| Page 1 of 2 |
Aeon
Posts: 8701
Location: Netherlands
|
 Posted: Thu, 1st Sep 2011 20:39 Post subject: New PC for a friend |
|
 |
So, I offered a friend of mine to assemble a new PC for him. His budget is €600,- or if it's worth €800,- (but not more) He uses it for gaming.
So far I came up with these two listst:
HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ, 1TB
Case: Cooler Master Elite 310
CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K Boxed
PSU: OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W
RAM: Kingston ValueRAM KVR1333D3N9K2/4G
GPU: MSI GeForce GTX560 N560GTX-M2D1...
Mobo: MSI P67A-C43 (B3)
Price: €552,64 (http://tweakers.net/gallery/313945?wish_id=196884#tab:wenslijst)
HDD: Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ, 1TB
Case: Cooler Master CM 690 II Advanced
CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K Boxed
PSU: XFX PRO650W
RAM: Kingston HyperX KHX1600C9D3K2/8G
GPU: MSI N560GTX-Ti Hawk
Mobo: MSI P67A-GD55 (B3)
Price: €741,75 (http://tweakers.net/gallery/313945?wish_id=186174#tab:wenslijst)
Any good?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 1st Sep 2011 21:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Looks fine overall. First list needs that XFX PSU as well though, OCZ are fucking terrible (made by Sirtec mostly). XFX's "Core" series (which is what the Pro thing is) are all Seasonic, so they're good. The Pro 550W would be way more than enough already, that's 20 EUR cheaper. Alternatively, the modular XXX version is the same price as the non-modular Core version.
Highly doubt he'll need 8GB, so you could save 15 EUR there. Don't save 5 EUR going for "Value RAM", the HyperX 4GB kit is barely any more expensive (value is 20, HyperX is 25?).
Assuming you're not caring too much about cable management and a non-modular PSU is fine:
HDD: Keep
Case: The CM 690 II Advanced because it'll make your life easier.
CPU: Keep
PSU: XFX Pro 550W (same Seasonic platform, 20 EUR cheaper and he REALLY won't even get anywhere near 450W, let alone 550W or 650W)
RAM: 2x2 GB Kingston HyperX (1333)
GPU: the Hawk, runs much cooler and quieter than its "regular" counterpart
Mobo: MSI P67A-GD55
Too lazy to make you a proper wishlist on T.net 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeon
Posts: 8701
Location: Netherlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Sep 2011 16:50 Post subject: |
|
|
@ Fever: Considering this is the current budget, I don't see it changing much in the future. This setup, if pushed to its absolute limits with Furmark and Linpack at the same time, might just about reach 450. While gaming, my best estimate is somewhere around 300-350W. 550W is enough for him to even stick in a second 560; I doubt this stuff will be overclocked.
You overestimate how much power stuff uses, like many others 
I ran off a 550W PSU for almost 5 years, even with overclocking an Intel EE 955; that PSU is still powering my old PC, it'll be 6 years old by next month. Waste of money going for anything higher than 550W if you're not going to run a heavily OC'd setup 24/7.
Edit: Single module of RAM is silly btw. If it breaks, you can't do shit with the PC. Performance is not even the point really, dual-channel is not as important as one might think. With 2 chips you can always keep going rather than having to wait for RMA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Sep 2011 17:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Two is enough in the case of Fermi 
I should really get a reading of my power draw under load again, just to prove my point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raccoon
Posts: 3160
Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 17:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Keep in mind that that thing is fairly inaccurate and the number it displays is the Furmark+Linpack number, a number you'll never, ever reach unless you do so intentionally.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeon
Posts: 8701
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 9th Sep 2011 18:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Since he wants it from 1 shop (he lives in belgium, so that parts have to come to me) but alternate.be doesn't have the GTX 560ti Twin Frozr, but they have the HD6950 Twin Frozr III. Good enough?
Intel i7 6700K, RTX470 Super, Kingston HyperX Fury 32GB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeon
Posts: 8701
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat, 10th Sep 2011 12:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone?
Intel i7 6700K, RTX470 Super, Kingston HyperX Fury 32GB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 10th Sep 2011 12:47 Post subject: |
|
|
The card is good and fast.
 Spoiler: | Won't have PhysX, though.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 10th Sep 2011 12:49 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeon
Posts: 8701
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat, 10th Sep 2011 13:02 Post subject: |
|
|
:O I couldn't find it yesterday, thanks!
Intel i7 6700K, RTX470 Super, Kingston HyperX Fury 32GB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 17:23 Post subject: |
|
|
So I want to build a new PC as well, and I have about the same price limit. I want to spend around 600€, but I am seriously considering an additional SSD for the OS. Is is worth it in a system like this?
And what SSD would you suggest?
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 18:47 Post subject: |
|
|
An SSD is worth it in any system. Right now, Vertex 2's are pretty darn cheap, M4's aren't much above them. I personally recommend either of those.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 19:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | An SSD is worth it in any system. Right now, Vertex 2's are pretty darn cheap, M4's aren't much above them. I personally recommend either of those. |
With a limited budget like that, he'd get a lot more bang for his buck by putting the extra money into the GPU rather than an SSD.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 19:19 Post subject: |
|
|
You obviously haven't got an SSD. Scroll up and have a look what 600 Euros can already buy you; a GTX 560 is more than enough for anything out there right now and an SSD will have a far more noticeable impact than a 6950 (one step up) or 570/6970 (two steps up) would.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 19:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | a GTX 560 is more than enough for anything out there right now |
Not if you want to run everything - without dropping down details/settings - at a proper resolution (1920x1080 and up).
