|
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. |
oh wow thank you for finding that stuff for me! Kinda embarrassing but it has been over 6 years since I first built my own computer from Newegg, so I am very unfamiliar with all the new stuff and especially SSDs. Very cool I will look into it more. Thanks again I really appreciate this.
Here is The Under $700 Build by skyR and Myrmidon:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l15sq.jpg)
|
|
|
The GTX 560 is pretty overkill for just StarCraft 2, and the 5850 is respectable in its own right for things even aside from StarCraft. I can't imagine GW2 will require something more powerful to run at high settings. Definitely look in to getting an SSD ^_^
Depending on how much you're doing with the whole streaming thing, you might want to grab a $75 8GB RAM kit. It's not necessary, but it's a great deal.
|
ty! reading now.
If left unchecked, sharp dropoffs in performance in the memory/storage hierarchy can result in poor performance scaling. If your CPU doubles in peak performance, but it has to wait for data the majority of the time, you’ll rarely realize that performance increase. In essence, the transistors that gave your CPU its performance boost will have been wasted die area and power
Good read, very clear explanations. It almost seems like another processor built into the computer. Question, it talks about how SSD is user managed and we have to decide how it is used; is this simple?
Also, is SSD primarily for OS/applications? It says: that we recommend a fast SSD for your OS/applications Does SSD have a great impact on games as well as OS/applications?
|
On May 06 2011 11:08 Zeke50100 wrote:
The GTX 560 is pretty overkill for just StarCraft 2, and the 5850 is respectable in its own right for things even aside from StarCraft. I can't imagine GW2 will require something more powerful to run at high settings. Definitely look in to getting an SSD ^_^
Depending on how much you're doing with the whole streaming thing, you might want to grab a $75 8GB RAM kit. It's not necessary, but it's a great deal.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231308
looking at these  thanks!
edit1:
put the wrong ones up first XD
|
On May 06 2011 11:21 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 11:08 Zeke50100 wrote:
The GTX 560 is pretty overkill for just StarCraft 2, and the 5850 is respectable in its own right for things even aside from StarCraft. I can't imagine GW2 will require something more powerful to run at high settings. Definitely look in to getting an SSD ^_^
Depending on how much you're doing with the whole streaming thing, you might want to grab a $75 8GB RAM kit. It's not necessary, but it's a great deal. kinda like this one? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231122thank you
That's actually DDR2 RAM, which is not interchangeable with DDR3. Most motherboards nowadays (including the one you selected) can only support DDR3.
8GB RAM is incredibly low priority in comparison to other things, of course, so only get it if you really feel like you will need it (most likely not too much) or you just want it just in case.
EDIT: Actually, there isn't currently a great deal on RAM (i.e. sub-$80 for 8GB), so it's not as worth it XD
On May 06 2011 11:10 Golgotha wrote:ty! reading now. Show nested quote +If left unchecked, sharp dropoffs in performance in the memory/storage hierarchy can result in poor performance scaling. If your CPU doubles in peak performance, but it has to wait for data the majority of the time, you’ll rarely realize that performance increase. In essence, the transistors that gave your CPU its performance boost will have been wasted die area and power Good read, very clear explanations. It almost seems like another processor built into the computer. Question, it talks about how SSD is user managed and we have to decide how it is used; is this simple? Also, is SSD primarily for OS/applications? It says: Does SSD have a great impact on games as well as OS/applications?
Think of SSDs merely as super fast hard drives. Essentially, it's a step between RAM and HDDs in terms of how fast and how accessible to the user it is.
SSD is pretty much always for programs and OS. OS is the number one priority for sticking on to the SSD, as it will boot much quicker. Programs will boot and read from the disk quicker, although actual in-game speed will not be affected (aside from, say, switching maps in SC2). Generally, you don't want to put normal files (i.e. documents, text files, pictures, etc.) on SSDs, because SSDs are affected greatly by how much space is left.
|
On May 06 2011 11:10 Golgotha wrote:ty! reading now. Show nested quote +If left unchecked, sharp dropoffs in performance in the memory/storage hierarchy can result in poor performance scaling. If your CPU doubles in peak performance, but it has to wait for data the majority of the time, you’ll rarely realize that performance increase. In essence, the transistors that gave your CPU its performance boost will have been wasted die area and power Good read, very clear explanations. It almost seems like another processor built into the computer. Question, it talks about how SSD is user managed and we have to decide how it is used; is this simple? Also, is SSD primarily for OS/applications? It says: Does SSD have a great impact on games as well as OS/applications?
