Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sexy New Build (1st time). Is this best value for performance?

Last response: in Systems
Share
March 8, 2011 10:59:03 AM

Hi

This is a build i am planning on getting:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13vQl0Cssh4i9DKtBygq...

It's £780
1090T CPU
HD 6850
8gb RAM
64GB SSD

Do you reckon this is optimal.
I use literally every program from gaming to CS5 and i multi task a lot
current pc is a laptop
March 8, 2011 3:01:33 PM

I'm not able to look at the full list, so I'll stick to some generic advice.

It's not a great value overall. Anything with an X6 CPU isn't good.

Instead, I would wait until the Sandy Bridge motherboards are re-released, which if it hasn't happened already, it should be real soon. Then, pick up either the i5-2500K ($230 in the US) or the i7-2600K ($330 in the US) and either the ASRock P67 Extreme4 ($150 in the US) or the Asus P8P67 Pro ($190 in the US). If you need to free up some budget, drop the SSD. 64 GB isn't big enough for a good SSD (it's only aobut 30 GB after the 20% free space required for the best performance and the required space for the OS), and they're still too expensive at the moment. They really don't do that much in terms of actual performance. You can always add one later, specifically after the new models are released (like OCZ's Vertex 3) or when the 120 GB models (when they're big enough to really help) are cheaper. I'm personally waiting until the 120 GB models drop under $150 to even consider buying a SSD.

The reason I highly recommend the new i5s/i7s is simple. They're massively powerful. The i5-2500K is only a little less powerful than the i7-980X (the old Intel flagship at $1,000), while the i7-2600K is slightly more powerful than the i7-980X. And that's only at stock. The "K" signifies that the CPUs have an unlocked mulitplier, meaning they're extremely easy to overclock. They can easily break 4.0 GHz without breaking a sweat, and I've heard 5.0 GHz is possible only using air cooling. They're amazing values.

In comparision, the X6s aren't anywhere near the performance of the i7-980X. At best, they were closer to the i7-930. The i5-2500K matches that at stock, if not exceeds it for roughly the same price. The i7-2600K is likely another 20-30% more powerful than that. Once you start overclocking, the X6 falls way behind.

Also, I'd highly recommend switching the GPU to either a GTX 460 1 GB or GTX 570. Since you're not just a gamer, you'll benefit from the abilities of a nVidia GPU outside of gaming.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 5:03:06 PM

Hi, thanks for the reply.

I considered what you said and disagree.

AMD is better performance for value and the new i5/i7s are ok but the 1090T is a monster that will last at least 4 years.
It's benchmarks equate to intels CPUs which are 4 to 5 times more expensive.

Also the 2nd series sandy bridge has serious motherboard issues which means it's a complete no no

Also the nvidia gtx460 is rubbish in all benchmarks compared to AMD's HD 5870, 6850 and 6870. The 6850 is both cheaper and faster than the gtx460.

To buy intel in my opinion is foolish. their processors use up precious space for graphic performance at a level where no dedicated graphics are installed. They are obsolete once you install a GPU and simply a waste of space.

AMD has significantly better performance for value.

Also the SSDs make a MASSIVE difference and are definitely worth £70 for 64GB.

If you want a large size you will have to wait at least 2 years. Production is slow and expensive; they are in the research phase for making SSDs cheaper to manufacture. Intel reckons they will be common place in 2 years time when they are around the price you stated.

6 cores aren't currently utilised by most games but for multi tasking it makes a big difference as more threads is better.
Think of it as a future proof investment.

Also it is capable of overclocking just as well. The AMD motherboard has excellent overclocking facilities and unlike intel motherboards if you have a 6 core processor it will utilise them for programs which do not have multi core threading designed in their software.

But thanks anyway ^_^
m
0
l
Related resources
March 8, 2011 5:35:25 PM

surdos said:

AMD is better performance for value and the new i5/i7s are ok but the 1090T is a monster that will last at least 4 years.
It's benchmarks equate to intels CPUs which are 4 to 5 times more expensive.


