Discussion Forums > Technology

Building a desktop

<< < (4/9) > >>

datora:
.
What kitamesume said about SSD, HDD and RAM.  Since we are generally not up to date on EU pricing & availability, all of our comments have been geared toward giving you a primer on features to look for so you can make a credible evaluation on your own as you run across options.

Tatsujin & I are gonna have to "agree to disagree" on the Corsair recommend.  It's not that they are horrible, but the complaint level on their failure is significantly higher than on other brands I steered you toward.  This is especially true if you go for their low-price budget models.  And, continuing to keep in mind that many SSD manufacturers have made very significant improvements in the tech that have started to show up in the last 4-6 months.  Thus, what Tatsujin said about getting newer, SATA III SSDs holds true: you should avoid getting anything manufactured during about last November or before.  Look to models introduced in 2012 and you'll be getting gen 1.5 of the tech, which is much more stable than (esp. budget) models from last year.


To add even more,

The Scorpio Black will have lower performance, but still have high reliability.  The slight loss of performance won't affect you since you are not attempting to build a bleeding-edge machine.  I only suggested it as one alternative to keep an open mind about as you investigate availability & prices.

Your idea of going with a 60 GB SSD has a consequence: you are very likely to run out of space on it and have to install some applications on your secondary HDD.  This is not a bad thing in and of itself, unless you are looking at green technology drives.  Their failure rates go up quickly when "misused."  Misuse is running applications off of them ... they are designed to write blocks of static data and read it back, but not to constantly erase & re-write and move data, and certainly not under demanding conditions such as editing of files and running apps.

This is part of what you've read about the large HDDs failing.  People get a monster 2 TB drive real cheap, and then proceed to install their OS on it.  Then they can't figure out why the drive fails.  It's not designed for that sort of intense, constant access.  Also, why the Black editions of WD are something of a gold standard among HDDs these days.  Nothing else comes close to performance & reliability ... for the price.  The Blue editions are almost indistinguishable from their Green editions; slightly better, but completely outclassed by the Black editions.

So, to avoid that trap, you make sure that drive is 1) robust enough & designed for performance (a WD Black, either Caviar or Scorpio is one excellent option) or 2) if you get a mass data storage drive (WD Green, for example), you make sure you don't install apps on it or use it as a working scratch disk for video editing or photoshop, etc.  Thus the suggestion I made: an SSD system disk for the OS + apps that require SSD performance, plus a 320 or 500 GB WD Black (Scorpio or Caviar) as the secondary HDD that you can install apps safely to, then the third HDD, which can be a 1 TB or 2 TB huge-ass mass data storage device ... THEN it can be the WD Green (or Samsung F4 or Hitachi) 2 TB class and be much safer & more reliable to use.

Many of the failure complaints you run across are more than a year old, and they are generally targeted at 1 TB and up drives, not to be confused with "over 1 TB."  Previously, the 320/500/640/750 GB platter configurations had hit a new performance/reliability index.  The jump to 1/1.5/2 TB architecture suffered serious growing pains.  In particular, Seagate had a horrendous product line out for nearly two years that vastly contributed to that general reputation.

Remember, most people having trouble aren't very tech literate.  They don't know what drive they have and very often are misusing it for its designed function.  For example, you don't stick a WD 2 TB Green in an external housing without ventilation and then torrent off of it 24/7 ... you will assuredly cook it, and I've seen a lot of tech illiterates that did exactly that.   Then the cries of anguish begin and Oh Noes!! teh terabad HDD corps haz raeped my monies and I R such t3h victemz!!!!  pity all my lost pr0nz!!!!!

The models we've been talking about in this topic have withstood the test of time; they are well-vetted and the most reliable models currently on the market.  It's not a 100% guarantee, but your odds are very excellent ... especially if you treat your system with respect and kindness.  You need to match the tech to the use.  If you want extreme reliability, then you need to increase your budget to consider server- and enterprise-level technology.


So, leads back to the recommendation of going with a 120/128 GB SSD.  You can put all your OS and games and apps on it and not be forced to put any on a secondary drive.  THEN your secondary drive is much safer as a green tech/data storage device because no apps will be installed on it.  Space would still be tight, but nothing like trying to manage a 60 GB drive; even a 90 GB SSD would be a vast improvement.

