|
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 12 2011 03:37 SChlafmann wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2011 03:24 skyR wrote:
It looks like a good configuration. I can't chime in on pricing since I don't familiarize myself with European retailers. The Core i3 2100 / Pentium G860 are both better than the Phenom II X4 in gaming.
Is autocad highly mutli-threaded? If so, I suppose the phenom with its 4 cores will be better. Otherwise... Will stuff become more and more multi-threated, or should I assume that the i3 will be better on the long run? Will HD 6750 be enough for some gaming at this resolution?
Autocad is multi-threaded to some degree. As a whole, I don't believe it takes much advantage of it. And it's sort of hard to judge if things will become more multi-threaded or not. It's best to just buy what you need now.
6750 is enough for most games on reasonably high settings, probably max at that low of a resolution.
|
On November 12 2011 03:47 skyR wrote:
Thank you, I'll stay on this then 
On November 12 2011 03:46 Rachnar wrote:
I'll suggest this to the future owner, as it is not for me. But indeed, it deserves to have a look on this.
|
The case + PSU combo is good, couldn't do much better. However, you could probably get by with a cheap 20€ case and a 24€ decent 350W PSU that's not 80+, but if you think it's worth it you can very well go for that combo, it's very good.
The processor and mobo choices aren't solid, though.
The i3 2120 here:
http://www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=41221&agid=1617
Gives much nicer gaming performance and when combined with this motherboard:
http://www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=46918&agid=1603
Is cheaper as well.
However, the shipping is 30€ from there. Luckily, we can order more things for cheaper from there to make up for it:
Here's a 4gb stick for 16,44€:
http://www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=38042&agid=1192
That graphics card is DDR3 and that's a pretty huge deal in my opinion as it's much slower. For that resolution, you'd be much better off with a 512MB GDDR5 version of 6750 as 512mb vs 1gb makes no difference but DDR3 vs GDDR5 does:
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=46798&agid=717
However as said, shipping is 30€ so if you can find the exact same components so that they cost less than 30€ more, that'd be better! Also if in french stores the difference between 2120 and 2130 is less than 10€, I'd go for the 2130!
Otherwise the build looks good and the pricing's decent as well, there's just a few poor choices you've made.
|
On November 12 2011 05:19 Shikyo wrote:
Thakns for the feedback, I'll look for an i3 then, and a GDDR5 GPU. I think I found something good and really cheap. I'll post when I finished my new list.
Oh, btw, I went for 2x2GB ram in order to take advantage of dual channel. Is it worth the 5€ more or should I stick with a single 4GB? The price are the same in France, 15€ the single 4GB.
|
Hello, I have been looking for a PC that could run SC2, Skyrim and possibly BF3, but since I am awful when it comes to computer parts, I don't know what to get and where to start.
The budget that I have right now is about 600-700€.
How up to date is the build in the 'Optimized Gaming Computer Builds For Every Budget' thread for 700$? And can it run those three games?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
On November 12 2011 06:04 Nahras wrote:Hello, I have been looking for a PC that could run SC2, Skyrim and possibly BF3, but since I am awful when it comes to computer parts, I don't know what to get and where to start. The budget that I have right now is about 600-700€. How up to date is the build in the 'Optimized Gaming Computer Builds For Every Budget' thread for 700$? And can it run those three games? + Show Spoiler +
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=44315&agid=1192
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=41221&agid=1617
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=47362&agid=699
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=46914&agid=1603
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=25778&agid=1077
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=29181&agid=185
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=45569&agid=707
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=48790&agid=1627
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=50576&agid=631
That's a sandybridge 3.3ghz dualcore with hyperthreading, GTX 560 Ti, 8gb 1333mhz ram and sufficient PSU, case, dvd drive and mobo. I also included windows 7 even though it's not in stock. You can buy it in finland if you want but that's 15€ costier. The HDD is pretty slow but still you can't really be picky at these times I believe. You can feel free to try to find a better deal on a hard drive, it's pretty tough though.
Including win7 and the hard drive, this totals at 641,75€ including shipping to Finland and should run all those games on max settings except in BF3 you might not be able to utilize antialiasing and such as much.