Look it up.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2...[4788]=on&prod[4437]=on

(hit check box next to CPU's you want and hit 'compare' to see the range of benchmarks used)

1090T (£168.67) doesn't even beat the I5 2500k (£167.98)... and it's not even close to the I7 2600k (£245.22... which is hardly 4-5x price)

The second gen intel issues were problems with the chipset on the motherboards, not issues on the CPU. Those motherboards issues have been fixed.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 6:43:00 PM

Sorry but if you use your logic for a second you will realise your wrong

6 x 3.2GHz is more than 4 x 3.3GHz

hello?

One benchmark where intels outperform doesn't mean anything.
You don't realise how much i have research both CPUs.
I was originally going to go for an AMD build but i kept reading and comparing and realised this is much better.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 6:43:36 PM

I mean i was originally going to go for an i5 2500K build
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 6:50:38 PM

surdos said:
Hi, thanks for the reply.

I considered what you said and disagree.

AMD is better performance for value and the new i5/i7s are ok but the 1090T is a monster that will last at least 4 years.
It's benchmarks equate to intels CPUs which are 4 to 5 times more expensive.

Also the 2nd series sandy bridge has serious motherboard issues which means it's a complete no no

Also the nvidia gtx460 is rubbish in all benchmarks compared to AMD's HD 5870, 6850 and 6870. The 6850 is both cheaper and faster than the gtx460.

To buy intel in my opinion is foolish. their processors use up precious space for graphic performance at a level where no dedicated graphics are installed. They are obsolete once you install a GPU and simply a waste of space.

AMD has significantly better performance for value.

Also the SSDs make a MASSIVE difference and are definitely worth £70 for 64GB.

If you want a large size you will have to wait at least 2 years. Production is slow and expensive; they are in the research phase for making SSDs cheaper to manufacture. Intel reckons they will be common place in 2 years time when they are around the price you stated.

6 cores aren't currently utilised by most games but for multi tasking it makes a big difference as more threads is better.
Think of it as a future proof investment.

Also it is capable of overclocking just as well. The AMD motherboard has excellent overclocking facilities and unlike intel motherboards if you have a 6 core processor it will utilise them for programs which do not have multi core threading designed in their software.

But thanks anyway ^_^

Unfortunately, I have to say you're a little misinformed. 1090T is old technology, search up any benchmarks, it'll lose against even the i7 920, it's not exactly cheap either. I have to say the 5870 is the best buy at this time. It's performance is around the same as a 6950 or 6970. If you're running the SSD for OS, it's ok, 64 GB won't be close to enough for everyday use though. You have to know that the 1090 T doesn't have as many THREADS as the i7 920 or 2600k. Hyperthreading = 8 threads. I have to say the 1090 T isn't a future proof investment because AMD is coming out with Bulldozer chips soon. Sandy Bridges overclock MUCH better than any AMD chip out so far. What overclocking facilities are you talking about? Did you make an account on Toms to ask questions or to attempt to shut down every opposing viewpoint?
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:03:55 PM

I'm going to jump back in...

The AMD bang-for-the-buck argument used to be true. It never really applied to the X6s, since they were more expensive than the i5-750, yet performed similarly in the vast majority of tasks. Given that the Sandy Bridge CPUs came into the market at roughly the same price as the old Intel CPUs, yet offered a good 20-30% more performance (at stock), their value simply destroys the case for AMD.

The motherboard issue wasn't major in reality. It only affected 5% of boards, and even then, only the SATA II ports. Given that most of them have several SATA III ports, and SATA III is backwards compatible, there wasn't a real issue. Not only that, but the problem was never shown outside an Intel lab, and in testing, it should take 3 years (or longer) to develop. Once it did develop, it was only a performance constraint. The port still worked, just not as well as they could.

Given all of that, it's still a non-issue. The problem has been fixed, and the revised motherboards (B3 stepping) are starting to show up at retail.

There's a major flaw with comparing the GTX 460 to the HD 5870, 6870 and such. They're not competitors. The 5870 is an older model, and starting to disappear. The other two GPUs are in a different price range. The 460 is an amazing performer for it's price. Not only that, but if you stick a second one in SLI with it (about $300 total), it performs better than the HD 5970 for $200 less.

SSDs don't have a "massive" real-world performance difference. They have a "massive" paper performance difference. They're exceptional in benchmarks, but they're not that great to the typical user. They make a machine FEEL faster, but not actually be faster. I'm not saying SSDs aren't good, I'm saying they're not worth the cost. Yet.

