.2” slots that aren’t available on competing boards. The firmware in the latest 9-series products has some nice little touches, too, but the interface isn’t terribly refined. Neither is the accompanying utility software. ASRock boards are appealing primarily for their budget price tags.

You’ll notice we featured both ATX and microATX motherboards in our budget and sweet-spot tiers. The microATX form factor sacrifices three of the seven expansion slots available with ATX in order to save a few inches of vertical space. Since few gaming rigs need more than two or three expansion slots, going microATX is a nice way to build a smaller PC without losing too much expansion capacity.

Budget

Product Price Notable needs
Gigabyte F2A88XM-D3H $74.99 Socket FM2+ processor,

microATX or ATX case

MSI A88X-G43 $82.99 Socket FM2+ processor, ATX case
MSI Z97 PC Mate $89.99 LGA1150 processor, ATX case
Asus H97M-E/CSM $89.99 LGA1150 processor,

microATX or ATX case

Asus H97-Plus $104.99 LGA1150 processor, ATX case

The MSI’s A88X-G43 and Gigabyte’s F2A88XM-D3H are both primed for our AMD A8-7600 processor. They’re more affordable than the Intel equivalents, which is why they’re listed first in the table above.

Both of these boards are based on the AMD A88X chipset, which supports RAID arrays for SATA drives and configurable TDPs for certain processors, including the A8-7600. The MSI mobo has a full-sized ATX layout, edge-mounted SATA 6Gbps ports, and more positive user reviews than the competition. The Gigabyte board rolls a roughly similar feature set (minus a few expansion slots) into a microATX form factor. It, too, has plenty of good user reviews.

On the Intel front, H97 mobos are ideal for stock-clocked budget builds. They’re usually priced a little lower than those powered by the flagship Z97, and they have almost all of the same stuff. The only missing features are multiplier overclocking (at least officially) and support for dual-GPU configurations (which aren’t wise purchases for budget PCs, anyhow). Right now, H97 mobos from both Asus and ASRock allow multiplier overclocking in defiance of official restrictions, but the workaround isn’t endorsed by Intel, and there’s a fair likelihood it won’t survive future firmware updates. We wouldn’t take that gamble.

The H97-based Asus H97M-E/CSM covers the basics, with generous expansion (including an M.2 slot for mini SSDs) and plentiful USB 3.0 connectivity rolled into a microATX form factor. It’s got better firmware, software, and fan controls than the competition, too. For a little bit more, Asus’ full-sized H97-Plus serves up additional expansion. The H97-Plus’ integrated audio is insulated from the rest of the circuitry, which should ensure at least passable sound quality. (Speaking of audio, neither of these boards have optical S/PDIF outputs. Some of ASRock’s motherboards, like the Fatal1ty H97, don’t skimp on that front, so they may be worth a look.)

Low-end Z97 motherboards also exist in this price range. MSI’s Z97 PC Mate is one of them. With only two USB 3.0 ports and neither M.2 nor SATA Express connectors, this solution is a little light on bells and whistles compared to its H97 peers. However, its multiplier overclocking support is fully sanctioned by Intel, and like most Z97 boards, it also supports higher-speed memory—if you want to go that route.

Sweet spot

Product Price Notable needs
Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI $124.99 LGA1150 processor, ATX case
Gigabyte GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5 $127.99 LGA1150 processor,
microATX or
ATX case
Asus Z97-A $139.99 LGA1150 processor, ATX case

This is the sweet spot of the LGA1150 motherboard market, where slightly upscale Z97 boards can be found. Our favorite right now is Asus’ Z97-A, a feature-packed and reasonably priced board that earned our TR Recommended award in May. The Z97-A is equipped with M.2 and SATA Express storage connectors, dual-GPU support with an x8/x8-lane arrangement, and digital S/PDIF output with real-time DTS Connect encoding. Check out our review for all the details.

The Asus Z97-A

Those looking to save a few bucks may want to consider Gigabyte’s GA-Z97X-SLI, which costs less than the Z97-A and isn’t hugely different—though it lacks optical S/PDIF in its I/O cluster.

Finally, users building smaller-form-factor systems will want a microATX board like Gigabyte’s GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5. This mobo is more feature-packed than the microATX competition from Asus in just about every respect, down to the inclusion of SATA Express and an optical S/PDIF output.

High end

Product Price Notable needs
Asus X99-A $234.99 LGA2011-v3 processor, ATX case
Asus X99 Deluxe $383.99 LGA2011-v3 processor, ATX case

Haswell-E processors won’t fit into LGA1150 motherboards like the ones listed above. Instead, Haswell-E requires an LGA2011-v3 socket and DDR4 memory slots, features only available in boards powered by Intel’s new X99 chipset.

Our new budget X99 favorite is the Asus X99-A, which serves up the basics in a well-rounded package with great overclocking capabilities and plentiful expansion. (There’s SATA Express, M.2, and more PCIe x16 slots than you’ll ever need.) We used to recommend Gigabyte’s X99-UD4 in this price range, but we’re not thrilled with that board’s memory multiplier cap and lackluster firmware fan controls.

If you want to go all out, then Asus’ X99 Deluxe is worth a look. This mobo justifies its eye-popping price tag with a cornucopia of extras, including 802.11ac, a whopping 10 USB 3.0 ports, dual SATA Express ports, nine fan headers, and both native and adapter-based M.2 support. Considering how compelling the X99-A is, though, that looks a little like overkill.

 

Memory

Intel’s Haswell-E processors have brought DDR4 memory to the desktop, which means the System Guide’s memory section is a little different than it used to be. We’re still splitting things up in three tiers, but now, the memory in our high-end section is DDR4 RAM meant for Haswell-E configs. It won’t work with standard Haswell CPUs that take DDR3 memory.

Budget

Product Price Notable needs
G.Skill Ripjaws 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3-1600 $42.99 CPU cooler must not protrude

over memory slots

At today’s prices, 4GB DDR3 kits are about the most you can fit into a low-end build.

This Ripjaws combo from G.Skill is one of the most popular options on Newegg, and it’s one of the most affordable, too. Just keep in mind that the tall head spreaders may interfere with tower-style CPU coolers. The stock Intel cooler will work, but if you’re thinking of getting an aftermarket unit, check our CPU cooler recommendations a few pages ahead for something suitable.

Note that 4GB of RAM won’t be enough for some of the latest cross-platform games. Assassin’s Creed Unity, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, and Watch Dogs all require at least 6GB. Keep reading for more generous memory recommendations.

Sweet spot

Product Price Notable needs
G.Skill Ares 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1600 $78.99 N/A
Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3-1600 $148.99
Crucial Ballistix Sport 32GB (4x8GB) DDR3-1600 $307.99

An 8GB memory kit meets the requirements for the aforementioned games, and it’s probably as much as most folks need these days. Very heavy multitaskers (and those eager to future-proof their PCs) may feel compelled to spring for a 16GB or 32GB kit, but 8GB rarely causes bottlenecks. Here, we’re going with G.Skill and Crucial kits that all have low-profile heat spreaders.

By the way, we didn’t choose these kits with memory overclocking in mind, nor did we splurge on modules rated to run at higher speeds. Overclocked memory can cause data loss and stability problems, and memory that’s designed to operate above 1600 MT/s doesn’t usually pay much in the way of real-world performance dividends. The multiplier-unlocked processors we recommend can be overclocked just fine without bringing memory into the picture, anyway.

High end

Product Price Notable needs
Crucial 16GB (4x4GB) DDR4-2133 $210.99 Haswell-E processor,

X99 motherboard

Crucial 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4-2133 $419.99

Out of the box, Haswell-E supports DDR4 memory speeds up to 2133 MT/s. These are the most affordable DDR4-2133 kits with relatively low latencies from a big-name vendor that we could find. They don’t have giant heatspreaders that would interfere with a large air cooler, and they’re covered by lifetime warranties. Sounds good to us!

If you’re really looking to show off, then there are plenty of DDR4 modules rated to run at higher speeds. G.Skill has some of the least expensive 16GB DDR4-2666 kits out there, and if you want to go all out, there are always Corsair’s DDR4-2800 DIMMs, which we’ve been using in our Haswell-E test rigs.

 

Graphics

Not building a gaming PC? Feel free to skip this page—unless you’re getting a Haswell-E processor. Haswell-E doesn’t have built-in graphics.

