Just spec'd out my new system. Can you guys double check my specs?

5 answers Last reply
More about just spec system guys double check specs
  1. Get a 5970 instead of a GTX 480 performs way better also the 980X great processor but what are your main uses for this system if it is a gameing system for the most part go for an I7 960 or something and get the 5970 it will be a much better decision if this is for gaming. Also your sound card for gaming that is a great card and will give you the best performance but if this is not a gaming rig I would recommend an ASUS Xonar D2x. Other Than that great build Good Luck.
  2. looks gr8, only beef is the hdd does not have such a healthy track record, how about these



    oh and since u have all this scratch to blow, id get dual 5970
  3. $375 for amid tower ? I don't see the appeal but styling is a personal thing. My choice would be either then Antec 1200 / CP-850 combo $230 or the HAF 932 / Corsair HX850 ($310). $1000 watts is way overkill

    Woot...the R3E is out.....grats on a great MoBo.

    My problem with the 980 is I'd be scared to OC the bugger :). You can easily get a 930 to 4.2 Ghz and while the 980 will go higher no doubt, do you wanna risk $1000 ?

    For the heat sink, read this:


    I'd do the 160 GB SSD with the money saved on the CPU

    The 7200.11's are old tech and were very problematic....new version w/o problems is the 7200.12

    I'd try the sound provided with the R3E for a while before adding a sound card.

    GFX cards .... I'd suggest twin 470's which are way overclockable.

    While there are applications that do benefit from RAID 0, gaming isn't generally considered as one of them.


    RAID 0 is useful for setups such as large read-only NFS servers where mounting many disks is time-consuming or impossible and redundancy is irrelevant.

    RAID 0 is also used in some gaming systems where performance is desired and data integrity is not very important. However, real-world tests with games have shown that RAID-0 performance gains are minimal, although some desktop applications will benefit.[1][2]

    "We were hoping to see some sort of performance increase in the game loading tests, but the RAID array didn't give us that. While the scores put the RAID-0 array slightly slower than the single drive Raptor II, you should also remember that these scores are timed by hand and thus, we're dealing within normal variations in the "benchmark".

    Our Unreal Tournament 2004 test uses the full version of the game and leaves all settings on defaults. After launching the game, we select Instant Action from the menu, choose Assault mode and select the Robot Factory level. The stop watch timer is started right after the Play button is clicked, and stopped when the loading screen disappears. The test is repeated three times with the final score reported being an average of the three. In order to avoid the effects of caching, we reboot between runs. All times are reported in seconds; lower scores, obviously, being better. In Unreal Tournament, we're left with exactly no performance improvement, thanks to RAID-0

    If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.

    Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth."

    http://www.techwarelabs.com/articl [...] ex_6.shtml
    ".....we did not see an increase in FPS through its use. Load times for levels and games was significantly reduced utilizing the Raid controller and array. As we stated we do not expect that the majority of gamers are willing to purchase greater than 4 drives and a controller for this kind of setup. While onboard Raid is an option available to many users you should be aware that using onboard Raid will mean the consumption of CPU time for this task and thus a reduction in performance that may actually lead to worse FPS. An add-on controller will always be the best option until they integrate discreet Raid controllers with their own memory into consumer level motherboards."

    "However, many have tried to justify/overlook those shortcomings by simply saying "It's faster." Anyone who does this is wrong, wasting their money, and buying into hype. Nothing more."

    http://computer-drives-storage.sui [...] erformance
    "The real-world performance benefits possible in a single-user PC situation is not a given for most people, because the benefits rely on multiple independent, simultaneous requests. One person running most desktop applications may not see a big payback in performance because they are not written to do asynchronous I/O to disks. Understanding this can help avoid disappointment."

    http://www.scs-myung.com/v2/index. [...] om_content
    "What about performance? This, we suspect, is the primary reason why so many users doggedly pursue the RAID 0 "holy grail." This inevitably leads to dissapointment by those that notice little or no performance gain.....As stated above, first person shooters rarely benefit from RAID 0.__ Frame rates will almost certainly not improve, as they are determined by your video card and processor above all else. In fact, theoretically your FPS frame rate may decrease, since many low-cost RAID controllers (anything made by Highpoint at the tiem of this writing, and most cards from Promise) implement RAID in software, so the process of splitting and combining data across your drives is done by your CPU, which could better be utilized by your game. That said, the CPU overhead of RAID0 is minimal on high-performance processors."

    Even the HD manufacturers limit RAID's advantages to very specific applications and non of them involves gaming:

  4. 1. CPU just not worth it.
    2. If you have that kind of money, why'd you skimp on the GPU? Best performance right now is either 3 480s in SLI or 3 5870s in Crossfire. They perform about the same on average with the 480s winning the most by a small amount. Most of the time, outperforming two 5970s in crossfire. Of course, I'm assuming this is a gaming rig since you never told us what it is for. If you are not gaming or doing anything else potentially intense on the GPU, just get a radeon 5670 or something.
    3. Get better hard drives. Samsung F3 or Western digital black. If you want speed, get a solid state drive...which you do have, so why would you raid 0 your other drives? If one of them fails, you'd lose all your data on both.
    4. Good choice on the mushkin.
  5. I'd question practically every aspect of that build because it seems to spend money in all the wrong places.

    Your cooler is barely adequate for a quad-core i7 let alone the 6-core Extreme. Look at the Prolimatech Megahalems, Thermalright Ultra 120-Extreme Rev C or Thermalright Venomous-X with a pair of good 120mm fans instead - more expensive yes, but why skimp on cooling for a $1,000 processor?

    Also, why the 980X anyway? If you're just gaming then get a i7 930 and overclock the *** out of it, then spend the money you save on another GPU, say a pair of Radeon 5970s.

    In fact I'd be inclined to go Radeons over Fermi anyway - Fermi's minor performance increase is simply not worth the money, power requirements and heat output IMO.

    SSD is fine, but grab the 160GB version. As said before get better hard drives - Samsung SpinPoint F3 or WD Caviar Black. I'd also question having the RAID 0 unless you're working with high-bandwidth HD video files.

    Why the case? It's nothing special and seriously over-priced. If you like that sort of styling you can save a chunk of money going with a Lian-Li instead.

    At the end of the day, what are you using your system for? If you're just gaming then you're blowing huge amounts of money in all the wrong places.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Product