As far as ram goes, 3x2 will be better than 2x4, as you'll notice the extra speed more than the extra memory, and you can always get another 3x2 later to upgrade to 12gb.
I dont see the point in expensive cases, I usually just go with something that has good reviews in the $50-100 range, i've never had heat problems, and as long as its not the bare-bones cheap cases, you're unlikely to have any problems with noise either. But i'm not anal retentive when it comes to noise, my current system has a slight humm(but it has nothing to do with my case). One thing I would recommend; dont get a super huge case.
The last case I bought for myself is massive, it has like 8 drive bays and is just really excessive, it weighs a ton. Look for something reasonable with a few drive bays, easy tool-less drive bays. If you dont mind huge and heavy, its a great case for a good price: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119137 - Its one of the highest rated cases on newegg.
Also, skip the pimped-out, LED flashing cases. These are built for idiots, and almost always poor build quality, dont pay to rice out your system, its just silly, who are you trying to impress? You'll get better build quality by simply buying a standard case, and save yourself some money.
Any money you can save by not paying for shit you dont need(fancy finish, stupid LEDs, case windows that = worse build quality) is money you can put into actually making your computer faster, like say, getting 12 gigs of ram instead of 8 =P
To me, spending $200 on a part of your build that has no effect on performance, is just silly. Dont skimp out and buy one of those $35 cases with built in power supply, because those are cheap shit and will only cause problems, however a $50-100 case without power supply, and with good reviews will be enough for most people.
It's a beast check its dimensions and weight. But I can push it down a flight of stairs while running and I would be worried it would do more damage to the stairs. It's a dream to work on screwless cases with enough room, the cooling is prefect and the airflow is amazing.
This sort of sums it up, you're paying for excessive, over the top construction and build quality that you wouldn't need unless you're throwing it down the stairs, and paying for some extra features that you'll only notice the first hour it takes to build your system, its not like you open your case up every day and rearrange it for feng-shui.
Being able to drop it down a flight of stairs is nice if you're constantly moving, however, having a case that doesn't weight as much as a tank, and you're less likely to drop in the first place is probably the better idea.
Wow, this is a lengthy thread for only 2 pages! I'm actually in the same boat as Powerbored.
I'm not seeing much discussion on AMD here. The best CPU AMD makes is only 230 bucks, and you'll get somewhat close to the max performance Intel offers. Or at least that's what I've assumed. I would think going AMD if you're on a budget would be a no-brainer. Would you guys agree or am I missing something?
You get what you pay for. The general consensus for AMD/ATI systems is this: Intel/Nvidia = more expensive, but better support and reliability. For a dev machine, those things are key. AMD/ATI systems are good for people on a budget that just want to play games or whatever, but not as respected for serious workstations.
I agree with EQ about the cases those he listed aren't bad at all. I don't always recommend the same case that I have, I recommended a different case to my buddy at work. I know him a little better and know its not really the right case for him, but I told him about it. If the cosmos fits your needs and you want it go for it, I don't regret it at all, I love the thing.
And yea AMD + ATI = one step up from trying to develop games using just a 360... Not recommended... I've had 1 bad run in with AMD and heard/read more horror stories than I can count.
I also had all I could take of the ATI driver tango. Loading specific drivers for specific games/apps then loading other drivers for other stuff is a horrible way to get things done. I couldn't stand it.
I lost all confidence in them when they started trying to litigate instead of innovate their way around Intel. I'm all for David slaying Goliath in most cases but this was just stupid and sent totally the wrong message about AMD as they pushed and pushed for the next 5 years.
Bit more pricey but you can fit bigger fans and or have oil cooling installed, all neatly tucked away. Looks classy too, which is always a plus when it's time to show off:poly124:
Either that or you could go for one of the cases already mentioned and fit lots of led lights and a chrome wheel... just remember to turn the heating up and over clock everything to the max! :shifty:
Wow, this is a lengthy thread for only 2 pages! I'm actually in the same boat as Powerbored.
I'm not seeing much discussion on AMD here. The best CPU AMD makes is only 230 bucks, and you'll get somewhat close to the max performance Intel offers. Or at least that's what I've assumed. I would think going AMD if you're on a budget would be a no-brainer. Would you guys agree or am I missing something?
Generally speaking I don't recommend an AMD build unless the person's budget is 800 or less. As Mark already mentioned, for dev work Intel+Nvidia is typically the way to go. However I wouldn't go as far as to compare AMD as the awkward step between a console and PC :P Overclocked, AMD cpus are actually really solid. However since the OP isn't going to do that it's better to stick with a cpu that has better stock performance.
Quick question,
maybe my last post go lost on the page change :P
but wouldn't i have to change the motherboard and the processor to install 12GB RAM?
or is there a way to do this in dual channel systems?
