|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
 Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 15:34 Post subject: Sin's new PC project |
|
 |
Updated list 
CASE : check
Antec Nine Hundred Two V3
Price : 105€
PSU : check
CORSAIR TX850, 850 Watts
(already have this one)
Price : 0€
MOTHERBOARD : check
Asus P8Z77-V LE PLUS
Intel LGA1155 - Intel Z77 - 4 x DDR3 - 3 x PCIe 16X - 2 x PCIe 1X - 3 x SATA 6.0 Gb/s - 4 x SATA 4.0 Gb/s - 1 x eSATA 6.0 Gb/s - Raid - Gigabit LAN - USB 3.0
Price : 135€
CPU : check
INTEL Core i5-3570K "Ivy Bridge", 4x 3.4GHz, Socket 1155
Price : 194€
CPU COOLING : waiting
COOLERMASTER Hyper 212 Evo
CPU cooler, socket 1366/1156/1155/775/FM1/AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3+ • aluminium/copper • fan (31 dBA, 120mm x 120mm x 25mm)
Price : 27.96€
GPU : waiting
2xASUS GTX660 TI-DC2T-2GD5, GeForce GTX 660 Ti, 2.0GB GDDR5
Price :259€
MEMORY : check
CORSAIR Dominator Platinum
2x 4GB, DDR3-DIMM, PC3-12800 (1600MHz), CL8-8-8-24, heatspreader • Intel XMP
Price : 65.11€
PRIMARY HD : (for windows and most played games)
Samsung 840 Pro Series SSD SATA 6 Gb/s 2.5'' - 256 GB
Samsung 3-core MCX - SATA 6.0Gb/s - Reading speed 540 MB/sec - Writing speed 520 MB/sec - 512MB DDR2 Cache - Worldwide Name (WWN) - AES 256-bit (FDE)
Price : 210€
SECONDARY HD : waiting
WESTERN DIGITAL Caviar Green WD20EARX, 2.0TB
2.0TB,3.5", 64MB cache • SATA III 6.0Gb/s
Price : 77.20€
BR/DVD/CD DRIVE : waiting
LITEON IHBS112, BD-RE, DVD±RW/RAM
2x/8x/12x/8x BD-RE/-ROM/-R/-R(DL) • 16x/16x/8x/6x/8x/8x/12x/16x DVD+R/-R/+RW/-RW/DL+R/DL-R/-RAM/-ROM • 48x/24x/48x CD-R/-RW/-ROM • Serial-ATA, tray, smart-burn
Price : 66.74€
TOTAL PRICE : -
GPU will be added later on, for money reasons.
Yay, me so happy.
Current 3dmark scores (for reference):
on i7 920@3ghz,6gb ddr3,560ti
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6014264
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/285959
Last edited by Sin317 on Sun, 24th Feb 2013 13:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23342
Location: Trelleborg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 15:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Why go for the extreme? The 2600k scores better for pure games (altho it is a little more expensive) (but LGA1155 mobo's are prolly cheaper then 2011)
Other then that, it's looking quite fine.
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 15:58 Post subject: |
|
|
i chose the 2011 mobo, because they seem to be better equipped, compared to the 1155. quad channel, faster ram , more stuff in general . No ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 16:03 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah didn't think of that
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 16:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sin317 wrote: | | i chose the 2011 mobo, because they seem to be better equipped, compared to the 1155. quad channel, faster ram , more stuff in general . No ? |
And what sort of tasks do you do that would actually need lots of memory bandwidth?
If you mostly game you are wasting your money. You could use that saved money to get a better GPU. That system would be even more so entirely wasted if you just stayed with a 560Ti, and if you only have a 560Ti now you likely aren't running surround displays, or super high resolutions so you have even less need for that more expensive platform as you aren't even going to need the PCI-E bandwidth for extreme multi-GPU circumstances.
You're just wasting money.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 17:03 Post subject: |
|
|
usually the logic with PC components is that you cant build future proof ever.
You will be paying roughly double from what a common i5 3570 system costs, but will not give you even 10% more performance in games. So in 4 years this 10% will not make the difference between making a game run smooth or not.
but if you buy a i5 3570 it will run all your games at all settings today and the next 2 years im sure, probably beyond that. But imagine in 2 years ARMA 4 doesnt, then you can sell your i5 3570 for half the price you bought it for + you have 50% of the cash you were planning to spend on the sandy E which allows you to buy the new mainstream high end cpu that will be 35% faster than your i5 ( random number for the sake of arguement ) and you will have less power use, all the newest features and more cash in your pocket than what you would have had if you bought that sandy E.
