Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need advice for new gamer PC (All parts)

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 1, 2012 9:37:15 PM

Hello. I'm about to buy parts for a new computer that will be used for gaming.
I want a great computer, that can handle the new games on the marked, and hopefully also can be used in a couple of years.

Let me start out by saying that i'm not the most experienced guy when it comes to building a PC. I know all about ESD, and how to assemble the parts, so i'm covered in that area. But for which parts i should buy, i have no clue.

I also want to overclock it on some level(with water cooling), but thats not so important right now. (It will be done later on)
And because i want to watercool it later on, it has to be silent.
First i need the computer.
This is what i'm thinking of buying. (It's a Dansih website, but the products should be the same anyways)

Approximate Purchase Date:
From this date and 2 month ahead.

Budget Range:
About 1700$, but i'm not locked on the price. But somewhere near that would be great.

System Usage from Most to Least Important:
It will be used for gaming most time. But also for work (I'm having my own little company)
So a mix of a great graphics and a fast system

Parts Not Required:
Mouse

Preferred Website(s) for Parts:
I don't have any preferred website, i'm okay with anything. But a danish website would be great, although i know it's hard because this is an international forum.

Country:
Denmark

Parts Preferences:
None.

Overclocking:
Yes, later on.

SLI or Crossfire:
Yes, later on.

Monitor Resolution:
Not sure about this. I'm aware of that if i have a great Graphic card i need a great monitor too, because if the monitor can't handle the resulution its just waste.

Additional Comments:
Heres an idea of how i would put my PC together.

Case:
Obsidian 800D (Already purchased)
186$

Power supply:
Antec High Current Pro HCP-850
http://www.edbpriser.dk/stroemforsyning/antec-high-curr...
I think this one is good because it is silent.(1x140mm fan)
And because it should have enough power lines for almost anything i could throw in my PC.
214$

Motherboard:
Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD5
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/gigabyte-ga-z68xp-ud5-...
This is pretty advanced for me. But as I can see, it should be a good motherboard. It got SLI/Crossfire suport which is nice if I want to have 2x graphic cards.
287$

CPU:
Core i5 I5-2500 6 MB (Intel Boxed) (Heatsink)
http://www.edbpriser.dk/processor/core-i5-i5-2500-6-mb-...
I'm not so good a CPU's. But as far as i know is the 2500 a Sandy Bridge, right? And the socket machtes with my motherboard.
This one could also be used for overclocking as far as i know.
The reason i didn't find a I7 is because I've heard that you wont get so much more out of an I7 compared to a I5.
257$

RAM:
G.Skill SNIPER Series 2 x 4 GB
http://www.edbpriser.dk/ram/gskill-sniper-series-2-x-4-...
Is it correct that the higher mhz the RAM has, the better? (The motherboard should ofcourse be able to handle the mhz, but the Gigabyte does that)
107$

Graphic adapter:
I'm really confused here. Could you guys tell me a little about what i should look for, when looking for a graphic adapter?
In the future i would like to have 2x graphic adapters and put them in SLI/Crossfire(Thats where there are 2 x adapters and they are "connected" to each other, right? What pros' are there for using SLI/Crossfire?
And as I said before, I'm not sure witch monitor to use, because i need a high resulution monitor to get good results with a good graphic adapter?
I would also like to connect 3 monitors to my computer, if this is possible with this setup.(2 monitors is a must)
But a friend of mine told me to look at this card:
XFX Radeon HD 6970 (2 GB)
http://www.edbpriser.dk/grafikkort/xfx-radeon-hd-6970-2...
Is there something better for the same amount of money? And should i choose Nvidia or ATI?
378$

Monitor:
Not sure. Depends on the graphic adapter, i guess. Is it true that i should look for the resolution and respons time?
Is it possible to find a good screen (altso a great design) to around170$?

HDD:
Here I have no clue again about HDD's.
I know i want a SSD for my boot files etc.
But how big should the HDD be, and what about thr write/read speed?
I guess i need the SSD to be big enough for my windows installation, but should there be room for more? Is there anything else you would recommend me to install on the SSD? Would my games/browser etc be faster if i installed them on the SSD, or would a normal HDD be okay?

Keyboard
Just a logitech G19. Think that's a cool keyboard with a lot of features.
http://www.edbpriser.dk/tastatur/logitech-g19-keyboard-...
155$

Headset
Also a Logitech. The G930.
http://www.edbpriser.dk/pc-headset/logitech-gaming-head...
170$

Cost: 1754$


So, what do you guys think? It would be really great if you could give me some advice on what you think of the whole setup, and the parts. Feel free to tell your own opinion.
Is this a realistic setup, or wouldn't it work?

Thank you very much for your answers and for reading.

Best regards,
Jesper H.