Larger sized SSDs aren't crazy expensive either. I'd only want a 120 GB one, which there are a plethera on the market right now. The problem is that they're closer to $250 (155 pounds). Once they're down under $150 (95 pounds) for 120 GB, it's worth it. Rumors also have it that the new models are due out to start with similar prices to the old models.

You don't need 6 cores. It's only helpul in intense rendering, transcoding and similar tasks. Simple multi-taskers do just fine with four. Not only that, the massive speed boost given by the i5-2500K makes up for its "lack" of the extra two cores. Hence the benchmarks showing the i5 as being faster and more powerful than the X6.

The X6 is capable of overclocking. However, the extra 2 cores hinders its headroom. That's a lot of extra heat. By keeping a lower TDP, the i5 can go higher and remain cooler. The i5 is faster at stock than the X6. If you overclock both to the highest safe speed, the i5 is even faster than the X6. It's been proven by multiple sources in several reviews.

Unless you're doing very, very specific tasks, the X6 didn't provide any benefit over the old Intel CPUs. It certainly can't stand up against the new ones.

As for your "CPU math", it doesn't work that way. If a program is built to be highly threaded, it would be close. However, the vast majority of programs use four threads at most. The reason why is simple: Most people don't even have quad cores yet. Why would you build a program to run on what the vast majority of your customers don't have? In fact, most programs are optimized to run only on dual cores. What the extra cores give you now is the ability to multi-task better. The best multi-tasking occurs when you have a single extra core over what the main task requires. So for the vast majority of programs, the current optimal CPU is a triple core, soon to be quad cores.

No matter what reasoning you come up with, the proof of Sandy Bridge's superiority is in the benchmarks. The i5-2500K and i7-2600K easily beat much more powerful CPUs than the X6s. They are simply that fast.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:18:35 PM

I see
The problem with some of the options your recommending is the pricing seems to be majorly different here.

Also the website i buy from and everyone else does gives a lovely red warning that the motherboards are faulty so i skipped straight to the AMD ones.
Reviews were promising and were compared to the i7 extreme cores.

The 6850 is cheaper than the 5870 and is about the same if not better.

If you say that the i5 issue is that simple (basically nothing to worry about)
then i will investigate and start from scratch again :( 
how much fun? ha

The reason i put this post up to answer your question was to get advice just like what you've given. so thanks a lot, i do appreciate it. The machine is going to have to stick around so getting the best for the money is what's in my interest.

So do you think that this ssd isn't worth getting?
Booting a few programs i use all the time and windows?
Should i use raid maybe? or just stick to a standard 7200rpm like the samsung F3 1TB?

thanks for your time btw ^_^
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:30:33 PM

Heyyyy wait a sec!
i just looked at the i5
it is 4 threads and the AMD is 6 threads

how does that work then? lol
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:32:49 PM

The old LGA1155 motherboards were faulty. They're not anymore. As long as you wait and make sure that the board you buy has a "B3" stamp/sticker/indicator, you'll be fine.

You'll get slightly faster boot/load times with a SSD. However, it's not enough to require such a large investment. I'd recommend getting a single 7200 RPM, 500 GB platter HDD (like that Samsung Spinpoint F3 1 TB). RAID 0 would be a good, cheap way to get more speed, but it's still not really necessary. Get the single F3, then if you still feel like you're sitting around wasting a huge amount of time while things load, pick up a cheaper SSD later. The longer you wait, the larger, faster, more useful SSD you can buy.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:33:15 PM

and your looking at benchmarks where the AA is at 16 which is where nvidia shines.
On a big screen you dont need AA that high and at low AA or high resolutions like 1900x1200 the 6850 gets more fps so do all of the other atis

and i have done my research thank you!
i spent a bloody long time going through reviews from several websites and some of them point out key points such as that one
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:35:17 PM

True, but it will be a lot of hassle to transfer OS and programs to the SSD if i wait
so i might hold out with my crumby laptop until SSDs and new AMD etc come out :) 
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:35:28 PM

the 2500k is much better than the 1090 T overclocking wise
the frequency rating doesn't really matter, it's the CPU architecture that changes performance
2500k is around the same price as the 1090 T, 5870 is just a little more expensive than the 6850
PLEASE PLEASE do a little more research, on a few more sources and then come back
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:36:03 PM

surdos said:
Heyyyy wait a sec!
i just looked at the i5
it is 4 threads and the AMD is 6 threads

how does that work then? lol

I said the 2600k if you didn't realize
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:43:50 PM