EDIT: errr just saw you are buying a quadcore on 2011 socket? my point still stands though buy yourself a nice 1155 mainboard like MSI Mpower with a I5 3750 and OC it to 4.5ghz. You ll save alot of cash and never be able to tell the difference in games.
EDIT 2: since you are strapped for cash to buy a new videocard right away , i say going 1155 is a must. Also its a weird SSD setup you plan to have, i would go for OCZ vector instead which is newer. And maybe buy a 256GB for starters and add a second 256GB latern on if that wouldnt be enough. it also would make sense price wise with a single 256gb costing 220 in europe and the 512GB costing 480. and drop the 128gb Crucial. This way you can buy a new 7950 for under 1000 euros all in.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 21:53 Post subject: |
|
|
thanks, i'll take it under consideration.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 22:16 Post subject: |
|
|
mobo: asus or gigabyte (i really love asus UEFI it's so well done)
ssd: samsung 840 pro or ocz vector 256GB, 128 just doesn't cut it any more (samsungs are proven to be super durable and stable)
ram: no opinion on brand, most of them are quality if you don't go for cheapest model.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 22:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Yea, the difference between them is pretty useless in realworld.
My desktop is a i5 2500k, work VM server bhind me is a i7 2600k.
and the difference, even in benchmarks is not even worth mentioning,I mean there is a difference but not enough to consider if looking at them from a 'what will this effect in my day to day".
And looking at the build prices between the new 2011 and my current one. It can almost double the price, for MAYBE a 10% gain to upgrade for me.
So id suggest the 2500k or 3570k and 1155.
Dont get caught in the rut I had when I got the 9550 and newest socket brand new for a crapload thinking I was future proofing. By the time that I ran into the 'wall' of where that extra money spent would be helping me, the new cheap $150 i3 chips was kicking the hell out of my $600 chip that was 3 years old, and couldnt upgrade just the chip because my MB didn't support the 'newer' i(whatevers) anyway.
So go for the best 'bang for the buck' at build time. Not the best 'bang for the future'.
As he said, by the time you need what you paid for, its usually on par with the low end cpu's of the time.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 22:49 Post subject: |
|
|
hm, yeah i guess you're right.
so how about this :
INTEL Core i5-3570K "Ivy Bridge", 4x 3.4GHz, Socket 1155
GIGABYTE GA-Z68X-UD4-B3, Intel Z68
Socket 1155 • Dual Channel DDR3 (2133MHz) • 2x PCIe 2.0 x16 (CrossFireX/SLI), 2x PCIe x1, 2x PCI • 4x SATA II 3GB/s, 6x SATA III 6GB/s, RAID 0/RAID 1/RAID 5/RAID 10, 2x eSATA • 1x 10/100/1000Mbps LAN • 7x USB 2.0, 2x USB 3.0 • ATX
CORSAIR Dominator
2x 4GB, DDR3-DIMM, PC3-17000 (2133MHz), CL9-11-9-27, heatspreader • Intel XMP
OCZ Vector Series SATA III 2.5" SSD, 128GB (VTR1-25SAT3-128G)
2.5", SSD controller: Indilinx Barefoot 3, MLC, read: 550 MB/s, write: 400 MB/s, random 4KB read: 95000 IOPS, random 4KB write: 90000 IOPS • SATA III 6.0Gb/s
for windows and apps
and
OCZ Vector Series SATA III 2.5" SSD, 256GB (VTR1-25SAT3-256G)
2.5", SSD controller: Indilinx Barefoot 3, MLC, read: 550 MB/s, write: 530 MB/s, random 4KB read: 95000 IOPS, random 4KB write: 100000 IOPS • SATA III 6.0Gb/s
for games.