More about : advice gamer parts

September 1, 2012 10:36:47 PM

JesperH said:

Monitor Resolution:
Not sure about this. I'm aware of that if i have a great Graphic card i need a great monitor too, because if the monitor can't handle the resulution its just waste.

1080p (1920x1080) is the standard now.

Quote:
CPU:
Core i5 I5-2500 6 MB (Intel Boxed) (Heatsink)
http://www.edbpriser.dk/processor/core-i5-i5-2500-6-mb-...
I'm not so good a CPU's. But as far as i know is the 2500 a Sandy Bridge, right? And the socket machtes with my motherboard.
This one could also be used for overclocking as far as i know.
The reason i didn't find a I7 is because I've heard that you wont get so much more out of an I7 compared to a I5.
257$

If you want to overclock, you'd want the 2500k. The Core i5 2500k is based on Sandy Bridge, and offers one of best values in gaming CPU's. The "k" suffix means unlocked multiplier. CPU speed is determined by bus (or base-clock in Intel Core i- CPU's) x multiplier. If the multiplier is unlocked, that means you can overclock just by raising the multiplier which makes overclocking a lot easier.

Quote:
RAM:
G.Skill SNIPER Series 2 x 4 GB
http://www.edbpriser.dk/ram/gskill-sniper-series-2-x-4-...
Is it correct that the higher mhz the RAM has, the better? (The motherboard should ofcourse be able to handle the mhz, but the Gigabyte does that)
107$

In theory, yes, but in testing, there is very little benefit in getting RAM faster than 1600MHz, unless you're running an APU (Accelerated Processing Unit = GPU and CPU are on the same die/chip). Having lower latency would be more beneficial than higher speed. Go for 1600MHz with CAS of 9 or less and a voltage of 1.5 or lower.

Quote:
Graphic adapter:
I'm really confused here. Could you guys tell me a little about what i should look for, when looking for a graphic adapter?
In the future i would like to have 2x graphic adapters and put them in SLI/Crossfire(Thats where there are 2 x adapters and they are "connected" to each other, right? What pros' are there for using SLI/Crossfire?
And as I said before, I'm not sure witch monitor to use, because i need a high resulution monitor to get good results with a good graphic adapter?
I would also like to connect 3 monitors to my computer, if this is possible with this setup.(2 monitors is a must)
But a friend of mine told me to look at this card:
XFX Radeon HD 6970 (2 GB)
http://www.edbpriser.dk/grafikkort/xfx-radeon-hd-6970-2...
Is there something better for the same amount of money? And should i choose Nvidia or ATI?
378$

This area gets really sticky. I'd recommend getting a 7000 series GPU, specifically the 7950. If the budges allows for it, get a 7970. It's the cream of the cream for AMD. As for CrossFire/SLI goes, the results are highly mixed depending on the game. In the worst case, the game isn't optimized for it and only uses 1 GPU. In the best case, they scale really well and you get about 95% performance boost over a single GPU. There is also the issue of Micro-Stuttering. As for Nvidia vs AMD, this is where things get sticker. In short, some games prefer one, others prefer the other, and some games are unbiased. Despite what many fan-boys will tell you, one is never universally better than the other. It's usually best to research what games you will be playing most, and see which GPU performs better with those games. In your case, I'd say go with AMD. Traditionally, they have had much better multi-monitor support, and it's superior memory system will help drive the 3 monitors faster vs the competition.

Quote:
Monitor:
Not sure. Depends on the graphic adapter, i guess. Is it true that i should look for the resolution and respons time?
Is it possible to find a good screen (altso a great design) to around170$?
Those are generally the two to look for. There is also contrast ratio to consider. But a lot of companies really skew their numbers, such as using Gray to Gray (G2G) to measure response times, which you won't be doing realistically. Anyway, as long as the monitor is 1080p, 5ms or less response time, and high contrast ratio (native 1,000:1 or greater, but most companies will hide the native), you should be good. My experience with ASUS monitors has been good, and Samsung has been praised for their screens as well.

Quote:
HDD:
Here I have no clue again about HDD's.
I know i want a SSD for my boot files etc.
But how big should the HDD be, and what about thr write/read speed?
I guess i need the SSD to be big enough for my windows installation, but should there be room for more? Is there anything else you would recommend me to install on the SSD? Would my games/browser etc be faster if i installed them on the SSD, or would a normal HDD be okay?