If you want a true quadcore instead, this is the one:
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=41226&agid=1617
It's up to you whether you think it's worth the ~60€
http://www.rueducommerce.fr/Composants/Processeur/Processeur-INTEL/INTEL/3028721-Processeur-INTEL-Core-i3-2120-3-3-GHz-Socket-LGA1155.htm
Change to this CPU, 200mhz for 5€ is worth it.
Also nice 6770 upgrade, that's a really nice price.
|
On November 12 2011 06:25 Shikyo wrote:
The HDD is pretty slow but still you can't really be picky at these times I believe. You can feel free to try to find a better deal on a hard drive, it's pretty tough though.
Do you think an SSD would be cool?
|
On November 12 2011 06:33 Nahras wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 06:25 Shikyo wrote:
The HDD is pretty slow but still you can't really be picky at these times I believe. You can feel free to try to find a better deal on a hard drive, it's pretty tough though.
Do you think an SSD would be cool?
Yeah sure, you could instead of the HDD get some 64gb SSD and then later on buy a larger capacity hard drive after the prices drop, or use an old external one.
http://www2.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=46113&agid=1145
This one would probably have currently the best price-performance ratio. (Though it'd still be probably smarter to instead use the 100€ extra on a stronger CPU but this is kind of a special circumstance with normal HDD prices being up in the skies)
|
On November 12 2011 06:25 Shikyo wrote:
Didn't noticed it, thanks a lot.
|
Thanks, Shikyo for being awesome and fast.
|
On November 12 2011 06:39 Nahras wrote:
For your HDD, you may have a look to external HDD or even external case + HDD bundle. I found some cheap HDD this way, much cheaper than if I bought them alone.
|
|
|
Pretty OK setup, but you dont need 700watt. You can get a cheaper one, 500watt will be plenty for your setup (:
Asus P8H61 PLUS (B3) Or any other cheaper motherboard, you dont need a 130bucks motherboard for your purposes. Rest is looking pretty ok :D
|
To skyR:
Congratulations on the 6,000 post milestone!
On November 11 2011 10:48 skyR wrote:
Both the core i5 2500k and core i7 2600k are based on the same architecture. The core i7 just has hyperthreading, 2MB more cache, and 100MHz faster. So both are going to perform similar in tasks that use one core, two cores, three cores, and four cores. Now when you get to tasks that uses more than four cores, the i5 will be limited to four cores while the i7 will shine thanks to its hyperthreading.
Now you may think to yourself that games might take advantage of hyperthreading in the future so purchasing a core i7 may be worthwhile. But this is bad thinking. Most (all?) games these days are mostly console ports so in turn we are limited to the console hardware. The next-generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft hasn't even been announced and the initial launch games usually never take full advantage of the hardware because developers aren't given enough time. So we're talking about at the earliest, maybe 2015, before most games take advantage of more than four cores. By that time, Intel will be on Skymont or Skylake and both of these will be far faster than a core i7 2600k.
Thanks skyR. I understand now, and based on your advice and my current situation I'll go with the i5 2500k (overclocked). It's more cost effective, and still quite powerful as you say. Perhaps three years down the line, once I have some steady income coming in, I'll go crazy with the new Skymont or Skylake that you are talking about!
On November 11 2011 10:48 skyR wrote:
Graphic cards are a bit more complicated. You have to remember that most gaming benchmarks have anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled which has a huge impact on the FPS. So if you wanted absolute max settings, yes you would need to throw thousands of dollars into a configuration that would be capable of achieving whatever FPS you deem to be playable.
A ~$200 card such as the Radeon HD6870, GTX 560 Ti, or Radeon HD6950 are all capable of playing most games on reasonably high settings smoothly and most if not all individuals would be happy with this if you told them that this was max settings. Because honestly, let's face it - you probably can't tell the difference between when AA is enabled or AA is disabled unless you paused the game and examined the screen minutely. And you can't even tell the difference between ultra and high on some games because there is hardly a difference.
Are you able to tell the difference between these two static images? Would you be able to tell the difference when you're actually playing the game, moving around and shooting stuff?
You proved your point very well! I honestly can hardly tell the difference between the images -- I think the first one is slightly better. I'm comfortable saving the thousands of dollars and playing on the "reasonably high settings" (it's still just as amazing) that are depicted in one of the two images you attached.