We haven’t seen any new arrivals since October, but we have noticed some pricing and availability changes. Several sub-$200 graphics cards have gotten cheaper, and Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 770 seems to have vanished from e-tail stocks, perhaps to make room for the rumored GeForce GTX 960. Either way, Nvidia’s lineup now has a gaping hole between $200 and $300 or so. Good thing the GeForce GTX 970 isn’t as scarce as it used to be.

Otherwise, both Nvidia and AMD are now wooing shoppers with game bundles. Nvidia lets you choose between free copies of Assassin’s Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, and The Crew if you buy a GeForce GTX 780- or 900-series card. Some Radeon R7- and R9-series cards still come with various incarnations of AMD’s generous Never Settle bundle, which lets you pick from titles like Alien Isolation and Star Citizen in addition to oldies like Thief and DiRT 3, plus some indie packs.

Another factor that ought to influence your buying decision is G-Sync—and its upcoming AMD equivalent, FreeSync. Both technologies allow displays to sync up their refresh cycles with the in-game frame rate, allowing for smooth, tear-free animation with no performance hit. The effect is totally worth it. G-Sync monitors are out now, and they work with all of the GeForce cards we recommend. FreeSync monitors are coming early next year, and they’ll only support Radeon R9 285 and R9 290-series cards. (The R7 260X could join that club, but we don’t know for sure yet.)

If you care about G-Sync and FreeSync—and you should—then choose your next graphics card wisely.

Now, a note about graphics card vendors. For any given GPU type, a number of cards from different vendors exist. For the most part, those cards aren’t all that different from one another. Some of them are identical except for the stickers on the cooling shrouds. You’re free to buy any card you wish, but we’ve tried to pick ones based on three criteria: the vendor, the type of cooler, and the core and memory clock speeds. We favored major vendors known to have decent service, and we looked for quiet coolers (especially dual- and triple-fan solutions) and higher-than-normal clock speeds (provided they didn’t carry too high a price premium). The cards you see below may not be the absolute cheapest of their kind, but they are the ones we’d buy for ourselves.

Oh, and one last thing: some of the motherboards we recommend support multi-GPU configurations, but we wouldn’t advise building a multi-GPU setup unless you absolutely must. Multi-GPU configs open up a whole can of worms, with occasionally iffy driver support for new games and potential microstuttering issues. There’s a heat, power, and noise cost involved, too. We’ve found that it’s almost always preferable to buy a faster single-GPU solution, if one is available, than to double up on GPUs.

Budget

Product Price Notable needs
Asus Radeon R7 260X 2GB $119.99 N/A
EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB $119.99

For someone even moderately serious about gaming, the Radeon R7 260X and GeForce GTX 750 Ti are about as cheap as we’d go. (The GTX 750 non-Ti is also capable, but the Ti version costs only a little more and is a much better deal.) Cards like these will run current titles quite well at 1080p with detail levels dialed back a little. With anything cheaper, you’d have to lower the resolution and image quality.

As for whether to choose the Radeon or GeForce, we think the GeForce is the better buy. Not only is it faster than the Radeon, but being based on Nvidia’s brand-new Maxwell GPU architecture, it’s also much more power-efficient. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti doesn’t need an auxiliary power input, either, which could make it suitable as a drop-in upgrade for a pre-built desktop PC with integrated graphics.

Sweet spot

Product Price Notable needs
HIS Radeon R9 270 $139.99 N/A
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 $154.99 Dual PCIe power connectors
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 760 2GB $199.99
MSI Radeon R9 285 $239.99

All of the cards above can run games at 1080p with high or maxed-out detail levels. The ones at the upper end of this price range can also handle 2560×1440, though they may not deliver the smoothest possible experience at that resolution.

Around $150, the Radeon R9 270 looks like the best value, since it’s a little faster and slightly more affordable than the GeForce GTX 660. The R9 270 also comes with two free games as part of the Never Settle Forever Silver bundle. Both of these cards sold for $160-170 just a couple of months ago, so they’re both great deals.

The GeForce GTX 760 remains a good option between the $150 and $250 cards. It’s smack in between not just in terms of pricing, but also in terms of performance.

Now that the GTX 770 has mysteriously disappeared, the Radeon R9 285 is the only worthwhile contestant at around $250. This card offers a performance boost roughly commensurate with its price premium over the GTX 760. That performance boost comes at the cost of higher power consumption, but the R9 285 can still run cool and quiet with a nice dual-fan cooler like the one on our MSI card. The R9 285 also comes with three free games, which doesn’t hurt.

The Radeon R9 280X can be found for around $250, too, but we wouldn’t recommend it. That card isn’t very much faster than the R9 285, and it’s based on older hardware that lacks FreeSync support and AMD’s TrueAudio DSP. The R9 280X won’t be able to take advantage of AMD’s new Virtual Super Resolution mojo until early next year, either. You’re better off going with the R9 285 at this point.

High end

Product Price Notable needs
Asus Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II $269.99 Dual PCIe power connectors
MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming 4G $349.99
XFX Radeon R9 290X Double D $359.99
Gigabyte G1 Gaming GeForce GTX 980 $629.99

Which brings us to the newly discounted high end. Just to put things in perspective, custom-cooled versions of the Radeon R9 290 and 290X like those above sold for $410 and $550, respectively, just a few months ago. The GeForce GTX 780, which has been replaced by the faster and more power-efficient GeForce GTX 970, was around $440.

So, yeah, the getting is good right now.

In terms of performance, the Radeon R9 290 and Radeon R9 290X straddle the GeForce GTX 970. (The 290 is slightly slower; the 290X is a little faster.) The lower price tags on the AMD cards may make them look like the best bargains as a result, but the GeForce GTX 970 is way, way more power-efficient. Like, way. Under load, it consumes 100W less than the R9 290. That means lower temperatures, lower noise levels, and potentially higher overclocking headroom. We were able to overclock MSI’s GTX 970 Gaming so that it outperformed the stock-clocked GeForce GTX 980. Pretty amazing for a $350 card, especially considering it comes with a free game.

The GeForce GTX 980 is faster out of the box and more readily available than the GTX 970. However, it’s obviously much less appealing from a value standpoint.

No matter what you wind up getting, these cards should all deliver silky smooth frame rates at 2560×1440. They’ll also open the door to 4K gaming—and 4K DSR or 4K VSR on systems with lower-res monitors.

Note that we’re recommending 290-series cards with custom coolers here, since they run cooler, quieter, and faster than variants with AMD’s stock cooling apparatus. (See Scott’s article on custom-cooled Radeons for more details.) We’re also skipping the Radeon R9 280X, since it’s much slower than the R9 290 and only about $10-20 cheaper.

 

Storage

For storage, we’ll be looking at three categories of devices: system drives, mass-storage drives, and optical drives. The idea is to buy the best combination of the three that you can afford, based on your individual needs.

System drive

The system drive is where the operating system, and hopefully most of your games and applications, ought to reside. We’ve included a 1TB mechanical hard drive for budget builds where a two-drive config is out of the question. The rest of our recommendations are SSDs. Budget buyers may not be able to afford an SSD, but everyone else should spring for one and get an auxiliary mechanical drive for their mass-storage needs. Solid-state drives offer huge improvements in transfer rates and load times, which are more than worth the extra expense.

There are a few things to keep mind when shopping for an SSD. Currently, most mid-range and high-end drives offer similar overall performance. Pricing differences tend to have a bigger impact on which products deliver better value. (See our scatter plots.)

Drive capacity can affect performance, especially for smaller SSDs. Lower-capacity drives don’t have as many flash chips, so they can’t saturate all of their controllers’ memory channels. That dynamic usually translates into slower write speeds for smaller drives. For most older SSDs, write performance falls off appreciably in drives smaller than 240-256GB. Newer drives with higher-density flash chips can require 480-512GB to deliver peak performance. Small SSDs are still much faster than mechanical hard drives, so we still recommend them to folks who can’t spring for larger ones.

Also, you may be familiar with our long-term SSD Endurance Experiment. The results we’ve gathered so far show that drives with two-bit MLC flash are more resilient than models with three-bit TLC NAND. No surprise there. With that said, our TLC drive only started accumulating bad blocks after 100TB of writes, which works out to more than 50GB of writes per day for five years. That total is well beyond the endurance ratings attached to most SSDs, and it’s far more data than most desktop users will need to write to their drives. As a result, we have no reservations about recommending TLC-based SSDs.

