|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On December 28 2012 06:58 TinyDino wrote:Hello, fellow Team Liquidians! I was hoping you could help me with building a desktop and give feedback on my currently selected parts. I've used some recent advice posts as guidelines, while trying to keep my budget in mind. Without further ado: + Show Spoiler +The basic info requested per OP, spoilered to make this post shorter: + Show Spoiler +What is your budget? ~1000 - 1150 Euros (= ~1300 - 1500$) Budget includes monitor. What is your resolution? 1920x1080 What are you using it for? Gaming mostly, as well as Photoshop on a starting hobbyist level. What is your upgrade cycle? 2+ years (Hopefully closer to 3-4 years) When do you plan on building it? During January. Not sure if after Christmas sales will drop the prices in the next week or two, but if not, I could build it immediately. Do you plan on overclocking? I’d rather not due to my noob-ishness, but if the benefits are worth the effort, I could consider it. Do you need an Operating System? Nope. Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire? Nope. Where are you buying your parts from? I’m living in the UK, so any web store that delivers to UK addresses. In my build so far, I’ve utilized www.hardwareversand.de . Other options are www.amazon.de and www.amazon.co.uk , as well as www.pixmania.com . Additional notes:1. I am going to buy a monitor as well. The one I’ve had in mind are Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM (199 euros at hardwareversand.de), and from reading the TL Monitor Thread it seems to be quite a good monitor price-to-quality wise. Feedback appreciated. 2. I’d like to get an SSD for the OS and some games, but which one and how large (128? 256?) I have no clue. : Motherboard: ASRock H77M Socket 1155, mATX @ 67.19€ LinkCPU: Intel Core i5-3570 Box, LGA 1155 @ 186.42€ LinkRAM: 8GB-Kit Kingston HyperX blu black @ 39.65€ LinkGPU: MSI Radeon HD7870 2GB @ 211.41€ LinkPSU: Super-Flower SF450P14XE Golden Green Pro 80plus gold @ 63.98€ LinkHDD: WD Scorpio Black 500GB 7200rpm @ 61.26€ LinkSSD: No idea. Big enough for the OS and some programs DVD-Player: Asus DRW-24B5ST bare @ 20.88€ LinkCase: Cooler Master HAF 912 @ 69.41€ LinkMonitor: Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM @ 199€ LinkTotal: 936€ (+13€ Postage) So there it is, with currently some room in the budget for an SSD and/or upgrades, but if there is a component that does the same job but cheaper/more efficiently, do tell. All feedback is welcome and appreciated. And thank you in advance!
I have no idea if buying from a UK retailer or a continental retailer will save you money. I put together a sample overclockers.co.uk build you can use for comparison because I like to browse while streaming  . It goes over budget by 75ish euro, according to the currency converter, because I throw a big 'ole 27" monitor in there for 360 pounds. But it would be under budget with a less expensive monitor, such as the ones you're currently considering. The tower is budget-conscious, but does include an SSD. There are an average amount of sales.
i5-3470 (150 pounds)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-443-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=
MSI B75m (54)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-216-MS&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=2307
2x4gb 1600mhz RAM (36)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-132-CR&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1517
MSI 7870 (180)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-185-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=411
Bit Fenix Merc Beta Case (30)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-011-BX&groupid=2362&catid=1850&subcat=
(this is a bit lower quality than the HAF 912... but it works)
Antec High Current Gamer 400w (40)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-146-AN&groupid=701&catid=123&subcat=1088
Toshiba 1TB HDD (52)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-024-TS&groupid=1657&catid=1660&subcat=
Plextor M5S 128gb SSD (83)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-004-PL&groupid=1657&catid=2101&subcat=
DVD burner (14)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CD-003-OK&groupid=701&catid=10&subcat=
Hazro 27" HZ27WB 2560x1440 resolution monitor (360)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-019-HO&groupid=17&catid=1120&subcat=
Total price (not including windows, peripherals, possibly shipping, but does include VAT): 999 GBP, which currency converter says is about 1215 euro.
|
Thank you very much. SSD sold out? but i will check other sites.
|
Thanks a lot Belial88, Myrmidon and Rollin
I'm near the mississauga Canada computers.
so if I forget about the crossfire/SLI and try to keep my MOBO and CPU like myrmidon suggested, will it be able to make use of a decent graphics card?
My MOBO is this I believe: http://www.findlaptopdriver.com/r849jspecs/ (R849J) That website says that the x16 PCI express slot is the 2.0 version, while I noticed all the nice video cards I looked at said PCI express 3.0 x16. How big of an issue is that?