Yeh i know you said the 2600k but if you didn't realise thats £100 more!
so thats just being plain bias towards intel by comparing something that costs 60% more and saying something like oh look at this page it shows it performs 30% better.

obv the 32nm is going to have better TDP and therefore overclocking but the 1090t is 6 core 6 threads 12mb cache vs 8mb cache 4 threads.
I dont see how these benchmarks your linking are getting better results.
Either they cost a lot more than my budget machine or the combined system is better.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:56:49 PM

Ok so I've come to a conclusion
Basically i literally spent too much time doing research to the point that there is a better option lol.

I guess the i5 is worth dishing out the extra cash for. dont like the idea of spending more on something with lower specs but i guess its not about the specs anymore!

Will have to start again looking at this intel build and compare it
( i see other forum posts with intel builds, will check them out)

Hopefully i won't spend too much time doing research or the next AMD will be out by then and then i'll have people shouting at me for going Intel lol

p.s. you all seem to be Intel fan boys. no AMD patriots here? wonder why...
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 7:59:12 PM

I'm gonna go ahead and float another idea. Get a phenom 955.

I am currently in the process of a build, based around this chip. gaming performance is about the same as a 1090t,b since games don't sue that many cores. and its much cheaper than a 2500k.

ut the saved cash toward the GPU, and you will see better performance than getting the more powerful CPU.

I was going to go sandy bridge, but here in NZ id be paying almost 3 time as much as going AM3, so figured id wait for bulldozer and the inevitable price crashes to get the new generation CPUs. I'd recommend you do the same.

Also, i would go with the SSD. Im getting a 40gb drive just for windows and my most used files. its more than enough for my programs, minus games. and everything will be noticeable faster.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 8:04:15 PM

I'm not an Intel fanboy (I'm using the X4 955 right now), but I am a fan of performance for the price. That's one thing AMD used to have in their corner, but now belows to Intel.

Basically, if you're building on less than $750-800 right now, you should be looking at AMD. If your budget is above that, it's all Intel. Less than six months ago, it was if you had under $1,200, you should go with AMD. It's all just movements in the performance of the CPUs.

Actually, depending on how long you wait, you might have people shouting AMD at you. AMD's new Bulldozer CPUs (and the accompanying chipset) is supposed to be out somewhat soon. I don't know the release date off the top of my head. If AMD creates a miracle and matches Sandy Bridge's performance gains, then AMD has a case again. I don't see AMD getting a 50%+ performance boost, but if they keep the prices the same and get 20-30% (like what Sandy Bridge did), then they have a case at mid-range budgets.

@welshmouse: Normally, I'd agree that the X4 955 is a good choice. However, the problem with that in this case is that the OP doesn't just play games. The OP does gaming, CS5 and other tasks. In that regard, the X4 955 will hold the OP back significantly. This is one of the cases where a truly balanced PC shines. A slightly smaller GPU lowers gaming performance, but not enough that you'll have to turn down details at the higher resolutions. The money saved then improves the CPU, which helps immensely in the non-gaming tasks. It's a trade off of a little lower gaming performance for big gains in non-gaming performance.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 8:37:45 PM

Yeh your write, thanks
i see the intels read write performances and ram performances (which i did see before)

possibly blinded by the glory of the "black edition" mmmm lmao.

The thing is, other peoples posts on here are builds for different needs so i can't judge by their intel setup and therefore have to go into benchmark detail for all of the things i do which is basically everything.

and i guess now the intel is worth it and worth that $160 equivalent more maybe?
i will have to sleep on that one.

The thing is i do everything and i dont like my laptops slow performance but it's the fact that my laptop isnt stable

From another posts recommendation i have found a guide to disassemble my laptop (specific model) and i will apply some better thermal paste.
It is highly likely that the cpu heat sink has been knocked off the cpu or something else that disassembly will solve (such as dust in fan).
If the laptop becomes stable after this i will probably hold out until i5 becomes cheaper or if the next AMD is worth it i will get that.

Also i didn't mean you were an intel fanboy, i was referring to the other posters with their machine specs in their comments.