The recommendations below are the most cost-effective options today, but they may not be the best values tomorrow. SSD prices fluctuate a fair bit. Shopping around for discounts is a good idea—just make sure to stick with trusted brands that have proven track records.

Product Price
WD Blue 1TB 7,200 RPM $52.99
Kingston HyperX 120GB $79.99
Crucial MX100 256GB $109.99
Intel 530 Series 240GB $124.99
Crucial MX100 512GB $204.99
Crucial M550 1TB $449.99
Samsung 850 EVO 1TB $469.99

Can’t afford an SSD or auxiliary mechanical storage? Then the WD Blue 1TB will do just fine. Its 7,200-RPM spindle speed isn’t terribly slow, and its 1TB capacity is sufficient for both system and secondary storage.

For our entry-level SSD, we picked Kingston’s HyperX 120GB. More affordable options exist, but they tend to be outfitted with smaller numbers of higher-density flash chips. As we’ve noted, such configs can translate into slower write speeds. Some of them, like Samsung’s 840 EVO, make up for that deficit to some degree by using an SLC cache. Still, in this tier, we prefer drives like the HyperX that have more lower-density chips.

The sweet spot is probably the Crucial MX100 256GB, which is aggressively priced, reasonably fast for the most part, and made by a company with a solid track record for reliability. OCZ’s similarly affordable ARC 100 240GB is also worth a look, since it’s faster than the MX100 overall, especially with sustained and demanding workloads. The ARC 100’s capacity is lower, though, and OCZ has a spotty (though improving) reliability track record. A better high-performance option in this price range is Intel’s 530 Series 240GB, which is covered by a five-year warranty and also does well in sustained workloads.

Folks with deeper pockets can spring for one of the 512GB and 1TB SSDs listed above. Those drives are cheaper per gigabyte, and they have enough flash chips to deliver solid write speeds. (See our scatter plots for a quick peek at overall performance.) The 850 EVO 1TB is a particularly good option, since it has a five-year warranty and doesn’t cost much more than the competition. It’s not supposed to ship until December 22, though, so last-minute Christmas shoppers may want to grab the Crucial M550 1TB, instead.

As a general rule, we’d advise getting the highest-capacity SSD you can afford, especially for a gaming build. Many games have voracious appetites for storage. Assassin’s Creed Unity, for example, requires 50GB of free capacity.

Those of you who like to walk on the bleeding edge might want to look at Samsung’s new 850 Pro. Though priced somewhat outlandishly, this drive is the fastest SATA SSD we’ve ever tested, and it’s backed by a 10-year warranty.

Plextor’s M6e 256GB, one of the first SSDs based on the new M.2 interface, may also be worth a look. This drive is rated for peak read speeds of up to 770MB/s, well above the theoretical maximum allowed by the SATA 6Gbps interface. Samsung’s XP941 256GB is even faster, but it requires a four-lane interface to hit top speed. The M.2 slots in most 9-series Intel boards are limited to dual lanes.

Mass-storage drive

Since SSDs still aren’t capacious enough to take over all storage duties in a desktop PC, it’s a good idea to get a secondary drive for large video files, downloads, personal photos, and the like. In this role, a mechanical drive can be used either by itself or with a twin in a RAID 1 configuration, which will add a layer of fault tolerance.

Product Price
WD Green 3TB $104.99
WD Green 4TB $149.99
WD Red 4TB $162.99
WD Black 4TB $234.99

Based in part on Backblaze’s reliability study, which showed higher failure rates for Seagate drives, we’ve moved our selections toward the Western Digital camp. Hitachi drives did even better according to the study, but they seem to have poorer Newegg reviews than comparable WD products, so we feel less confident about them.

There are other reasons to favor WD’s mechanical drives. The ones we’ve tested have been faster and quieter than their Seagate counterparts.

The WD Green and Red drives have spindle speeds around 5,400 RPM, which translates to slightly sluggish performance but good power efficiency, low noise levels, and affordable prices. Since we’re not recommending these drives for OS and application storage, their longer access times shouldn’t pose a problem. The Reds have some special sauce that makes them better-behaved with RAID controllers than the Greens, and they have longer warranty coverage, as well: three years instead of two.

We’ll throw in an honorable mention for Seagate’s Desktop HDD.15 4TB. It did almost as well as the WD Green 3TB in the Backblaze study—and it has slightly fewer one-star Newegg reviews than the Green 4TB. Keep in mind that the Desktop HDD.15 is louder and slower overall than the competing WD drives, however.

WD’s Black 4TB drive has a 7,200-RPM spindle speed and is tuned for high performance, at least by mechanical storage standards. It’s a better choice than the Green or HDD.15 for storage-intensive work that may exceed the bounds of reasonably priced SSDs. The Black is also quicker than what Seagate offers at this capacity.

Finally, both Seagate and WD now offer 6TB consumer drives, but those are pretty pricey—just south of $300 right now. Given the high cost per gigabyte, those drives should probably be considered only for high-capacity NAS systems or small-form-factor PC builds with limited expansion. Anyone building a full-fledged mid-tower PC will get more bang for their buck with two (or more) 4TB drives.

Optical drive

Living without optical storage is easy today, thanks to the ubiquity of high-capacity USB thumb drives and high-speed Internet connections. Some people still like their DVD and Blu-ray discs, though, and we’re happy to oblige.

Product Price
Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD burner $19.99
Asus BW-12B1ST Blu-ray burner $69.99

Asus’ DRW-24B1ST DVD burner has been a staple of our System Guides for quite a while. It costs only 20 bucks, reads and burns both DVDs and CDs, and has a five-star average out of more than 5,000 reviews on Newegg. We feel pretty safe recommending it.

On the Blu-ray front, the LG drive we used to recommend isn’t available anymore, and its replacement, the WH16NS40, has too many one-star reviews for our comfort. We’ve changed our recommendation to the Asus BW-12B1ST, which is a little slower but has better user ratings.

 

Cases

Choosing a case is kind of a subjective endeavor. We’ve listed some of our favorites below, and we recommend them wholeheartedly. That said, we acknowledge that not everybody will like their look or design as much as we do. To be honest, we don’t mind folks following their hearts on this one—so long as they wind up buying something well-built from a manufacturer with a good reputation for quality.

Buying a cheap, bare-bones case is one way to save a bit of cash, but it’s not a very good way to do it. Quality cases make the system assembly process much more straightforward thanks to tool-less drive drays, cable-routing amenities, pre-mounted motherboard stand-offs, and internals roomy enough to accommodate adult-sized hands without causing cuts and scrapes. Quality cases tend to be quieter and to keep components cooler, as well. There’s a whole world of difference in usability between a crummy $25 enclosure and a decent $50 one. Trust us on this one; we’ve put together enough PCs to know.

Budget

Product Price Notable needs
Cooler Master N200 $49.99 microATX motherboard
Corsair Carbide Series 200R $59.99 N/A

Cooler Master’s N200 is a small and affordable case designed for microATX motherboards. The N200 is more compact than the microATX Obsidian Series 350D we recommend in our Sweet Spot section, which means it’s also a little more cramped inside. Nevertheless, the N200 is quite comfortable to work in, and it has plenty of tool-free gizmos to speed up the installation process.

Meanwhile, Corsair’s Carbide Series 200R has been our favorite budget ATX enclosure ever since we reviewed it last year. The thing is loaded with enthusiast-friendly goodies, from ubiquitous thumbscrews to tool-free bays for optical, mechanical, and solid-state storage. There’s ample room for cable routing, too, and the stock fans are rather quiet. This is an ATX case that will accommodate any of the motherboards we recommended.

Sweet spot

Product Price Notable needs
Corsair Air Series 240 $89.99 microATX motherboard
Corsair Obsidian Series 350D $109.99 microATX motherboard
Corsair Obsidian Series 450D $119.99 N/A
Corsair Obsidian Series 750D $159.99 N/A

The latest case to earn our TR Recommended award is Corsair’s Air Series 240, a cuboidal microATX chassis with a dedicated chamber for the power supply, hard drives, and SSDs. Despite its small size, this case is a delight to build in, and its dual-chamber design helps it run cool and quiet. Like the rest of the Corsair cases in this section, the Air 240 also has more intake fans than exhausts. That means positive pressure inside, which should prevent dust from sneaking in through cracks and unfiltered vents.

