Hi Guys So building my second PC, but will be my first PC that has a custom water loop in it and some ambitious case mods (considering I've never modded anything other than a faulty PSU!). Wish me luck!! At the moment I'm making sure I get the electronic components right, likely to be purchasing these by the end of the month. Based on my requirements discussed below I have made the following list of components, see what you think: PcPartPicker Budget: ~£730 Main uses of intended build: Gaming (MMOs) and a bit of engineering simulation Parts required: Cpu, Mobo, GPU, Ram, SSD, Psu Previous build information (list details of parts): Not really worth mentioning, very old rig (5 yrs), salvaging the OS and Hdd from this though Monitor resolution: 1920 x 1080 Storage requirements: SSD must be at least 120Gb Will you be overclocking: Yes Any motherboard requirements (no. of USB, Xfire/SLI, fan headers):M-Atx Extra information about desired system: M-ATX - Yes I already have the case (Corsair 350D) Full Modular PSU - will be replacing the power cables Will be water cooled - Bare in mind I will be water cooling the GPU and CPU using a custom loop, this has a separate budget to the above (£200), using one Laing DDC 12V pump . Replace in two years? Mobo and Ram have to be black or dark colours (e.g. brown - no bits of red etc) - yup I have a colour scheme! Quiet! Reasons for my choices above: CPU - I understand the 3570K OCed performance is marginally better than the 4570K OCed, not to mention a 1155 socket Mobo and Cpu combo is slightly cheaper. Not bothered about future proofing the Mobo socket since I'm likely to get a new mobo when I upgrade the CPU. PSU - This was a toss between a RM650 and the SuperNOVA 650W, SuperNova is cheaper. GPU - A toss between GTX770 and R9 280X, the R9 280X is cheaper and slower (granted this would be not be noticeable), however the GTX770 requires less power (thermal load) and so opted for this RAM - 16Gb for engineering software SSD - Going to store the OS and games on the SSD; using a old Sata II HDD to store all the other fluff (pictures, family movies, etc). Opted for the 840 Evo due to good reviews and benchmark results. Think that is everything! So thoughts?
Sooo a few days later, over a 100 views and no suggestions/comments. I suppose no news is good news at least! I was wondering if my rational for GPU choice and CPU (and Mobo) choices are justified Cheers!
I would try to get a 256gb ssd if you run to it. I have a 128 on the machine my wife has now "borrowed" and I found that I had to be careful towards the end with what I installed. You may be fine but for the extra bit of cash it would probably be worth it. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Forgot about my thread asking for advise.... tbh never thought about getting a larger SSD. Looked into it and figured that I can actually do away with my old HDD as i don't use much storage so will clean up the pc inerds a bit.. thanks for the great suggestion. Price difference isn't a great deal either!
if you're after a larger capacity budget SSD, it's probably worth waiting for a couple of weeks for the new Crucial MX100 to settle down in price (or there to be a discount offer with Dabs or Aria or whoever)... ...& to see how Samsung responds to its pricing. Yeah, whilst arguably the Evo's the better SSD for an average user, the rapid (memory cache) tech does have its limitations & is significantly more expensive. So, on one side, rapid does not work if you've got the mobo's HDD controller set to raid, & there's the risk of losing data that's in the cache in the event of a power out - & not having/enabling it reduces the performance somewhat... ...&, on the other, the 512GB MX100 looks to be ~£155 atm - vs the 500GB Evo @ ~£197 & the 250GB @ ~£103... ...so, if you're looking to not use a HDD, the 500GB MX100 would be a much better buy, given the price per GB, if you had to spend your money today. [NB the 500GB Evo & the 512GB MX have the same total nand capacity, it's just a difference in OP & whatnot.] That said, i would still really recommend you have another drive in there for backing up to - unless you've got a NAS or something. Things change however if you're looking at smaller capacities as the use of larger nand dies (128Gb/16GB vs 64Gb/8GB) in the Crucial reduces the gains from accessing multiple dies simultaneously... (this was the same with the M500, which the MX100's replacing & is with the MX550) ...& esp at the 120/128GB level (&, to a lesser extent, the 250/256GB), you'd be better buying the Evo for anything other than very light usage. This doesn't change anything with regard to the top end consumer SSDs - where naturally it's waiting for the pcie ones with NVMe (or the M2 ones, if you can use them) to hit later this year... ...though, imho, you'd have to have a very good reason (or a laptop) to want to buy a high end SSD atm as SATA's on the way out. Certainly the 3rd gen SFs have been pushed back to Q4, but there's no info as to what the release schedule for consumer pcie SSDs from, for example, intel, Marvell or Samsung might be atm.
Probs going to go for a 256GB EVO. I will be using the PC for gaming (MMOs/RPGs) primarley, my budget only allows for a ~£100 SSD and using an external HDD as a back up... most likely will buy another 256GB in the future when i start running out of space again, unlikely though as I don't listen to music and prefer having a hard dvd collection!
Fair enough... My assumption was that an extra ~£52 for double the capacity wouldn't throw your budget completely out... But naturally you have a better idea of your finances than i do. Yeah, forgetting anything about the relative merits of either SSD, unless you have to buy instantly then i'd still really suggest leaving it at least a couple of weeks to see what happens with the pricing on both the Evo & the MX100. Well, sensibly the Evos are now too expensive, comparatively speaking - but whether Samsung reduce price or launch another cashback deal or just bury their heads in the sand is anyone's guess... ...however it'd be a shame to overpay as sensibly they do need to do something with the pricing in the not too distant future.
The 3570K is not better than a 4670K. The reason it *may* be a bit quicker is because they don't run as hot and can therefore overclock further; but the 4670K can run 2-300MHz slower and perform the same as the 3570K.
I don't care about clock speeds, all I care about is the max FPS can I get with a given cooling setup, if I can get a a cheaper CPU to run at a higher clock with the same thermal load as a new generation with equal FPS performance, why would I get the 4670k? When overclocking as an end user; performance is not measure by what FPS you can get at equal clock speeds. But what max FPS you can get for each CPU at a stable clock with the given thermal cooling capabilities of your rig. Ah yes of course, not buying any PC components for a few weeks till I get some custom made steel panels cut/folded and completed the mods on my case. Thanks again!