He just means that an SSD is user managed because the user (you) decide what to put on the SSD and what to put on another drive. You use it just like another hard drive. You can put whatever you want on it. It just has a lot better performance (like up to 100x) than mechanical drives in terms of accessing things quickly, and it's a lot more expensive per gigabyte.
You would put the operating system and commonly-used applications (including maybe games, games are applications) on it because you don't have room to put everything on it unless you get some ridiculously expensive one with more capacity. Those types of things involve reading and writing lots of small files, so the performance on an SSD is significantly higher than on a HDD.
For reading and writing large chunks of data, say video/music files and other large stuff, HDDs do about as well as SSDs. This kind of data is often not accessed that much anyway and takes a lot of space, so that's why this kind of data is usually left on a HDD for a person with both a SSD and HDD.
Anyway, an SSD is by all means not a requirement, just something to think about.
|
On May 06 2011 11:29 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 11:10 Golgotha wrote:ty! reading now. If left unchecked, sharp dropoffs in performance in the memory/storage hierarchy can result in poor performance scaling. If your CPU doubles in peak performance, but it has to wait for data the majority of the time, you’ll rarely realize that performance increase. In essence, the transistors that gave your CPU its performance boost will have been wasted die area and power Good read, very clear explanations. It almost seems like another processor built into the computer. Question, it talks about how SSD is user managed and we have to decide how it is used; is this simple? Also, is SSD primarily for OS/applications? It says: that we recommend a fast SSD for your OS/applications Does SSD have a great impact on games as well as OS/applications? He just means that an SSD is user managed because the user (you) decide what to put on the SSD and what to put on another drive. You use it just like another hard drive. You can put whatever you want on it. It just has a lot better performance (like up to 100x) than mechanical drives in terms of accessing things quickly, and it's a lot more expensive per gigabyte. You would put the operating system and commonly-used applications (including maybe games, games are applications) on it because you don't have room to put everything on it unless you get some ridiculously expensive one with more capacity. Those types of things involve reading and writing lots of small files, so the performance on an SSD is significantly higher than on a HDD. For reading and writing large chunks of data, say video/music files and other large stuff, HDDs do about as well as SSDs. This kind of data is often not accessed that much anyway and takes a lot of space, so that's why this kind of data is usually left on a HDD for a person with both a SSD and HDD. Anyway, an SSD is by all means not a requirement, just something to think about.
gotcha, thanks.
But since desktop memory (ram) reads and writes data faster than SSD and HDD, could the drop in processing performance also be negated with the introduction of more ram, instead of SSD? I think a poster above me mentioned this. Thus, if you had 4 gigs of ram, would you choose a SSD or 4 more gigs of ram to increase computer performance? Personally, what would you choose if this case arose for you?
I hope this makes sense and I am not talking wildly.
|
On May 06 2011 11:37 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 11:29 Myrmidon wrote:On May 06 2011 11:10 Golgotha wrote:ty! reading now. If left unchecked, sharp dropoffs in performance in the memory/storage hierarchy can result in poor performance scaling. If your CPU doubles in peak performance, but it has to wait for data the majority of the time, you’ll rarely realize that performance increase. In essence, the transistors that gave your CPU its performance boost will have been wasted die area and power Good read, very clear explanations. It almost seems like another processor built into the computer. Question, it talks about how SSD is user managed and we have to decide how it is used; is this simple? Also, is SSD primarily for OS/applications? It says: that we recommend a fast SSD for your OS/applications Does SSD have a great impact on games as well as OS/applications? He just means that an SSD is user managed because the user (you) decide what to put on the SSD and what to put on another drive. You use it just like another hard drive. You can put whatever you want on it. It just has a lot better performance (like up to 100x) than mechanical drives in terms of accessing things quickly, and it's a lot more expensive per gigabyte. You would put the operating system and commonly-used applications (including maybe games, games are applications) on it because you don't have room to put everything on it unless you get some ridiculously expensive one with more capacity. Those types of things involve reading and writing lots of small files, so the performance on an SSD is significantly higher than on a HDD. For reading and writing large chunks of data, say video/music files and other large stuff, HDDs do about as well as SSDs. This kind of data is often not accessed that much anyway and takes a lot of space, so that's why this kind of data is usually left on a HDD for a person with both a SSD and HDD. Anyway, an SSD is by all means not a requirement, just something to think about. gotcha, thanks. But since desktop memory (ram) reads and writes data faster than SSD and HDD, could the drop in processing performance also be negated with the introduction of more ram, instead of SSD? I think a poster above me mentioned this. Thus, if you had 4 gigs of ram, would you choose a SSD or 4 more gigs of ram to increase computer performance? Personally, what would you choose if this case arose for you? I hope this makes sense and I am not talking wildly.