You'll definitely want an SSD as a boot drive. SSD's can greatly reduce loading times on games, but won't have any impact on how the game plays. I'd recommend putting your most used games on a SSD and the rest on the HDD. As for the SSD, I'd recommend getting a 128GB (or greater) if you want install some games on the SSD, though you can get by on a 64GB SSD for just Windows and a handful of programs and like 1 or 2 games. As for the models, either a Crucial M4, OCz Vertex 4, OCz Agility 4, or Samsung 830. I'd stay away from sandforce SSD's because they rely on compressible data for their boasted speeds. They can be fast, but they aren't consistent.
September 1, 2012 10:44:27 PM

The first point is that processor is not unlocked, to allow you to overclock. I see your are thinking of water cooling, at some stage. Does that mean you are hoping to overclock, agressively. If you are, you are probably better to use the i5-2500K. If you only wish to overclock, modestly, the i5-3570K, which is a higher performance chip, would be better, but has limited overclocking ability.
To be honest, the HD 6970 is possibly not the best choice, but I know prices, in Denmark, do not, necessarily, follow prices, in the UK, so I will have a proper look at options, available, in Denmark, tomorrow, rather than just assuming prices, tonight.
When you say you want to use PC for work, what will that involve (special software, etc)?
Related resources
September 1, 2012 11:09:57 PM

jerm1027 said:
1080p (1920x1080) is the standard now.

Quote:
CPU:
Core i5 I5-2500 6 MB (Intel Boxed) (Heatsink)
http://www.edbpriser.dk/processor/core-i5-i5-2500-6-mb-...
I'm not so good a CPU's. But as far as i know is the 2500 a Sandy Bridge, right? And the socket machtes with my motherboard.
This one could also be used for overclocking as far as i know.
The reason i didn't find a I7 is because I've heard that you wont get so much more out of an I7 compared to a I5.
257$

If you want to overclock, you'd want the 2500k. The Core i5 2500k is based on Sandy Bridge, and offers one of best values in gaming CPU's. The "k" suffix means unlocked multiplier. CPU speed is determined by bus (or base-clock in Intel Core i- CPU's) x multiplier. If the multiplier is unlocked, that means you can overclock just by raising the multiplier which makes overclocking a lot easier.

Quote:
RAM:
G.Skill SNIPER Series 2 x 4 GB
http://www.edbpriser.dk/ram/gskill-sniper-series-2-x-4-...
Is it correct that the higher mhz the RAM has, the better? (The motherboard should ofcourse be able to handle the mhz, but the Gigabyte does that)
107$

In theory, yes, but in testing, there is very little benefit in getting RAM faster than 1600MHz, unless you're running an APU (Accelerated Processing Unit = GPU and CPU are on the same die/chip). Having lower latency would be more beneficial than higher speed. Go for 1600MHz with CAS of 9 or less and a voltage of 1.5 or lower.

Quote:
Graphic adapter:
I'm really confused here. Could you guys tell me a little about what i should look for, when looking for a graphic adapter?
In the future i would like to have 2x graphic adapters and put them in SLI/Crossfire(Thats where there are 2 x adapters and they are "connected" to each other, right? What pros' are there for using SLI/Crossfire?
And as I said before, I'm not sure witch monitor to use, because i need a high resulution monitor to get good results with a good graphic adapter?
I would also like to connect 3 monitors to my computer, if this is possible with this setup.(2 monitors is a must)
But a friend of mine told me to look at this card:
XFX Radeon HD 6970 (2 GB)
http://www.edbpriser.dk/grafikkort/xfx-radeon-hd-6970-2...
Is there something better for the same amount of money? And should i choose Nvidia or ATI?
378$

This area gets really sticky. I'd recommend getting a 7000 series GPU, specifically the 7950. If the budges allows for it, get a 7970. It's the cream of the cream for AMD. As for CrossFire/SLI goes, the results are highly mixed depending on the game. In the worst case, the game isn't optimized for it and only uses 1 GPU. In the best case, they scale really well and you get about 95% performance boost over a single GPU. There is also the issue of Micro-Stuttering. As for Nvidia vs AMD, this is where things get sticker. In short, some games prefer one, others prefer the other, and some games are unbiased. Despite what many fan-boys will tell you, one is never universally better than the other. It's usually best to research what games you will be playing most, and see which GPU performs better with those games. In your case, I'd say go with AMD. Traditionally, they have had much better multi-monitor support, and it's superior memory system will help drive the 3 monitors faster vs the competition.

Quote:
Monitor:
Not sure. Depends on the graphic adapter, i guess. Is it true that i should look for the resolution and respons time?
Is it possible to find a good screen (altso a great design) to around170$?
Those are generally the two to look for. There is also contrast ratio to consider. But a lot of companies really skew their numbers, such as using Gray to Gray (G2G) to measure response times, which you won't be doing realistically. Anyway, as long as the monitor is 1080p, 5ms or less response time, and high contrast ratio (native 1,000:1 or greater, but most companies will hide the native), you should be good. My experience with ASUS monitors has been good, and Samsung has been praised for their screens as well.