SSD's are brilliant for the decreased loading times they offer, but they have no effect on FPS - which is much more important for gaming.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 19:37 Post subject: |
|
|
You got that wrong - up to and including 1080p is fine on a 560 Ti. It even runs Crysis 1 above 40 FPS with enthusiast shaders on; something like BC2 does somewhere around the mid-60s, UE3 games run at 70-80 FPS.
Decreased loading times are the last reason to buy an SSD. It's the overal responsiveness of your system and boot times that make it worth it; once you use that once, you don't want to go back. I know I sure as hell don't.
If I'm wrong, please prove that I am because even though it's been 8 months, I'm pretty sure I got the numbers in my head correctly (meaning that my numbers are most likely quite conservative, driver optimisation will have improved it further).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 19:59 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not saying that SSD's aren't worth it (or that those GPU's would be a poor choice - far from it, they're great currently), just that if you only have 600€ to use on a completely new system, case and all, a properly sized SSD just takes a too big of a chunk out of the total budget.
If Crysis & Warhead indeed run so well - consistently, without dipping down to 20's with lots of action on the screen - on the 560 Ti, then that's great and news to me. Those are older games tho, and both 6950 and 560 struggle with games like Metro 2033 and Crysis 2. There's not a whole of headroom in either of these cards for future releases.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 20:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | | IThose are older games tho, and both 6950 and 560 struggle with games like Metro 2033 and Crysis 2. There's not a whole of headroom in either of these cards for future releases. |
Well, BC2 is just as old as Metro. Metro is incredibly unoptimised though, much more so than Crysis ever was while not really looking better than that title. I would comment how it runs on my system, but I've never bothered to download it since getting my 6950 (nor have I bothered downloading Crysis for that matter, both games suck balls).
As far as your comment about Crysis 2: horseshit
I can't comment on how it runs with the DX11 patch/texture pack, as I shift-deleted it two days after I "acquired" it, but it ran at a pretty constant 55 FPS - 1080p, everything cranked up as far as that piece of shit allowed me to. That's on a 6950 2GB.
If you're talking DX11 performance, all I have to say is: http://techreport.com/r.x/crysis2/debris-water-mesh-620.jpg
Fully tessellated water - under the map, completely invisible. Crytek fucked it up, no wonder it hurts performance. Just like so much else in CE3, they fucked it up completely.
A 60GB SSD is more than enough to run Windows off, that'll only set you back about 70 EUR these days. Like I said in some other thread, loading in most games don't benefit from SSDs at all, since most games can not be unpacked and will be large packed files. Result: to load shit, you get a long sequential read action, something which most mechanical drives are fast enough for. The power of an SSD lies in random reads/writes, not sequential.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 20:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Ultra settings are pretty rough for single card because of that tesselation shit what crytek managed to do. On SLI i get about 60-70fps all times maxed out @ 1080p.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 20:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | | I've seen a lot of people say that only the Crucial M4's and Intel (320 series? I think) are worth getting - is that just another case of some early crap products soiling the name of everyone except the top performers, or is there some truth to that? I'm trying to figure out a system for a friend and both of those are considerably more expensive than normal HDD's (99€ for 64GB M4, 160€ for 80GB Intel 320). |
No, that's nonsense. We had that discussion a few days ago on here as well, with people going "OMG VERTEX 3 SUCKS" or "ONLY CRUCIAL IS GOOD" or "INTEL RULES" more or less.
Truth is that all 3 have firmware (I'll refer to them by controller, Crucial = Micron, OCZ/Corsair = SF, Intel = ..doh ) issues. Micron have the least, between Intel and Sandforce it's a tie really. Here's the kicker though: Micron are tons cheaper than the other 2.
Intel is not worth it. They're even more expensive than V3's and have just as many firmware issues; more serious ones in fact, as you can basically brick your drive by doing nothing (with SF you can always fix it, lose data but not the drive). The OLD Intel drives were by far the most reliable (also the slowest), but for the new drives that's not correct anymore. Their speed is up to par now, but their reliability isn't (yet).
When the choice is between an M4 drive and a V3, the M4 wins hands down because of its price. If the choice is between M4 and V2, there's another factor that comes into play: SATA speed. The V2's are still cheaper than M4's and all of their firmware issues have been resolved. If you only have SATA2 and are not planning a SATA3 upgrade any time soon, then a V2 is the best choice.
And yeah, that shit in Crysis 2 is quite funny 
Shows how much attention Crytek gave the PC version 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Sep 2011 20:56 Post subject: |
|
|
The SSD is supposed to improve the overall system speed, not loading times in games. I wanted the SSD for faster booting and loading of programs etc. I think I will add one then.
With this layout (especially that GPU) would I be able to use a Mini-tower as well? Or might I get overheating problems?
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
