|
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 November 04 2011 10:16 skyR wrote: And you're doing something wrong if you can't fit a Corsair 600T in your $850 budget with those components since the case is only about ~$100.
I thought it was like $100 / $130 / $160 for 400R / 500R / 600T.
|
If you can find that case for $100 please tell me where lol. I can't find it for less than $160 on newegg.
|
|
|
|
On November 04 2011 04:32 Myrmidon wrote: I wouldn't go lower than 400W with overclocked Bloomfield i7 (including the motherboard, you may be looking at almost 100W more than an overclocked i5-2500k but probably not quite that much higher at 3.5 GHz depending on voltage) and HD 6950 (no voltage change; shouldn't go over 200W). Athlon II X4 isn't close in power consumption to overclocked i7-9xx. Golden Green 400W sounds like a good idea to me then. Earthwatts Green 380D or similar with Bloomfield i7 overclocked at full load + HD 6950 at full load...I'm not so sure.
I'm not a fan of cheap speaker sets, as they tend to sound worse than comparably-priced headphones. So I don't know about that, sorry.
Allready have the headphones, just need the speakers so my girlfriend will stop whining she wants to watch something with me.
Not really worried the golden green 400W wont be enough, the rest of the system is very minimal. I allso wont be benchmarking (unless I want to stresstest something, which wont be often). Guru3d and Anandtech allso tested a similar setup + 6950 for 310-320W(if i remember correctly).
anyway, still looking for that speaker set, anyone know anything good?
|
Something has been bothering me lately: I don't understand how my friend, who has a pre-built ASUS computer that he bought a few years ago is loading on to maps on Battlefield 3 at the same time or a little bit faster than my Caviar Black that's supposedly running on the SATA3 (6 Gbps) port. Shouldn't I be slaughtering him in terms of loading times? This applies to my SSD as well. I have League of Legend and Starcraft 2 in it but my friend is still loading at similar and sometimes faster speed than I am. Is there something missing or am I doing something wrong? Can't it be because I'm running on higher settings and resolution than he is? I do have a lot of programs running in the background.
Any ideas?
|
5930 Posts
Mechanical hard disks can't even saturate SATA2 fully so I'm not surprised SATA3 isn't doing anything with that Caviar Black. Tech companies gotta keep stacking random acronyms so they can make money; SATA3 is today's buzzword for the mechanical hard disk market in an attempt to increase profit margins.
There's a lot of factors involved but the largest, easy to determine discrepancy I can think of is if you're running an AMD system and he's running an Intel system. No idea about the server side of things but AMD's native SATA implementation is terrible compared to Intel's. So an AMD system with a Caviar Black will generally be a little bit slower than a similar Intel system with a Caviar Black when it comes to I/O speeds.
If your SSD is losing to his mechanical hard disks, then you're doing something extremely wrong. Even the worst SSD destroys the best mechanical hard disk in terms of random read speeds. If that's the case, what SSD do you have? And did you try and be smart and tweak Window's settings to get mad benefits? I mean if you're not going to be detailed with your queries, there isn't much to do but shoot into the dark and make dumb assumptions.
|
Hi guys I have an EL1310-01. For specs: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883114071
Can you guys recommend what kind of upgrades for I would need to be able to run StarCraft 2?
Maybe several cases like 1) sc2 - 1v1 on low 1280x720 2) sc2 - 1v1 on low 1920x1080 3) sc2 - 4v4 on low 1280x720 4) sc2 - 4v4 on low 1920x1080 Also, which build is capable of watching movies in 720p or 1080p and which would be able to stream?
All I know is that the machine requires a low profile card and the psu is smaller. Which option would be best bang for buck?
Thank you
|
I'm looking into building a computer with about these specs_http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1419363&CatId=114-...i don't really play many games other than SC2. Would this be sufficient and would it be better to build my own, if so why? Thanks in advance
|
On November 05 2011 05:36 Davee wrote:Hi guys I have an EL1310-01. For specs: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883114071Can you guys recommend what kind of upgrades for I would need to be able to run StarCraft 2? Maybe several cases like 1) sc2 - 1v1 on low 1280x720 2) sc2 - 1v1 on low 1920x1080 3) sc2 - 4v4 on low 1280x720 4) sc2 - 4v4 on low 1920x1080 Also, which build is capable of watching movies in 720p or 1080p and which would be able to stream? All I know is that the machine requires a low profile card and the psu is smaller. Which option would be best bang for buck? Thank you
None of these components are supported (except for the graphics card, and SC2 is CPU intensive), so the expense required to update this setup will likely cost close to purchasing a whole new one from scratch.
|
On November 05 2011 05:36 Davee wrote:Hi guys I have an EL1310-01. For specs: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883114071Can you guys recommend what kind of upgrades for I would need to be able to run StarCraft 2? Maybe several cases like 1) sc2 - 1v1 on low 1280x720 2) sc2 - 1v1 on low 1920x1080 3) sc2 - 4v4 on low 1280x720 4) sc2 - 4v4 on low 1920x1080 Also, which build is capable of watching movies in 720p or 1080p and which would be able to stream? All I know is that the machine requires a low profile card and the psu is smaller. Which option would be best bang for buck? Thank you
It's hard to do a specific breakdown since it will depend on what kind of fps you can tolerate and the maps, game situations, and so on.
