Solved

Rate This Gaming Build

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
15 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about rate gaming build
  1. It's pretty good. A bit expensive though at 1150
  2. 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?
  3. Ehh that power supply is way overkill 650 is more then enough,i would have dropped ssd and got 670 O.O
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. Best answer
    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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. No, they're equal.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. Best answer selected by Nanekud.
Ask a new question

Read More

Build Systems Product