If it's a big issue then I will need a new CPU and Mobo. Thanks for the advice on the MOBOs Belial, aswell as all the other components like the case and the i5-2500k, I think I will try your cheap MOBO method if I decide to get a new MOBO/CPU 
how big of a difference does SATA 3.0 Gb/s make compared to SATA 6.0 Gb/s when booting up/gaming?
also, same question for USB 3.0 vs 2.0
|
PCIe 2.0 x16 makes next to no difference compared to PCIe x16 3.0 for modern graphics cards, at least for gaming. The extra transfer speed doesn't really help. That said, for certain GPU compute applications the difference is small but nontrivial. For hard drives, SATA 3.0 Gb/s makes no difference compared to SATA 6.0 Gb/s. Even SATA 3.0 Gb/s shouldn't make much of a difference vs. the ancient 1.5 Gb/s, even on the fastest mechanical drives. USB 3.0 helps some if you're regularly backing stuff up on an external USB 3.0 hard drive or otherwise transferring a lot of data and expect it to be faster. Or if you're on a laptop and need a suitable interface for a capture card or something like that because you don't have internal PCIe slots to use. For accessing media files etc. or most likely for running backups overnight, it's not a big deal.
Like I said, new motherboards don't have features you're interested in, probably. Also, it's possible to add expansion cards with faster SATA and USB3 support anyway.
|
On December 28 2012 15:09 Myrmidon wrote:
PCIe 2.0 x16 makes next to no difference compared to PCIe x16 3.0 for modern graphics cards, at least for gaming. The extra transfer speed doesn't really help. That said, for certain GPU compute applications the difference is small but nontrivial. For hard drives, SATA 3.0 Gb/s makes no difference compared to SATA 6.0 Gb/s. Even SATA 3.0 Gb/s shouldn't make much of a difference vs. the ancient 1.5 Gb/s, even on the fastest mechanical drives. USB 3.0 helps some if you're regularly backing stuff up on an external USB 3.0 hard drive or otherwise transferring a lot of data and expect it to be faster. Or if you're on a laptop and need a suitable interface for a capture card or something like that because you don't have internal PCIe slots to use. For accessing media files etc. or most likely for running backups overnight, it's not a big deal.
Like I said, new motherboards don't have features you're interested in, probably. Also, it's possible to add expansion cards with faster SATA and USB3 support anyway.
Bandwidth not Speed.
EDIT: The speed the data travels in SATA1, 2 and 3 are the same, however you can send a lot more data (4x) in SATA3 than SATA1.
|
Bandwidth can be seen as a form of speed. Besides its obvious Myrmidon knows that.
|
On December 28 2012 15:21 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 15:09 Myrmidon wrote:
PCIe 2.0 x16 makes next to no difference compared to PCIe x16 3.0 for modern graphics cards, at least for gaming. The extra transfer speed doesn't really help. That said, for certain GPU compute applications the difference is small but nontrivial. For hard drives, SATA 3.0 Gb/s makes no difference compared to SATA 6.0 Gb/s. Even SATA 3.0 Gb/s shouldn't make much of a difference vs. the ancient 1.5 Gb/s, even on the fastest mechanical drives. USB 3.0 helps some if you're regularly backing stuff up on an external USB 3.0 hard drive or otherwise transferring a lot of data and expect it to be faster. Or if you're on a laptop and need a suitable interface for a capture card or something like that because you don't have internal PCIe slots to use. For accessing media files etc. or most likely for running backups overnight, it's not a big deal.
Like I said, new motherboards don't have features you're interested in, probably. Also, it's possible to add expansion cards with faster SATA and USB3 support anyway. Bandwidth not Speed. EDIT: The speed the data travels in SATA1, 2 and 3 are the same, however you can send a lot more data (4x) in SATA3 than SATA1.
Sorry, pet peeve time.
Data transfer speed? Or transfer rate? Or just bandwidth? What else? Which term do you prefer? I'm being serious, as I'm not sure what people usually say.
"Transfer speed" is a phrase used colloquially some, and it's used sometimes even in technical papers, to mean data communicated / time. I don't think anybody's going to see that and confuse it with the signal propagation speed.
I hate saying bandwidth for that meaning (whatever computer scientists or whoever responsible for this, I'm hunting down ) because that clearly refers to the width of the frequency band used by the signalling. Hence bandwidth. Durr. Yes, I don't care that it's an established definition. I'd take it out of all the dictionaries if I could.
The word I usually use is throughput, but that term is rarely used by laymen.
|
On December 28 2012 15:41 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 15:21 iTzSnypah wrote:On December 28 2012 15:09 Myrmidon wrote:
PCIe 2.0 x16 makes next to no difference compared to PCIe x16 3.0 for modern graphics cards, at least for gaming. The extra transfer speed doesn't really help. That said, for certain GPU compute applications the difference is small but nontrivial. For hard drives, SATA 3.0 Gb/s makes no difference compared to SATA 6.0 Gb/s. Even SATA 3.0 Gb/s shouldn't make much of a difference vs. the ancient 1.5 Gb/s, even on the fastest mechanical drives. USB 3.0 helps some if you're regularly backing stuff up on an external USB 3.0 hard drive or otherwise transferring a lot of data and expect it to be faster. Or if you're on a laptop and need a suitable interface for a capture card or something like that because you don't have internal PCIe slots to use. For accessing media files etc. or most likely for running backups overnight, it's not a big deal.