Quick question,
maybe my last post go lost on the page change :P
but wouldn't i have to change the motherboard and the processor to install 12GB RAM?
or is there a way to do this in dual channel systems?
3 sticks of 4gb.. However with 3 sticks it would shift into single channel mode, since it's a dual channel board. Your better off doing 2 or 4 sticks of ram at a different capacity. 2x4gb + 2x2gb/ 3x4gb + 1x2gb/ 4x 4gb/ 4x2gb
Quick question,
maybe my last post go lost on the page change :P
but wouldn't i have to change the motherboard and the processor to install 12GB RAM?
or is there a way to do this in dual channel systems?
For best performance, dual channel - 4GB (2x2) or 8GB (2x4). Triple channel - 6GB (3x2) or 12GB (6x3). You want to fill up one or both banks. You need to figure out what route to go before you buy your MB. Honestly, I can't imagine a scenario where it'd matter too much. 8GB is top of the line/bordering on excessive for almost anyone. Just figure out what your budget allows.
So 8GB RAM should do the job for now?
My thought in selecting 8GB was that I've seen plenty of recent computers hazard 6GB but never quite max out so i figured a 2GB buffer would be enough for now, if i feel the need for massive overkill i'll probably jump up to 16GB if its affordable.
All i really need to sort out now, I think, is the PSU and the case.
I really dont care about blinking LEDs, neon under-glow, hydraulics and the like :P
The features of both the COSMOS and the Graphite 600T are awesome, ill probably work from these features and try to cut down to only what i need and see if i can get a good case for around $100.
You need a multiplier of 3 to run Tripple channel ram, which your CPU and mobo support, so doing a multiplier of 2 or 4, you'll be running in Dual Channel, which is slower. Thus 6GB(2gb x 3), or 12GB(4gb x 3, or 2gb x 6) is recommended. If 6 is too little, get 12, because 8 is wasted potential in your system.
You need a multiplier of 3 to run Tripple channel ram, which your CPU and mobo support, so doing a multiplier of 2 or 4, you'll be running in Dual Channel, which is slower. Thus 6GB(2gb x 3), or 12GB(4gb x 3, or 2gb x 6) is recommended. If 6 is too little, get 12, because 8 is wasted potential in your system.
The reason we were talking about 8GB was the board he seems to have decided on (Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4-B3, linked at the bottom of the last page), supports dual channel, not triple.
So would I be a lot better off going for a triple channel motherboard?
The dual channel board seemed like better value.
It depends on how many multi-threaded apps, or x64 bit applications you will be running routinely and what you do with them;
1. Will you be manipulating complex scenes, rendering complex scenes and or high poly objects in the millions of polys range?
2. Will you be dealing with huge maps in photoshop like 4096² or 8192² with multiple layers to take advantage of memory?
If not and your buying new hardware in around 5 years, ddr2 will be sufficient. 6gb should be fine, 8gb for hardcore use.
my system:
• (CPU1) Intel® Core™ i7-2600K CPU @ 4.8Ghz (ASUSTeK Computer INC. SABERTOOTH P67 mainboard) (RAM) 8GB @1866Mhz, 5.75GB free (HDDs) 931GB, 729GB free
• (VGA1) AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series (-2GB), (OS) Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (SP1) 64-bit
i saved money on the card by going for an xfx 6950, and swapping the bios for a 6970. the cards are physically identical in every way, just they have different bios.
the i7 processors are beastly as hell. i mean, really... they're easy to overclock (if you ever get that far into it), their stepping technology is great for keeping the machine quiet if it's idle and saves a bit of money on power.
currently the first gen of motherboards for the i7 2600 series are being recalled due to a fault on the SATA-300 ports. but all of my stuff is SATA-600 anyway, and if you want to make the most of your new machine i'd advise getting SATA-600 stuff. it's tons faster.
dunno what else to say more than that, really. the system cost me £1000, including psu/case etc. and a corsair h50 watercooler for the cpu. i'll be getting an SSD in the next couple of months for the OS + essential programs. but really, at this point that's a want and not a need.
good luck!
oh, and building your own machine might seem daunting at first, but it's largely idiot proof nowadays. should have seen me try my first build at 16 years old with my first ever paycheck lol.
Alright I think I've got everything pretty much worked out now.
Thanks GCMP for putting the RAM in a modelling perspective, I definately wont be using millions of polys this year and I tend to prefer more conservative modelling, so I think I'll stick with the dual channel set-up.
The total build, including the case comes to just under $1900, so basically to call it a square 2 grand I'm happy to spend the last $100 on anything that needs improvement, otherwise I might just go a bit crazy on the peripherals or hold on to it to cross fire the GPU when Battlefield 3 comes out :P
Just so you know, the Vertex3 OCZ ssd drives will be coming out before the end of the month, and will run almost twice as fast as the Vertex2 you listed.