The Obsidian Series 350D has a more conventional layout, and it’s a little larger than you might expect a microATX case to be. That’s perhaps a good thing, though, because it has almost all of the same amenities as Corsair’s full-sized ATX towers. Don’t like the window? A windowless version is available for $10 less.

Corsair’s Obsidian Series 450D fits our idea of a good mid-range ATX case: big, roomy, cool, and with tool-free goodies to spare. Our only complaint is that the mesh front panel lets a little too much fan noise through (unlike on Corsair’s other cases, where the panel is solid with vents around the sides). Still, the 450D is a great enclosure overall. It earned our TR Recommended award.

Finally, we have the Obsidian Series 750D, the luxury sedan of PC enclosures. This case is similar in design to the 350D and 450D, but Corsair makes it large enough to accommodate E-ATX motherboards. The 750D is an extremely spacious case that’s an absolute delight to work in. It’s pretty darn quiet, too.

High end

Product Price Notable needs
Cooler Master Cosmos II $299.99 A forklift

At roughly 14″ x 28″ x 26″, the Cooler Master Cosmos II is humongous. And at nearly $300, it’s also quite expensive. This thing is unarguably impressive, though, with even roomier innards than the 750D and all kinds of premium features, including gull-wing doors, sliding metal covers, and a compartmentalized internal layout. We didn’t give it an Editor’s Choice award by accident.

Power supplies

This should go without saying in this day and age, but we’ll say it anyway: buying a good power supply is a must.

Cheap PSUs can cause all kinds of problems, from poor stability to premature component failures. Also, many cheap units have deceptively inflated wattage ratings. For example, a “500W” bargain-bin PSU might get half of its rating from the 5V rail, which is relatively unimportant, leaving only 250W for the 12V rail, which supplies most power-hungry components like the CPU and GPU. By contrast, quality PSUs derive most of their wattage ratings from the capacity of their 12V rails. That means an el-cheapo 500W unit could be less powerful in practice than a quality 350W PSU.

The power supplies we’ve singled out below are quality units from trustworthy manufacturers who offer at least three years of warranty coverage. You’ll notice that these PSUs all have modular cabling, as well. Going with a non-modular PSU can shave a few bucks off the price of a build, but modular units make cable routing and general system assembly much more convenient. Since there isn’t a particularly large price premium involved, we think modular cabling is worth it.

We also tried to find PSUs with 80 Plus Bronze or better certification. 80 Plus Bronze guarantees efficiency of 82-85%, depending on the load. The higher a PSU’s efficiency, the less energy it turns into heat while converting AC to DC power, the easier it is to cool quietly. 80 Plus Bronze, Silver, or Gold units tend to have large, slow-spinning fans that are barely audible during normal use. They’ll save you a bit of money on your power bill over the long run, too.

Budget

Product Price Notable needs
Corsair CX430M $49.99 Graphics card must not have

more than one PCIe power connector

Corsair’s CX430M has been our budget PSU of choice for quite some time, and we haven’t found anything better in this price range. This unit has modular cabling, 80 Plus Bronze certification, a large intake fan that should cool the unit quietly, and three years of warranty coverage. Not only that, but it also has better user reviews than other modular PSUs priced in the same ballpark.

430W of output power should be enough to handle a system based on the other budget components we’ve recommended. If you’re splurging on higher-end parts, however, one of the higher-wattage units below is probably a better bet. Also note that the CX430M has only a single PCIe power connector.

Sweet spot

Product Price Notable needs
Seasonic G Series 550W $94.99 N/A
Corsair HX650 $109.99

Seasonic’s G Series 550W power supply looks like one of the nicest PSUs in this price range. It features modular cabling, 80 Plus Gold certification, five-year warranty coverage, competitive pricing, and good Newegg user reviews. Seasonic has an excellent track record, too, not just as a purveyor of its own PSUs, but as a manufacturer of units for other vendors. For a mid-range build that might need more than one PCIe power connector, this thing should be a safe bet.

Corsair’s HX650 is another good option. It’s a little more powerful and features seven years of warranty coverage instead of five. We’ve had good experiences with Corsair’s HX-series PSUs in the past.

High end

Product Price Notable needs
Corsair HX850 $149.99 N/A

Corsair’s HX850 returns as our favored high-end PSU. With an 80 Plus Gold rating, a cornucopia of connectors, and great user reviews, this model leaves little to be desired.

You’ll notice that we’re not recommending 1kW or higher-wattage units here. Those aren’t really necessary to power the kinds of single-GPU builds we’re advocating. The field of 1kW power supplies is also very competitive, with many PSUs from lots of manufacturers striving for supremacy, and we haven’t reviewed many of them. We may revisit this segment in the future, but for now, we feel better-qualified to comment on lower-wattage units.

 

Miscellaneous

Need a fancy processor cooler or a sound card? You’ve come to the right place. This is where we talk about components that, while not always strictly necessary, can improve a build in very real ways.

Aftermarket CPU coolers

With the exception of the Core i7-5930K, all of the CPUs we’ve recommended come with stock coolers. Those coolers do a decent enough job, and they’re generally small enough to fit happily inside cramped enclosures. However, Intel’s stock coolers don’t have much metal with which to dissipate thermal energy, and their fans are relatively small. They can get noisy under load, and they may be unable to handle the extra heat from an overclocked processor.

The coolers listed below are all more powerful and quieter than the stock Intel solutions. The more affordable ones are conventional, tower-style designs with large fans, while the higher-priced Corsair H-series units are closed-loop liquid coolers that can be mounted against a case’s exhaust vents.

Product Price
Thermaltake NiC F3 $29.99
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO $34.99
Thermaltake NiC C5 $49.99
Corsair H60 $64.99
Corsair H80i $89.99

Thermaltake’s NiC coolers are designed specifically to accommodate tall memory heat spreaders. They use relatively slim fin arrays to achieve this feat. Despite that fact, they’re capable of cooling very power-hungry processors. The NiC F3 can dissipate as much as 160W of heat, while the NiC C5 can do 230W, according to Thermaltake. That’s way beyond the needs of stock-clocked Haswell CPUs, which top out at 84W.

Cooler Master’s Hyper 212 EVO has a similar design to the NiC F3, but with a wider fin array. The extra metal may allow for somewhat quieter cooling, but it may also interfere with tall memory modules. This cooler is a very popular option, though, with over 6,000 five-star reviews at Newegg. (Cooler Master makes another, similar cooler called the Hyper T4, but the 212 EVO is supposed to have better performance and a better mounting bracket.)

Corsair’s H60 and H80i liquid coolers are entirely self-contained and require no special setup. You simply mount them against a case’s exhaust vent with the fan blowing through the radiator fins, and the closed-loop liquid cooling system takes care of everything. The H80i has a larger fin array than the H60, and it supports Corsair’s Link feature, which lets you monitor coolant temperatures and control fan speeds via Windows software. Both of these coolers take next to no space around the CPU socket, since their radiators are mounted to the case wall. For that reason, they’re ideal for something like a Haswell-E system packed with tall memory modules. In fact, we very much recommend water cooling for any Haswell-E build, given how crowded the area around the socket tends to be.

We’ll also throw in an honorable mention for Noctua’s NH-U12P, which has a beefy tower-style fin array and dual 120-mm fans. This behemoth costs $80 and is probably the finest air cooler we’ve tested. It performed even better than an older closed-loop liquid cooler from CoolIT in our air vs. water showdown several years back. However, its fin array may be too large to accommodate tall memory modules.

Sound cards

A lot of folks are perfectly content with their motherboard’s integrated audio these days. However, each time we conduct blind listening tests, even low-end discrete sound cards wind up sounding noticeably better than integrated audio. That’s with a pair of lowly Sennheiser HD 555 headphones, not some kind of insane audiophile setup.

In other words, if you’re using halfway decent analog headphones or speakers, a sound card is a worthwhile purchase.

It’s fine to stick with motherboard audio if you use digital speakers or USB headphones, since those handle the analog-to-digital conversion themselves. That said, even with digital speakers, the sound cards we recommend below will do things that typical onboard audio cannot, such as surround sound virtualization and real-time Dolby multi-channel encoding.

Product Price
Asus Xonar DSX $71.16
Asus Xonar DX $97.73

The Xonar DSX and Xonar DX can both drive analog headphones or 7.1-channel speaker setups (either analog or digital). In our blind listening tests performed with analog headphones, these two cards sounded very similar. The DSX is the more affordable of the two, but the DX gets you Dolby Headphone virtualization in exchange for a roughly $30 premium.