Like I said, new motherboards don't have features you're interested in, probably. Also, it's possible to add expansion cards with faster SATA and USB3 support anyway. Bandwidth not Speed. EDIT: The speed the data travels in SATA1, 2 and 3 are the same, however you can send a lot more data (4x) in SATA3 than SATA1. Sorry, pet peeve time. Data transfer speed? Or transfer rate? Or just bandwidth? What else? Which term do you prefer? I'm being serious, as I'm not sure what people usually say. "Transfer speed" is a phrase used colloquially some, and it's used sometimes even in technical papers, to mean data communicated / time. I don't think anybody's going to see that and confuse it with the signal propagation speed. I hate saying bandwidth for that meaning (whatever computer scientists or whoever responsible for this, I'm hunting down ) because that clearly refers to the width of the frequency band used by the signalling. Hence bandwidth. Durr. Yes, I don't care that it's an established definition. I'd take it out of all the dictionaries if I could. The word I usually use is throughput, but that term is rarely used by laymen.
Just not Speed. When you say faster speed you're implying the data is moving faster, its not.
Speed is distance over time.
Bandwidth/Throughput/Transfer Rate is not distance over time.
|
On December 28 2012 15:56 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 15:41 Myrmidon wrote:On December 28 2012 15:21 iTzSnypah wrote:On December 28 2012 15:09 Myrmidon wrote:
PCIe 2.0 x16 makes next to no difference compared to PCIe x16 3.0 for modern graphics cards, at least for gaming. The extra transfer speed doesn't really help. That said, for certain GPU compute applications the difference is small but nontrivial. For hard drives, SATA 3.0 Gb/s makes no difference compared to SATA 6.0 Gb/s. Even SATA 3.0 Gb/s shouldn't make much of a difference vs. the ancient 1.5 Gb/s, even on the fastest mechanical drives. USB 3.0 helps some if you're regularly backing stuff up on an external USB 3.0 hard drive or otherwise transferring a lot of data and expect it to be faster. Or if you're on a laptop and need a suitable interface for a capture card or something like that because you don't have internal PCIe slots to use. For accessing media files etc. or most likely for running backups overnight, it's not a big deal.
Like I said, new motherboards don't have features you're interested in, probably. Also, it's possible to add expansion cards with faster SATA and USB3 support anyway. Bandwidth not Speed. EDIT: The speed the data travels in SATA1, 2 and 3 are the same, however you can send a lot more data (4x) in SATA3 than SATA1. Sorry, pet peeve time. Data transfer speed? Or transfer rate? Or just bandwidth? What else? Which term do you prefer? I'm being serious, as I'm not sure what people usually say. "Transfer speed" is a phrase used colloquially some, and it's used sometimes even in technical papers, to mean data communicated / time. I don't think anybody's going to see that and confuse it with the signal propagation speed. I hate saying bandwidth for that meaning (whatever computer scientists or whoever responsible for this, I'm hunting down ) because that clearly refers to the width of the frequency band used by the signalling. Hence bandwidth. Durr. Yes, I don't care that it's an established definition. I'd take it out of all the dictionaries if I could. The word I usually use is throughput, but that term is rarely used by laymen. Just not Speed. When you say faster speed you're implying the data is moving faster, its not. Speed is distance over time. Bandwidth/Throughput/Transfer Rate is not distance over time.
Just for you I'll try to remember to call it "transfer rate", not "speed".
Oh and you'd better correct all the places that say that sata 3 is "faster" than sata 2, or usb 3.0 is "faster" than usb 2.0. Good luck rewriting the entire internet.
|
On December 28 2012 15:56 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 15:41 Myrmidon wrote:On December 28 2012 15:21 iTzSnypah wrote:On December 28 2012 15:09 Myrmidon wrote:
PCIe 2.0 x16 makes next to no difference compared to PCIe x16 3.0 for modern graphics cards, at least for gaming. The extra transfer speed doesn't really help. That said, for certain GPU compute applications the difference is small but nontrivial. For hard drives, SATA 3.0 Gb/s makes no difference compared to SATA 6.0 Gb/s. Even SATA 3.0 Gb/s shouldn't make much of a difference vs. the ancient 1.5 Gb/s, even on the fastest mechanical drives. USB 3.0 helps some if you're regularly backing stuff up on an external USB 3.0 hard drive or otherwise transferring a lot of data and expect it to be faster. Or if you're on a laptop and need a suitable interface for a capture card or something like that because you don't have internal PCIe slots to use. For accessing media files etc. or most likely for running backups overnight, it's not a big deal.
Like I said, new motherboards don't have features you're interested in, probably. Also, it's possible to add expansion cards with faster SATA and USB3 support anyway. Bandwidth not Speed. EDIT: The speed the data travels in SATA1, 2 and 3 are the same, however you can send a lot more data (4x) in SATA3 than SATA1. Sorry, pet peeve time. Data transfer speed? Or transfer rate? Or just bandwidth? What else? Which term do you prefer? I'm being serious, as I'm not sure what people usually say. "Transfer speed" is a phrase used colloquially some, and it's used sometimes even in technical papers, to mean data communicated / time. I don't think anybody's going to see that and confuse it with the signal propagation speed. I hate saying bandwidth for that meaning (whatever computer scientists or whoever responsible for this, I'm hunting down ) because that clearly refers to the width of the frequency band used by the signalling. Hence bandwidth. Durr. Yes, I don't care that it's an established definition. I'd take it out of all the dictionaries if I could. The word I usually use is throughput, but that term is rarely used by laymen. Just not Speed. When you say faster speed you're implying the data is moving faster, its not. Speed is distance over time. Bandwidth/Throughput/Transfer Rate is not distance over time.
Transfer rate then. That's my bad.
+ Show Spoiler [rest of my massive derail] +I kind of agree that speed is an abused term as well, so you can rail on that as well. But at least here I think there's not much ambiguity, as most people wouldn't think of things actually moving. Bandwidth clearly has another definition relevant to what's going on. btw just to say I'm not crazy: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="transfer speed" network OR communicationthen again, those are the same people saying bandwidth. In many computing contexts, speed is used, but not to mean distance / time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_speedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pci_express"USB super speed" etc. Speed often is used to mean swiftness or rate of action. High-rate camera? High-speed camera. High-rate delivery service? High-speed delivery service. In certain phrases, like with "transfer" the meaning should be unambiguous.
|
I think companies use speed as a marketing ploy, so the uninformed can easily draw conclusions.
In other news I got my X6800 stable at 3.56Ghz, I think my VRM is bad on my motherboard though. I had to set it for 1.4625v and CPU-Z says my load voltage is only 1.416/1.424v. Oh and my motherboard goes to 2.25v lol. Like seriously who would use 2.25v?
|
|
|
No idea what psu you're getting off that site, your link sends me to an empty page. What matters is your cpu/gpu, please post those, any other components are basically irrelevant.
|
|
|
Speed sounds better to the layperson. Bandwidth is a more technical sounding term (albeit not so much these days)
|
Dont use the word speed.
The word most of you are searching for is either:
"Response"
Or the same word except talking about time in a different way.
"Latency"
For the other word. Transfer Rate is fine but Throughput completes the language a lot better, as transfer rate can be seen as including the information above.
|
Latency? Response?
Let's back up. The word I'm looking for is to describe the rate of information delivery, i.e. data received per unit time. Generally we're talking about steady-state information / time, so latency is not considered. Or just assume that the information flow is endless and average over all time.
Bandwidth clearly implies the width of the frequency band as it does in all sorts of contexts, so please no. Some people are not liking speed, as in transfer speed. Anything that suggests signalling rate (symbol rate, chip rate, in some contexts) is not good, because in a large number of scenarios, there is not 1 info bit / symbol—over a serial bus, generally there are overheads (e.g. 8b/10b line code) bringing it under 1, and some kind of data-modulated RF transmission like Wi-Fi can have multiple info bits per symbol or less than unity as well. Anything that implies that the time unit of consideration includes time of transit and related ideas (propagation time / processing time / waiting in buffers / waiting on clock) is a little off too.
|
On December 29 2012 01:23 Rollin wrote:No idea what psu you're getting off that site, your link sends me to an empty page. What matters is your cpu/gpu, please post those, any other components are basically irrelevant.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817207013 Sry this is the PSU
the cpu is an i5 3450 and the GPU is an gtx 650 ti
|
On December 29 2012 03:10 ImANinjaBich wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 01:23 Rollin wrote:No idea what psu you're getting off that site, your link sends me to an empty page. What matters is your cpu/gpu, please post those, any other components are basically irrelevant. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817207013 Sry this is the PSU the cpu is an i5 3450 and the GPU is an gtx 650 ti
The 450W would already be way overkill. Yes it's plenty.
Did you order already? Recommendations are based on current pricing. If you don't buy ASAP, then it might no longer apply.
If you don't need a power cord, Antec Neo Eco is mostly the same thing, not quite as good for the very long term though:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371029
Or get a Capstone if you can afford it, as something much better but more expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