I have both the antec 900 and the cm 690 II adv, I can tell you that the 690 easily wins in every aspect from ease of installation of the motherboard (and aftermarket cpu cooler with the hole in the back of the mb tray), cable management, screwless hard drive management, hotswapping hard drive bay at the top and bottom vents for psu.
Antec 900 also comes prebuilt with blue LED fans, which some people apparently think look cool but I just find annoying.
For the CM690, there's a button on the case where the front usb/reset/power buttons are to turn those blue LEDs off.
I am actually surprised the antec 900 is even considered to be in the same class as the CM690.
what i would say, since this is your first self build;
what EQ says is right, getting a good solid side panel is best. at most it should have venting for additional fans if you need them.
remember that you'll need to manually set the speed of your RAM in the BIOS, because intel default is 1333Mhz. regardless of how fast your ram is supposed to go, it will always default to that on first boot.
also, the vengeance ram is gnarly, you gan stably overclock it to around 2000Mhz if you're willing to give it a go.
other than that, looks like you've got a solid system!
p.s. what gpu did you go for in the end?
I was looking at the Antec 900 mostly because it rates so well on new egg, my girlfriends brother has a 900 two case so I was going to ask him how that goes but it seems the CM 690 is the way to go. I noticed another case because it just came on sale: CoolerMaster HAF 912 Advanced
-looks like a pretty good case but has a weird side windowy thing that it looks like they decided to scrap at the last minute which might let down the whole design.
Although I probably won't be overclocking anything for a while, I am glad the vengeance can stably overclock to 2000mhz, I was looking for 2000mhz RAM at one point but decided it wasn't worth the price.
I'll keep an eye out for those OCZ SSDs because I wont have time to build this for around 2 weeks anyway but tech usually takes more than a month from release to reach Australia and it'll probably end up costing me another $200 when it first gets here.
well mine was 1866Mhz out of the box (RAM), no overclocking required. it cost like £10 more than the 1600Mhz version, so i didn't see why not. but the 2000Mhz versions are pretty steep i agree.
you can't guarantee that your ram will overclock to that level, there's never a guarantee. but the vengeance stuff is built for overclocking, so go nuts i guess lol.
After a bit of research I'm probably going with the MSI 560 GPU rather than the Gigabyte. Gigabyte had better clock speeds but it seems they've done a crap job with the overclock and people have been experiencing problems with games I often play (BC2 for example). Edit: The Gigabyte card seems to be the only one that comes with a warranty, maybe I'll do a bit more research
I would avoid pre-overclocked components, the system you're building is going to be super fast, its not really worth risking reliability to get a 2% improvement or whatever.
Oh that is a shame. You may consider going with the next step down, save a little money and get something that isn't OC'd for stability.
Video cards are about the easiest thing to upgrade in a build, I never personally spend more than $150 on a video card when I build a system. I feel that the price curve/value for GPUs gets pretty out of whack over 150 or so.
yeah, as long as it has full DX11 support you're good to go for a while yet. and there's not THAT many games which will take full advantage of it even in the near future.
pre-OC'd gear is something i'd steer away from as well. it's always better to have something stable from the word go, and if you're comfortable tinkering yourself, then go ahead... no point paying more for something you can do for free.
another thing to look out for, is warranty's. XFX have an amazing warranty system. you can literally do anything to it (including watercooling/replacing heatsink), overclock it etc. and you can still RMA it if it goes wrong, as long as you can put it back the way it came out of the box (ie. reverse any changes you've made). i think the only thing they DON'T cover, is electrical circuit modding.
it also covers a second owner, so that could help future resale price if/when you look to upgrade.
I'd look at the Ripjaw Ram (2 x 4GB) and the Samsung Spinpoint F3 over the WD drive. It's faster and is generally the recommended choice for enthusiasts and those seeking performance. Don't listen to you're friend. The F3's are more reliable than a lot of the WD's. Also, don't worry about Sata III mechanical drives. The mechanical drives barely fill the Sata II bandwidth as it is. You'll be fine with a Sata II drive.
I've never heard of silverstone before, but I can recommend the seasonic m12ii. Good shit right there. 620W Bronze rated. I see yours is silver, but I'm not sure I trust the brand. Do the research and check reviews.
The UD5 mobo has some extra heat sinks + 2 more sata and usb 3.0's. Not sure if that matters to you, but that's the board I'm looking for. God damn this recall business. Newegg has most the other boards listed except most of what Gigabyte has to offer.
I'm getting the same graphics cards =]
LG and Lite-On seem to be the best rated companies when it comes to drives. At least from Newegg's customer ratings that is. I weigh about 70% of my decision off the reviews of things.
You may want to hold off on the SSD... there's a new generation of SSD's coming out that's suppose to be pretty sweet. Definitely get these Sata III though, as they do love the bandwidth it provides. The Corsair C300 (or something like that) has gotten really good reviews. I think it's only 64GB though. I could be wrong. Why the heck do you need that much GB on your SSD?