Just wondering... What was/were the GPU's used on that computer the screen shots were made? As of right now, I'm debating between the GTX 560 Ti or Radeon HD6950.
On November 11 2011 10:48 skyR wrote:
For the other components that don't actually have an impact such as the case and power supply. These components can be carried over from build to build and can actually last a very long time. You can keep the case for your entire life if you wanted to as long as we're still using an ATX form factor in fifty years.
There are several cases that I received as recommendations, and I found two on my own -- one of those two cases that I found comes built in with an apparently nice liquid cooling system. I know your stance on this, but based on your experience do you think this particular system is better than just fans. Cases, as you said, can be carried over from build to build. Liquid cooling system seems to have the potential to replace fans. It just seems to be more effective at cooling. I'm not trying to push this on you to accept it, but I am just trying to really understand if I should go for it or not.
CASES
1) Thermaltake -- the Liquid-Cooling Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133192
2) Corsair Case -- I love the look: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811139005
MisterFred's Suggestion:
1) CoolerMaster HAF 912 (a standard tower that doesn't suck) ($60)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233&Tpk=coolermaster 912
2) Silverstone Raven 3 ($160)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811163185
DONTPANIC
1) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144250
Thanks again for all your advice and help thus far. You've provided a lot of clarity -- in particular with the mobo; I knew the least about them.
I'm going to get back to you, and the rest of the forum with several potential builds. I'm very curious to read your opinion.
Thanks again! <3
------------------------------
To Womwomwom:
Thanks for all the detailed monitor information. TN monitors are apparently good for gaming, and are cheap. It's a little tempting to fall on that, but I am drawn to your recommendation for the Dell U2312HM based on your feedback for all the monitors.
What do you think about this monitor though? I found it while browsing Newegg before you made your post.
It's an ASUS VW246H Glossy Black 24" 2ms(GTG) HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 ASCR 20000:1 (1000:1) Built-in Speakers
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049
On November 11 2011 11:28 Womwomwom wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Invictus212 wrote:
In response to your #1 (27'' monitors):
That's a very interesting point about the pixels. How does that come into play? If the pixel pitch is huge, how does that affect the experience of using the monitor? I googled pixel pitch, so I have an understanding of what it is. I just don't understand how a large pitch is a bad thing.
Is there a larger risk for pixel problems to occur with larger monitors, or is the risk the same regardless of monitor size? All this talk about pixels made me remember about dead pixels. I've experienced it once on an old mobile phone that I had a long time ago.
I do understand your point about the viewing angles. Are there 27'' monitors that solved the viewing angle problem?
For the record, I am not trying to be difficult. I ask questions, just so I can make sure that I understand everything. I have no problem going down to a 24'' monitor (I do plan on getting at least two, so that should be plenty), but I just like to know why. I don't like to blindly do things. Skyr has explains why 1080P 27" monitors are kind of lame. Dead pixels isn't much of an issue if its a high end monitor. For instance, Dell has a zero pixel defect policy where you can return your monitor (and they may even cross-ship a monitor) if you are unhappy with the quality of your panel. 27" monitors with good viewing angles are generally all IPS/VA based. VA monitors are generally too slow for gaming so you're stuck with IPS. With such a high budget, I'd probably get a IPS monitor because they're pretty rad for photography (no more colour shift!). Here is a list that might help you: IPS panel monitors: 23" monitors: Dell U2312HM - stu pidly low input lag that puts gaming monitors to shame Asus PA236Q - Good picture quality 24" monitors: Dell U2412M - 16:10 monitor that is all round strong. It can't display 1080P inputs properly and will stretch them. HP ZR2440W - basically the same as the Dell...may have a working 1:1 scaler mode if you care about that Apple 24" Cinema Display (EOL) - great picture quality but its a glossy monitor 27" monitors: Apple Cinema Display (Displayport not Thunderbolt) - glossy monitor with great picture quality HP ZR2740W - basically a matte version of the Apple Cinema Display Samsung S27A850D - uses PLS. Only get this if you really cannot stand the Apple Cinema Display or the HP ZR2740W because it has build quality problems*. 3D 120hz panel displays: Only pick the Samsung ones. They're easily the best. Some build quality issues however because of how thin the monitors are and how little bracing Samsung packs into them*. As far as I know, the 3D effect only works with AMD cards. If you want nVidia 3D vision, wait a few weeks for the new 3D vision kit to arrive. The glasses are larger and the contrast is advertised to be significantly better. TN panel monitors: Honestly doesn't matter what you pick in the 23-24" range. They all source their panels from the same guys (Samsung, AUO, etc) and there isn't a lot of budget spent on differentiating the hardware...you honestly can't expect a lot of difference between an Acer monitor or a Asus monitor. *Before someone says "But I don't punch my monitor what does build quality have to do with it!", having a monitor that you can snap with your bare hands is not good. The less bracing there is, the easier it is for the manufacturer and yourself to damage the panel and add additional backlight bleeding or something.