While we’re on the subject of pricing, we’ve noticed that prices for these sound cards have gone up quite a bit at Newegg recently. (In October, the Xonar DSX was around $55, and the DX sold for $80.) We’re not sure what’s up, but we recommend shopping around for the best price if you can.

There are other options out there, including Creative’s $70 Sound Blaster Z. We finally got one of those in our labs recently, and it sounds decent—though not as neutral as the Xonar DX, even with the Crystalizer setting disabled. My hunch is that Creative does a little post-processing to make highs pop, which can result in overly crisp-sounding music.

 

Sample builds

By now, you should have the info you need to configure your own build based on your needs. However, we thought it would be helpful to outline a few sample configs, if only to offer a better sense of the kinds of component pairings one might want to make—or need to make, based on the components’ compatibility requirements. We’ve put together four sample builds: one for each of our main pricing tiers, plus a one-off build just for kicks. These are merely examples of what’s possible, but you’re free to replicate them wholesale if you wish.

Budget build: the Econobox

  Component Price
Processor Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition $69.99
Cooler Thermaltake NiC F3 $29.99
Motherboard MSI Z97 PC Mate $89.99
Memory G.Skill Ares 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1600 $78.99
Graphics HIS Radeon R9 270 $139.99
Storage WD Blue 1TB 7,200 RPM $52.99
Enclosure Corsair Carbide 200R $59.99
PSU Corsair CX430M $49.99
Total   $571.92

Rather than go with the absolute cheapest configuration, we’ve made some provisions for overclocking here. We’ve picked out an entry-level Z97 motherboard and thrown in an aftermarket cooler. With a chip like the Pentium Anniversary Edition, it’d be a sin not to. We’ve also splurged a little on our graphics card, since the Radeon R9 270 is a fair bit faster than cards priced at $150 and less. Last, but not least, we made sure to choose an 8GB memory kit, since several new and upcoming AAA games require at least 6GB.

All of this should make for a very capable gaming machine at a very affordable price.

Sweet-spot build: the Maxwellator

  Component Price
Processor Core i5-4690K $239.99
Cooler Thermaltake NiC F3 $29.99
Motherboard Asus Z97-A $139.99
Memory G.Skill Ares 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1600 $78.99
Graphics MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming 4G $349.99
Storage Intel 530 Series 240GB $124.99
WD Green 3TB $104.99
Asus BW-12B1ST Blu-ray burner $69.99
Sound card Asus Xonar DSX $71.16
Enclosure Corsair Obsidian Series 450D $119.99
PSU Seasonic G Series 550W $94.99
Total   $1,425.06

Like the Pentium Anniversary Edition, the Core i5-4690K is fully unlocked. However, this chip features two more cores, so it can perform far better in multithreaded apps and heavy multitasking scenarios. The 8GB memory kit will see to that, as well.

Otherwise, our chosen motherboard is a TR Recommended award winner, and we’ve stretched our budget a little to include the GeForce GTX 970, which is just too good to pass up. We’ve also got a decent-sized SSD, a larger mechanical hard drive, a discrete sound card to ensure good analog audio quality, a Blu-ray drive for backups and HD movies, and a beefier, more efficient PSU with enough PCIe power connectors for our graphics card.

If I were shopping for a new PC today, this is probably what I would buy. I might splurge for a higher-end PSU like Corsair’s HX750, though, since the Seasonic G Series has only two PCIe power connectors, and it therefore wouldn’t support a potential multi-GPU upgrade.

High-end build: The Maxwellator XL

  Component Price
Processor Core i7-5930K $579.99
Cooler Corsair H80i $89.99
Motherboard Asus X99-A $234.99
Memory Crucial 16GB (4x4GB) DDR4-2133 $210.99
Graphics MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming 4G $349.99
Storage Crucial MX100 512GB $204.99
WD Red 4TB $162.99
WD Red 4TB $162.99
Asus BW-12B1ST Blu-ray burner $69.99
Sound card Asus Xonar DX $97.99
Enclosure Corsair Obsidian Series 750D $159.99
PSU Corsair HX850 $149.99
Total   $2,474.88

With six cores, 12 threads, 16GB of RAM, and a GeForce GTX 970 primed for 4K goodness (and/or G-Sync), this is about as good as it gets. Heck, this build almost qualifies as a workstation. The Core i7-5930K packs a mean punch, and there’s a boatload of unused expansion on tap. This system should be fairly quiet, too, despite its ample horsepower. That’s thanks to our liquid cooler, Corsair case, and 80 Plus Gold power supply, not to mention the delightfully power-efficient GPU. Just because a system is fast doesn’t mean it should be used with earmuffs.

We could have gone with the GTX 980 here, but we were able to overclock the MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G so it outperformed that card. You might as well pocket the (substantial) price difference.

Wildcard build: the Cuboid

  Component Price
Processor Core i5-4690K $239.99
Cooler Corsair H60 $64.99
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5 $127.99
Memory G.Skill Ares 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1600 $78.99
Graphics MSI Radeon R9 285 $239.99
Storage Intel 530 Series 240GB $124.99
WD Green 3TB $104.99
Enclosure Corsair Air Series 240 $89.99
PSU Seasonic G Series 550W $94.99
Total   $1,166.91

This is an example of the kind of small-form-factor build you can slap together for a little over a thousand bucks nowadays. We packed in a powerful quad-core CPU with an unlocked upper multiplier and a fast mid-range graphics card. The liquid cooler ought to keep things quiet and cool, all without forcing you to stuff a humongous tower-style heatsink in the case’s tight confines.

 

The operating system

We’re not going to wax poetic about Windows. We will say this: if you’re building a new PC and don’t already have a spare copy of Windows at hand, we recommend that you buy Windows 8.1 instead of Windows 7.

We’re not huge fans of the Modern UI stuff Microsoft introduced with Windows 8, since it’s pretty pointless for gaming desktops like those we recommend. However, we do like the various improvements Microsoft made to the desktop interface, like the new-and-improved File Explorer, the more powerful Task Manager, and the multi-monitor improvements. The faster startup speed doesn’t hurt, either. The demise of the Start menu is deplorable, but the Start screen isn’t such a bad substitute—and you can always bring back the menu with third-party add-ons, if you can’t bear to live without it.

Another good reason to grab Windows 8.1: Windows 7 has been out for more than four years, and Microsoft plans to end mainstream support for it in January 2015. Windows 8.1 will continue to be supported until at least 2018, if Microsoft doesn’t change its support policy.

Now, there are multiple versions of Windows 8.1 available: vanilla, Pro, retail, OEM, 32-bit, and 64-bit. Which one should you get?

With Windows 8, OEM editions were the best deals, since Microsoft’s licensing terms allowed them to be used on home-built PCs and to be transferred to a new machine after an upgrade. With Windows 8.1, however, Microsoft’s System Builder License says OEM editions are “intended only for preinstallation on customer systems that will be sold to end users.” If you’re building a PC for your own use, you’re technically supposed to buy a full retail edition of Windows 8.1.

That makes the issue of 32-bit vs. 64-bit somewhat moot, since retail editions of Windows 8.1 include both versions of the software. (OEM editions are still separate, and in that case, you want the 64-bit version. 64-bit versions of Windows are required to fully utilize 4GB or more of system memory.)

As for Windows 8.1 versus Windows 8.1 Pro, you can compare the two flavors here on Microsoft’s website. Notable Pro features include BitLocker and the ability to host Remote Desktop sessions. Whether those extras are worth the price premium is entirely up to you. Newegg charges $119.99 and $199.99, respectively, for retail versions of Windows 8.1 and Windows 8.1 Pro. Take your pick!

Mobile and peripheral picks

The first edition of our TR peripheral staff picks can be found here. Our latest mobile staff picks can be perused in this article.

What’s next?

Before we go, let’s talk briefly about upcoming hardware releases.

On the graphics front, the rumor mill suggests Nvidia has the GeForce GTX 960 in the pipeline for late January. That card will reportedly fall in the $249-299 price range, so it may supplant the GeForce GTX 770. Also, a Chinese site recently posted benchmarks of what it claims to be a high-end AMD GPU code-named “Captain Jack,” but we can’t confirm the authenticity of those numbers. The Radeon R9 290 series is over a year old, though, so AMD may well have a replacement in the works.