Quote:
HDD:
Here I have no clue again about HDD's.
I know i want a SSD for my boot files etc.
But how big should the HDD be, and what about thr write/read speed?
I guess i need the SSD to be big enough for my windows installation, but should there be room for more? Is there anything else you would recommend me to install on the SSD? Would my games/browser etc be faster if i installed them on the SSD, or would a normal HDD be okay?

You'll definitely want an SSD as a boot drive. SSD's can greatly reduce loading times on games, but won't have any impact on how the game plays. I'd recommend putting your most used games on a SSD and the rest on the HDD. As for the SSD, I'd recommend getting a 128GB (or greater) if you want install some games on the SSD, though you can get by on a 64GB SSD for just Windows and a handful of programs and like 1 or 2 games. As for the models, either a Crucial M4, OCz Vertex 4, OCz Agility 4, or Samsung 830. I'd stay away from sandforce SSD's because they rely on compressible data for their boasted speeds. They can be fast, but they aren't consistent.


to add to that, id say get a i5 3570k and a gigabyte z77x-ud3h motherboard. new features on the z77 and the new features that gigabyte put out since their z68 boards make life a bit more easier
September 1, 2012 11:26:06 PM

Quote:
If you want to overclock, you'd want the 2500k. The Core i5 2500k is based on Sandy Bridge, and offers one of best values in gaming CPU's. The "k" suffix means unlocked multiplier. CPU speed is determined by bus (or base-clock in Intel Core i- CPU's) x multiplier. If the multiplier is unlocked, that means you can overclock just by raising the multiplier which makes overclocking a lot easier.


Oh yeah, i did read about that. I mus had made some error when searching for it.

Heres the one that i'm looking for:
http://www.edbpriser.dk/processor/core-i5-i5-2500k-6-mb...

But, as malbluff also wrote, would i be better of with the 3570k? The price is almost the same.
The 3xxx series uses Ivy Bridge. I asume those should be a little better than the Sandy Bridge, so should i go for that instead?
Here it is:
http://www.edbpriser.dk/processor/core-i5-i5-3570k-6-mb...


Quote:
In theory, yes, but in testing, there is very little benefit in getting RAM faster than 1600MHz, unless you're running an APU (Accelerated Processing Unit = GPU and CPU are on the same die/chip). Having lower latency would be more beneficial than higher speed. Go for 1600MHz with CAS of 9 or less and a voltage of 1.5 or lower.


What about these?
http://www.edbpriser.dk/ram/gskill-sniper-series-2-x-4-...

They're 1866 MHz with CL9. Or should i just go for 1600 straight?


Quote:
This area gets really sticky. I'd recommend getting a 7000 series GPU, specifically the 7950. If the budges allows for it, get a 7970. It's the cream of the cream for AMD. As for CrossFire/SLI goes, the results are highly mixed depending on the game. In the worst case, the game isn't optimized for it and only uses 1 GPU. In the best case, they scale really well and you get about 95% performance boost over a single GPU. There is also the issue of Micro-Stuttering. As for Nvidia vs AMD, this is where things get sticker. In short, some games prefer one, others prefer the other, and some games are unbiased. Despite what many fan-boys will tell you, one is never universally better than the other. It's usually best to research what games you will be playing most, and see which GPU performs better with those games. In your case, I'd say go with AMD. Traditionally, they have had much better multi-monitor support, and it's superior memory system will help drive the 3 monitors faster vs the competition.


Well, there is a little difference in the price on those two GPU's. But i could go for the 7970 and then just stick with that. That should be enough for todays games. And in the future i could always add another one. But then there is the Micro-Stuttering. I just read a little about it, and i get goosebumps just thinking about it. As what i could read, there isn't any "real" fix for it, right now, except to turn down the refresh rate down. But that's not something i want.
I've been using AMD since I was a kid, and have been happy about them, so i just think i will stick with AMD.

But then, there are so many versions of the 7970. What is the difference?
Go check those i found here:
http://www.edbpriser.dk/hardware/grafikkort.aspx?qft=79...


Quote:
Those are generally the two to look for. There is also contrast ratio to consider. But a lot of companies really skew their numbers, such as using Gray to Gray (G2G) to measure response times, which you won't be doing realistically. Anyway, as long as the monitor is 1080p, 5ms or less response time, and high contrast ratio (native 1,000:1 or greater, but most companies will hide the native), you should be good. My experience with ASUS monitors has been good, and Samsung has been praised for their screens as well.


Okay, that doesn't seem to be as advanced as I thought.