|
On November 12 2011 11:30 Invictus212 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 11 2011 10:48 skyR wrote:
Both the core i5 2500k and core i7 2600k are based on the same architecture. The core i7 just has hyperthreading, 2MB more cache, and 100MHz faster. So both are going to perform similar in tasks that use one core, two cores, three cores, and four cores. Now when you get to tasks that uses more than four cores, the i5 will be limited to four cores while the i7 will shine thanks to its hyperthreading.
Now you may think to yourself that games might take advantage of hyperthreading in the future so purchasing a core i7 may be worthwhile. But this is bad thinking. Most (all?) games these days are mostly console ports so in turn we are limited to the console hardware. The next-generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft hasn't even been announced and the initial launch games usually never take full advantage of the hardware because developers aren't given enough time. So we're talking about at the earliest, maybe 2015, before most games take advantage of more than four cores. By that time, Intel will be on Skymont or Skylake and both of these will be far faster than a core i7 2600k.
Thanks skyR. I understand now, and based on your advice and my current situation I'll go with the i5 2500k (overclocked). It's more cost effective, and still quite powerful as you say. Perhaps three years down the line, once I have some steady income coming in, I'll go crazy with the new Skymont or Skylake that you are talking about! On November 11 2011 10:48 skyR wrote:
Graphic cards are a bit more complicated. You have to remember that most gaming benchmarks have anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled which has a huge impact on the FPS. So if you wanted absolute max settings, yes you would need to throw thousands of dollars into a configuration that would be capable of achieving whatever FPS you deem to be playable.
A ~$200 card such as the Radeon HD6870, GTX 560 Ti, or Radeon HD6950 are all capable of playing most games on reasonably high settings smoothly and most if not all individuals would be happy with this if you told them that this was max settings. Because honestly, let's face it - you probably can't tell the difference between when AA is enabled or AA is disabled unless you paused the game and examined the screen minutely. And you can't even tell the difference between ultra and high on some games because there is hardly a difference.
Are you able to tell the difference between these two static images? Would you be able to tell the difference when you're actually playing the game, moving around and shooting stuff?
You proved your point very well! I honestly can hardly tell the difference between the images -- I think the first one is slightly better. I'm comfortable saving the thousands of dollars and playing on the "reasonably high settings" (it's still just as amazing) that are depicted in one of the two images you attached. Just wondering... What was/were the GPU's used on that computer the screen shots were made? As of right now, I'm debating between the GTX 560 Ti or Radeon HD6950. On November 11 2011 10:48 skyR wrote:
For the other components that don't actually have an impact such as the case and power supply. These components can be carried over from build to build and can actually last a very long time. You can keep the case for your entire life if you wanted to as long as we're still using an ATX form factor in fifty years.
