Can you guys please check if this pc build will work?

A S I A N

Reputable
Jan 6, 2017
109
5
4,695
CPU: Intel Core i7 6700 3.4 GHz Quad Core CPU LGA 1151

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-H Motherboard DDR4

Graphic card: MSI GTX 1050Ti 4GT Gaming 4GB Graphics Card

Ram: GeIL Super Luce 16GB (2X8GB) DDR4 2400MHZ With Red Pulsing LED

Power supply: Aerocool Tacens T600W Eco PSU

Hard Drive: 2x 250gb 1x500gb (from old pc)

Windows 10
 
Solution
The build should work. Three suggestions:

1) Replace PSU with a better quality model. EVGA B2/G2/B3/G3, Corsair RMx 550W, Seasonic, XFX... 500W+.

2) Get a 250GB SSD for a system drive. Only use your old drives for storage, and replace them at first opportunity with a single larger mechanical drive. Old mechanical hard drives are not only very slow by today's standards, they are more prone to failure and data loss as time passes.

3) That i7 can get hot even at stock frequency when using stock cooler. Aftermarket cooler is a good idea. Take a look at Cryorig H9i.
The build should work. Three suggestions:

1) Replace PSU with a better quality model. EVGA B2/G2/B3/G3, Corsair RMx 550W, Seasonic, XFX... 500W+.

2) Get a 250GB SSD for a system drive. Only use your old drives for storage, and replace them at first opportunity with a single larger mechanical drive. Old mechanical hard drives are not only very slow by today's standards, they are more prone to failure and data loss as time passes.

3) That i7 can get hot even at stock frequency when using stock cooler. Aftermarket cooler is a good idea. Take a look at Cryorig H9i.
 
Solution

mcconkeymike

Distinguished
Yeah, technically that should work, but the 1050ti is a little weak for an i7 build. Plus I'm not sure about that PSU, I would try to get a Corsair, EVGA, or a Seasonic. As for the hard drives, if one of those isn't an SSD, I would try to get an SSD to install your OS on.
 
It should run w/o issue tho the storage subsystem, looking rather ancient, will slow things down a bit. As budget appears to be an issue, I'd suggest an SSHD at the earliest opportunity.

MoBo only supports 2133 RAM

The PSU would be a concern if it wasn't so lightly loaded.

If a gaming box, you may be disappointed by the Realtek ALC 887 audio solution

No cooler required unless you live in area with desert like temps
 
Asde from benchmarks, big difference in what ? How is it that when you switch the SSD out and put something else in, no one notices ?

Does a legal secretary type more briefs in an 8 hour day if she gets an SSD ?
Does a CAD operator complete more AutoCAD drawings in an 8 hour day if he gets an SSD ?
Does a gamer reach a further waypoint in a game if they get an SSD ?

Having an SSD is like driving a Porsche to work each day in LA. It is capable of going a lot faster... problem is, the rush hour traffic (and speed limits) don't permit any gain to be had.

Same with SSD, you can create a script in any application to **prove** the SSD is faster ... the problem is people don't execute scripts. They make input into the PC one character at a time. While everyone worries about "will [insert any component name here] bottleneck my PC ?, they forget about the biggest bottleneck which is the user.

We used a desktop which could boot and run applications / games from SSD, SSHD or HD ( two SSDs, two SSHDs and 1 HD). Changing the boot order before anyone sat down at any machine, they had no ides what they were using and randomly switched between boot source. The only info everyone was given was that "the OC seems slow at times, let me know if you notice anything". Over a 6 week period, one user (one time) commented that boot time seemed longer (from HD).

Also had two laptops ... one with SSHD and one with SSD + HD ... used by field engineers on job sites, often out of town and users entertained themselves at motel in evening playing games. lappies were assigned randomly and again, no one commented as to any observed difference in performance. Yes, you could prove the SSD faster like they did in that youtube video by opening 100 tabs in Chrome ... but no one actually does that. I could prove the SSDs superiority by running a backup of a 500 TB and using a stopwatch ... but the reality is I am sleeping when it occurs so if it gets done 3 times as fast, my life is in no way impacted.

So it's not that SSDs aren't faster it's that you, the user, can not keep up with it and therefore benefit in any significant way. Unless doing rendering, animation, video encoding etc, where the PC just sits and does its thing for a while w/o any user input, you are not in a position to realize significant benefits from an SSD over an SSHD.
 