OR just 1 OCZ Vector Series SATA III 2.5" SSD, 512GB (VTR1-25SAT3-512G)
2.5", SSD controller: Indilinx Barefoot 3, MLC, read: 550 MB/s, write: 530 MB/s, random 4KB read: 95000 IOPS, random 4KB write: 100000 IOPS • SATA III 6.0Gb/s
all this would cost me roughly 750€
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 22:59 Post subject: |
|
|
well it's a proven fact that larger ssds have longer life span and are faster. so 1 big ssd is almost always better than 2 smaller ssds (actually i can't think a single non bullshit reason to get 2x256gb over 1x512gb ssd)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 23:06 Post subject: |
|
|
There's no point in quad-channel memory outside the server world. It actually scores less in games and common syntetic tests compared to dual-channel on 1155.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 23:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Z77 is the newer chipset than Z68
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H
http://geizhals.at/de/749613
or
MSI Z77 MPOWER
http://geizhals.at/de/823426
depending what brand you prefer.
and do you really really need more than 256Gb for the SSD? steam allows different install folders, most games i leave on my 2TB harddrive with only some of the multiplayer FPS games on my SSD. I currently have a 128GB drive and never felt forced to install a game to standard HD. go for a single 256GB vector drive , and you can always add more SSDs later on , though i am sure the 256GB will do everythign you need it to do, also the 256GBs are the best price per GB atm.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:07 Post subject: |
|
|
In what magic world does the 7950 destroy the 660Ti? They're head to head and it depends on the game which one wins by a small margin. Also, never trust someone who says "card X OCs like hell" since no one can claim that.
Judging by prices here, I'd go with the 7950. If you can get the 660Ti cheaper, go with that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:19 Post subject: |
|
|
If after a month the choice is still between the 660ti and 7950, I'd say buy a 7950 with a good custom cooler since chances for a high OC are pretty good (even though no one can guarantee a good OC). If you don't care about OC, the choice is personal. Make a list of games you'd like to play and see whether they are AMD or Nvidia oriented.
Don't forget to buy a custom CPU cooler.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| Intel_NVIDIA wrote: | haha magic Breezer's world 
he claims his 7970 "extreme" is 10-20% faster than GTX680, yet in unigine benchmarks we just did, his 7970 is only 1-2% faster than my GTX670. guy is full of shit. |
Unigine  You are actually comparing 7970 vs 680 performance in one fucking benchmark? I can tell that @ 2560x1440, 7970 is a winner, and dont start this "red glasses" BS anymore. You are probably the biggest Nvidia fanboy in here, its funny to hear from you this AMD fanboy shit. You are also forgetting that the GTX 670 what you have, like 10% will do that 1300mhz core (that is even faster than lightly clocked 680), i bought 670 at release, and it could overclock 1320mhz core, was stable 1310 core at games, and yet the 7970 was clearly better in 2560x1440. Maybe 1080p the difference isnt much, but im comparing it at higher resolution. Tired of this fucking bullshit from you.
Last edited by Breezer_ on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:25 Post subject: |
|
|
i'm on a 1680x1050 screen and i doubt i will go anytime soon higher then a 1920x1080 screen.
ANd if the ati's are only really better in the highest of resolutions, i just as well stay with nvidia and go with the 680.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:26 Post subject: |
|
|
@Breezer_
yeah sure you claim ati is like 20% faster, overclocks way better and other fanboyish bullcrap, but never provide any real evidence to back up your claims. now when cornered with real world numbers you come up with some ridiculous excuses and whatnot. sure... i'm a fanboy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| Intel_NVIDIA wrote: | haha magic Breezer's world
he claims his 7970 "extreme" is 10-20% faster than GTX680, yet in unigine benchmarks we just did, his 7970 is only 1-2% faster than my GTX670. guy is full of shit. |
Then compare it to my 680, which is more common than the extremely good samples that overclock like yours does. Your 670 is running at clocks well above any factory 680, and at the very limits of what even a decent 680 sample will do. You got very, very lucky.
| Intel_NVIDIA wrote: | @Breezer_
yeah sure you claim ati is like 20% faster, overclocks way better and other fanboyish bullcrap, but never provide any real evidence to back up your claims. now when cornered with real world numbers you come up with some ridiculous excuses and whatnot. sure... i'm a fanboy. |
How many times have I asked you to do the same now? Such a fucking hypocrit
@ Sin: A 7950 is 670 level, 7970 is 680 level. So yes, Breezer is right, a 7950 is well ahead of a 660 Ti. Had your choice been between 670 and 7950, that would've been a real choice, but in this case the 7950 just wins hands down.
Don't take my word for it though, just check the reviews.
Last edited by Werelds on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:29 Post subject: |
|
|
btw, i don't plan or want to do any OC'ing. Not on the cpu or the gpu.
add: the 7970 looks nice, its around 100€ cheaper then the 680 (300 vs 400).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
