Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Rate This Gaming Build

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 26, 2012 4:42:36 PM

Rate my build! :hello: 

I just want you all to rate THIS BUILD and tell me if you think I made any crucial mistakes.

So, keep in mind... I already bought everything listed here. They are on their way as I type this.

Let me have it, don't go soft. :kaola:  :pt1cable: 


Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ NCIX US)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.98 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme4 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($142.86 @ Newegg)

Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($44.99 @ NCIX US)

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($102.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Storage: Crucial M4 64GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($67.98 @ Amazon)

Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB Video Card ($307.55 @ Newegg)

Case: Antec Nine Hundred ATX Mid Tower Case ($96.39 @ Amazon)

Power Supply: SeaSonic 750W ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($119.99 @ Newegg)

Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.98 @ Outlet PC)

Total: $1151.70

More about : rate gaming build

August 26, 2012 5:03:14 PM

It's pretty good. A bit expensive though at 1150
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 5:08:51 PM

FinneousPJ said:
It's pretty good. A bit expensive though at 1150



I know, but I didn't want to risk going with lowest end parts and getting something that doesn't last, or may even be DOA.

Other than the price, what improvements could be made?
m
0
l
Related resources
August 26, 2012 5:09:22 PM

Ehh that power supply is way overkill 650 is more then enough,i would have dropped ssd and got 670 O.O
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 5:13:37 PM

Spicy_benie said:
Ehh that power supply is way overkill 650 is more then enough,i would have dropped ssd and got 670 O.O



A little future-proofing. I may SLI later on, or something else possibly. I'm only going to use the SSD for OS, nothing else. I like what I hear about the 10~ second boot times. I come from the pre-SSD age, and wanted to check it out.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 5:16:16 PM

I myself strongly do not like the concept of future proofing, i would rather somebody said upgrade path, because in this day and age you can't really future proof...
m
0
l

Best solution

August 26, 2012 5:21:28 PM

PSU is overkill - you could have easily gotten away with something in the 500W range (PSU calculator says that this will draw ~400W from the wall, even overclocked).

SATA III does nothing for traditional hard drives. Could have saved $20-$25 by getting a SATA II drive instead of the Caviar Black.
Share
August 26, 2012 5:25:35 PM

Spicy_benie said:
I myself strongly do not like the concept of future proofing, i would rather somebody said upgrade path, because in this day and age you can't really future proof...



Upgrade path would be a better choice of words for what I meant. Thank you.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 5:28:00 PM

coleam45 said:
PSU is overkill - you could have easily gotten away with something in the 500W range (PSU calculator says that this will draw ~400W from the wall, even overclocked).

SATA III does nothing for traditional hard drives. Could have saved $20-$25 by getting a SATA II drive instead of the Caviar Black.



Yeah, I read about that. What will need to be done when they do actually make SATA III usable? Will I need to get a new Mobo? Thank you for the comments.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 5:30:42 PM

No, the point is a normal HDD doesn't have the throughput to utilize a SATA III channel - SATA II is more than enough. The HDD itself bottlenecks far sooner than then SATA II connection.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 5:37:48 PM

It's not that it's unusable. It's just that traditional disk-type hard drives (even the 10k RPM VelociRaptors) aren't fast enough to saturate a SATA II connection, let alone a SATA III. It works just fine for SSDs though.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 5:49:21 PM

FinneousPJ said:
No, the point is a normal HDD doesn't have the throughput to utilize a SATA III channel - SATA II is more than enough. The HDD itself bottlenecks far sooner than then SATA II connection.



So the SATA II HDDs are faster and cheaper? With the bottlenecking... :o 
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 6:13:17 PM

No, they're equal.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 6:25:05 PM

Nanekud said:
So the SATA II HDDs are faster and cheaper? With the bottlenecking... :o 

No, there's no difference in the speed of SATA II and SATA III HDDs.

An example: A SATA II connection has a maximum data rate of X (don't know the real-world numbers, but they're irrelevant to the example). A mechanical hard drive can only read/write data at a speed of X-n. So even if you increase the maximum data rate to 2X (SATA III), the hard drive is still going to be plugging along at X-n. If the drive has a maximum rate of 1.5X (think SSD here), then it benefits because it was limited to a speed of X by the SATA II connection.

All SATA III does is increase the bandwidth of the connection. If the device isn't using 100% of the SATA II bandwidth (and mechanical drives don't), then SATA III doesn't change anything.

Hope that makes sense.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 6:43:21 PM

coleam45 said:
No, there's no difference in the speed of SATA II and SATA III HDDs.

An example: A SATA II connection has a maximum data rate of X (don't know the real-world numbers, but they're irrelevant to the example). A mechanical hard drive can only read/write data at a speed of X-n. So even if you increase the maximum data rate to 2X (SATA III), the hard drive is still going to be plugging along at X-n. If the drive has a maximum rate of 1.5X (think SSD here), then it benefits because it was limited to a speed of X by the SATA II connection.

All SATA III does is increase the bandwidth of the connection. If the device isn't using 100% of the SATA II bandwidth (and mechanical drives don't), then SATA III doesn't change anything.

Hope that makes sense.



Yep, got ya. So, basically, I spent the spare money for nothing. Lol. That's better than getting something that doesn't work with my machine at all, so oh well. :D 
m
0
l
August 27, 2012 12:30:41 AM

Best answer selected by Nanekud.
m
0
l
!