There are several cases that I received as recommendations, and I found two on my own -- one of those two cases that I found comes built in with an apparently nice liquid cooling system. I know your stance on this, but based on your experience do you think this particular system is better than just fans. Cases, as you said, can be carried over from build to build. Liquid cooling system seems to have the potential to replace fans. It just seems to be more effective at cooling. I'm not trying to push this on you to accept it, but I am just trying to really understand if I should go for it or not. CASES1) Thermaltake -- the Liquid-Cooling Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168111331922) Corsair Case -- I love the look: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811139005MisterFred's Suggestion: 1) CoolerMaster HAF 912 (a standard tower that doesn't suck) ($60) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233&Tpk=coolermaster 9122) Silverstone Raven 3 ($160) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811163185DONTPANIC 1) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144250Thanks again for all your advice and help thus far. You've provided a lot of clarity -- in particular with the mobo; I knew the least about them. I'm going to get back to you, and the rest of the forum with several potential builds. I'm very curious to read your opinion. Thanks again! <3 ------------------------------ To Womwomwom: Thanks for all the detailed monitor information. TN monitors are apparently good for gaming, and are cheap. It's a little tempting to fall on that, but I am drawn to your recommendation for the Dell U2312HM based on your feedback for all the monitors. What do you think about this monitor though? I found it while browsing Newegg before you made your post. It's an ASUS VW246H Glossy Black 24" 2ms(GTG) HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 ASCR 20000:1 (1000:1) Built-in Speakers http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049On November 11 2011 11:28 Womwomwom wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Invictus212 wrote:
In response to your #1 (27'' monitors):
That's a very interesting point about the pixels. How does that come into play? If the pixel pitch is huge, how does that affect the experience of using the monitor? I googled pixel pitch, so I have an understanding of what it is. I just don't understand how a large pitch is a bad thing.
Is there a larger risk for pixel problems to occur with larger monitors, or is the risk the same regardless of monitor size? All this talk about pixels made me remember about dead pixels. I've experienced it once on an old mobile phone that I had a long time ago.
I do understand your point about the viewing angles. Are there 27'' monitors that solved the viewing angle problem?
For the record, I am not trying to be difficult. I ask questions, just so I can make sure that I understand everything. I have no problem going down to a 24'' monitor (I do plan on getting at least two, so that should be plenty), but I just like to know why. I don't like to blindly do things. Skyr has explains why 1080P 27" monitors are kind of lame. Dead pixels isn't much of an issue if its a high end monitor. For instance, Dell has a zero pixel defect policy where you can return your monitor (and they may even cross-ship a monitor) if you are unhappy with the quality of your panel. 27" monitors with good viewing angles are generally all IPS/VA based. VA monitors are generally too slow for gaming so you're stuck with IPS. With such a high budget, I'd probably get a IPS monitor because they're pretty rad for photography (no more colour shift!). Here is a list that might help you: IPS panel monitors: 23" monitors: Dell U2312HM - stu pidly low input lag that puts gaming monitors to shame Asus PA236Q - Good picture quality 24" monitors: Dell U2412M - 16:10 monitor that is all round strong. It can't display 1080P inputs properly and will stretch them. HP ZR2440W - basically the same as the Dell...may have a working 1:1 scaler mode if you care about that Apple 24" Cinema Display (EOL) - great picture quality but its a glossy monitor 27" monitors: Apple Cinema Display (Displayport not Thunderbolt) - glossy monitor with great picture quality HP ZR2740W - basically a matte version of the Apple Cinema Display Samsung S27A850D - uses PLS. Only get this if you really cannot stand the Apple Cinema Display or the HP ZR2740W because it has build quality problems*. 3D 120hz panel displays: Only pick the Samsung ones. They're easily the best. Some build quality issues however because of how thin the monitors are and how little bracing Samsung packs into them*. As far as I know, the 3D effect only works with AMD cards. If you want nVidia 3D vision, wait a few weeks for the new 3D vision kit to arrive. The glasses are larger and the contrast is advertised to be significantly better. TN panel monitors: Honestly doesn't matter what you pick in the 23-24" range. They all source their panels from the same guys (Samsung, AUO, etc) and there isn't a lot of budget spent on differentiating the hardware...you honestly can't expect a lot of difference between an Acer monitor or a Asus monitor. *Before someone says "But I don't punch my monitor what does build quality have to do with it!", having a monitor that you can snap with your bare hands is not good. The less bracing there is, the easier it is for the manufacturer and yourself to damage the panel and add additional backlight bleeding or something.
The first image is actually on high while the second image is on ultra. It doesn't matter what card (not talking about image quality between AMD and Nvidia, talking about performance) was used as the image quality will look the same regardless of the FPS you are achieving.
The Thermaltake Level 10 GT doesn't have a built in liquid cooling system. It just states liquid cooling ready but every high-end case is literally liquid cooling ready as well (some just do a better job at it than others). The price tag probably made you thought it came with a liquid cooling system of some sort because of how high it is but don't be mistaken, the price is for just the case.