If you don't already know, Toms Hardware and Anandtech have some great info on them. Overclock.net is also a really good resource.
I'm also water cooling mine, including the graphics card. Still waiting on EK to release a 560 water block, but I picked up the XSPC Rasa RX360 kit too cool the CPU last week. Looks tight! Make sure you have the proper airflow in your case. I definitely recommend getting a third party cooler for your CPU... stock heatsinks are generally crap.
The EVGA is $299 and has clock speeds similar to the over-clocked cards,
The Galaxy is a little cheaper at $279 but if its a reliable brand I have no problem cutting back $20, then again I have no problem spending it on the EVGA if it's clearly better.
Or am I just irrationally stuck on the 560s? Would I be better going with something like this: MSI GeForce GTX 470 1280MB
The problem is the next step up from 560s is about $150 dollars and obviously the next step down is more out-dated tech.
What do you guys think?
Yes I would definitely look at the step down before the step up. You're really getting into the range here where GPUs just aren't worth the extra money.
New and faster GPUs come out like every 6 months, the turnaround on these cards is nuts, so its often better to spend like $150 now, and then another $150 in 2 years for a card that supports all the latest features etc. My $150 is probably closer to $200-250 AUD I guess tho.
Then take into consideration that with a current system and sub-$300 video card, your hardware is generally going to be much faster than any current game needs, or any soon to be release game likely needs(aside from the high-end UE3 and Crytek fanciness). So you dont need to stress your $$ keeping up with the Joneses.
I like to reference this chart when looking at GPUS:
I know this isn't particularly in depth just looking at the chart, but you'll see the 470 actually outperforms the 560 TI. You'll also see that the performance difference between a 560, 570 and 580 does not justify the extra cost.
The 580 costing 200% as much as the 560 TI, but only providing 25% better performance.
Oh one note on DVD drives, buy a RETAIL drive, not an OEM. This is very important and will only cost like $10 more, but a retail drive comes with all the appropriate software, and most importantly a dvd decoder! An OEM DVD will not play dvds out of the box, you'll have to pay for a 3rd party dvd decoder/codec. - If you do not plan to watch dvds on your computer this isn't a problem, but its something I've done in the past and will avoid doing now. Same is true for bluray afaik.
Oh a bit more on video cards. About 3 years ago I paid roughly $150 for a 8800 GT.
If I was going to buy a new video card today, and paid $150-200, I would get a card 3x as fast. Now, If I paid $400 for a card 3 years ago, I would still likely be able to buy a card today that is 2x as fast, in the same $150-200 range.
Price curves, high end video cards are never worth it.
And then consider support, say I paid $600 for a GPU that was significantly faster than the 8800 GT, and was still a blazing fast card today. Lets say its a DX10 card like the 8800, I would be shit out of luck with all the fancy new DX11 features. - This happens far too often in the GPU market, a ridiculously expensive card being obsolute not because its slow, but because it doesn't support the latest tech. So its better to buy a reasonable card every couple years instead.
Just wanted to jump in here and say how helpful this thread has been, i have completely reshuffled my hardware list based on the info in this thread and feel much better about my choices now too
I bought the 8800 Ultra Superoverclocked (fancy name huh?) back when it first came out, when I had a very disposable income and less sense. As per EQ, I would much rather buy a mid range card every couple of years instead of a high end one. I *had* to replace my 8800 as it wasn't supported for some software that I started using. Was not happy
yeah, as long as it has full DX11 support you're good to go for a while yet. and there's not THAT many games which will take full advantage of it even in the near future.
Considering a lot of the cool new features packed into UDK require DX11, I think the tipping point where limping along on DX10 cards is quickly approaching. You don't want to wait until games start requiring DX11 since tools and tech lead games by years.
EDIT:
I agree with EQ, just like processors you end up paying through the nose for "top of the line" performance which is quickly replaced in weeks/months. You pay 2-3 times the price of a card 1-2 steps down and only get 2-10% performance gains, when the thing is pushed to its limits. you really gotta ask yourself "am I going to hit that limit?" "Is the boost really that great?" Really they are banking on the people that can't answer those questions going for the higher priced card because they're freaked out what they get won't be enough. But the silly thing is at some point all hardware becomes useless, if you're going to wade into the ultra high end, know that it gets replaced ultra fast... so the price to stay on the bleeding edge is really high and if you start to look at the performance of everyday operations then it starts to become clear its just chasing the wind and bragging rights.
Leave the long term planning for purchases like a house, a car, a washing machine, a monitor things that aren't likely to be outdated in the time it takes to ship it.
yeah i think you made my point a little more cleanly than i did. while DX11 might not be the current mainstream, it will be very soon. so at the least i'd want a card that has full DX11 support. other than that, EQ has the best points about price.
