So case is not important for overclocking. I guess I can go with the cheapest case I like then.
This is the feature that I'd like to have in a case: + Show Spoiler +
• nice exterior design(essential) e.g. minimal clean look • dust filter(highly preferable) • decent cable management(preferable) • ability to fit long video cards(preferable) • black interior(preferable)
• ability to SLI - since I always just upgrade single GPU whenever it gets old and I don't use dual-monitor. • water cooling - since air-cooling can be just as good, simple and cheaper in the long-run. • sound damping - since the Gaming Rig will be in the living room. • full tower case - since I heard that mid tower case is good enough for most people and it's more compact.
I've browsed through all the cases from PCCG and I loved the exterior design of these cases the most: + Show Spoiler +
1.) Antec Three Hundred Case $59.00 2.) BitFenix Shinobi Case $69.00 3.) CoolerMaster CM 690 II Advanced $114.00
These were alright as well: 4.) Fractal Design Core 3000 $113.00 5.) Corsair Carbide 400R Black Mid-Tower Case $136.00 6.) Fractal Design Arc Mid Tower $139.00 7.) Corsair Carbide 500R Case $159.00 8.) SilverStone Raven RV02-E with window $185.00 9.) Corsair Graphite 600T $209.00 10.) Corsair Obsidian 650D $216.00 11.) Silverstone Fortress FT02B with Window USB 3.0 $259.00
I know these cases are great for the price, but I didn't like their rugged looks: 11.) CoolerMaster Storm Enforcer $99.00 12.) CoolerMaster HAF 912 Advanced $115.00
I'm probably going with Antec Three Hundred because it's cheap and is my favorite looking case. Is this case good enough for overclocking and cooling all my components?
As for RAM, I'm going to choose from these ones: + Show Spoiler +
Total of 29 G.SKILL RAM is sold at PPCG. 5 of them are missing from the list here but that's because they are 4x4GB.
Since there's not much price difference between 2x2GB and 2x4GB RAM, I probably should go for 2x4GB RAM. And the best value 2x4GB RAM seems to be: + Show Spoiler +
Note: I know that higher clock speed makes difference in FPS much more than tighter timing. But RAMs with clock speed higher than 1600MHz doesn't include Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 in the Qualified Motherboards List so the highest clock speed I can choose is 1600MHz.
Do you agree with my choice or do you a recommend different RAM? If you agree, which one would you choose out of my list? Also, I prefer the ones with Heat Spreader because they look nice.
Okay so it sounds like there's no guarantee that I can overclock 2500K to higher than 4.5GHz even with a better CPU cooler. So I guess I'll just stick to 4.5GHz and Antec Three Hundred until Ivy bridge CPU comes out. Is this a good plan?
Antec Three Hundred does not have a black interior, it has terrible cable management, and it cannot fit long graphics cards...
Tighter timings actually makes more of a difference than a higher frequency... If you don't want to purchase the least expensive 1333MHz cas9 kit than you're welcome to waste money for negligible gains.
1) RAID is pointless for consumers for obvious reasons. 2) The Antec 900 hasn't got any form of hard drive dampening. So of course a 7200RPM drive is going to sound terrible inside it.
Of course you shouldn't buy Caviar Blacks anymore. They're $20 more than competing 7200RPM hard disks like the F3 Spinpoint and even the Caviar Blue.
I decided to go with CM 690 II adv. For $55 more than Antec 300, it's a much better value case.
I think the below RAM is the best one with price-to-value raio, which RAM should I go with for Sc2? 1.) G.Skill F3-10600CL9D-8GBNT (2x4GB) DDR3 (1333MHz 9-9-9-24 1.5v) $55 2.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-10666CL9D-8GBXL (2x4GB) DDR3 (1333MHz 9-9-9-24-2N 1.5v) $59 3.) G.Skill Ripjaws F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 (1600MHz 9-9-9-24-2N 1.5v) $65 4.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL (2x4GB) DDR3 (1600MHz 9-9-9-24-2N 1.5v) $65 5.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-10666CL7D-8GBXH (2x4GB) DDR3 (1333MHz 7-7-7-21 1.5v) $72 6.) G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-12800CL8D-8GBXM (2x4GB) DDR3 (1600MHz 8-8-8-24 1.5v) $79
Computer hardware is like this: if something hits the specs you are looking for, you buy the absolute cheapest one that has those specs. Desktops have mostly been about raw specs and nothing else, which is why not a single company can release a fundamentally perfect computer chassis and instead plays a game of checklisting features.