In the not-so-exciting world of CPUs, the latest word from Intel is that desktop CPUs based on the Broadwell architecture will enter production in the March-April time frame. AMD, meanwhile, plans to have Carrizo APUs out in March. Skylake, Broadwell’s successor, is supposed to follow in the latter half of 2015. It will likely hit mobile systems before making its way to desktops.

We expect to see more PCI Express solid-state drives at CES next month. Those drives should be faster than our existing SATA recommendations, and we hope they aren’t too expensive.

That’s about it, unless you count FreeSync monitors, which AMD expects to come out in January or February. Those won’t make any of the hardware in this guide obsolete. On the contrary; they should make the Radeon R9 285 and 290 series more compelling than before.

Comments closed
    • itachi
    • 5 years ago

    Graphics, sweet spot.. buy a hd7950/7970 on ebay…. don’t buy that. lol.

    • itachi
    • 5 years ago

    Your sweet spot RAM should be the G-Skill kit @ 2133 cl9 80$’s more or less..

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    I’ll be giving the in-laws an LG 42″ LED TV tomorrow, partly as a Christmas gift and in part as a way to show gratitude for treating me out to several trips abroad and within the country for a few years now. I hope they’ll be pleased. Well, coming from an old Sony RPTV it would be like going from a rusty old Corolla to a new 2015 model vehicle.

    • HERETIC
    • 5 years ago

    Page 7
    This should go without saying in this day and age, but we’ll say it anyway: buying a good power supply is a must.
    Yet you still recommend Corsair budget PSU using Chinese capacitors,and only a
    bronze unit?????
    For around $10 more can get a Seasonic G 360 which is far superior and gold rated-only
    downside is non modular…………………………………………………………

    • anotherengineer
    • 5 years ago

    All I want for Christmas is Cyril’s review keyboard!!

    [url<]https://techreport.com/review/27329/wasd-code-keyboard-with-cherry-mx-clear-switches-reviewed[/url<] I will donate $60 to TR for it Cyril 🙂

    • sweatshopking
    • 5 years ago

    in canada the 970 costs a full 100$+ more than the 290. the extra 5% (in some games) isn’t worth it.

    • deruberhanyok
    • 5 years ago

    Calling the Air 240 a small form factor case is a real stretch. 9 fan mounts? room for 3 desktop-sized hard drives? Two video cards?

    You guys reviewed the CM Elite 110 – that’s much smaller (260x208x280 vs 397x260x320 mm), and with at least three 970s capable of fitting in it (Asus, Gigabyte and Galaxy have 970 cards will all fit with room to spare), it can still be built as an extremely capable system.

    That said, the Air 240 would definitely make a nicer footrest under the desk.

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 5 years ago

    [quote=”Page 3″<] The H97-based Gigabyte GA-H97M-D3H covers the basics, with a sensible assortment of slots and plentiful USB 3.0 and Serial ATA 6Gbps connectivity rolled into a microATX form factor. [/quote<] This link to the motherboard at Newegg contains a typo. It should be: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128718&CMP=OTC-TechReport&ATT=13-128-718&nm_mc=OTC-TechReport&cm_mmc=OTC-TechReport-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA[/url<] I disagree with the "sensible assortment of slots" assertion. Two of the four slots on that motherboard are wasted with obsolete PCI slots. I do not believe that PCI has a place in most PCs in recent years. Sound cards, TV tuners, disk controllers, USB expansion cards, etc. all switched to PCIe in mid-2008. [quote="In a forum thread, I"<] Micro-ATX LGA1150 motherboard with Z97 (for overclocking) or H97 (no overclocking possible): H97: [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132120<]$93[/url<] Asus [b<]H[/b<]97M-E/CSM [i<]or[/i<] [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130784<]$95[/url<] MSI [b<]H[/b<]97M-G43 - impossible to overclock Z97: [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130780<]$110[/url<] MSI Z97M-G43 [i<]or[/i<] [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128716<]$130 -10MIR[/url<] Gigabyte GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5 [i<]or[/i<] [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157566<]$135[/url<] ASRock F* Z97M K* [i<]or[/i<] [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157520<]$142 -20MIR[/url<] ASRock Z97M OC Formula [i<]or[/i<] [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130773<]$154[/url<] MSI Z97M Gaming [i<]or[/i<] [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132133<]$165[/url<] Asus Gryphon Z97 [i<]or[/i<] [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132136<]$210[/url<] Asus Maximus VII Gene - easy to overclock [/quote<] All of those have at least three PCIe slots open. The table for the sweet spot motherboards should be reformatted to move the micro-ATX motherboard to the bottom row. Right now, the two-row description in the far right column makes it look like the bottom two motherboards are micro-ATX, when it's really just the middle one. [quote="Page 3"<] Finally, users building smaller-form-factor systems will want a microATX board like Gigabyte's GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5. This mobo is more feature-packed than the microATX competition from Asus in just about every respect, down to the inclusion of SATA Express and an optical S/PDIF output. It's also much more affordable than MSI's cheapest microATX Z97 board. [/quote<] I agree that the GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5 is a great motherboard. I don't understand how you're reaching your conclusion when you compare its $130 -10MIR price to the $110 price of the MSI Z97M-G43.

      • Cyril
      • 5 years ago

      Fixed the link, changed the mATX H97 mobo rec to the Asus H97M-E/CSM, and tweaked the description for the GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5 (prices must have moved before we published). I’ll leave the table order as is, though, because I don’t want AMD and Intel boards mixed together.

      Thanks for the feedback!

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 5 years ago

        Thanks, Cyril!

        We appreciate the hard work that you guys put into keeping this excellent guide up-to-date.

    • sschaem
    • 5 years ago

    Interesting that you use the lowest price on the net for the gtx 970,
    But not for the 290 and 290x

    The 290x is measurably faster then a gtx 970 at >1080p with the latest games and its really 50$ cheaper.

    I don’t get the recomendation…

    (And is an overclocked gtx 970 really 100w lower then a stock 290x?)
    Crysys 3 : system load for stock 970 s 290x: 300w vs 365w

    Cod MW : uhd : 45fps vs 54fps

      • f0d
      • 5 years ago

      290x does win over the 970 in performance so so slightly but it does also depend on the game and if you are looking at 99 percentile or just fps

      crysis 3
      [url<]https://techreport.com/review/27067/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-970-graphics-cards-reviewed/8[/url<] 970 61 fps / 290x 65fps 99th percentile 970 20.7 /290x 21.2 so the 290x wins so slightly in fps but also loses just as slightly by 99th percentile battlefield 4 @ 4k [url<]https://techreport.com/review/27067/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-970-graphics-cards-reviewed/9[/url<] 970 30fps / 290x 27fps also it really is 100w lower power consumption [url<]https://techreport.com/review/27067/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-970-graphics-cards-reviewed/12[/url<] 970 295w / 290x 394w the 290x is a great card and imo the 290x and the 970 are close enough to be considered tied for performance but the 290x is cheaper and the 970 is cooler/more power efficient and by what i have seen overclocks better depends on if you want cheap (290x) or cooler/power efficient/quieter/better overclocks (970) both are a good choice now

      • Cyril
      • 5 years ago

      [quote<]Interesting that you use the lowest price on the net for the gtx 970, But not for the 290 and 290x[/quote<] 1) That's not the "lowest price on the net" for the GTX 970. The cheapest GTX 970 variants at Newegg cost [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500362<]$329.99[/url<]. I specifically went with the higher-priced MSI variant because we tested it and [url=https://techreport.com/review/27203/geforce-gtx-970-cards-from-msi-and-asus-reviewed<]gave it an award[/url<]. 2) Are you going to complain about us not picking the absolute cheapest 290/290X cards [url=https://techreport.com/discussion/27026/tr-september-2014-system-guide?post=847551<]every time[/url<]? Because I [url=https://techreport.com/discussion/27026/tr-september-2014-system-guide?post=847651<]already explained[/url<] why, and you [url=https://techreport.com/discussion/27026/tr-september-2014-system-guide?post=847825<]seemed satisfied[/url<] with my explanation.

    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago

    What about the i7-5820K? It’s only very slightly slower than i7-5830K that you think is so great, but costs a full $200 less (that’s enough to buy two AMD A8 7600’s!).