As much as I'd prefer to go with a Nvidia card, I can pick up XFX (or ASUS) 6850 for just over $200, which rates very well on Newegg and blitzes the other cards as far as the G3D mark / price goes according to PassMark. (Thanks EarthQuake!)
Oh a bit more on video cards. About 3 years ago I paid roughly $150 for a 8800 GT.
If I was going to buy a new video card today, and paid $150-200, I would get a card 3x as fast. Now, If I paid $400 for a card 3 years ago, I would still likely be able to buy a card today that is 2x as fast, in the same $150-200 range.
Price curves, high end video cards are never worth it.
And then consider support, say I paid $600 for a GPU that was significantly faster than the 8800 GT, and was still a blazing fast card today. Lets say its a DX10 card like the 8800, I would be shit out of luck with all the fancy new DX11 features. - This happens far too often in the GPU market, a ridiculously expensive card being obsolute not because its slow, but because it doesn't support the latest tech. So its better to buy a reasonable card every couple years instead.
I'm still rocking my 8800gt, I usually stick to the $200 card and buy when another $200 card is 2-3x as fast. Has worked for many years although I have ridden the 8800gt train for quite some time. Great advice here.
I know this isn't particularly in depth just looking at the chart, but you'll see the 470 actually outperforms the 560 TI.
The 470 does not out perform the 560 TI. However, as you say, that performance is difference is so minimal, it's hard to justify spending the extra money for it. If anything, maybe get two 460's and put them in SLI. They cream the 560 TI from what I remember seeing on Toms.
Don't simply look at Passmark's benchmark ratings, you need to interpret them too. Those results are the collection of thousands of user submissions in which those users are running various configurations, some of which are overclocked.
A better place to look would be on Anandtech or Toms Hardware where they use similair setups to test against the competition / older cards. I don't always like looking at their benchmarks either. Sometime's I prefer reading the articles in which they talk about the cards, or do a small benchmark against a few other cards vs. a whole list of cards.
Thanks Stradigos
I checked out Tom's Hardware, Its a pretty intimidating site at first but once you get to know your way around its amazing!
I've been checking benchmarks for games I play (I can't look past a good chart :P) but focussing more on their reviews and recommended cards.
Tom's confirms that the Radeon 6850 is a winner in my price bracket, but I'm still reading up on a few in-depth reviews to make sure its going to be a good choice across the board.
As for anyone that has taken interest in or been assisted by this thread such as Lennyagony, I'm sorry its cooled off a little bit. I personally am getting a bit hectic with uni assignments right now but I'll be back with a thousand more questions as I come closer to placing my order in the next week or so.
If you have related questions of your own and want to hijack the thread for bit, feel free! I love reading about this stuff and have read every single post on this thread, many of them 5 or 6 times.
I'd especially like to hear about AMD processors, I've always heard Intel is the way to go. Although I don't plan on changing something so fundamental to my build at this stage I'd be interested to hear who sides with ValugaTheLord and why.
I recommend to wait and see how AMD Bulldozer will turn out like! It looks like amazing proc for rendering
AMD/ATI fell off the gravy train a little while ago, but AMD's Bulldozer is suppose to be incredible. I'd say the i5/i7 definitely has the market cornered until then.
I've owned both Nvidia and ATI cards and ATI drivers always give me a headache. Plus, it seems like the lines have been drawn in regards to intel going with nvidia and amd going with ati. AMD aquired ATI I think anyway. It doesn't mean much though. You can still mix and match.
If I recall correctly, the article I'm thinking about slotted an ATI card and the 560 Ti card in the same price bracket but deffered to the ATI card for some reason. Either is a fine choice, but it was nice to see that there was a comparable Nvidia card to compete against ATI that I could purchase.
I just purchased the Asus Maximus IV Extreme off of chiefvalue.com... a sister site to Newegg. It was way more money than I hoped to spend on a mobo, but I'm tired of waiting for Gigabyte boards to get back into circulation, and the rest of Asus boards weren't in the color I wanted (So tired of blue on everything).
I think I saw that same article, I also cant remember why they went with the ATI. I've also had trouble with ATI drivers in the past and prefer Nvidia but it wasn't an issue that would cause me to refuse to buy ATI, the overall experience was pretty decent.
There's an $80 - $150 price difference between ATI (6850) and similar powered Nvidia (460) cards over here so ATI 6850 takes the cake at this point.
Lol, sorry harrytraynor, but i've spent almost all of my spare time in the last week and a half researching parts and their functions, which models are better and what makes them better and reading countless reviews and forums. That auto-build site isn't very helpful or really any good at all...
Once again I'm sorry for picking on you and ranting a bit but I'm a little annoyed that you didn't seem to read any of the thread before posting.
