Need advice on rig

[Plasticjesus690]

So I have a friend that I am build a gaming rig for Primarly for sc2 on ultra settings but I would like for him to have room to grow
My budget is 650-700

This is what I Have gotten any additions or changes are weclome. I already have a case so one is not needed

Hardrive- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136769

Graphics http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102858

Power supply- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341018

RAM- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145251

Motherboard CPU Combo http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.543364

Monitor http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236068

 

[MadAdmiral]

Not that great. First, the WD HDD is going to be slow. Get the Samsung Spinpoint F3 500 GB For $55 or the 1 TB for $75. It'll be faster and cheaper.

Second, that PSU isn't that great. OCZ's units are really cheap, but not high quality. Check out some 650W units from Corsair, SeaSonic, XFX, Silverstone and Antec to ensure quality. For example, here's a XFX 650W and XFX 5770 for $150 after rebates, which is a great deal.

Third, that RAM is really slow. I'd recommend looking for at least 1333 mhz sticks with at most CAS Latency 7. If you want to overclock, get 1600 mhz CAS Latency 7 sticks. G.Skill's Eco series is excellent in the 1600 mhz/CL 7 range.

Fourth, I'd look at a board with 8x/8x Crossfire. The ASRock 870 Extreme 3 is cheap at $100, and packed with features. It also constantly wins awards and recommendations.

Finally, I wouldn't get a monitor with a resolution under 1920x1080. A lower resolution monitor won't leave you any where to go in the future. Here's one that's pretty cheap: Asus 23" 1080p. There might be cheaper ones though.

EDIT: I should add that if these changes push the build out of budget, you could drop the CPU to an X3 445. Then pick up a cheap aftermarket cooler (Coolermaster's Hyper 212 Plus or Scythe's Mugen 2 Rev. B are excellent) later and unlock/overclock it.

 

[Plasticjesus690]

How is the samsung drive faster? It has less cache and is only sata 3.0gbs where as the drive i picked is SATA 6.0gbs and 32mb Cache thy both have the same RPM am i missing somthing?

 

[MadAdmiral]

To start, SATA III means absolutely nothing to standard drives. They simply don't have the speed to get above SATA II. SATA III starts becoming a factor with SSDs, but the technology simply isn't mature enough to make a significant difference yet. Give it a couple of years, and there won't be a point to getting a new SATA II drive.

On to the heart of the matter. There are more important specs that aren't quoted in most listings for HDDs. The number one factor in HDD speed is the platter size, or the amount of data stored on a single mechanical disk, with larger being faster, quieter and cooler running. The F3 has the largest platters available right now (500 GB).

I know some of the newer Caviar Blacks have the same platter size as the F3, but I'm unable to find specifically what the Caviar Blue's have. I highly doubt they'll be faster than WD's top of the line parts though, so I'll use the Blacks as a comparision, given the Blue's an undue advantage.

The new SATA III Caviar Blacks (the 500 GB platter versions) are just barely faster than the older (by 6 months) F3s, despite being a good $10-15 more expensive and touting SATA III support. The difference is so small, it's not even noticeable. Given how close the two drives are in terms of performance, the Caviar Black is never recommended. Why spend the extra for no real performance gain.

The Black line is WD's high performance line, and the Blue is WD's value line. The Black is surely faster than the Blue (or else there's no point to the distinction), which means AT BEST the Blue is equivalent to the F3. At a higher price, you'd be paying more to get AT MOST the same performance. I can't see the logic in that.

 

[Plasticjesus690]

Thank you for the explanation it was much needed

 

[coldsleep]

Agree with everything MadAdmiral said. The Spinpoint F3s, Seagate 7200.12 500 GB & 1 TB, and WD1002FAEX Caviar Black 6.0 Gb/s drives all use 500 GB platters.

Here's a link talking about how 10k rpm drives don't even max out SATA 3.0 Gb/s.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3636/western-digitals-new-velociraptor-vr200m-10k-rpm-at-450gb-and-600gb/5

 

[Plasticjesus690]

Should I aim for the x6 1075?

 

[coldsleep]

Not for a strictly gaming rig. The best value is the Phenom II X4 955.

 

[Plasticjesus690]

How big of a difference will the cache difference make? Also for the memory I found http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231277 I know the Lancety is 9 still but is it decent memory? Or was the corsair better? I was also wondering if maybe I should go with a lower graphics card prehaps. I was conidering the xfx psu 5770 combo deal that Mad suggested.

 

[coldsleep]

The difference in cache on the hard drives? Absolutely none.

For gaming, the difference between CL9 and CL7 is going to be pretty minimal, maybe 1-2% at most, and you'll never notice it in real life. The reason to get CL7 is usually to allow for overclocking.

The XFX 750+5770 is a great deal, it just seems a shame to get older tech now that the 6850s are out. I had a better link before that I'll try to dig up, but for not a whole lot more money, the 6850 is about 50% better than the 5770 at StarCraft 2.