So in this case, the only non-comedy RAM option is option #4 - it also doesn't have shitty heatspreaders that only serve to block large heatsinks. The best value GTX560 Ti is the absolute cheapest GTX560 Ti (this would be the MSI card) unless you want EVGA's warranty service.
On September 30 2011 03:42 Womwomwom wrote: So in this case, the only non-comedy RAM option is option #4 - it also doesn't have shitty heatspreaders that only serve to block large heatsinks. The best value GTX560 Ti is the absolute cheapest GTX560 Ti (this would be the MSI card) unless you want EVGA's warranty service.
So I don't get it, is it the RAM bandwidth or lower timing that gives the bigger difference in frames per second? Didn't JingleHell's post say bandwidth? Either way I actually think option #3 or #4 is the best value RAM from PCCG, don't you think? For $10 more I get heat spreader and more bandwidth?
Also, since I won't be bottlenecked by Starcraft 2 because it's not a GPU intensive game, which GPU is better value overall for the type of games I'm going to play? HD 6950 or 560Ti?
I'm going to use a single monitor in 1920x1080 resolution. It's going to be used for playing Sc2, DotA 2 and HoN majority of the time. I will also try out other games like LoL, Skyrim, Dragon Age II, GW 2, Tera, WoW and Diablo III.
So should I get a HD 6950 or 560Ti?
If it's 560Ti, could someone suggest me the best value 560Ti from here? If it's HD 6950, could someone suggest me the best value HD 6950 from here?
Yes but its still not worth pursuing. If JingleHell showed that faster memory decreased the size and frequency of FPS drops, then I'd be recommending faster memory but no one has proven this yet. He did show that the minimum FPS was a little bit higher but honestly the difference between 28 FPS and 31 FPS is still "terrible" and "terrible".
Anyway, it seems you changed the order of the RAM you listed, after I posted, since I vaguely remember recommending the G.Skill F3-10600CL9D-8GBNT. Anyway, memory like this is the type of stuff you want. Heatspreaders, outside looking cool and blocking large heatsinks, don't do anything since RAM doesn't really consume a whole lot of power...so there isn't any energy to kick out as heat. Its fine if you want to buy it for aesthetic reasons but just know that it doesn't do anything, performance-wise.
The best GPU in that pack are the GTX560 Tis. Why? Because they all come with nice aftermarket cooling, factory overclocks, and generally end up cheaper than the HD6950s in stock. Skryim is probably the most graphically intensive game you want to play and I doubt it'll be especially hard on the GPU since this is Bethesda we're talking about (instead it'll be all round buggy and crash half the time).
I personally think the best options are the: MSI GeForce GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr II for $249.00 EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (if you want EVGA warranty)
Yes, I showed that frequency tops timings in the specific case of SC2, on a Bloomfield CPU. While that should carry over to newer Intel CPU's as well, if anything, with less memory bandwidth from dual channel vs my triple channel, the difference will be even smaller on Sandy Bridge.
I then concluded that it doesn't really matter because paying more for faster memory is retarded if you can pay more for better CPU performance, which the majority of people can. $10 extra on faster memory could instead go to a higher binned CPU. While the difference between an i5 2400 and 2500 is tiny, it's still better than the difference between CL9 1333 and CL9 1600, and usually for a similar price.
While I'm glad people read my numbers, I do wish they'd read the analysis that went with it to keep the impressive sounding so many percent performance gains in perspective.
Hell, given that I don't benchmark for a living, and in hindsight I can think of a couple of things I definitely did wrong for top precision, if the results didn't line up with conventional wisdom, I would have thrown the whole thing out because the numbers are definitely close enough for margin of human error.
In pretty much everything else, timings tend to be slightly better, although the ideal is generally tight timings on 1600mhz anyway.
Okay thanks. I changed my mind and decided to buy the option #1 RAM since: 1.) I'm never intending to buy windowed Case(no point buying pretty RAM if I'm not going to look at it). 2.) It will be easier to find matching RAM that's without heat spreader than with heat spreader in the future. 3.) It won't block large heatsinks.
I also changed my mind and getting Antec 300 since: 1.) My setup doesn't need good air-cooling. 2.) Exterior looks better than CM 690 II adv. 3.) It's cheaper. 4.) I'm not going to SLI in the future.
Thanks guys. I think I'm finally done now(hopefully).
EPT
You've been the most helpful people out of all the forums I've tried.
