Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming PC ~1600$ ordering soon, any changes?

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 25, 2012 4:39:30 PM

Hi all,

I had done a lot of research in March and was very close to getting a Z68 2500K based PC but decided to wait for the new toys. Will be ordering soon let me know if you think there are any major problems here.

Usage: Gaming, surfing the web and watching movies,
Resolution: 1080p, eventually 1080x2 or 2560x1440(!)
Overclocking:yes
SLI: 1 card for now but system has to be ready for a second card down the road without any other upgrades
Country: USA
Parts: Mostly newegg


CPU: i5-3570K (240$)
MOBO: Asrock Z77 extreme6 (175)
COOLER: CollerMaster Hyper 212 Evo (34)
CASE:Corsair 600T white (180)
MEMORY: Gskill Ares DDDR3 1600 4x4GB (95)
SSD: Crucial M4 256 GB (240)
PSU: Seasonic X-series X-850 80PlusGold (199)
GPU: GTX 680 (if I can ever find it... or 670 if i get impatient) (500 or 400)

For a total of 1660 or 1560$ depending on the GPU. Yes I KNOW 16 GB is overkill for gaming but memory is cheap and I'd rather get more now. I am not getting a storage drive yet at this point, I have been functioning with 2x250 GB drives in RAID 0 and keep all my data on an external HDD. I'm pretty sure the 850W will be enough for 2x680 or 2 x 670 in the future.

Let me know what you guys think,


P.

More about : gaming 1600 ordering

May 25, 2012 5:07:37 PM

I would stay away from Ivy if you plan to OC. Tom's has posted several articles on it, and it doesn't seem to OC much better (if at all) than Sandy does.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-overcloc...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

That said, I'd save 20 bucks with Sandy if you plan to OC.

Then again I know Ivy is designed to have PCI3 3.0 support...

You can OC Sandy better than Ivy based off what I read, but stock vs stock Ivy would beat Sandy just for the nVidia 6xx Series PCIe3.0 (Ivy was designed to properly utilize it)

Read those articles. It'll help you if you're not sure... But honestly, it looks solid. Just not sure about OCing it
m
0
l
May 25, 2012 5:10:04 PM

I think Ivy should be fine. Ivy is faster per clock, so you can overclock it enough to be satisfied. Anything more than like 4.2-4.5GHz and it's wasted for gaming anyway.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 25, 2012 5:18:17 PM

Thanks for quick answers guys!

Yeah the question of the extra heat on the Ivy OC has been bugging me. I even started a thread in the Toms Hardware OC/CPU section titled: 2500K vs 3570K?

I guess at similar clock rates the IVY is a little more efficient and powerful. Getting a 2500K I could go for higher clocks speeds on air cooling but would have to sacrifice the PCI 3.0 lanes that both IVY and the GTX 600 series offer. I KNOW that the current hardware does not even saturate PCI 2.0 but somehow I feel like future proofing wise it might be worth going with the latest gen hardware.

I know i will NOT be able to OC to 5.0 GHz with the 3570K on air but I think I am willing to live with only a modest OC in the 4.1-4.4 GHz range and get good gaming performance.

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 25, 2012 5:22:06 PM

Yeah, not to mention OCing on IB to match a SB OC is 4.2 GHz, which is 4.5 GHz SB OC. Anything above that mark is a waste of power.

Also, from the article he linked:
"In a nutshell, for an average system builder, there are clear limits to overclocking Ivy Bridge."
This, however, doesn't mean it needs a higher OC to compete with SB. It can OC to 4.2 GHz and not overheat. 4.2 GHz IB is 4.5 GHz SB.
m
0
l
a c 287 4 Gaming
May 25, 2012 5:37:24 PM

Pete_the_Puma said:
Hi all,

I had done a lot of research in March and was very close to getting a Z68 2500K based PC but decided to wait for the new toys. Will be ordering soon let me know if you think there are any major problems here.

Usage: Gaming, surfing the web and watching movies,
Resolution: 1080p, eventually 1080x2 or 2560x1440(!)
Overclocking:yes
SLI: 1 card for now but system has to be ready for a second card down the road without any other upgrades
Country: USA
Parts: Mostly newegg


CPU: i5-3570K (240$)
MOBO: Asrock Z77 extreme6 (175)
COOLER: CollerMaster Hyper 212 Evo (34)
CASE:Corsair 600T white (180)
MEMORY: Gskill Ares DDDR3 1600 4x4GB (95)
SSD: Crucial M4 256 GB (240)
PSU: Seasonic X-series X-850 80PlusGold (199)
GPU: GTX 680 (if I can ever find it... or 670 if i get impatient) (500 or 400)

For a total of 1660 or 1560$ depending on the GPU. Yes I KNOW 16 GB is overkill for gaming but memory is cheap and I'd rather get more now. I am not getting a storage drive yet at this point, I have been functioning with 2x250 GB drives in RAID 0 and keep all my data on an external HDD. I'm pretty sure the 850W will be enough for 2x680 or 2 x 670 in the future.

