[Bloodmyst]

Originally Posted by Drgoose

Can I ask why you are getting an i7 3770? or that case for that matter if you arent running mutliple gpus and overclocking (IMO a case is only for cooling, and that has masses of cooling that you wont be needing). Even my i7-860 was not being used anywhere near capacity for any kind of gaming, so an Ivy bridge is just bling for 90% of users out there not doing cpu intensive work. Also the ram is expensive, I got 16gb hyper-x blue for $100. It's certainly a wicked system, but not good bang for buck unless you are overclocking everything and doing intensive work like streaming, encoding, 3D work, etc, etc.
Anyway, just for reference I'll list my system below for comparison (from ARC in sydney - about a month ago?).

RAM: Kingston Hypex-X blue 4x4GB $113
Case: Coolermaster HAF RC212 $105
i7 2600k $313
CPU cooler: Coolermaster RR212E universal $39
MB: ASUS Maximus IV Gene-Z (mATX) $204
Gcard: MSI GTX560 Ti Hawk $262
PSU: Antex 650W Green $99
Total: $1135

already had a cavier black 1TB, think it was about $100 mark?
my benchmarking shows that its only about 10-30% faster than my 3+year old i7-860 system depending on the application (both completely factory default). Tested the cooling by running some quantum mechanics calculations, it was about 12% faster and the cpu never got over 50C (100% for 2 hours). Havent tested prime95 stability yet, but Ive no doubt it will be cool.

Just saying, if you arent certain that you need extra power, dont get it, cos you wont use it.
Edit: my plan for system lifetime is generally to keep them for 4-5 years, with buying a gcard about half way through, that way you actually get money value in that the next system will be about 50-80% faster than the old IME, and you will only just be coming up to games that you cant play on high anymore.

In regards to the CPU, the Sandy Bridge equivalent is only around $10 - $15 less. Not to mention, with the PCI-E 3.0 interface you need to be running the new Ivy bridge to get somewhat close to the full bandwith available from the card. If your going to to run a PCI-E 3.0 card with a sandy bridge CPU, you may as well just get a PCI-E 2.1 card. Considering there is hardly any price difference between PCI-E 2.1 and 3.0 ranges and hardly any price difference between the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge ranges, there is no reason why you wouldn't "currently" purchase the newer technology.... unless of couse you couldn't afford the extra $20...

I'd like to add, I'm interested when the NBN upgrade hits my town... I think the extra CPU power will play a part in streaming future games....

So I guess you could say, taking into consideration the price difference and also trying to somewhat future proof the system it's not bad taking this route.

Also, when building systems I like to leave room for upgrading for if for some reason in the future I decide to. This case is well equipped with necessary holes ect if I wish to install a water cooling system. It already has fairly decent cable managment. The HDD dock at the top is great for people like me who are constantly fixing PC's, and not to mention for the price... it's feels like Coolermaster is giving this case to me considering the amount of cooling options you have. Some cases which are even $200 more expensive don't even offer the amount of features this case has. I feel it's great value for the buck, you can't deny this case is great damn value. This is also another reason I don't want to skimp on the PSU size, if I'm going to add another GFX card, water cooling system, etc I don't want to have to purchase another PSU later on.

In regards to the RAM, my budget was $1500 .... being only a few dollars over I don't really have any reason downgrade in that department. However, I do agree it's overkill... but meh the budget allows it whilst being happy with the rest of the components "at the moment."

Whilst that is a decent system you provided, it's now old technology. If you can purchase the newer up to date hardware for pretty much the same price, there is no reason why you would fall back on the expired.

Errrrmm, I'm still curious about the new ASUS Sabertooth M'boards though... but don't want to take the risk :s Is anyone planning to purchase one of these or already has one?

EDIT: God damn you! Now I'm debating with myself if I should get the extra memory or not. Since I could use the money for a new monitor........

[FaDeHellfyre]

How big a monitor do you have now? The bigger the better, and if you can save money in certain areas and get a bigger (and better of course, no use going a low-res piece of crap when it's huge) monitor, then do it!