They affect different things differently. The SSD loads programs into your RAM, but it does so much faster than an HDD would. Basically, it's like comparing a Star Trek transporter to standard mail. They both get things where they're going, but the one is MUCH faster.
Having more RAM above 4GB can't hurt, and helps with certain programs, but only once the programs are actually loaded from the drive.
|
It's not just loading the program itself into RAM but what other memory the program uses. If you're using a program that operates on lots and lots of data (e.g. video editing, some professional CAD stuff, virtual machines, that may actually use like 4GB of your RAM by itself), it's good to be able to have all that data in RAM so it can be accessed pretty quickly. You don't want that data in swap on a HDD or even a SDD, as that's going to be slow. So this kind of program would like a certain amount of RAM-like performance characteristics. Most programs don't use this much memory.
If not, and most home users probably won't be doing things that would like more than 4GB of RAM total in the system, then the SSD would be better.
But a decent cheap SSD is $100+, while 4GB -> 8GB of RAM is only $35-40 more.
|
Hey TL tech savy people,
I'm frustrated with my current laptop (asus notebook m51va,m51vr series, 2gig ram, intel core duo 2.0ghz, 32bit OS, ati radeon HD 3470 graphics) it sux lol >< it is by no means a gaming laptop, and was never intended to be a gaming laptop. it is simply what i have now, and i've been trying to bust out games on it anyway. probably a miracle that i can run sc2 on low.
so i'm wondering if i could get a new laptop... laptops are just easier, cause i sit at the kitchen table and also go to a mates house every now and then. i was considering an alienware m11x (http://www.dell.com/au/p/alienware-m11x-r3/fs). it's the lowest laptop they have (i think), and i figured would be a reliable way to get a gaming laptop.
a friend of mine recommended this: http://www.asus.com.au/Notebooks/Multimedia_Entertainment/N53SV/#specifications
at $1399, scroll down to Asus N53SV Laptop:
http://www.notebooksrus.com.au/laptop-catalog-business-executive-notebooks-machine-buy-fast-quick-cheap/asus-notebooks
you get a nice i7 and the same gfx for a less. sounds good to me.
so here's the advice i'm looking for:
1. If I were to buy an alienware m11x, can you please give me advice on the options (which processor, ram, etc...). Relating to a) price and b) gaming?
2. Is there a better option? ie what my friend recommended? Other laptops I'm not aware of? I might consider a PC, I already have a screen (21" i think, not sure, i can get back to you on that), but i'm not too keen on one right now. i expect a pc would be cheaper (good for my budget) and probably better in performance, but just doesn't fit in with my lifestyle too well.
to the questions!
What is your budget?
I'm poor. Perhaps work within a $1500 budget. $1500 is probably unlikely for me, but I'm being optimistic =) The further away from $1500, the more realistic.
What is your resolution?
Whatever the typical resolution is for the laptop i buy, it's all packaged together so i'm not really fussed (nor do i know much about it anyway)
What are you using it for?
Games. SC2 mostly, but I do play other games such as DoW2 (which is a total bastard of a game to run). i just want a computer that can play games without issue, good settings.
What is your upgrade cycle?
Long, I don't want to upgrade for at least 2 years after this.
When do you plan on building it?
over the next 1-2 months, but really it's not so urgent so if some1 has a good reason to wait, i'm happy to do so.
Do you plan on overclocking?
Not unless it's already done for me.
Do you need an Operating System?
Comes with the laptop i assume, otherwise yes.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
laptop.
Where are you buying your parts from?
online.
|
So I've received all the parts I ordered from Ncix. Problem is : I don't have the HD. Me and my friend planned to use his HD to save some money. Since he is in Italy, I won't be able to get my hand on it anytime soon.
I'd like to test the system (memtest, cpu test, etc). That way, if there is a problem, i can return the piece to Ncix. However, having no HD, what are my options?
1- Should I use my Desktop HD (I have no intention of formatting it, since it has all my datas...)? Is this a good idea, or will drivers be conflicting?
2- Or, I could use my secondary HD (I use it as storage).
Thoughts? The goal is just to install Win7 quickly and do the tests
|
I5 2500k
Gtx 460 1gb
4gb ram
Enough to stream at ultra on 1680x1080 without slowdown? ( I need constant 60 fps)
Thanks guys!
|
On May 06 2011 13:16 XenOmega wrote:
So I've received all the parts I ordered from Ncix. Problem is : I don't have the HD. Me and my friend planned to use his HD to save some money. Since he is in Italy, I won't be able to get my hand on it anytime soon.