OR you can consider the 60 GB SSD sys drive and a 1 TB WD Black for a two-drive option on your build, and the WD Black is designed to run apps; Scorpio or Caviar won't matter to you, their performance is effectively identical for your situation so go with cheapest opportunity you run across.

If it was me and the budget you have, I would go for a three drive option: 128 GB SSD sys drive --> +320/500/640/750 GB WD Blck 2ndary app + performance data drive --> +2 TB mass data storage (Samsung F4 has done me justice to date, so I stand by them currently).

It would largely be price driven.  I would find out what was available and best price per gigabyte in each of those slots, structured on the brands & models discussed in this topic so far.


Getting back to RAM.  Your mobo supports and runs dual channel.  This is why you want two matched chips in the same memory bank ... your CPU uses them in parallel to nearly double RAM throughput.  A single 8 GB chip definitely is not using your mobo to its specification.  So, you can go with 2x 4 GB = 8 GB total RAM, which is completely adequate.  Get good stuff with low CAS timings; @1600, you should be able to find something that runs at 8-8-8-24, or even better.  If something is advertised as CAS 8, they usually refer to that first number & ignore the rest.  You might also find stuff running at 9-8-9-27 (for random example).  If the price is really good, then it's worth the compromise because you'll only see that difference in benchmarks & high-end games.

My previous lecture on RAM was geared toward setting you up so you don't have to worry about it again for the life of your rig.  If you go with 2x 4 GB, then you'll likely have to add another pair at some point, especially if you do image/video editing or run certain games.  By going with solid performing 2x 8 GB = 16 GB total sys RAM @1600, you'll be very unlikely to ever run short of RAM (for the lifetime of your rig), and you'll be using it at maximum performance in two slots.  By using 4 slots (a 4x 4 GB = 16 GB config), you lose some performance and efficiency.  Again, not much, but if you're using an SSD for your sys drive, then you don't want anything else being a bottleneck ... 4 sticks  of RAM at 10-11-10-29 timings would certainly hurt you a bit, especially two years down the road when apps & OS & upgrades start to expect more performance than we commonly imagine today.

When you are looking at mobos, if you find one you think is The One for you and it supports triple channel, then you can look at 3x 4 GB = 12 GB total sys RAM config.  That's "just in case," since I don't think you'll be looking at extreme performance mobos.


So, shorter answer: in the near term, and if you don't do image/video editing, and if you keep to mid-level games (however you personally define that) ... then the 2x 4 GB option is a fairly good one.  Because your budget is generous enough, I merely suggested a cheap upgrade option now so you never have to think about it again.  Your entire build can use quality components because you have a decent budget ... you don't have to cut corners anywhere, and you don't have to throw away stupid amounts of cash for bleeding edge tech because you just need a solid, stable build that will take care of modest needs for a few years.

Usually I have to try and recommend a build for $800 or under.  That's when you need some serious thinking about where to compromise.

Freedom Kira:

--- Quote from: mrdkreka on May 05, 2012, 11:41:39 PM --- (click to show/hide)SSD: Was thinking just getting a 60gb one to start with, and if I feel like a need more, I would buy a second one of what you guys recommended.

HDD: I have read the error rate on HDD increase quite a lot when you get above the 1TB mark, so wouldn't it be better to get several HDD instead of a big one?
I can hear that I should probably avoid WD Green drive, but what about WD blue drive?
what effect will the lower buffer in scorpio black (16MB) have compared to caviar Black (64MB)?

GPU: the onboard gpu in Intel is quite good, but from what I can gather it performs at the level of my latop graphic card, which could use some improvement for running D3 beta and it was struggling with G2 beta. I will look into the 7000 series, to see if I can find a card that can be used.

CPU: If I did bump it up to i7, how much more power would that use compared to the i5?

screen: The Dell screen have all the feature it need, and it is most likely the one I will get.

Sound card it is pretty much the same as the ASUS Xonar DX you posted, but here is a link to the ASUS Xonar DX/XD/A one

Oh and specifications=specifikationer to see more about the component for the links I posted.

I will look into a bigger motherboard in the morning after I have gotten some sleep.
--- End quote ---

SSD: One thing to note about getting an SSD is that a larger capacity will bring with it better performance because of the way current SSD technology works.

