Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Memory, Hard Drive, And Optical Drive

System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $1250 Enthusiast PC
By

Memory: Mushkin Enhanced Redline 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1600 Memory Kit 

Frankly, I’d be happy with 4 GB of lower-latency memory. But your feedback tells us that you want to see 8 GB in these builds. At $60, this Mushkin Enhanced dual-channel kit boasts 7-9-8-24 timings at a 1600 MT/s data rate. 

Read Customer Reviews of Mushkin's Enhanced Redline 8 GB DDR3-1600 Kit


SSD: Crucial m4 CT064M4SSD2 2.5" 64 GB

Read Customer Reviews of Crucial's 64 GB m4


I’m not a fan of restrictive 32 GB boot drives, but Crucial’s M4 64 GB SSD delivers two times that capacity, along with great value and performance.

As with any SSD, remember to check for firmware updates, as it seems many manufacturers (including Crucial) end up fixing stability issues once the drives are on store shelves. We updated our m4 to version 0309 before running any tests.

Hard Drive: Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.D 750 GB

Read Customer Reviews of Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.D 750 GB


Hard disk prices are still much higher than they were last year, and because we’re on a strict budget, we have to make every dollar count.

Now that this system boots from an SSD, we only need a conventional hard disk for  general storage. Hitachi’s $100 Deskstar 7K1000.D offers 750 GB of capacity, it spins at 7200 RPM, and includes a 32 MB cache.

Optical Drive: Samsung TS-H353C OEM

Read Customer Reviews of Samsung TS-H353C


We also chose the cheapest optical drive we could find. This particular example is a real-only device, and not a burner. So, if you need to write your discs, you'll want something else.

Samsung's TS-H353C has been out of stock for a while, so simply look for the least-expensive drive to take its place in your own build.

Display all 99 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    confish21 , March 27, 2012 6:32 AM
    I'm totally down for a cheap case but damn! There are better looking case's for 40 bucks.

    I like how the 2400 is used but would it be okay dropping the cooler?

    Read only optical drive? This makes no sense and is probably the worst skimp Ive ever seen. Spend the 5 bucks for a burner. Iso image anyone? This is an enthusiast level build... no mud flaps, no sale.
  • 19 Hide
    ringzero , March 27, 2012 5:22 AM
    "Whoa. The Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire from last quarter's System Builder Marathon beat the Radeon HD 7970 at every combination of resolutions and settings, except 1280x1600 at Ultra details."

    I desperately want a monitor at that resolution.
  • 11 Hide
    ojas , March 27, 2012 4:25 AM
    typo in the table on the first page, a 6970 isn't for $560! :p 
Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    zanny , March 27, 2012 4:21 AM
    Sad thing is dollar for dollar the 7970 is maddeningly inefficient. It only says good things for this summer, when hopefully AMD drops the prices on their cards in response to Kepler kicking their collective butts in performance per dollar.
  • 11 Hide
    ojas , March 27, 2012 4:25 AM
    typo in the table on the first page, a 6970 isn't for $560! :p 
  • 7 Hide
    stm1185 , March 27, 2012 4:41 AM
    7970 guess you wrote this before the GTX 680 review. No way you'd make that recommendation after.
  • 5 Hide
    sempifi99 , March 27, 2012 4:52 AM
    Quote:
    7970 guess you wrote this before the GTX 680 review. No way you'd make that recommendation after.


    When you compare their overclocking potentials, they have about the same performance. And then there is the availability of the GTX 680, which is not. So it makes since why the 7970 was chosen.

    The 7970 has better compute potential too. But I don't think that is relevant for a gaming box.
  • 9 Hide
    killabanks , March 27, 2012 4:58 AM
    i would say wait for the price to come down
  • 2 Hide
    ksampanna , March 27, 2012 5:15 AM
    stm11857970 guess you wrote this before the GTX 680 review. No way you'd make that recommendation after.


    My thoughts exactly. This story was probably done before Kepler, but now with the 680 launched, the editor sure must be feeling a bit shortchanged.
    Of course, the fact that the 680 has disappeared off the shelves is a different story entirely. In any case, within the next few weeks, we should see significant price cuts on the 7970, potentially making this build relevant once again.
  • 19 Hide
    ringzero , March 27, 2012 5:22 AM
    "Whoa. The Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire from last quarter's System Builder Marathon beat the Radeon HD 7970 at every combination of resolutions and settings, except 1280x1600 at Ultra details."

    I desperately want a monitor at that resolution.
  • 8 Hide
    General M00n , March 27, 2012 5:28 AM
    That is the ugliest case I've seen in a long time. No rotated hd bays or bottom mounted psu. Expansion slots at the back are snap off instead of reusable, and screw in on the outside. No CPU access at the back and only one 120mm space at the rear, none on the top. But you do get one tacky red fan that will be louder than your whole system combined.