Its frustrating when you can't find something you want at a price you can afford.
I'm a bit of a camera buff and i'm waiting on the new SLT phase of cameras (over SLRs) to take hold. better lenses for olympus pens and the pen pro being rumoured release in 2 years excites me too much!

but anyway, thanks and i'll make an intel build after reviewing everything intel (again). then i'll build an intel list and compare with my AMD list.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 9:37:09 PM

yes, i'm a bit of an intel fanboy but i do respect AMD
i have a friend that goes to waterloo who worked in co-op with AMD/ATI
apparantly intel's research budget is almost 10X the amount of AMD's
that's part of the reason that I prefer intel CPUs
they also, quite honestly, perform better
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 9:43:14 PM

surdos said:

and i guess now the intel is worth it and worth that $160 equivalent more maybe?
i will have to sleep on that one.


Are you talking about the I5-2500k, or the I7-2600k? The I5 isn't that much more is it?

1090T £155.40 inc. VAT http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/CPUs+/+Proces...
Your Asus motherboad
£117.98 inc. VAT


I5-2500k
£160.79 inc. VAT http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/CPUs+%2F+Proc...

ASUS P8P67 Intel P67 (REV B3) Socket 1155 DDR3 PCI-Express Motherboard
£124.99 inc. VAT http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Motherboards/...

That's £12 total difference between the two (and yes that motherboard is in stock).
That is the reason some of us were advising that you go in this direction.
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 10:11:45 PM

Oh right, yeh i figured intel was better, i guess everyone knows that, i like the underdog too though lol.
Thing is in the future these mobile chip companies are going to start being tough competition. More phones than PCs being sold, ARM is going to be windows 8. Things are gonna change!!

That looks like a tasty Duo!!
tempts me to get it now! lol

thanks everyone :) 

i'll look into my budget- i see thats same price pretty much
see if i should spend my student loan on a new machine or not considering the upgrade. I'll try fixing my laptop first and maybe get this over easter :) 

Any ideas on RAM? I hear intels a lot easier to choose.
I spent a whole week looking at every single RAM on aria, ebuyer, amazon, overclockers and some other sites can't even remember.
I then looked at reviews for ones that were gd spec:p rice ratio

But now the game plan has changed. since everyone seems to recommend the same set up do you know the most suitable RAM?

I know 4GB isn't enough cause my laptop is always max'd out

Top of my head i'm guessing 1333MHz CL8 (overclocking confuses me but my coursemate will help with that). I havent looked at the motherboards V needs and stuff so i have no idea of the RAM overclocking abilities (i'd like to get it at 1.6GHz with CL8 or 7 but when it comes to budget £90 max i would be ok with CL9).

Also Mr. WiseAdmiral thinks i shouldn't go ssd and wait but i cant copy image file of my system drive to a smaller disc such as ssd.
I have about 200GB of software on my laptop. Plan on having a lot more when i get a desktop (will have games installed too).

So RAM and HDD help?

I know it's tricky and highly debatable. I've had a lot of pro and con viewing with friends back home and fellow engineer students. What's your opinion, budget based?

^_^
m
0
l
March 8, 2011 10:15:02 PM

And if you need some more convincing that for now intel has more value for the price just take a look at this comparison.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=146
in almost all of the benchmarks the i5 is better but there are one or two where the X6 is ahead.
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 10:47:03 AM

hmm
if you're getting a sandy bridge with an unlocked multiplyer you can run the CPU at a OC speed and the RAM at stock speed because you don't have to change BCLK
Mushkin and Ripjaws seem to be the really popular RAM right now
I'd have to also suggest Corsair RAM because my AMD friend said out of all the RAM they tested, the corsairs were the most consistent and reliable
as for the hard drive, I think a SSD is a viable option as a boot drive but you won't be able to get much hardware on it
if you install the OS on the SSD and everything else on the Samsung drive, you'll still see a considerable improvement on boot times, you just have to see if faster boot times is worth it
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 11:45:10 AM

I thought about it over night and figured i can pop the os on this ssd
and everything else on the F3.
Then when they are cheaper i will get another one for the rest of my software to go on and F3 will become pure data drive.
a lot of hassle but oh well :/ 
Also now i'm thinking of getting Intel i was asking about intel RAM.
I had my setup for AMD build including RAM but that's all rubbish now since i'm going Intel.
I might just get cheap RAM in a large quantity. Little effect on FPS and size matters with rendering stuff but then i also need tight timings for CS5 and other programs dammit!
meh, i'll find something.
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 11:49:53 AM

Unfortunately, you have a lot of wrong information, but it looks like some of the comments are helping you.