Quote:
You'll definitely want an SSD as a boot drive. SSD's can greatly reduce loading times on games, but won't have any impact on how the game plays. I'd recommend putting your most used games on a SSD and the rest on the HDD. As for the SSD, I'd recommend getting a 128GB (or greater) if you want install some games on the SSD, though you can get by on a 64GB SSD for just Windows and a handful of programs and like 1 or 2 games. As for the models, either a Crucial M4, OCz Vertex 4, OCz Agility 4, or Samsung 830. I'd stay away from sandforce SSD's because they rely on compressible data for their boasted speeds. They can be fast, but they aren't consistent.


Okay, so i think i will be going for a 128+ SSD. But would i be able to feel that for instance Google Chrome was installed on the SSD versus on my HDD?



-------------

Quote:
The first point is that processor is not unlocked, to allow you to overclock. I see your are thinking of water cooling, at some stage. Does that mean you are hoping to overclock, agressively. If you are, you are probably better to use the i5-2500K. If you only wish to overclock, modestly, the i5-3570K, which is a higher performance chip, would be better, but has limited overclocking ability.
To be honest, the HD 6970 is possibly not the best choice, but I know prices, in Denmark, do not, necessarily, follow prices, in the UK, so I will have a proper look at options, available, in Denmark, tomorrow, rather than just assuming prices, tonight.
When you say you want to use PC for work, what will that involve (special software, etc)?


Fixed the CPU. You may also reply on my answer above. Should I go for the 2500k or the 3570k? You're saying something about that i can't overclock the 3570k as much as the 2500k, why is that?


It would be great if you would help with places to buy those parts. Would it be better for me to order them in the UK?





I really wan't to thank you guys for your great reply. I'm overwhelmed by how helpful you are.
September 1, 2012 11:29:04 PM

teh 3570k gets hot whenever you add more voltage. it should still be enough to get you to 4.5ghz.
September 1, 2012 11:29:39 PM

TheBigTroll said:
to add to that, id say get a i5 3570k and a gigabyte z77x-ud3h motherboard. new features on the z77 and the new features that gigabyte put out since their z68 boards make life a bit more easier


Wouldn't the GA-Z77X-UD5H be better than the UD3H?

UD5H:
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/gigabyte-ga-z77x-ud5h-...
September 1, 2012 11:30:58 PM

TheBigTroll said:
teh 3570k gets hot whenever you add more voltage. it should still be enough to get you to 4.5ghz.


I'm almost sure that i will put water cooling in my rig, so the heat shouldn't be a problem.
September 1, 2012 11:32:31 PM

JesperH said:
I'm almost sure that i will put water cooling in my rig, so the heat shouldn't be a problem.


not really. you will extend the brick wall of heat with water though. beyond 4.8ghz, watercooling is not useful given the ivy bridge chips use TIM between the actual chip and the heatspreader resulting in poor heat conductivity (intel cheaped out on ivy but not sandy)

keep in mind that 4.5ghz is more than enough
September 1, 2012 11:33:03 PM

how much is the price difference?

oh and for the same price of a ud5h, i could get a z77-v pro from asus which in terms of software is much more superior
September 1, 2012 11:38:47 PM

TheBigTroll said:
how much is the price difference?

oh and for the same price of a ud5h, i could get a z77-v pro from asus which in terms of software is much more superior



For the GPU? 170$ difference.



And for the P8Z77-V PRO, what is the difference? Just the software?
September 1, 2012 11:39:00 PM

i meant the price difference between the ud3h and the ud5h

the z77-vpro is pretty much the same as the ud5h other than it has a few less hardware features but much more software. asus motherboards in my opinion are easier to use

September 1, 2012 11:46:57 PM

TheBigTroll said:
not really. you will extend the brick wall of heat with water though. beyond 4.8ghz, watercooling is not useful given the ivy bridge chips use TIM between the actual chip and the heatspreader resulting in poor heat conductivity (intel cheaped out on ivy but not sandy)

keep in mind that 4.5ghz is more than enough



Hm, that leads me back to if I should go for the Sandy- og Ivy Bridge.
I might be able to OC the 2500k more that the 3570k(right?) but what would be the best choice?


TheBigTroll said:
i meant the price difference between the ud3h and the ud5h

the z77-vpro is pretty much the same as the ud5h other than it has a few less hardware features but much more software. asus motherboards in my opinion are easier to use



UD3: 203$

UD5: 258$
September 1, 2012 11:49:37 PM

ok then. the ud5h isnt that worth it but if you want the extra connectivity, go ahead

you can overclock the 2500k more than the 3570k but remember that the ivy bridge chips are a bit faster clock for clock. so if you get 4.5ghz on ivy bridge, you would have to get 4.7ghz or 4.8ghz to reach the same performance level
September 1, 2012 11:57:39 PM

JesperH said:

But, as malbluff also wrote, would i be better of with the 3570k? The price is almost the same.
The 3xxx series uses Ivy Bridge. I asume those should be a little better than the Sandy Bridge, so should i go for that instead?
Here it is:
http://www.edbpriser.dk/processor/core-i5-i5-3570k-6-mb...