Let me know what you guys think,


P.


256GB SSD is overkill - get a 128GB SSD and a solid 1 - 2TB hard drive, this one is a steal for the price: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I have the i5-3570K and while I haven't attempted to OC it yet, its' been a great addition to my build so far.
m
0
l
May 25, 2012 5:46:46 PM

g-unit1111 said:
256GB SSD is overkill - get a 128GB SSD and a solid 1 - 2TB hard drive, this one is a steal for the price: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I have the i5-3570K and while I haven't attempted to OC it yet, its' been a great addition to my build so far.



Although I would agree that a 256 GB SSD would be overkill if it was only for a system drive I will be using the 256GB drive for ALL my data (games, music, programs) and I'm pretty sure if you have no problem with living with only 250ish GB of data you would rather have it all at SDD speeds. I've been living with 250gb (2x250 Raid0) for a few years now and its not a problem as long as you delete all the crap you never use...


P
m
0
l
May 25, 2012 5:50:52 PM

g-unit1111 said:
256GB SSD is overkill - get a 128GB SSD and a solid 1 - 2TB hard drive


Bigger SSDs are faster, so not necessary overkill. However, there is no reason to run storage drives in RAID 0. There is little benefit from faster access times for data.

Second, why are you going with 16gb of RAM? Unless you have a specific purpose in mind 8GB is sufficient. Why not spend $100 on better quality/faster RAM?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
May 25, 2012 5:50:52 PM

Pete... its a great build.
m
0
l
a c 287 4 Gaming
May 25, 2012 5:51:14 PM

Pete_the_Puma said:
Although I would agree that a 256 GB SSD would be overkill if it was only for a system drive I will be using the 256GB drive for ALL my data (games, music, programs) and I'm pretty sure if you have no problem with living with only 250ish GB of data you would rather have it all at SDD speeds. I've been living with 250gb (2x250 Raid0) for a few years now and its not a problem as long as you delete all the crap you never use...


P


That's true - but you're not going to notice any speed difference by storing your data separate from your OS and anyone who says otherwise really doesn't know what you're talking about. I have my SSD as my primary and my 1TB as a secondary and it's still just as fast as if I had all the data on my secondary. You don't want to overload your SSD nor do you want to do anything that distorts your system's read/write times. Because that's how SSDs fail and that can be disastrous for you and your data. It's better to keep your OS separate from your data so if you have to replace one drive, you don't lose anything.

Quote:
Bigger SSDs are faster, so not necessary overkill.


That's not necessarily true and there's tons of benchmarks out there that prove otherwise. It's all mainly due to the controller used, not the capacity.

Quote:
Second, why are you going with 16gb of RAM? Unless you have a specific purpose in mind 8GB is sufficient. Why not spend $100 on better quality/faster RAM?


RAM speed doesn't matter - all motherboards will run RAM at the lowest speeds it can handle and Intel frowns on RAM speeds above 1600 and will void your warranty if they find out, that's why I never recommend anything above 1600.
m
0
l
May 25, 2012 5:55:00 PM

g-unit1111 said:
That's true - but you're not going to notice any speed difference by storing your data separate from your OS and anyone who says otherwise really doesn't know what you're talking about.


I notice a difference when I access data stored on HDD compared to my SSD. Often the HDD has turned off to save power (lower heat) and it has to spin back up before I can open a specific folder. This is a minor annoyance and of course doesn't mean that you should get a larger SSD just to avoid this minor headache, but there is a slight difference in data access times in this special situation.
m
0
l
a c 287 4 Gaming
May 25, 2012 6:05:20 PM

jsrudd said:
I notice a difference when I access data stored on HDD compared to my SSD. Often the HDD has turned off to save power (lower heat) and it has to spin back up before I can open a specific folder. This is a minor annoyance and of course doesn't mean that you should get a larger SSD just to avoid this minor headache, but there is a slight difference in data access times in this special situation.


I have all my games stored on a 3rd hard drive that I salvaged from an old build and I've never noticed any hiccups in loading times between one level to the next.
m
0
l
!