Most of my decisions were influenced by advice in this this thread, as initially i had intended to go with an AMD/ATI setup, with support for crossfire. However when i took a step back, thought about my intentions for this system (workstation) i decided to let the overclocking/multi card idea go and work toward a safer more stable system build.
I also had a hard ceiling on my budget, and although i like the idea of OCing my system ill just pickup a SSD and a bigger video card some months down the track.
Powerboard - if i had a larger budget i would consider a 2600K and a board that supports SLI. Although im not convinced the $ outlay gives you good bang for your buck when you take into consideration the extra outlay for the unlocked processor/more expensive motherboard, the after market cooler and extra video card. I like that it becomes more of a hobby at that point ... but i think ill save that extra time and effort for other interests
Replies
I dont see the point in expensive cases, I usually just go with something that has good reviews in the $50-100 range, i've never had heat problems, and as long as its not the bare-bones cheap cases, you're unlikely to have any problems with noise either. But i'm not anal retentive when it comes to noise, my current system has a slight humm(but it has nothing to do with my case). One thing I would recommend; dont get a super huge case.
The last case I bought for myself is massive, it has like 8 drive bays and is just really excessive, it weighs a ton. Look for something reasonable with a few drive bays, easy tool-less drive bays. If you dont mind huge and heavy, its a great case for a good price: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119137 - Its one of the highest rated cases on newegg.
Also, skip the pimped-out, LED flashing cases. These are built for idiots, and almost always poor build quality, dont pay to rice out your system, its just silly, who are you trying to impress? You'll get better build quality by simply buying a standard case, and save yourself some money.
Now what I would suggest is something smaller like:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129018
or even
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119161
Any money you can save by not paying for shit you dont need(fancy finish, stupid LEDs, case windows that = worse build quality) is money you can put into actually making your computer faster, like say, getting 12 gigs of ram instead of 8 =P
To me, spending $200 on a part of your build that has no effect on performance, is just silly. Dont skimp out and buy one of those $35 cases with built in power supply, because those are cheap shit and will only cause problems, however a $50-100 case without power supply, and with good reviews will be enough for most people.
This sort of sums it up, you're paying for excessive, over the top construction and build quality that you wouldn't need unless you're throwing it down the stairs, and paying for some extra features that you'll only notice the first hour it takes to build your system, its not like you open your case up every day and rearrange it for feng-shui.
Being able to drop it down a flight of stairs is nice if you're constantly moving, however, having a case that doesn't weight as much as a tank, and you're less likely to drop in the first place is probably the better idea.
You get what you pay for. The general consensus for AMD/ATI systems is this: Intel/Nvidia = more expensive, but better support and reliability. For a dev machine, those things are key. AMD/ATI systems are good for people on a budget that just want to play games or whatever, but not as respected for serious workstations.
Also one thing to keep in mind, EQ lives in an air conditioned underground weapons depo so his case stays nice and cool.
And yea AMD + ATI = one step up from trying to develop games using just a 360... Not recommended... I've had 1 bad run in with AMD and heard/read more horror stories than I can count.
I also had all I could take of the ATI driver tango. Loading specific drivers for specific games/apps then loading other drivers for other stuff is a horrible way to get things done. I couldn't stand it.
I lost all confidence in them when they started trying to litigate instead of innovate their way around Intel. I'm all for David slaying Goliath in most cases but this was just stupid and sent totally the wrong message about AMD as they pushed and pushed for the next 5 years.
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=25_961&products_id=15279
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811139003
[ame]
Bit more pricey but you can fit bigger fans and or have oil cooling installed, all neatly tucked away. Looks classy too, which is always a plus when it's time to show off:poly124:
Either that or you could go for one of the cases already mentioned and fit lots of led lights and a chrome wheel... just remember to turn the heating up and over clock everything to the max! :shifty:
Generally speaking I don't recommend an AMD build unless the person's budget is 800 or less. As Mark already mentioned, for dev work Intel+Nvidia is typically the way to go. However I wouldn't go as far as to compare AMD as the awkward step between a console and PC :P Overclocked, AMD cpus are actually really solid. However since the OP isn't going to do that it's better to stick with a cpu that has better stock performance.
maybe my last post go lost on the page change :P
but wouldn't i have to change the motherboard and the processor to install 12GB RAM?
or is there a way to do this in dual channel systems?
3 sticks of 4gb.. However with 3 sticks it would shift into single channel mode, since it's a dual channel board. Your better off doing 2 or 4 sticks of ram at a different capacity. 2x4gb + 2x2gb/ 3x4gb + 1x2gb/ 4x 4gb/ 4x2gb
For best performance, dual channel - 4GB (2x2) or 8GB (2x4). Triple channel - 6GB (3x2) or 12GB (6x3). You want to fill up one or both banks. You need to figure out what route to go before you buy your MB. Honestly, I can't imagine a scenario where it'd matter too much. 8GB is top of the line/bordering on excessive for almost anyone. Just figure out what your budget allows.