If the price is the same, go for 3570k. There isn't a big difference, and I know countries in the EU pay more for power, so the efficiency of Ivy Bridge might add some value. Unless you plan on doing some really aggressive overclocking, no reason to stay attached to Sandy Bridge. There is a thermal ceiling at around 4.4-4.5GHz with Ivy Bridge. With Sandy Bridge, the limit appears to be 4.8-4.9GHz.

Quote:
What about these?
http://www.edbpriser.dk/ram/gskill-sniper-series-2-x-4-...

They're 1866 MHz with CL9. Or should i just go for 1600 straight?

If there isn't a much of a price difference between the 1866 and 1600, go for the 1866. CL9 is pretty standard for RAM between 1333 - 1866. If you can find 1600 for a bit cheaper ($5-$10 cheaper), I'd go for the 1600.

Quote:
Well, there is a little difference in the price on those two GPU's. But i could go for the 7970 and then just stick with that. That should be enough for todays games. And in the future i could always add another one. But then there is the Micro-Stuttering. I just read a little about it, and i get goosebumps just thinking about it. As what i could read, there isn't any "real" fix for it, right now, except to turn down the refresh rate down. But that's not something i want.
I've been using AMD since I was a kid, and have been happy about them, so i just think i will stick with AMD.

But then, there are so many versions of the 7970. What is the difference?
Go check those i found here:
http://www.edbpriser.dk/hardware/grafikkort.aspx?qft=79...

I'd go for the ASUS one, however, it's a triple-slot card. That means you have make sure your motherboard has triple-slot spacing. If it's too big, I'd go for the Sapphire OC one.

Quote:
Okay, so i think i will be going for a 128+ SSD. But would i be able to feel that for instance Google Chrome was installed on the SSD versus on my HDD?
Just in the initial start-up. One the program is running, it's in the RAM and doesn't much interact with the drive. In my personal set up, caching is an issue though. I have Firefox installed on my HDD, and after a quick break my HDD will fall asleep and when Firefox calls upon its cache the browser will lock up for a few seconds because my HDD will have to spin up again. It doesn't really bother me though, and I'm too lazy to fix it, though disabling browser cache would fix my problem. With the SSD, this won't be a problem since SSD's are instant on/off.

Quote:

I really wan't to thank you guys for your great reply. I'm overwhelmed by how helpful you are.


You're welcome. :) 
September 2, 2012 12:02:27 AM

In terms of the frequency you can reach, you can go higher with Sandybridge, but that doesn't mean you will get better performance, overall. Ivybridge has higher performance, to start with. Linked with z77 mobo, i5 will give benefits, irrespective of overclock, compared to Sandybridge and a z68 mobo.
September 2, 2012 12:02:48 AM

for the video card, id get a xfx or a sapphire 7970. the asus one doesnt cool any better or cools the same. you are just adding more weight to the pci-e slot that normal
September 2, 2012 4:17:30 PM

Well, this isn't easy!

I think it should be one of these.

ASUS P8Z77-V PRO
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/asus-p8z77-v-pro-id-67...
262$

And the Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/gigabyte-ga-z77x-ud5h-...
258$

I've read that the Gigabyte had some Boot/Loop problems, but shouldn't they be fixed by now?
And as i can see, the Gigabyte have more ports etc.

What about SLI/Crossfire? I know the Gigabyte have both, but the ASUS?

And what about the BIOS interface? Which is the best in your opinion?
Is there some kind of fan control on both motherboards?



Regarding the CPU, I've decided to go for the I5 3570k. I think 4.5 GHz should be enough, and even if I want to OC the 2500k i would have to OC it to about 4.7-4.9 GHz, to be as good as the 3570k (If I understood you guys right)



Quote:

If there isn't a much of a price difference between the 1866 and 1600, go for the 1866. CL9 is pretty standard for RAM between 1333 - 1866. If you can find 1600 for a bit cheaper ($5-$10 cheaper), I'd go for the 1600.


There's 5$ difference.
So should I just go for the 1866 MHz?



Quote:
I'd go for the ASUS one, however, it's a triple-slot card. That means you have make sure your motherboard has triple-slot spacing. If it's too big, I'd go for the Sapphire OC one.


Quote:
for the video card, id get a xfx or a sapphire 7970. the asus one doesnt cool any better or cools the same. you are just adding more weight to the pci-e slot that normal




Hm, i'm thinking of the Sapphire GPU. I won't need the fans because i want to add water to my system.(So the triple GPU is just waste of space)
But damn, they are expensive. But then they should last a few year. And when I want to upgrade, would it be possible to just add another Sapphire GPU and make them in Crossfire?
September 2, 2012 6:07:59 PM

JesperH said:
Well, this isn't easy!