    Seriously folks, the NZXT GAMMA Classic Case is the best ATX case for under $50.

    Also I agree, 64GB SSD is tiny for gamers. Its fine in an office enviroment, where you only have just the production programs that you use on a daily basis installed, with the actual data stored on a server/database. But for gamers whose Steam folder alone is in the 100s of GBs, its pointless.

    Also, why bother with an aftermarket heatsink if you don't plan to overclock? I can understand if your after a low/noiseless pc (like me), but considering your running a 7970 and noisy stock case fan, it's a waste of money.

    On a positive note, the $650 build was OK.

  • 9 Hide
    Darkerson , March 27, 2012 5:53 AM
    Yes, the 680 is nice, but if you cant find one in stock to buy, it really doesnt help that much, now does it?

    General M00n64GB SSD is tiny for gamers. Its fine in an office enviroment, where you only have just the production programs that you use on a daily basis installed, with the actual data stored on a server/database. But for gamers whose Steam folder alone is in the 100s of GBs, its pointless.


    Not all of us need to run our games off an SSD. I use a 64GB SSD to boot from, and use my 7200rpm HDD to run my games, and it works just fine. I think people are being a little too picky. Especially about a build that will eventually be given away for free.
  • 7 Hide
    ojas , March 27, 2012 5:56 AM
    Quote:
    Whoa. The Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire from last quarter's System Builder Marathon beat the Radeon HD 7970 at every combination of resolutions and settings, except 1280x1600 at Ultra details.

    i think you meant 2560x1600!
  • 0 Hide
    hmp_goose , March 27, 2012 6:01 AM
    Feel free to laugh, but do you think you could have fallen back to that one Cooler Master PSU from the $400 build, or something else in the 450 watt range?
  • -6 Hide
    esrever , March 27, 2012 6:05 AM
    could get a 680 and 2500k instead for better performance.
  • 8 Hide
    Pezcore27 , March 27, 2012 6:05 AM
    It would definitely be interesting to see the results had the MB not had the memory issue. Overall I like the build, minus the case. That thing's hideous!

    Also interesting to note that the FX-6100 seemed to perform better in this comparison, then against the i5-2400 configuration used in the $600 December SBM which wiped the floor with it.
  • 5 Hide
    superflykicks03 , March 27, 2012 6:12 AM
    I've never understood spending money on a SSD for a where the objective of the article generally seems to be maximizing FPS per dollar spent. There have been numerous articles on Tom's that show the gains in gaming with an SSD are minimal. Why not go with a standardized storage device, say, the best HDD money can buy @ $100 each time you do a mid range SBM? That way the results across builds are more comparable at the given price point. Same goes for the comparison between builds at the end of this SBM. The extra spent on SSD could artificially inflate the performance of the 650$ build relative to this one, because extra money was not spent on a non-game-enhancing part.

    I understand that SSD is a no-brainer for a well rounded system. Heck, I myself would never spend north of a grand on a pc and not throw in an SSD. But the FPS per dollar is hurt by adding such an expensive storage subsystem.
  • 9 Hide
    Darkerson , March 27, 2012 6:15 AM
    esrevercould get a 680 and 2500k instead for better performance.


    Im pretty sure they stated in the $650 build that they had this stuff picked out a couple months ago, so pretty much just as the AMD 7xxx series came out, long before the Nvidia 6xx series was released. They also stated they are sick and tired of using the 2500k in their builds. I like it when they experiment. Otherwise we wouldnt have seen how horribly bad the bulldozer build was last time.
  • 10 Hide
    Crashman , March 27, 2012 6:30 AM
    pharoahhalfdeadMushkin, Mushkin, Mushkin... How about trying something along the lines of Corsair XMS3 or another brand? We've seen Mushkin so much, and you sometimes say you want to build different configs, but I never see Corsair in the builds.
    Ahem:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-core-i7-sli-liquid-cooling,3096-2.html
    That was in the previous SBM so you really haven't been looking very long. I gave you a thumbs down just to cancel out some of those thumbs up you received
  • 20 Hide
    confish21 , March 27, 2012 6:32 AM
    I'm totally down for a cheap case but damn! There are better looking case's for 40 bucks.

    I like how the 2400 is used but would it be okay dropping the cooler?

    Read only optical drive? This makes no sense and is probably the worst skimp Ive ever seen. Spend the 5 bucks for a burner. Iso image anyone? This is an enthusiast level build... no mud flaps, no sale.
Display more comments