[ToRsupapower]

what quality do you play sc2 on , what quality can you stream it on (sorry for going off topic, want to build a comp that can play, stream sc2 on 60+ fps minimal on any setting )

[FaDeHellfyre]

streaming is ridiculously cpu heavy. My computer specs are as follows

CPU: Core i7-2600K 3.4GHz
RAM: 16.0 GB DDR3
GFX: 2x Radeon HD6850's (running in crossfire)
MOBO: Asus P8Z68 Deluxe

My screen is 1920x1080 (the one i have sc2 on), and to stream in a reasonable quality while still having non-lag filled gameplay i had to;

Reduce graphics settings to medium (high is pointless anyway).
Put the stream on lowest HD setting possible. (1920x1080 was impossible, it wouldn't even move off the first frame, let alone 60fps).

All in all it worked alright, though I had mine set to 39.95 frames per second. You shouldn't need to go 60fps. It's a video game, and human eyes can only see around 24fps, so any more than that is just an increase in quality. If you're looking to stream at that, in a HD quality, you're probably looking at a hardcore PC worth a lot of money.

[Trusty]

Originally Posted by ESLHellfyre

It's a video game, and human eyes can only see around 24fps, so any more than that is just an increase in quality.

The whole 'human eye 24fps/30fps' statement is very very misleading. read the following for more info on why it 24fps is 'bad' for gaming.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

Quick Comments

	Bloodmyst:	Interesting read.
	FaDeHellfyre:	Interesting. I have been learned

[Bloodmyst]

Originally Posted by ESLHellfyre

How big a monitor do you have now? The bigger the better, and if you can save money in certain areas and get a bigger (and better of course, no use going a low-res piece of crap when it's huge) monitor, then do it!

I only have a 19 inch monitor atm running at 1440 x 900 res. I think I'm only the minority who actually prefers the smaller screens. However, I'm now thinking of going bigger to maybe a 22 inch max. I'm not really update to date with what monitors are good and which ones are bad, what to watch out for etc. But I know in the past, the main thing I've paid attention to is the MS rating. The one I currently have is 2ms, but I think the newer monitors these days run at like 1ms?

Any particular ones you recommend?

Originally Posted by ToRsupapower

what quality do you play sc2 on , what quality can you stream it on (sorry for going off topic, want to build a comp that can play, stream sc2 on 60+ fps minimal on any setting )

Currently, I don't stream at all because my current CPU is soooo out of date and just utter crap to be undertaking such tasks. I have an Intel Core 2 Duo and even tried playing around with DXtory. I did get it up and running, but the quality of the stream was herrendous. But once I get my new set up, I'm going to be streaming 1080P for MLG god damnit! Woot Woot! lol. But seriously, I will be able to stream easily with this new set up, however the only bottleneck for me will be my upload speed which is currently only 0.63 MB/s ... HURRY UP NBN!

The first thing I'm doing with my new system is installing SC2 and setting up my stream. So be sure to check out my stream in future to see the results. Plus I wanna use dat sexy overlay TADel made for me! :P

Originally Posted by ESLHellfyre

streaming is ridiculously cpu heavy. My computer specs are as follows

CPU: Core i7-2600K 3.4GHz
RAM: 16.0 GB DDR3
GFX: 2x Radeon HD6850's (running in crossfire)
MOBO: Asus P8Z68 Deluxe

My screen is 1920x1080 (the one i have sc2 on), and to stream in a reasonable quality while still having non-lag filled gameplay i had to;

Reduce graphics settings to medium (high is pointless anyway).
Put the stream on lowest HD setting possible. (1920x1080 was impossible, it wouldn't even move off the first frame, let alone 60fps).

All in all it worked alright, though I had mine set to 39.95 frames per second. You shouldn't need to go 60fps. It's a video game, and human eyes can only see around 24fps, so any more than that is just an increase in quality. If you're looking to stream at that, in a HD quality, you're probably looking at a hardcore PC worth a lot of money.