I think it should be one of these.

ASUS P8Z77-V PRO
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/asus-p8z77-v-pro-id-67...
262$

And the Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/gigabyte-ga-z77x-ud5h-...
258$

I've read that the Gigabyte had some Boot/Loop problems, but shouldn't they be fixed by now?
And as i can see, the Gigabyte have more ports etc.

What about SLI/Crossfire? I know the Gigabyte have both, but the ASUS?

And what about the BIOS interface? Which is the best in your opinion?
Is there some kind of fan control on both motherboards?
Personally, I would prefer the Asus, for Asus' build quality and reliability, plus excellent, easy to use software. That's not to say Gigabyte is bad, it's very good, just prefer Asus, but that's me. Both will do Sli/crossfire.
Both have decent fan control, the Asus has dual fan for CPU cooler, confess I'm not sure if Gigabyte has, but it's not vital, anyway.


Regarding the CPU, I've decided to go for the I5 3570k. I think 4.5 GHz should be enough, and even if I want to OC the 2500k i would have to OC it to about 4.7-4.9 GHz, to be as good as the 3570k (If I understood you guys right)



Quote:

If there isn't a much of a price difference between the 1866 and 1600, go for the 1866. CL9 is pretty standard for RAM between 1333 - 1866. If you can find 1600 for a bit cheaper ($5-$10 cheaper), I'd go for the 1600.


There's 5$ difference.
So should I just go for the 1866 MHz?



Quote:
I'd go for the ASUS one, however, it's a triple-slot card. That means you have make sure your motherboard has triple-slot spacing. If it's too big, I'd go for the Sapphire OC one.


Quote:
for the video card, id get a xfx or a sapphire 7970. the asus one doesnt cool any better or cools the same. you are just adding more weight to the pci-e slot that normal




Hm, i'm thinking of the Sapphire GPU. I won't need the fans because i want to add water to my system.(So the triple GPU is just waste of space)
But damn, they are expensive. But then they should last a few year. And when I want to upgrade, would it be possible to just add another Sapphire GPU and make them in Crossfire?

September 2, 2012 6:15:07 PM

malbluff - Did you wan't to tell me something? ;-)
September 2, 2012 6:19:18 PM

Personally, prefer Asus for their build quality, and reliability. Both are good, and have all the connectivity, you're likely to need. Software/bios good on the Asus. Has SLI/crossfire, and fan control. Crossfire in future, won't be a problem. To be fair, most of that applies to Gigabyte, I just, personally like the Asus more. As for the RAM, the benefits of slightly higher GHz, are negligable, in practice. No real reason why you should not get it, just not worth spending much more for.
September 2, 2012 6:58:27 PM

1; id just get the asus. its like a couple bucks more for more software and a wifi card
2: you cannot watercool a non-reference part. 7970 waterblocks are only designed for cards that are using a reference pcb. just putting it out there
September 2, 2012 7:05:40 PM

JesperH said:
Well, this isn't easy!

I think it should be one of these.

ASUS P8Z77-V PRO
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/asus-p8z77-v-pro-id-67...
262$

And the Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H
http://www.edbpriser.dk/bundkort/gigabyte-ga-z77x-ud5h-...
258$

I've read that the Gigabyte had some Boot/Loop problems, but shouldn't they be fixed by now?
And as i can see, the Gigabyte have more ports etc.

What about SLI/Crossfire? I know the Gigabyte have both, but the ASUS?

And what about the BIOS interface? Which is the best in your opinion?
Is there some kind of fan control on both motherboards?



Regarding the CPU, I've decided to go for the I5 3570k. I think 4.5 GHz should be enough, and even if I want to OC the 2500k i would have to OC it to about 4.7-4.9 GHz, to be as good as the 3570k (If I understood you guys right)


There's 5$ difference.
So should I just go for the 1866 MHz?


Hm, i'm thinking of the Sapphire GPU. I won't need the fans because i want to add water to my system.(So the triple GPU is just waste of space)
But damn, they are expensive. But then they should last a few year. And when I want to upgrade, would it be possible to just add another Sapphire GPU and make them in Crossfire?


As for the motherboard, I think ASUS has the better value, and I also prefer their build quality as well. You can't go wrong with either though.

As for the CPU: good choice. One of Ivy Bridges biggest downfalls in the desktop space is it just didn't offer enough to warrant an upgrade. It's a tiny bit faster, but Sandy OC's better to compensate. Again, I think in your case Ivy is better because of power efficiency. Even the HD 4000 graphics engine could be helpful to keep your GPU powered down when you aren't gaming.