My thought in selecting 8GB was that I've seen plenty of recent computers hazard 6GB but never quite max out so i figured a 2GB buffer would be enough for now, if i feel the need for massive overkill i'll probably jump up to 16GB if its affordable.
All i really need to sort out now, I think, is the PSU and the case.
I really dont care about blinking LEDs, neon under-glow, hydraulics and the like :P
The features of both the COSMOS and the Graphite 600T are awesome, ill probably work from these features and try to cut down to only what i need and see if i can get a good case for around $100.
Thanks again,
Powerbored
A $100 budget for your case should be plenty.
The reason we were talking about 8GB was the board he seems to have decided on (Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4-B3, linked at the bottom of the last page), supports dual channel, not triple.
The dual channel board seemed like better value.
It depends on how many multi-threaded apps, or x64 bit applications you will be running routinely and what you do with them;
1. Will you be manipulating complex scenes, rendering complex scenes and or high poly objects in the millions of polys range?
2. Will you be dealing with huge maps in photoshop like 4096² or 8192² with multiple layers to take advantage of memory?
If not and your buying new hardware in around 5 years, ddr2 will be sufficient. 6gb should be fine, 8gb for hardcore use.
None of the Sandybridge mobos support triple channel. If you want triple you would have to go with i7 1366 cpu, which would cost more.
As GCMP said, if you'll be using this for projects that test the limits of a typical build then yes triple channel would be better.
Yeah he switched to a sandy on the second page.
• (CPU1) Intel® Core™ i7-2600K CPU @ 4.8Ghz (ASUSTeK Computer INC. SABERTOOTH P67 mainboard) (RAM) 8GB @1866Mhz, 5.75GB free (HDDs) 931GB, 729GB free
• (VGA1) AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series (-2GB), (OS) Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (SP1) 64-bit
i saved money on the card by going for an xfx 6950, and swapping the bios for a 6970. the cards are physically identical in every way, just they have different bios.
the i7 processors are beastly as hell. i mean, really... they're easy to overclock (if you ever get that far into it), their stepping technology is great for keeping the machine quiet if it's idle and saves a bit of money on power.
currently the first gen of motherboards for the i7 2600 series are being recalled due to a fault on the SATA-300 ports. but all of my stuff is SATA-600 anyway, and if you want to make the most of your new machine i'd advise getting SATA-600 stuff. it's tons faster.
dunno what else to say more than that, really. the system cost me £1000, including psu/case etc. and a corsair h50 watercooler for the cpu. i'll be getting an SSD in the next couple of months for the OS + essential programs. but really, at this point that's a want and not a need.
good luck!
oh, and building your own machine might seem daunting at first, but it's largely idiot proof nowadays. should have seen me try my first build at 16 years old with my first ever paycheck lol.
Thanks GCMP for putting the RAM in a modelling perspective, I definately wont be using millions of polys this year and I tend to prefer more conservative modelling, so I think I'll stick with the dual channel set-up.
Here's what I've got at the moment:
Intel Core i7 2600K
Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4-B3 Motherboard
Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3
OCZ Vertex 2 3.5" 120GB E Series SSD
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB WD10EALX (a friend warned me away from Samsung HDDs :P)
Pioneer DVR-219L DVDRW OEM
Silverstone Strider Plus 750W ST75F-P (couldn't find a PSU stocked by PC case gear for as good a price on the overclock.net list but this one still rates well)
ASUS PCE-N13 802.11 Wireless N PCI-Express Adapter
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64bit OEM
I'm still trying to decide on a case however, these cases rate fairly highly but every case seems to have a few horror stories attached to it, all the cases are $115:
CoolerMaster CM 690 II Advanced
Antec Nine Hundred Case
Antec Dark Fleet DF-30 Case
The total build, including the case comes to just under $1900, so basically to call it a square 2 grand I'm happy to spend the last $100 on anything that needs improvement, otherwise I might just go a bit crazy on the peripherals or hold on to it to cross fire the GPU when Battlefield 3 comes out :P
Thanks again,
Powerbored
Antec 900 also comes prebuilt with blue LED fans, which some people apparently think look cool but I just find annoying.
For the CM690, there's a button on the case where the front usb/reset/power buttons are to turn those blue LEDs off.
I am actually surprised the antec 900 is even considered to be in the same class as the CM690.
what EQ says is right, getting a good solid side panel is best. at most it should have venting for additional fans if you need them.
remember that you'll need to manually set the speed of your RAM in the BIOS, because intel default is 1333Mhz. regardless of how fast your ram is supposed to go, it will always default to that on first boot.
also, the vengeance ram is gnarly, you gan stably overclock it to around 2000Mhz if you're willing to give it a go.
other than that, looks like you've got a solid system!
p.s. what gpu did you go for in the end?