Errr, I'm not entirely sure how true that is. Maybe with RTS games the human eye can only see around 24 fps.... but I know for a fact with FPS games you play with those kinds of frames, you will definately see the choppiness when playing. I can't remember where I read it from now, but I'm pretty sure the human eye can see up to 60fps but no more.

Quick Comments

ToRsupapower:

awesome :)

[FaDeHellfyre]

Originally Posted by Bloodmyst

I only have a 19 inch monitor atm running at 1440 x 900 res. I think I'm only the minority who actually prefers the smaller screens. However, I'm now thinking of going bigger to maybe a 22 inch max. I'm not really update to date with what monitors are good and which ones are bad, what to watch out for etc. But I know in the past, the main thing I've paid attention to is the MS rating. The one I currently have is 2ms, but I think the newer monitors these days run at like 1ms?

Any particular ones you recommend?.

I have a 23" AOC monitor. Now I know it's not a high branded product, but i've had no issues, didn't have a single dead pixel on it (unlike my old ASUS monitor), and they're ridiculously cheap. i don't know what models they have out at the moment, but i'd take a look.

Also, Trusty that post is very informative. My friends studying media have misled me -.-.

Quick Comments

Bloodmyst:

I hadn't even heard of AOC until you just mentioned it lol. I know a few years ago it was BenQ and Samsung who were taking the lead.

[JAFF3R]

Sigh just lost all my writing so I'll just do dot points I guess

-7850 will most likely not bottleneck with pcie2.1 Only possibly if you overclock (which you aren't keen on). Still, Z77 is around the same price. ASRock is pretty decent in my experiences, but you get what you pay for (as in they don't whack on all these extra pieces you don't need, just what you need so pick the right model for you) which is why it's priced so well. I'll use them again and recommend them, more than likely use it in my next build.

-As others said, that RAM is expensive especially if you're getting it just because you can.
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...ducts_id=17933
That's 16GB of Corsair RAM @1600mhz. 1600mhz vs 2133mhz is well documented that you will only see benefits in benchmarking.

Originally Posted by Bloodmyst

If anything with the PSU, I'd probably go bigger. Simply because of the amount of problems I've had with my currrent PC (Shi^^y PSU). I'm not going to skimp on the PSU, more cleaner power is always better then "just" having enough.... since I've learned the hard way lol.

Wasn't saying skimp on the PSU at all. It's better if you go closer to the amount of power you will be using (which is why 550w would be better). You've also said you don't want to run 2 gpu's at the same time, and you're limited by budget. So anything that will use more than 550w is pretty much ruled out (even the 7970 is 550w recommended, and with your budget you wont be getting dualGPU cards which would use a bigger PSU)so there isnt any point in going higher.
Any excess power will just go to waste, not be fed to the card to get more performance.

Ultimately though, it's your choice but with your budget I wouldn't be wasting money here and there (not saying skimp though, just get what you need).

[Bloodmyst]

Originally Posted by JAFF3R

Sigh just lost all my writing so I'll just do dot points I guess

-7850 will most likely not bottleneck with pcie2.1 Only possibly if you overclock (which you aren't keen on). Still, Z77 is around the same price. ASRock is pretty decent in my experiences, but you get what you pay for (as in they don't whack on all these extra pieces you don't need, just what you need so pick the right model for you) which is why it's priced so well. I'll use them again and recommend them, more than likely use it in my next build.

-As others said, that RAM is expensive especially if you're getting it just because you can.
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...ducts_id=17933
That's 16GB of Corsair RAM @1600mhz. 1600mhz vs 2133mhz is well documented that you will only see benefits in benchmarking.



Wasn't saying skimp on the PSU at all. It's better if you go closer to the amount of power you will be using (which is why 550w would be better). You've also said you don't want to run 2 gpu's at the same time, and you're limited by budget. So anything that will use more than 550w is pretty much ruled out (even the 7970 is 550w recommended, and with your budget you wont be getting dualGPU cards which would use a bigger PSU)so there isnt any point in going higher.
Any excess power will just go to waste, not be fed to the card to get more performance.