    And before anyone go’s on about it, yes it has “only” 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes, instead of 40. But that will make no difference in a single GPU setup, and I’ve yet to see any evidence that it makes any difference in a dual-GPU setup either.

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      If you are for going single-slot GPU platform. A normal Socket 1150 Haswell platform makes more sense if you do not need the extra cores or memory bandwidth found in Socket 2011v2 solutions.

      i7-5820K is a just interesting niche for people who want more cores, but the higher-end Socket 2011v2 chips are too much.

        • raddude9
        • 5 years ago

        So, you think that the group of people who want 50% more cores but don’t want to spend money unnecessarily is a niche?!

          • Krogoth
          • 5 years ago

          Yes it is.

          5820K makes little or no sense for mainstream and gamers. None of their applications take advantage of the extra cores found in Socket 2011v2 chips. The Socket 1150 Haswell make far more fiscal sense for this crowd. The prosumer crowd typically goes for the extra mile and usually get the full 8-core Socket 2011v2 chips instead of the crippled 6-core units.

          5820K makes only sense for the small number of people who need extra CPU power and memory bandwidth over Socket 1150 solutions while the full 8-core 2011v2 chips are beyond their budget.

            • raddude9
            • 5 years ago

            Sure, the 5820K is not for somebody who plays games and nothing else, or for somebody that doesn’t look past a web browser and word processor. But you can say that of the high-end 1150 chips as well. The office and web users shouldn’t spend more than $100 or so on their CPU and as for the gamers, it’s pointless for them to spend more money on their CPU than on their GPU.

            The 5820K is for people that run applications that take advantage of more than 4 cores, of which there are many (both applications and people).

            To call the 6-core units crippled is harsh when you consider that the 8-core 5960x costs 2.5x the 5820k. For that money you only get 33% more cores. That’s a bad deal. The 5960x only exists to take money from people who have more money than sense.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 5 years ago

            [quote<] The 5960x only exists to take money from people who have more money than sense. [/quote<] Or will make more money in a given time by the increase in output/unit time provided by those 4 extra threads! 😉

            • Krogoth
            • 5 years ago

            5820K was intentionally crippled by Intel because they didn’t want a repeat of 3820K and 4820K. They were too much of a *good deal* and made their greater kin pointless and conflicted their higher-end desktop counterparts (2600K/3790K).

            Intel decided to axe PCIe controller which limits 5820K’s potential as a workstation platform. 28 PCIe lanes doesn’t cut it for SSD PCIe cards, Thunderbolt and GPGPUs.

            Like I said, 5820K is a chip for people who want more CPU power than normal desktop chips have on Intel-side while on a budget.

            • f0d
            • 5 years ago

            people who would use them for workstations would get a xeon anyways which isnt that much difference in price to the consumer chips especially if as you say 4 core chips (like the 3820 and 4820) were a “good deal” only because of the pci lanes

            the E5-1620 v3 has 40 lanes with an rrp of $297
            or a 6 core E5-2620 v3 40 lanes for rrp $422

            it was the same with the 3820 and 4820 – they had equivalent xeons to use as a workstation cpus for similar prices
            E5-1620 v2 (equivalent of a 4820) $294

            so i dont get why anyone would want an i7 for a cheap workstation when xeons are just as cheap for their needs

            the reason they cut the pcie lanes was to segment it from the other higher end i7 for gamers who think that the pcie lanes matter in sli/crossfire

            for the silly people that dont research and think “wow 40 lanes vs 28 lanes my 2 cards in sli will go much faster!”

            edit:typos

      • jihadjoe
      • 5 years ago

      Funny how the GTX970 is recommended over the GTX980 because it saves $200 and can get equivalent performance with overclocking. Well the 5820k will save the same money, and gives the system (as configured) equivalent performance to the 5930k without doing anything at all.

      That $200 saved could go toward 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, a GTX980, or the buyer’s pocket, all of which are more immediately appreciable than an extra 12 PCIe lanes that will likely sit unused anyway, or even if used [url=http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/<]doesn't really make a difference even with multi-GPU[/url<].

        • Krogoth
        • 5 years ago

        or you could save even more by getting a Socket 1150 rig if gaming is your primary function of the system.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 5 years ago

      Yeah, I agree. For dual 8-lane configs in PCI-e 3.0, there’s basically no drop in performance and you can use that money elsewhere in a much better fashion.

        • chuckula
        • 5 years ago

        I’d like to see tests of SLI/Crossfire systems at 4K resolution between the 5280K and the 5930X to see if there really is a measurable loss in performance for games. I’m guessing that with 2 cards there is basically no difference but maybe we see something with 3 cards (not sure how big a delta it would be though).

        Then again, 2 card setups are in the single-digit percent range for real-world use (even when you look at the gamer demographic), and 3+ card setups are in the fraction of a percent use… and I have a feeling that review sites make up a substantial portion of that fraction.

          • Ninjitsu
          • 5 years ago

          Yeah, and 4K display users are even less than multi-GPU users….

          • derFunkenstein
          • 5 years ago

          Yeah, I’ll probably never go dual-GPU, because there are too many headaches associated, even though they’re way better than they were before. So in my case the 5820K would never show its faults.

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          I’d like to see it too, especially with the AMD cards now using the PCIe bus for synchronization. But I still don’t think it’ll be an issue with one or two cards in use.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 5 years ago

      Well, I’ve been saying this for over 2 months, so +1 to you, sir.

    • jensend
    • 5 years ago

    Once again: the A10-7800 is certainly not “the most competitive member of the A series at the moment.” It costs one and a half times as much as the A8-7600 while only providing ~5% more performance in anything other than synthetic tests.

    At $45 more for little benefit, the A10 faces considerably stiffer CPU competition and gets too close to the cost of reasonable dedicated GPU setups.

    (And if you’re getting a dedicated GPU anyways, those two extra CUs, which are already mostly irrelevant due to the bandwidth bottleneck, instead become totally irrelevant, further narrowing the A10’s advantages over the A8.)

    All that mentioning the A10 gets you is another opportunity to gripe about Newegg not enacting AMD’s price cuts. The A8 is also closer to its MSRP.

    I said this [url=https://techreport.com/news/25864/amd-sheds-more-light-on-kaveri-announces-new-mobile-radeons?post=790983#790983<]before Kaveri was released[/url<] and I guess I've [url=https://techreport.com/discussion/27252/tr-fall-2014-system-guide?post=859723<]said[/url<] [url=https://techreport.com/news/27277/amd-a-series-price-cuts-still-arent-in-effect?post=860007<]it[/url<] [url=https://techreport.com/news/27400/amd-prolongs-a-series-software-deal-price-cuts-still-a-work-in-progress?post=865516<]four[/url<] [url=https://techreport.com/discussion/27488/tr-christmas-2014-system-guide?post=869075<]times[/url<] in the past two months. If it seems like I'm harping on it, it's because it just strikes me as odd that most tech sites seem to be ignoring AMD's only competitive FMx product.

      • raddude9
      • 5 years ago

      You’re not the only one, more than once I’ve mentioned that the A8-7600 is easily the most competitive AMD processor. Nobody’s listening though.

      • Yan
      • 5 years ago

      I’m also surprised that the A8-7600 isn’t recommended, and I’d be interested in seeing Cyril’s reasons for that.

      • cobalt
      • 5 years ago

      I think it’s because the A8-7600 was delayed for so long, they just got into the habit of assuming it was never going to be available for purchase. (They reviewed it in January, and in April AMD finally announced it it was going to be delayed until 2H. I don’t remember when it finally showed up.)

        • jensend
        • 5 years ago

        I’m pretty sure it arrived end of July, same time as the A10-7800, but yeah, I think its release went under the radar while A10-7800 reviews were at their most visible.

      • Cyril
      • 5 years ago

      Ugh, you damned kids and your “facts” and “numbers”!

      Changed the recommendation to the A8-7600. You’re right; it’s hard to make the case for the A10-7800 now that the A8-7600 is out.

        • jensend
        • 5 years ago

        Huh. Looked at your revision, was surprised at the prices you were listing, and checked.

        Sure enough, Newegg just bumped their price on the A8 by $12, just within the last few hours. You can see e.g. with Google that they were selling it for $98 earlier today.

        Still a better deal than the A10, but not as much a slam dunk. Other retailers (Amazon, Directron, etc) still have it at the earlier price.