RAM: Unless you have an APU or plan on doing some HD video encoding, save yourself $5. Get a beer when you finish building. :D 

If you plan on water-cooling the GPU, that's going to be a tough animal to tackle. I though you were just going to do a closed-loop system like the Corsair H100. Unless you plan to OC the GPU heavily, I'd just go for a reference design for compatibility reasons. I don't know much about watercooling, so your own your own for researching waterblock compatibility for the GPU.

Since you're going 7970, CrossFire shouldn't be an issue down the road. Micro-stuttering is more apparent on mid-range GPU's, like 6870 level. The faster the GPU's paired together are, the less apparent micro-stuttering is. And single GPU's don't get a whole lot faster than 7970.
September 2, 2012 7:11:58 PM

ivy wasnt really supposed to be a upgrade. its a tick in intels tick-tock thing meaning a die shrink and a tad more performance. sandy was a tock meaning new microarchitecture
September 2, 2012 8:16:50 PM

Great! The ASUS it will be.

As for the water cooling:

I'm planning to go water cooling for my CPU and GPU. (If possible, should i take the chipset also? And would that even do anything?)

Remember that I have a Obsidian800D case, which is really big. I could go for 3x120mm radiator + 1x120mm radiator. So cooling the water shouldn't be that big a deal.

But you are talking about some reference PCB's? What about that? Are you saying that i just can't pull off the air cooling and install a full coverage water block on the GPU?
September 2, 2012 11:03:11 PM

you cant watercool your 7970 if it uses a custom pcb design (on nearly every good 7970) because the water blocks arent layed out for each different pcb design.

in the end, get a reference 7970 if you want to watercool. otherwise, you cant (unless you somehow find a directcu2 7970 block)
September 5, 2012 6:36:12 PM

Okay! I'm really confused. Do you guys know how many different GPU's there are?

Well, first, about thet HD 7970:

I looked at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMpFjCHkOmo
(1.55 minutes in the video)

He says it's a reference PCB. So i guess that it can we watercooled with a full cover block.

Why?

I found this site:

http://www.coolingconfigurator.com/step1_complist?gpu_g...

And is it correct that, this card is the same as above?

http://www.edbpriser.dk/grafikkort/sapphire-radeon-hd-7...

If it is, then i should be able to get a full cover waterblock for my card.

Which one should i get?


And then i searched a little on google and found that Nvidia has made the GTX 670/680 card, which some say should be better than my GPU.

What do you guys think? Is there even another card i should look into? In about the same pricerange as the Sapphire 7970?
September 5, 2012 6:47:33 PM

The 7970 is currently at a great price point, and it offers enough of a boost from a GTX 670 to be worth it.
September 5, 2012 6:57:22 PM

azeem40 said:
The 7970 is currently at a great price point, and it offers enough of a boost from a GTX 670 to be worth it.


Okay, that sounds great. So you would advice me to buy the:
Sapphire RADEON HD 7970 OC?
Link: http://www.edbpriser.dk/grafikkort/sapphire-radeon-hd-7...

And can you confirm that it will be possible to add a full water block later on?
September 5, 2012 8:12:00 PM

JesperH said:
Okay, that sounds great. So you would advice me to buy the:
Sapphire RADEON HD 7970 OC?
Link: http://www.edbpriser.dk/grafikkort/sapphire-radeon-hd-7...

And can you confirm that it will be possible to add a full water block later on?

With reference to the comparative performance with GTX670. Whilst the HD7950 is probably better, overall, the GTX670 does shine, in some particular games. IF some of your favourite games are BF3, Portal 2, Shogun, the GTX 670 is certainly worth considering. Check out a site like anandtech. You can do a comparason of any pair of REFERENCE cards, across a range of games. Obviously, you then need to take price into consideration.
September 5, 2012 9:47:51 PM

Wouldn't argue with anything there. I'm planning to use same mobo and SSD in upcoming build. Don't know what you are paying for PSU, and there's nothing wrong with it, anyway. Personally prefer Corsair, or Seasonic, which may be worth considering, if at simlar price. Anyway, very good. Happy building.
September 5, 2012 9:51:37 PM

Sorry, just occured to me. You haven't got aftermarket cooler in there. You will need one, if planning to overclock. Cooler provided, with CPU, is fine at stock CPU clock, but you need something better, if overclocking. Something like Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO, is fine.
September 5, 2012 9:56:11 PM

I'll check up on the PSU, with prices etc. Can you reccomend one that doesent make a lot of noise?

Dont worry, I will add a waterblock before OC'ing.
September 5, 2012 10:54:47 PM

Unless you want to spend silly money on Enermax, the best (not that they're exactly cheap, either) are the Seasonic X series 850 and the Corsair HX 850. It does pay to get a good one, especially if it's going to be running at low load, for a while, til you get 2nd card. The Seasonic is particularly quiet, at low load, less so at high load. I think the Corsair is (sort of) in the middle, across the range.
!