HDD: If you are not using it as a boot disk (which you shouldn't be since you're getting an SSD), a Green drive is ideal. It could take a second or two for it to spin back up if you leave it idle for too long, but in the long run it saves power. Blue is okay but a Black or RE4 drive would be the best choices for boot disks if you must go HDD. I consider Blue to be their mid-grade.

GPU: If you want Intel's on-board, be sure to get Ivy Bridge, since that is their most significant performance boost over Sandy Bridge. Otherwise, aim for NVidia stuff (they're basically the premium, much like Intel is). All of the problems I've ever ran into with dedicated graphics cards were with AMD/ATI cards.

CPU: You'd have to look at benchmarks for actual numbers, but generally i7 is top-end mainstream, while i5 is mid-grade mainstream.

mrdkreka:

--- Quote from: kitamesume on May 06, 2012, 12:12:41 AM ---sound card : im kind of against buying dedicated sound card, since buying one doesn't necessarily mean the quality of your sound system will improve a notch, now a day's onboards (ALC889, ALC892, ALC898) are top-notch and can output quite a clear sound.
one thing you should do before considering one is to clarify if your sound system can output the quality that the sound card will give, since if you got a crappy headphone for example it'll be a waste of money to opt for a sound card where buying a better headphone would result in a more profitable manner. oh and op-amps works too.

--- End quote ---
Speaker: z623, the bass is a bit flat, and some frequency it doesn't do well, so I don't think my speaker would benefit that much
Headphones: Audio-Technica ATH-M50, I don't have anything define to complain about here, so I assume it will get most benefit out of a sound card.

SSD changed it to a Crucial M4 128 GB SSD

HDD Western Digital 750 GB Scorpio Black (WD7500BPKT), I have a lot of music I listen to and so on, so I will need a HDD that can handle getting a lot of read and write on it.

MOBO So if I went with the ASRock Z77 Extreme4 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard you recommended, will I be able to add a soundcard, or won't that be necessary?

RAM would CL9 ( 9-9-9-24 ) make it a bottleneck? I'm leaning most too 2x4, since most of the 2x8 have CL10, and if they have below that the price increase quite a lot, so I think it is better to upgrade to more, when I start needing it.

GPU: I have considered to get a ati/amd one, but I have had quite a lot of problems with them in there mobile version( I think around 50 crash caused by the gpu), so I will look to see if I can find a GTX instead.
Is there a site that show a list of graphic cards, and what they are capable of running? I know a site for mobile graphic cards, but that doesn't really help much here.

CPU: still thinking if I should bump it op to i7, I will look a bit more into it.

Edit:
Looked around for a GPU and found ASUS ENGTX560 Ti DCII/2DI/1GD5 (90-C1CQ90-L0UAY0YZ) to be very good for its performance to price ratio

vuzedome:
Well your initial choice was already capable of adding in a PCI-E sound card.
The ASRock of your definitely looks better than the ASUS Gene, never liked the ASUS theme-based mobo lineup.

Freedom Kira:
I find it interesting that your HDD of choice is a Scorpio. That's WD's line of 2.5"/laptop drives, isn't it? Any reason why you're not getting a Caviar (i.e. 3.5"/desktop)?

You can add a sound card to pretty much any board AFAIK. I've always found onboard sound to be good enough for my needs - IMO sound cards are largely for audiophiles, or multi-channel sound if the board doesn't already support that. I really doubt that any issues you're having with your audio are caused by your lack of a sound card...

CL9 is pretty standard for DDR3. If you're getting large RAM sticks, you can't go much lower. The lowest latency you can get in DDR3 is CL6, only available in 2GB (or maybe 1GB) sticks, and the price per GB compared to the performance increase (which is pretty much negligible for all users that are not enthusiasts/benchmarkers) is not worth it. You mentioned most 2x8 have CL10, but I recall seeing one of the cheapest 4x8 kits being CL9 (G.Skill Ares series), though granted the clock speed is not very high. That brings up the point that you should also look at clock speed when comparing RAM.
TL;DR - your RAM should not be a bottleneck.

For GPU comparisons I mostly look at Wikipedia (lol). If you find a cool site, let me know, I'd like to see it too. If I'm not mistaken, the card you picked out is one generation behind, but that's probably not a problem, right?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page