        BTW the A8 has been out as long as the A10- they both hit stores in July. But because the A8 was reviewed in January while reviews of the A10 came out just as they both hit the shelves the A10 got the attention.

        • raddude9
        • 5 years ago

        Nice! Thanks Cyril, saw the edit, all is well with the internet again 🙂

        Hmmm, we may have done AMD out of some much needed $’s, feeling less good now…

    • crabjokeman
    • 5 years ago

    As I say with a lot of TR memory guides, I’d pay a few extra bucks not to have RAM that needs dental floss, even with a stock heatsink. It’s a head-scratcher that a RAM kit using big heatsinks is the cheapest in its category (2*2GB DDR3-1600).

    So here’s crabjokeman’s Budget RAM Alternatives:
    – Crucial kit with same specs as the TR recommendation [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148542[/url<] - G.Skill Eco kit with same speed specs (but runs on 1.35V instead of 1.5V) [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231319[/url<]

      • WulfTheSaxon
      • 5 years ago

      For an APU build, I’d go with some 2133 MHz RAM like [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220853<]this 8 GB kit[/url<] for $60 after MIR. (Don’t be deterred by the CL11 – at 2133 MHz, that’s 10.3125 ns vs 11.25 ns for 1600 MHz CL9.)

        • crabjokeman
        • 5 years ago

        Good point on giving the APU some extra memory bandwidth.

    • GeForce6200
    • 5 years ago

    Still a little disappointed there aren’t any DAC recommendations, especially now that the internal sound cards recommended are pushing $100. The convenience of a DAC I think should be taken into consideration as many of us would like to have good sound quality from a laptop as well. I see the need to a surround card for certain systems, but I am willing to bet more of us use headphones than a surround system. With that said Schiit recently relapsed a DAC/AMP combo for $79: [url<]http://schiit.com/products/fulla[/url<]

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      I would like to see home-theater setup as alternatives for HTPC/audiophile crowd, but I do suppose there are other online communities that are catered towards this.

    • madtronik
    • 5 years ago

    There is a new SSD drive that could be interesting.

    [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226596&cm_re=mushkin_reactor-_-20-226-596-_-Product[/url<] I've just grabbed one to finally ditch my slow mechanical storage. The price is very good and it seems it uses the same memory than Crucial's MX line. The controller is a Silicon Motion SM2246EN. I am eager to put it in my rig. I suppose I will receive it on Monday.

      • SomeOtherGeek
      • 5 years ago

      At $0.36/GB… Yea, I say you got yourself a very nice drive! Enjoy it, you are going to be very pleased.

    • Airmantharp
    • 5 years ago

    Right off the bat I noticed an error- a link to [url=https://techreport.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=33<]System Builder's Anonymous[/url<] and JAE's home, cell, and work phone numbers appears to be missing on the first page by the 'How to Build a PC' video :).

    • appaws
    • 5 years ago

    Why the almost exclusive recommendation of Corsair cases? Nothing wrong with them for the most part, but there are better products in those price ranges. I use an Air 540 myself, but seriously that section needs work.

    How can you leave out things like the NZXT S340 in the budget range? Where is the Fractal Define R5…? No Phanteks at all…!?

      • James296
      • 5 years ago

      *delete*

      • Cyril
      • 5 years ago

      We’re more comfortable recommending cases we’ve actually reviewed. Unfortunately, most of the cases we receive are from Corsair, so they’re the ones we’re familiar with. We’re working on expanding our case coverage (I have a Cooler Master Silencio 652S sitting in my lab right now), but we’re a small team, and it takes time. Stay tuned!

        • appaws
        • 5 years ago

        Ah I see. Didn’t mean to come off as harsh or anything. You guys are my favorite tech site and one of my first clicks every day.

        I guess the 2 of the 3 I mentioned are Euro companies and don’t get things out to US sites for review.

        • crabjokeman
        • 5 years ago

        I feel the same way about being most comfortable with recommending things I’ve used, but when you’re a tech site that gets free stuff from manufacturers, doesn’t that invite accusations of unfairness?

          • Terra_Nocuus
          • 5 years ago

          If you want their opinion/guarantee on a component, then doesn’t it need to be something that they’ve personally reviewed? If [case manufacturer] doesn’t send them a review sample, how are they to vouch for it?

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      True, but cases are more about features then anything else. The general rule of thumb still holds true. The higher the price point, chassis quality/features increase.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 5 years ago

    The MX100 256GB really shouldn’t be recommended. I am sure I will catch a lot of flak from fanboys, but based on street prices it is not anything special. While SSD is always better than HDD, the 256GB version of this drive is slower than the competition at the same prices.

      • appaws
      • 5 years ago

      I think you are right that it is not anything special….however, I will say that we are still at the point with SSDs that it does not have to be anything special to satisfy the customer. 99% of users cannot tell the difference between SSD performance, but they can easily tell the difference between it and their old HDD.

      Right now I would say that the only variable the average SSD buyer should even look at is price.

        • travbrad
        • 5 years ago

        Yep cost per GB is basically 90% of my consideration when looking at SSDs. Reliability used to be a big factor too, but the past few generations of SSDs have been solid in that respect. The performance differences between them just won’t be noticeable for most people.

        The only areas where we see differences of any significance are when copying large files (to/from the same SSD), and when running servers with many users accessing them at the same time. I could be wrong but I don’t think most people use their SSDs in these ways.

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      SSD performance across the vendors are nearly the same for mainstream usage patterns. SSD choice is mostly based on GB/$$$ ratio and vendor reliability/reputation.

      • wierdo
      • 5 years ago

      Actually you can get some crazy deals on those MX100/M500 256GB drives, seems they put them in allot of special promos etc these days.

      The prices listed in the article are what you can get without trying, but I’ve seen these babies sell for $75-$90 all the time the last few weeks.

      Heck, Tiger direct was selling two M500 256gb drives for ~$60 each last week. Can’t go wrong with that.

      (old deal link: [url<]http://slickdeals.net/f/7490104-2-240gb-crucial-m500-sata-iii-2-5-solid-state-drive-ssd-65-each-tigerdirect-10-cb-58-final-updated?v=1)[/url<]

        • MadManOriginal
        • 5 years ago

        All SSDs sell for less than their MSRP, which was basically my point. I keep track of sales and deals through promo emails and whatnot, and the MX100 has not been well below its MSRP very often – it just happens to have a low MSRP.

        I don’t understand why people make the argument that ‘SSDs are going to all be similar in real use (which is mostly true), therefore you may as well get any of them’ (which doesn’t make sense – why pay the same for less performance?). That’s basically my point…when you can find objectively better drives for similar prices, why buy the poorer performing one?

        Also, the M500 is being blown out because it’s EOL, but the M500 and MX100 are not the same drive. Cool for those who just want any SSD though.

          • travbrad
          • 5 years ago

          All the drives I see with better performance are slightly more expensive than the MX100. There isn’t a huge difference in price, but why spend more for no noticeable performance increase?

          Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough though, could you provide some links?

          • wierdo
          • 5 years ago

          You can easily grab the MX100 256GB for around $85 these days, I’d say that’s quite below MSRP.

          Also the argument for picking up modern SSDs based on price/performance with a heavier emphasis on price is that we’re kinda reaching deminishing returns on SSD speed. You can get a drive that’s 600 or 800 percent faster than a HDD, you may or may not notice the difference, but $20 in the pocket is nice change.

          It’s a personal call of course – I would pickup the 500gb size for myself because it’s the ideal balance for my taste – but if I wanted to put an SSD in a relative’s PC then I wouldn’t care if it had either SSD, the price would be more important for him.

          It’s kinda like buying a 36x DVD vs a 48x one, I don’t care if the price was the same, but ten bucks would sway me personally because I can’t perceive the performance difference enough/where it matters to care.

          Also the M500 may technically be considered “old” but it performs fine for the same reasons above imho. For $60 I might pick it over the MX100 for $85 if I was in the market. That’s why I mentioned it: its random IO performance is solid, I doubt anyone would be able to tell it apart from any other new brand/model of the same size in a blind test.

    • James296
    • 5 years ago

    quick, find the typos *gets popcorn*

      • crabjokeman
      • 5 years ago

      You didn’t capitalize the ‘Q’ or use a period.

        • James296
        • 5 years ago

        [url<]http://youtu.be/hSb7mlz7Hag[/url<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This