Ultimately though, it's your choice but with your budget I wouldn't be wasting money here and there (not saying skimp though, just get what you need).

A PCI-E 3.0 card will only ever always run at 2.1 speeds if you are utilising a Sandy Bridge CPU. Not to mention, I'm not sure if many people know this but in many cases the Sandy Bridge CPU's are still actually a bottle neck even for the 2.1 cards! Quiet rediculous how far ahead GFX cards are from current CPU's.

While your completely correct about the power supply. It's more of less just having that extra power there for if I wish to upgrade in the future.

Yeah, I'm looking at other memory now. Tying to balance out price/speed to see if I can also afford a monitor. Yes, you've all convinced me to downgrade in that department...... :P

[JAFF3R]

Originally Posted by Bloodmyst

A PCI-E 3.0 card will only ever always run at 2.1 speeds if you are utilising a Sandy Bridge CPU. Not to mention, I'm not sure if many people know this but in many cases the Sandy Bridge CPU's are still actually a bottle neck even for the 2.1 cards! Quiet rediculous how far ahead GFX cards are from current CPU's.

You're 100% correct there, but ignoring CPU bottlenecks, a 7850 in a 2.1 pcie lane will not bottleneck. AFAIK only the super high end cards (maybe 7970's but probably GTX690 and 7990) will bottleneck in a 2.1pcie lane.
Doesn't even matter anyway, Z77 is definitely favored for Ivy Bridge, but I don't think there is a huge problem with Z68. Z68 seems to be being phased out now too.

Overall, your build sounds great. Should make for a killer SC2 rig, best of luck with it and don't forget to buy an OS

[Tonsh]

Originally Posted by Bloodmyst

I actually have no experience with SSD's whatsoever.... How do you set them up? Do you just simply use them as two seperate units or can you set it up in RAID? Or maybe there is some particular feature I don't know about? Also, don't SSD's only have a limited life span with the whole number of Reads/Writes they have? It's been a while since I've checked these out.

Pretty much you plug them both in, you'll have to set it as primary boot drive in BIOS to the SSD. And you install windows on the SSD leaving your other harddrive for your documents/downloads/etc... Your page file and stuff is all on the SSD so you're system just runs so fast... Install all programs etc on the SSD and your set. Just change the default locations of my documents and downloads etc to the other drive... Also 16gb ram might be overkill... 4gb would be enough, max 8gb to be safe.

After the initial OS install you'll have to go into computer management and formate the 2TB harddrive with the tool there takes 2 seconds.

[mGGDrGooSe]

Originally Posted by Tonsh

4gb would be enough, max 8gb to be safe.

IME 4GB is kind of a minimum these days. Generally I will have 3-4 word docs, 3-4 excel files, 3-10 pdfs, itunes, 3-6 webpages and maybe a database or some other technical software open plus the obligatory almost 1gb ram required just to run win7, and I'll being sit at 3-3.5 GB ram in use. with the cost of RAM and the stable emulation of 32-bit under win7 64-bit, I cant see a reason why someone wouldnt get 8gb as default these days.

Quick Comments

NOM:

Allot of games now like to use more than 4GB. If you're going to use 64 bit. Don't bother with 4GB.

[Bloodmyst]

So I have updated the OP changing out my HDD setup. I'm now sitting at a total cost of $1442.00. So well under my budget and I haven't even changed my memory or PSU yet

It's funny actually, with this HDD set I have changed to.. it's much quicker while being much cheaper then what I was going to get. Thx for that suggestion Tonsh.

I've actually decided to stick with the 16GB or RAM now for 2 reasons;

1. Looking at the Motherboard memory compatibility list, I can't find any others on PC case gear. I simply cbf ordering it from somewhere else, it's simply just more of a convenience thing for me to get everything from the same place and have it all arrive at the same time.