I work on a lot of pcs and I can tell when one has a lowly HDD. Response from windows, transfers, application loading and boot times are all much better. My PC boots in less than 10 seconds. I have never seen an HDD do that. My clients that have moved to an SSD based rig have also noticed. So, I dunno, seems worth it to me.
 
1. The post you responded to proposed an SSHD not a HD, so HD is not really relevant.

2. We have been building PCs for 25 years. For example, because we and many of those we build for use AutoCAD, we could always justify expensive SCSI drives based upon a productivity / cost analysis. You can not do this today with SSDs because a) AutoCAD is no longer dependent upon storage subsystem performance and b) there is no productivity gain when actually tested. Opening a file takes same time regardless of SSD / SSHD / HD

3. Yes, if you tell someone look at a versus b and tell me which is faster they notice. But that's not "real life". Fact remains when you don't tell them, as in a blind test, they don't notice as they are multitasking. We now have a push button french press int he office makes cup of coffee at the push of a button (grinds beans, compresses then, injects water) .... I walk into office, press the button on coffee machine, walk to my desk, turn on PC, then walk back to the machine, grab my coffee and return to desk. I see no advantage whether I boot from the SSD in 15.6 seconds or the SSHD in 16.5 as by time I have grabbed the cup and thrown in some cream, both are at my desktop.

Now you could stare at the screen and appreciate the boot time difference but that doesn't get anything done... I'm at my desk drinking coffee while reading e-mails, when you are getting up to get yours. In short, when any intervening time is used productively (turn on MFP, Plotter, lights, take plastic bag outta trash can, replace your dead pen w/ one from the supply closet, whatever)

4. "Worth it" means various things to different people. A CEO is presented with a proposal from say Dell for 10,000 customer service workstations .... it includes a suggested option for adding SSDs for $85 per station. As a result of this addition, will he see a productivity increase ? With the CS operators take any more customer calls because they have an SSD ?

5. The difference between a SSD boot and an SSHD boot is less than a second ... can you do a cost benefit analysis and calculate the payback period for adding an SSD. Launching Witcher 3 I could stare at the screen and appreciate the fact that the SSD takes 26 seconds, the SSHD takes 27.5 of the HD takes 40 or i could spend the time loading the spreadsheets tracking what materials I need to collect for potions / crafts, armor parts I still need to find or Maps / Guide sites I use when I get stuck.... or even a bio or snack run.

6. In short, what I am saying is being able to "see a difference" and being able to accomplish something with that difference are two very different things. I can see a performance difference when I drive the Porsche, but I still get to work in the morning at the exact same time. Other than admiring the car's performance, it doesn't change my life in any way.

I will give you a real life. I put a 120 GB in my personal build soon after they became available. An employee suggested they I get him one too "so that he could improve his productivity". As he was a new employee, I asked him to do a cost benefit analysis as doing these would be part of his everyday job once I had him trained. I don't remember the exact particulars but let's say he came back with one showing a 10 second advantage in boot time and another 15 seconds throughout the day.

25 seconds x 220 days x 3 years ~ 4.6 hours @ $30/hr ~ $137 which was a bit what an SSD cost back then. The problem was, those numbers were not real. For example... I could view his daily routine from my office and it went like:

Arrive in office and turn on PC
Take of jacket and take out brown bagged breakfast (roll, muffin whatever)
Go to coffee machine and make pot of coffee
Bit of chit chat, "did you see the game last night" kinda thing
Listen to voice mails on office telephone extension
Go grab coffee now that it is done
Start answering calls while having coffee / muffin and going thru things I dropped in his inbox night before

By the time he even logs into his PC 10-20 minutes has gone by... the boot time advantage exists, but nothing is done with the time saved. People simply can not take advantage of the time saved ... if they do have to wait, they are capable of accomplishing something else that has to be done.




 

mcconkeymike

Distinguished


No disrespect buy I must humbly disagree with you. SSDs make a huge difference with the opening of programs, multitasking, and boot times. If you happen to be in a hurry, because of server issues, webpage down, etc, do you want to wait 20 minutes for a machine with a traditional drive to fully spin up and stop with the background usages? No, you would rather have a 15 second boot to login, 10 seconds to desktop, 5 seconds to open your management program. Granted while gaming, once the program is open (happens much quicker with SSD) it's not like you get more FPS, but there is a chance that the gameplay is smoother, especially if your drive is heavily fragmented or a slow 5400RPM model.