I'd like to test the system (memtest, cpu test, etc). That way, if there is a problem, i can return the piece to Ncix. However, having no HD, what are my options?
1- Should I use my Desktop HD (I have no intention of formatting it, since it has all my datas...)? Is this a good idea, or will drivers be conflicting?
2- Or, I could use my secondary HD (I use it as storage).
Thoughts? The goal is just to install Win7 quickly and do the tests
If you already have memtest86+ burned to the CD. You can test your RAM. Nothing you can do about your processor or graphics card without a HDD as these require you to be in Windows.
Not a good idea to use an existing harddrive with drivers for other components. Drivers will conflict and cause you headaches.
On May 06 2011 13:29 lGy wrote:
I5 2500k
Gtx 460 1gb
4gb ram
Enough to stream at ultra on 1680x1080 without slowdown? ( I need constant 60 fps)
Thanks guys!
For 1v1, yes.
|
awesome thanks.. would it be worth it for me to get another 460 and SLI it or would it not matter at that resolution?
|
On May 06 2011 13:16 XenOmega wrote:
So I've received all the parts I ordered from Ncix. Problem is : I don't have the HD. Me and my friend planned to use his HD to save some money. Since he is in Italy, I won't be able to get my hand on it anytime soon.
I'd like to test the system (memtest, cpu test, etc). That way, if there is a problem, i can return the piece to Ncix. However, having no HD, what are my options?
1- Should I use my Desktop HD (I have no intention of formatting it, since it has all my datas...)? Is this a good idea, or will drivers be conflicting?
2- Or, I could use my secondary HD (I use it as storage).
Thoughts? The goal is just to install Win7 quickly and do the tests
Use a Linux live CD (run OS from CD; most modern distro install CDs can be used this way, like Ubuntu or whatever else you might want to use). Then you won't need to install anything to test the hardware. Actually, there are some distros that run off and can save data to USB flash drives too.
On May 06 2011 13:35 lGy wrote:
awesome thanks.. would it be worth it for me to get another 460 and SLI it or would it not matter at that resolution?
Not worth it in general (should just get like a GTX 570 instead), but for SC2, a single GTX 460 is enough at that resolution.
|
On May 06 2011 13:35 lGy wrote:
awesome thanks.. would it be worth it for me to get another 460 and SLI it or would it not matter at that resolution?
It really does not serve you well to get another GTX 460, although it depends on whether or not you already have the parts. I'm assuming you don't (since otherwise you could have just checked yourself), in which case upgrading to a more powerful single-card would be more beneficial.
|
@ Maeldun
I'm not sure about AUS laptop prices. These all look high to me compared to US prices, but I'm used to looking at deals and not at standard laptop prices.
Anyway, out of those choices, I would take the Asus K73E ($1200, so more realistic?) for a gaming laptop. It's got a modern dual core (most games don't really take advantage of more cores), the i5-2410M at 2.3-2.9 GHz, and a GTX 460M. That's roughly twice as powerful as the GT 540M in the laptop you were looking at. The GTX 460M is similar but a little slower than a desktop GTS 450, so that's fast as far as laptops go.
|
On May 06 2011 13:40 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 13:35 lGy wrote:
awesome thanks.. would it be worth it for me to get another 460 and SLI it or would it not matter at that resolution? It really does not serve you well to get another GTX 460, although it depends on whether or not you already have the parts. I'm assuming you don't (since otherwise you could have just checked yourself), in which case upgrading to a more powerful single-card would be more beneficial.
oh no i already have one just wondering if it's worth it to add another
|
On May 06 2011 13:48 Myrmidon wrote:
@ Maeldun
I'm not sure about AUS laptop prices. These all look high to me compared to US prices, but I'm used to looking at deals and not at standard laptop prices.
Anyway, out of those choices, I would take the Asus K73E ($1200, so more realistic?) for a gaming laptop. It's got a modern dual core (most games don't really take advantage of more cores), the i5-2410M at 2.3-2.9 GHz, and a GTX 460M. That's roughly twice as powerful as the GT 540M in the laptop you were looking at. The GTX 460M is similar but a little slower than a desktop GTS 450, so that's fast as far as laptops go.
thanks for your advice, really helpful! i had no idea it was the superior card.
i suppose the price saving is on the i5 as opposed to the i7 then. also the screen is bigger, which probably should have factored into my thinking (the alienware 11" is tiny ><).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