2. After doing a bit of research, this post by Wamphryi on "Toms Hardware" pretty much sums up the benefits of having 16GB of RAM;

" RAM Drive is a program that takes a section of RAM and presents it to the system as a Hard Drive. You choose the size and it RAM drive installs a driver and assigns a drive letter. You can configure it to start a RAM drive on start up. You point your swap file and application temp folders to the RAM drive and Windows starts swapping to the RAM drive. RAM drive is very fast compared to any mechanical hard disk drive and many SSD's. My RAM drive hits speeds of 383 MB a second write. Essentially there is no more swapping to the HDD. With 16 GB of RAM you can do without a swap file but some applications demand a swap file. That is where RAM drive comes in because you still have a swap file but it is running on RAM. So with 16 GB you have 4 GB for your GPU's, 4 GB for your applications and 8 GB for a scratch drive or swap file drive. If you only have 8 GB you are far more limited."

To view the rest of this discussion here is the link to the post on Toms Harware

Now to check out the PSU..........

[Bloodmyst]

Errr, so I've changed the PSU..... however it's larger and CHEAPER! lol.

$159.00 - CoolerMaster Silent Pro M2 850W Power Supply

This now sets my system to cost me $1401

Thanks for the help guys. Just need to purchase the bugger once the Ivy CPU is released next week

The OP has been updated with the finished product!

[TACeeSerps]

Where did you find Aussie pricing for Ivy Bridge?
I've been keeping on an eye on it waiting to see what is happening and whether I will incorporate it into my build, but haven't noticed it pop up, even 7 days before release.

[Bloodmyst]

Originally Posted by TheCSerps

Where did you find Aussie pricing for Ivy Bridge?
I've been keeping on an eye on it waiting to see what is happening and whether I will incorporate it into my build, but haven't noticed it pop up, even 7 days before release.

Ivy Bridge Price Range


Of course you never know what the actual price will be until it's released. But this is a pretty good indication.

[TheGentleman]

I believe your computer system is OP and requires nerfing in order to be more balanced

Shame hard drives are still expensive.

[Bloodmyst]

Originally Posted by TheGentleman

I believe your computer system is OP and requires nerfing in order to be more balanced

Shame hard drives are still expensive.

I was thinking of taking out the normal 500G HDD and adding a 2nd SSD instead. This way I could run both SSD's in RAID 0 which is much faster again! lol. But I'm not so sure just how reliable SSD's are at this stage. It would only be 120GB of storage space. However if they turn out to be reliable and you don't need much storage space like me, you're definitely better off going for the 2 x SSD RAID 0 configuration.

Whats so funny about what I said in the above, is that configuration is STILL cheaper then that Velociraptor HDD whilst running faster even AGAIN due to RAID 0. lol.

Quick Comments

TheGentleman:

fair enough :)

[TheGentleman]

It depends what you want to get out of a hard drive. For me space is my largest concern so I have 5.5 TB worth of storage as HDD. The differences being a 3TB HDD for $186.50 or for similar money an a $179 for a 120GB SSD. More simply put: $0.062166 per MB vs. $1.625 per MB primarily for a difference in speed (granted a large speed difference).

Of course the decision is going to be heavily impacted by what the purpose is for your system. The real question you need to ask yourself is... is the speed difference really that important. Consider: In a lot of games you will end up waiting for people with HDD's/less powerful computers anyway.

I consider the SSD a luxury item, in saying that if I was to include it in my own system I would still have a hybrid set up.

Sources:
OCZ 120G Vertex II E Series SSD: http://umart.com.au/pro/products_lis...id=2&sid=59287
Western Digital 3TB Green 64MB SATA 3 WD30EZRX : http://umart.com.au/pro/products_lis...id=2&sid=76412

+ [Battlefield 3 - SSD vs. HDD] +

[Statix]

how do you run dual monitors with only 1 dvi 1 hdmi and then 2 minis if you have 2 vga monitors with this card?