RCFProd :
@JackNaylorPE
1. I don't see the value in pushing the extra pounds for the 6600k. Even if he's not overclocking, we are talking about super similar speeds in turbo frequency.
2. I agree with the motherboard, solid choice.
3. The MSI motherboard only supports up to DDR4-2133 memory, correct me if I'm wrong. In that case there wouldn't be a point in getting higher frequency memory.
4. SSD size REALLY depends on the user. 2 years later I'm still perfectly fine with 120GB of SSD space. Not every user is constantly installing big applications/games to the SSD.
5.
Corsair CXM is good. Check Tom's Hardware review here. It's just horrible product naming on Corsair's end, which might be on purpose.
Oops I accidentally clicked "pick as solution" by mistake ... unselecting myself
1. The point is four fold:
a) it comes with a higher base clock and tho the difference is small, proportionally, the speed increase is greater than the price increase so it has a positive ROI .... 6% more speed for 5% more money is a sound investment
b) he doesn't want to overclock now, but **may** change his mind as system ages... or many folks just change their mind once they get some familiarity with their build. In one case the option is there, in others it isn't
c) A 6600k system will have a much higher resale value than the 6600 system.
d) If your investing in a £30 cooler that you don't need, and investing extra money in a Z170 MoBo that you don't need, seems unwise to not invest another £11 in the k.
2. If using a 6600 ... like the cooler, why not save the price premium on the MoBo and cooler, tho as we saw above, you can buy better Z170 MoBo for less money.
3, He's since changed the MoBo to the H series... for reasons previously provided, I think that is a mistake. Unfortunately, I can't remember what MoBo he had in there but he Z-170 Pro supports DDR4-3200 and
it's cheaper than the H series board he has in build now. Since that's the cheapest Z170 board that MSI sells, it would be odd if more expensive models didn't.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/qkX2FT/msi-motherboard-z170apro
MSI Z170A Pro supports 3200
MSI Z170A PC MATE supports 3200
MSI Z170M MORTAR supports 3400
MSI Z170A SLI supports 3600
MSI Z170A TOMAHAWK AC supports 3600
In addition, I started putting in faster RAM sometimes than the board officially supported for the following reasons:
a) Main reason, it was sometimes cheaper or same price
b) RAM rated for 3000 can also be run at lower speeds at better timings. This meant I could drop speed to board support and get lower timings that was available at rated DDR speed. For example, if MoBo limited to 2133, coukld use the JEDEC#5 settings and improve timings from 15-15-35-50 to 14-14-34-48
c) When BIOS support later became available, I could bump it.
d) Even if not used at rated speed then, it would when / if moved to a future build or system upgrade
4. Everything depends on the user, not just SSD size. Using a 120 GB SSD requires an astute user familiar with Windows file management.
-Most games default to storing user files on C:\ ... does user know how to manage these ?
-Even if user is astute enough to store program installs outside of default location, there's no control for "common files"
-E-mails , downloads, pictures, etc all default to root drive; user is not always equipped with the necessary knowledge to change this.
-Does user know how to clean out files leftover from incomplete program uninstalls, dmp files, tmp files
We did a test in the office to determine the impact of an SSD versus SSHD.
Laptop No. 1 ha2 120 GB SSD + 2 TB 7200 HD
Laptop No. 2 had 2 TB 7200 SSHD
Five major findings:
a) Boot times differed by < 1 second
b) Benchmarks showed significant differences ... tho these decreased with subsequent runs
c) None of the 5 users was able to tell which one was which with regard to booting, using programs (mainly AutoCAD) and gaming
d) Games were faster on the SSHD lappie as 1) putting a game on the SSD ate too much space so only was done for testing and 2) they benefited from the presence of the NAND on the SSD after 2 or 3 loads. To be fair, you had to be paying conscious attention to loading times. In blind testing, no one notices whether they were on SSD , HD or SSD. And not all games benefited ... those that required server handshaking (where you need to be logged in to play) seemed to remove loading time from the equation as the handshaking took longer than file loads.
e) I had to invest a significant amount of time in servicing the laptop w/ the SSDS. Besides the initial setup ... I had to move temp files to HD, move default storage locations, set up game file storage, do all program installs, etc ...I had to periodically cleaning out "junk" that had accumulated.
My personal desktop which has 2 SSDs and 2 SSHDs, with OS and all programs on the the default boot to 1st 256 GB SSD, required none of those things. I have the knowledge to make all the necessary changes both initial and periodic, but I don't have the time.
Samsung EVO 120GB costs $54
Samsung EVO 250GB costs $74
It all comes down to "is there an ROI in springing for $20 to get the larger SSD ? Once I spend 7 minutes "handling" the SSD, my company starts losing money. If the time you spend over the life of that drive is worth less than $20, then the case for the 120 GB makes sense.
5. I use THG for the forums ... much like TV News shows, since they became "profit centers" where what stories are told and how they are told is too oft geared towards ratings and ad revenue, to my eyes, the reviews have fallen off since the bestmedia acquisition. But even there in the conclusion, 5 words stand out i.... "best bang
for the buck" and the emphasis is on the last 3. I read that as "good choice for a light duty box, look elsewhere for gaming and enthusiast boxes". Looking more closely, tho the ATX spec allows a 5% variation in voltage, I look for less than 2% on any build.... if overclocking, I recommend close to 1% and if 'enthusiast OCing, under 1%. In the THG review however, we see it approaching 4% (3.63) on the 3.3volt rail. They also mention inrush, hold up time and fan concerns.
So while I'd agree it's not bad from a "bang for buck" perspective if your needs aren't great, there are betetr option sin that price range
With the Corsair 500M at £63.06, CX550M unavailable in UK @ PCpartipcker and the Seasonic S12 620 (w/ 1% voltage stability) at £64.76, the S12 (9.7 jonnyguru rating) would be the far better choice
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram