|
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 April 27 2013 10:16 Cyro wrote: Hm.. But what about when you are playing Skyrim, and you have 3-5 second load times on fast travel instead of 20 seconds? You do that like, 10 times per hour Well I don't like Skyrim, sooo..... yeah.
|
On April 27 2013 09:46 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 08:37 Cyro wrote: I don't think you can make that decision until you have seen a good one in action, i mean, 4-200x faster storage is kinda crazy. With some windows/POST time tweaks, on a good ssd without bloat programs set to boot, you can restart in like, 10-14 seconds, from desktop to desktop, it's insane.. On windows 7.. and i hear 8 is more than twice as fast if you use it.
Even after using an ssd (crucial c300.. old) comparing to an m4 on another system with a fresh windows install and POST times set to as short as possible, it was like, scratching nose as system boots, oh shit, it's done already *grap mouse*
cant imagine using a hdd, after i bought this ssd years ago for £170 (~$250) for 128gb.. they are like, a third of that price now, and so much faster I've seen how fast boot up can be, I just don't care. I realize that it's difficult for others to understand, but I really just don't care about the decrease of 10 seconds for booting up. If you install a 25GB MMORPG that lasts for 5 minutes instead of an hour?
The increase in general comfort and the overall experience is far better than a couple more detailed pixels for example
|
On April 27 2013 11:03 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 09:46 Ercster wrote:On April 27 2013 08:37 Cyro wrote: I don't think you can make that decision until you have seen a good one in action, i mean, 4-200x faster storage is kinda crazy. With some windows/POST time tweaks, on a good ssd without bloat programs set to boot, you can restart in like, 10-14 seconds, from desktop to desktop, it's insane.. On windows 7.. and i hear 8 is more than twice as fast if you use it.
Even after using an ssd (crucial c300.. old) comparing to an m4 on another system with a fresh windows install and POST times set to as short as possible, it was like, scratching nose as system boots, oh shit, it's done already *grap mouse*
cant imagine using a hdd, after i bought this ssd years ago for £170 (~$250) for 128gb.. they are like, a third of that price now, and so much faster I've seen how fast boot up can be, I just don't care. I realize that it's difficult for others to understand, but I really just don't care about the decrease of 10 seconds for booting up. If you install a 25GB MMORPG that lasts for 5 minutes instead of an hour? The increase in general comfort and the overall experience is far better than a couple more detailed pixels for example I don't play mmorpg'ss either. I know how fast they are, and I understand that it's odd that I don't plan on getting one, but it's how I am. As long as I don't run into any problems while playing games, I don't care about speed.
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
Well, no ssd in a $700 build i can maybe understand.. by the time you reach $1200 it seems silly, and $2000 is kinda unthinkable. Even if load times do not matter to you, ssd is relevant for stuff like dumping video with fraps, or high speed encoding (removing i/o bottlenecks) but maybe "normal" people don't do those things? I mean at the very least, you don't have to set aside an hour every week to defragment, so your performance does not drop to half. SSD's need practically 0 maintainence
|
What I don't understand is why you need 16GB of RAM but don't want an SSD? 16GB RAM will have actually less of a difference (read: none) on gaming than an SSD, which at least increases loading times. Unless you're an engineer who uses Autocad or something (in which case you'd be crazy to not want an SSD anyways hehe) you'll never realistically use 16GB of ram. It will quite literally have zero benefits of gaming.
Actually, 24GB. Because your motherboard gets an 8GB free.
|
On April 27 2013 14:02 Alryk wrote: What I don't understand is why you need 16GB of RAM but don't want an SSD? 16GB RAM will have actually less of a difference (read: none) on gaming than an SSD, which at least increases loading times. Unless you're an engineer who uses Autocad or something (in which case you'd be crazy to not want an SSD anyways hehe) you'll never realistically use 16GB of ram. It will quite literally have zero benefits of gaming.
Actually, 24GB. Because your motherboard gets an 8GB free. Yeah either way he should be taking out the 16gb ram (which is overpriced), and either spending that $100 on an ssd, or not spending it at all. Plus sli sucks. Plus the powersupply is almost double what's necessary.
|
It really amuses me how over the top the hatred for dual cards is.
|
What is your budget?
~1000-1200.
What is your resolution?
Not set in stone. Getting a new monitor as well, haven't chosen one yet.
What are you using it for?
HEAVY gaming and streaming. Streaming SC2 in highest possible quality like 12+ hours per day.
What is your upgrade cycle?
Long ass time. Ideally I'll never have to buy anything after this until SC3, lawl.
When do you plan on building it?
Within the next couple months.
Do you plan on overclocking?
I guess considering the level of performance I'm looking for, this would probably be necessary, right? Plus, it's probably more cost efficient? Assuming so, sure.
Do you need an Operating System?
I... don't know? What is the alternative to not having an OS...? o_O
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
This means, like, having multiple graphics cards? If I could afford it and it would up performance in a cost efficient manner, then I'm open to the idea, I guess. Whatever options gives me the most power for my budget.
Where are you buying your parts from?
Canada.
Thanks for any help!
|
You need an operating system. The point of the question was whether you need to purchase it for $100 or not since some people can get it from MSDNAA, workplace, or conference for free. Pirating is also an option for some.
New releases are coming in June and sales change every week in Canada so ask again during the week you're building. Someone will recommend you a build then when prices and hardware will be relevant.
Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM was on sale for $184 not so long ago, typically one of the best monitors to purchase in Canada.
|
On April 27 2013 05:54 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2013 05:01 Cyro wrote:On April 27 2013 04:32 Ercster wrote: Thanks to everyone who responded! It is greatly appreciated! What are you going to do? I'm going to wait for the new Intel chips and 700 series gpu's. I know many have said to get an SSD, but I don't care about load times and boot times.
It's easy to say that, but I dont think you realize how insanely fast SSDs are. They are faster than HDDs on a factor of 25-50x in where it counts. It's not just your level loading time and boot time, it's everything. It adds up really quickly to a much better user-experience.
The heart of a general usage computer, is all the SSD (gaming = gpu, streaming and cpu dependent games like sc2 = cpu). Technically, yes, the cpu is the heart, but even $40 CPUs like celerons are so strong these days that they'll manhandle general usage like browsing, pulling up photos, reddit, forums, etc. However, the SSD is all about that stuff. If you wanted a better computer as a non-gamer, you would basically focus your build on the SSD.
Oh, and if you play games like skyrim, GTA, Assassins creed, or wow, SSDs actually significantly impact FPS and in-game performance. I personally only play starcraft 2 and stream, I don't have much money at all, I tell people to buy only 4gb of RAM to save money and older gen GPUs because of their performance to price, despite their drawbacks. I'm telling you, SSD is huge. I literally cannot tell a difference 99% of the time on my i7-3770k to my athlon, even in gaming my i7 really isn't noticeably better... but when I use my laptop with a HDD on it, it's just aggravating and frustrating to do anything at all.
Your computer is gonna suck balls if it doesn't have an SSD in it. The fact you can buy cheapo SSDs on ebay for $30 that are more than large enough to put your OS on means you should never be without an SSD unless your budget is under $200 (even then I'm not so sure). You can really get some nice SSDs under $100.
|
You are making an SSD wayyy too much of a big deal, I work on straditional mechanical HDD PC 8h and on home I have my gaming rig with fast SSD and while some things feel slightly snappier, its really not a big deal and definitely not worth the money on gaming rig unless its over 1k€ build and GPU and CPU being top end. On laptops SSD makes a bit more of a difference though as laptop HDDs are much much slower than standard 3.5" desktop HDDs.
e. also I wanna see some benchmarks from about those gains you say you get on certain games.
|
I dont know how you can say that when you can get a $30 ssd to just put your OS, games, and browser on (32gb, or even 64gb). At $1 per 1-2GB, even if it's a $350 phenom/i3 build you can fit it in. There's also plenty of games that actually benefit from SSD.
Just google 'ssd vs hdd wow" and you can find plenty of information and videos. It's just a huge fail not to have an ssd in a rig that you have anything nicer than a $50 cpu in. Gaming rigs especially don't need much storage, why would you not go with a high end ssd under $100 that covers all your storage needs.
|
That small SSD is just asking for trouble, SSD so small you cant have programs and favourite games on it just doesnt make any sense at all. It doesnt sound very 2013 when you always have to think does your drive have enough space for updates or files that need to be on same windows folders. Way more hassle than added small benefit on rare occations.
|
well 64gb is more than enough for your os, programs, and favorite games, but even a 32gb ssd can fit your OS and a program or few (ie put chrome and sc2 on it).
I didn't say get a 32gb as your entire system storage, just if you really are so 'strapped' than just add a $30 crap 32-64gb ssd, it'll be way faster than a hdd alone. Personally I dont use more than 50gb of storage so I actually regret buying a 80gb ssd instead of just a 64gb ssd that was faster. But most people aren't going to use more than 100gb of storage so a 128gb ssd would be fine for them.
And it'd definitely be worth the 'hassle' of deleting stuff you don't need to use anymore if it was like that, but it isn't. Now most people probably wouldn't be okay with just 64gb, but a 128gb would be enough. And a 32-64gb for OS would be way faster than just hdd alone. Dont make a strawman here.
|
Please tell me the benefits of having just OS on a SSD that are worth the extra 100 dolla instead of better monitor, gpu, cpu etc.
e. and I dont wanna start a war here, I just think some people "fanboy" SSDs way too hard.
|
It's only for my sanity, nothing more. I feel it's better than $100 into the GPU. Those $100 would only get me better anti-aliasing or something like that. As CPU, I already chose the best I could for me. Monitor, I kind of agree (but at the same time I'm too cheap to buy a new, good monitor).
|
On April 27 2013 19:20 FinBenton wrote: Please tell me the benefits of having just OS on a SSD that are worth the extra 100 dolla instead of better monitor, gpu, cpu etc.
e. and I dont wanna start a war here, I just think some people "fanboy" SSDs way too hard. When you're spending over $100 extra to go above 8gb of ram (wtf?), or spending $200 on a psu when a $100-$120 would be sufficient (wtf?), or doing sli with 670's, not having an ssd is unintelligent, regardless of personal feelings.
|
On April 27 2013 19:20 FinBenton wrote: Please tell me the benefits of having just OS on a SSD that are worth the extra 100 dolla instead of better monitor, gpu, cpu etc.
e. and I dont wanna start a war here, I just think some people "fanboy" SSDs way too hard. SSD: Everything's far faster.
Better gpu: While not gaming, no benefit. While gaming, you can crank the settings up a few notches higher and might or might not notice a difference. I download and move around and unzip a lot of stuff and I do like it when a 15gb zipfile opens in a minute instead of an hour. It's just a much more important benefit than being able to play some games at a bit higher graphics settings.
Note I don't mean here the difference of GT 520 vs GTX 680. I mean something like 7850 vs 7950. How much is that performance increase worth?
|
Nobody has just OS on SSD. If it's just OS on SSD, I would take $100 extra in monitor or possibly CPU, depending on what those are.
The main benefit is from having Program Files and maybe some scratch space on there. Then however many commonly-played (and more like one-player) games you can fit in the rest.
If you're not opening multiple programs at once, doing a lot of different things, and are using the computer mostly just to web browse or play games, then it's not as big a deal. Certainly not if it's mostly just OS on there.
|
I have three SSDs. An older 240GB OCZ Agility 3 running my C drive and "minor" programs (which includes things like Visual Studio). My other two are Samsung 512GB 830s in an extended partition, which have pretty much all of my games. I definitely would never go back to an HDD drive for OS / "normal" programs, but the SSD game drive doesn't really seem to offer all that much to me.
You could always buy one to try out and then return it if you really didn't like it. Newegg only has a 15% restock fee, so it'd probably be around $20 in total for restock + return shipping. My money would be on you not returning it.
|
|
|
|