You don't want to use a shit case like the Apevia with your type of budget. And even with a tight budget, that case is still shit. You might as well not use a case and use a box or leave it on the table instead.
The Coolermaster HAF 912 is an inexpensive but good option.
The Silverstone Raven 3 is regarded as one of the best cases for air cooling. It uses Silverstone's 90 degree motherboard mounting design which means that the motherboard ports will be on top of the case rather than at the rear.
There are videos on these cases if you want to get a better idea of how they are.
+ Show Spoiler [Thermaltake Level 10 GT] +
+ Show Spoiler [Silverstone RV03] +
+ Show Spoiler [Coolermaster HAF 912] +
Most low-end TN monitors are basically the same, just a different branding and connectivity. You'll going to have to go to a store and look at them yourself to decide which one looks better because you're not going to get any useful advice about the various models online since display enthusiasts don't bother with these low-end TN panels and most opinions on these low-end models is just going to be "I have one and it's amazing!"
|
|
|
On November 12 2011 12:00 skyR wrote:
The first image is actually on high while the second image is on ultra. It doesn't matter what card (not talking about image quality between AMD and Nvidia, talking about performance) was used as the image quality will look the same regardless of the FPS you are achieving.
Haha, well I guess that just goes to show how significant the difference is from high settings to max settings!
With respect to cases, which would you recommend out of three listed?
1) Thermaltake -- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133192
2) Corsair Case -- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811139005
3) Silverstone Raven 3 -- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811163185
Beyond these three, are there any others that you would recommend? I googled around for case information, but I came across a lot of junk.
Right now I'm doing some research into Fan Cooling vs Liquid Cooling. I remember you argued that Fan Cooling makes more sense. You said based on your experience kits sucked right? I'm seeing some interesting sites that talk about making your own custom set up (i.e. http://www.overclock.net/t/766479/watercooling-guide-for-beginner). There is a ton of information on that site on liquid cooling. Even if I don't end up doing it, it's still an interesting read. I also checked out HowStuffWorks on it. It does seem like a nice option.
|
5930 Posts
There is a time and place for watercooling. Consumer computers is not the place. Heatpipe coolers can cool medium loads much more effectively and efficiently than watercooling hardware.
The Thermaltake and Corsair are really nice cases and overall there isn't anything wrong with them. A bit on the expensive side but if you want a cool looking case, they're a great choice.
The RV03 performs really well, especially for dual GPU systems, but the plastic accents are rather flimsy so you've got to be careful removing the top cover. Because of the rotated motherboard and space savings compared to the RV02/FT02, installing hardware will be more difficult than a typical ATX case.
Also, heatpipe coolers on non-reference GPU designs might have trouble performing properly if the company cheaped out of the heatpipe quality - for these GPU coolers to perform perfectly, you need a closed reference design that exhausts air outside.
Thanks for all the detailed monitor information. TN monitors are apparently good for gaming, and are cheap. It's a little tempting to fall on that, but I am drawn to your recommendation for the Dell U2312HM based on your feedback for all the monitors.
Trust me on this: once you hit past ~12ms, you don't notice a difference between it or 2ms. Any monitor with fast response times will be using something called overdrive or RTC, which is basically overclocking for monitors. As with any overclock, if you have to get it just right if you want to get the best results: too much and it looks like shit, too little and its not effective.
IPS monitors aren't really worse than 60hz TN panels at gaming. The only monitors especially good for gaming are 120hz monitors and that's because they try to get past the motion blurring all LCDs have with 120hz.
Here is a 12ms H-IPS monitor, without any overdrive, competing against a bunch of gaming monitors. The left side is a best case scenario and the right side is a worst case scenario. As you can see, the BenQ incorrectly applies overdrive so it gets reverse ghosting; the 1ms Viewsonic still has ghosting; the 120hz Samsung does everything right so it doesn't really blur but its a TN monitor at heart and probably not what you want for photography.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TzQ3I.jpg)
Source: TFTCentral
The Dell has some overshooting but its definitely not horrible. I think you can adjust how heavy it is within the firmware but I wouldn't bother with it to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q27/Dyepaintball088/Snapshot2011-11-1119-38-08.jpg)