Suffice to say that you need to pretty much start from scratch. You absolutely need a new CPU, and nothing worthwhile is compatible with the motherboard. And a new motherboard requires DDR3 RAM (edit: fixed typo, DD3 -> DDR3). And you need a graphics card.
You can keep the optical drive and hard drive. I wouldn't trust expensive new components to a 220W low-budget eMachines PSU (so that needs replacing), and the case is somewhat limiting anyway, so I wouldn't keep that either unless you absolutely must.
Fortunately, if just on low, you can easily get by with a $50 graphics card. You're looking at around $60 for the CPU for 1v1 with no hope for streaming ($190 if you would want to stream and have better performance otherwise, like for 4v4), $50-70 for motherboard, $20-35 for RAM, $50 for GPU. ~$40 for PSU since quality low-wattage units that are cheaper are not really available at retail, $40 or so for case.
$60 CPU would be a Sandy Bridge dual core Celeron (not G440). $190 would be Core i5-2x00. You're looking for a H61 motherboard, 2 x 2GB DDR3 RAM or 2 x 4GB DDR3 RAM (price difference is very small these days), maybe a HD 5570. HD 6450 could handle low, but it isn't much cheaper than 5570, and the 5570 is considerably better.
|
Hey guys, my friend is looking to build a new computer. Thanks.
What is your budget?
Maximum $800
What is your resolution?
He is planning on buying a new monitor down the line.
Would like to play on 1080P if possible.
What are you using it for?
Mainly gaming.
What is your upgrade cycle?
About every 2.5 - 3 years.
When do you plan on building it?
By the end of the year.
Do you plan on overclocking?
No.
Do you need an Operating System?
Yes.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
No.
Where are you buying your parts from?
Newegg, Amazon, TigerDirect, Fry's Electronics, Micro Center, etc. It all depends on the price.
|
|
Ok I am possibly going to be ordering my heatsink/fan tonight depending on the comments I get.
I noticed the Corsair A70 is $39 on newegg, down from $50 or 60 the last time I checked.
I've gotten comments saying it is much better than the Hyper 212, and has a much better mounting system.
I also read several reviews saying the A70 is a pain to install, and most all reviews say the Hyper 212 has a nightmare mounting system. I've watched installation videos on both and both seem pretty simple to me though.
Anyway, should I get the A70 for $39 or the Hyper 212 EVO for $35? How much difference is there between them in cooling power? Which is really better?
Also I will be using an ASRock Extreme3 Gen 3 MB. Will these coolers keep me from using the first ram slot if I use low profile ram?
|
A70 is better since it's less expensive after mail in rebate and includes two fans (I'm not sure if EVO includes two fans). Hyper 212 EVO is negligibly better than the 212+. It's $29 on NCIX if you don't want to deal with mail in rebates: http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=53612&promoid=1287 Heatsinks are designed so that it'll always clear low profile memory in DIMM slots.
|
A70 fans have no PWM control and runs at 2000 rpm or 1600 rpm (resistor in or not). That's pretty high (thus loud) relative to other components and other alternative PWM-controlled CPU fans when the CPU is idle, without doing any other tweaks.
|
On November 05 2011 00:06 Womwomwom wrote: Mechanical hard disks can't even saturate SATA2 fully so I'm not surprised SATA3 isn't doing anything with that Caviar Black. Tech companies gotta keep stacking random acronyms so they can make money; SATA3 is today's buzzword for the mechanical hard disk market in an attempt to increase profit margins.
There's a lot of factors involved but the largest, easy to determine discrepancy I can think of is if you're running an AMD system and he's running an Intel system. No idea about the server side of things but AMD's native SATA implementation is terrible compared to Intel's. So an AMD system with a Caviar Black will generally be a little bit slower than a similar Intel system with a Caviar Black when it comes to I/O speeds.
If your SSD is losing to his mechanical hard disks, then you're doing something extremely wrong. Even the worst SSD destroys the best mechanical hard disk in terms of random read speeds. If that's the case, what SSD do you have? And did you try and be smart and tweak Window's settings to get mad benefits? I mean if you're not going to be detailed with your queries, there isn't much to do but shoot into the dark and make dumb assumptions.
I have an i5-2500k and a Crucial M4 SSD. What kind of details do you need to know?
At first, i thought it's maybe because the loading parts of these games don't rely heavily on the specs of your comp but more on your internet speed. But my internet is more superior than his as well. So please let me know what I'm doing wrong. And what do i need to do to optimally tweak my hdd and ssd to reap the benefits of them?
|
5930 Posts
Don't tweak anything, let Windows do whatever its doing. One quick thing you can do is put your motherboard into AHCI - check your motherboard manual for this information - instead of IDE, if it isn't already.
So your SSD is losing to his mechanical hard disks? If your losing by a lot, you have an issue which will be hard to determine without me going to your house and breaking your computer apart. Is Starcraft 2 on the SSD? If it isn't, then there is your answer - shit needs to be on the SSD to be fast. Is the SSD slow to boot up Windows? If not, don't worry about it because your SSD is working as intended.
|
I wouldn't say that.. but when I play games like Starcraft 2 or League of Legends, the loading screen you see before the game starts, i load up at the same time as my friends. Now I don't know if SSDs play a factor when it comes to that but I was always under the impression that they do. So my first question is.. does it?
|
|
|
|