The 2500K blows the doors off of anything AMD has to offer six cores or not. The 2500K is only $200.00 and the AMD chips run somewhere around $150.00 for their better performers. I am not sure how $50.00 is that much to save when you compare performance. The 2500K actually beats the I-7 990 when overclocked in most benchmarks, which is amazing considering its $200.00 cost.

It is the 6950 that is nearly the equivalent of the 5870, not the 6850.

The reviews in Tom's Hardware and their monthly builds are a good reference for you. I don't always agree with the components they use in their monthly builds but they have a lot of good information in them.

I hope you find the best computer for your needs.

m
0
l
March 9, 2011 12:09:10 PM

That's great but i can't find/never seen a monthly build article
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 2:43:51 PM

surdos said:
That's great but i can't find/never seen a monthly build article


If you go to main page http://www.tomshardware.com scroll down to bottom half of the page in the center you will see the 'Build Your Own' section. In there are 'Builder Marathon' articles that are helpful for getting an idea what is available at different budget ranges.
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 3:03:32 PM

Back to the "Intel RAM" comment...

There is no such thing as chipset specific RAM. Any sticks that work on one chipset will work for an equivalent chipset. For example, the DDR2 sticks you picked for a LGA775 build will work in an AM2 build, or any DDR3 sticks you find for an LGA1155 (Sandy Bridge) build will work in an AM3 build. The statements some manufacturers stick on the kits, such as "Design for the P67", are simply marketing. The RAM manufacturers know that the majority of users buy Intel parts (their market share is huge), so by plastering something by their products with the name "Intel" in it will likely attract more customers. There is nothing that actually differentiates the sticks from the others.

The only acception to this is when OCZ stated "designed for AMD boards" on their DDR3 sticks. OCZ's sticks had major problems, mainly due to requiring a large amount of voltage to run, usually around 1.7V. Intel's chipset don't like using sticks that need more than 1.65V, so most of OCZ's sticks wouldn't work with an Intel CPU. By marketing the RAM as AMD sticks, they were avoiding having to deal with a lot of returns and other issues.

As far as RAM brands go, G.Skill is currently the most reliable. They've recently been winning a lot of overclocking competitions and awards. They're also typically among the cheapest. Corsair is also very high quality, but with the exception of their XMS3 2x2 GB 1600 mhz CL 9 sticks, they're kind of expensive. I'm not a huge fan of Mushkin, simply because the timings on their sticks are inconsistent. They are cheap though.

I hate most of the generic budget builds, especially the System Builder Marathon builds. The only thing they take into account for those builds is how they'll do in the specific benchmarks they use. They don't consider the upgrade paths available, current prices and deals or actual uses. You do a lot better to ignore the articles and get direct advice through the forum.
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 10:03:59 PM

Yeh thanks.
I had G.Skill chosen for my AMD build. I figured they were being cheeky with their marketing but there was one for AMD that had some kind of easy overclock software.
Doesn't concern me at all though and didn't fall for it.

I know about these system build things. I didn't realise that's what he meant lol.
They are absolutely rubbish in my opinion.
I look through it and go "out of date.... out of date.... out of date... no... out of date." lol
Like you said they aren't really for people to get unless if they are like my house mate *cough cough* who looked at a machine specs and went oh that looks good i'll get that. lol

Which do you think is better:

G-Skill 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1600mhz Ripjaws Memory Kit CL9 (9-9-9-24) 1.5V
£40

or

G-Skill 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1600MHz Ripjaws Memory Kit CL7(7-8-7-24) 1.6V
£48

Is it worth the extra? They look identical, can't the other one be overclocked to the values of the more expensive one? The specs are good enough for me.

Thanks again ^_^
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 10:32:03 PM

The voltage on the second one is actually worse. I'd probably just go with the cheaper set.
m
0
l
March 9, 2011 10:49:42 PM

Yeh, you could probably say they tightened the timings by compromising the V so same chips inside!
cheeky minxs
m
0
l
!