CoolerMaster HAF 912 Advanced
-looks like a pretty good case but has a weird side windowy thing that it looks like they decided to scrap at the last minute which might let down the whole design.
The GPU I'm most likely going with is:
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 560 Ti Overclocked 1GB
(that's not a part I want to leave out :P)
Although I probably won't be overclocking anything for a while, I am glad the vengeance can stably overclock to 2000mhz, I was looking for 2000mhz RAM at one point but decided it wasn't worth the price.
I'll keep an eye out for those OCZ SSDs because I wont have time to build this for around 2 weeks anyway but tech usually takes more than a month from release to reach Australia and it'll probably end up costing me another $200 when it first gets here.
Thanks everyone,
Powerbored
you can't guarantee that your ram will overclock to that level, there's never a guarantee. but the vengeance stuff is built for overclocking, so go nuts i guess lol.
Edit: The Gigabyte card seems to be the only one that comes with a warranty, maybe I'll do a bit more research
Anyone know more about this issue?
Video cards are about the easiest thing to upgrade in a build, I never personally spend more than $150 on a video card when I build a system. I feel that the price curve/value for GPUs gets pretty out of whack over 150 or so.
pre-OC'd gear is something i'd steer away from as well. it's always better to have something stable from the word go, and if you're comfortable tinkering yourself, then go ahead... no point paying more for something you can do for free.
another thing to look out for, is warranty's. XFX have an amazing warranty system. you can literally do anything to it (including watercooling/replacing heatsink), overclock it etc. and you can still RMA it if it goes wrong, as long as you can put it back the way it came out of the box (ie. reverse any changes you've made). i think the only thing they DON'T cover, is electrical circuit modding.
it also covers a second owner, so that could help future resale price if/when you look to upgrade.
I'd look at the Ripjaw Ram (2 x 4GB) and the Samsung Spinpoint F3 over the WD drive. It's faster and is generally the recommended choice for enthusiasts and those seeking performance. Don't listen to you're friend. The F3's are more reliable than a lot of the WD's. Also, don't worry about Sata III mechanical drives. The mechanical drives barely fill the Sata II bandwidth as it is. You'll be fine with a Sata II drive.
I've never heard of silverstone before, but I can recommend the seasonic m12ii. Good shit right there. 620W Bronze rated. I see yours is silver, but I'm not sure I trust the brand. Do the research and check reviews.
The UD5 mobo has some extra heat sinks + 2 more sata and usb 3.0's. Not sure if that matters to you, but that's the board I'm looking for. God damn this recall business. Newegg has most the other boards listed except most of what Gigabyte has to offer.
I'm getting the same graphics cards =]
LG and Lite-On seem to be the best rated companies when it comes to drives. At least from Newegg's customer ratings that is. I weigh about 70% of my decision off the reviews of things.
You may want to hold off on the SSD... there's a new generation of SSD's coming out that's suppose to be pretty sweet. Definitely get these Sata III though, as they do love the bandwidth it provides. The Corsair C300 (or something like that) has gotten really good reviews. I think it's only 64GB though. I could be wrong. Why the heck do you need that much GB on your SSD?
If you don't already know, Toms Hardware and Anandtech have some great info on them. Overclock.net is also a really good resource.
I'm also water cooling mine, including the graphics card. Still waiting on EK to release a 560 water block, but I picked up the XSPC Rasa RX360 kit too cool the CPU last week. Looks tight! Make sure you have the proper airflow in your case. I definitely recommend getting a third party cooler for your CPU... stock heatsinks are generally crap.
As for the case, I have the HAF 932 and love it.
Galaxy GeForce GTX 560Ti 1024MB
EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB
The EVGA is $299 and has clock speeds similar to the over-clocked cards,
The Galaxy is a little cheaper at $279 but if its a reliable brand I have no problem cutting back $20, then again I have no problem spending it on the EVGA if it's clearly better.
Or am I just irrationally stuck on the 560s? Would I be better going with something like this:
MSI GeForce GTX 470 1280MB
The problem is the next step up from 560s is about $150 dollars and obviously the next step down is more out-dated tech.
What do you guys think?
New and faster GPUs come out like every 6 months, the turnaround on these cards is nuts, so its often better to spend like $150 now, and then another $150 in 2 years for a card that supports all the latest features etc. My $150 is probably closer to $200-250 AUD I guess tho.
Then take into consideration that with a current system and sub-$300 video card, your hardware is generally going to be much faster than any current game needs, or any soon to be release game likely needs(aside from the high-end UE3 and Crytek fanciness). So you dont need to stress your $$ keeping up with the Joneses.
I like to reference this chart when looking at GPUS:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
I know this isn't particularly in depth just looking at the chart, but you'll see the 470 actually outperforms the 560 TI. You'll also see that the performance difference between a 560, 570 and 580 does not justify the extra cost.
The 580 costing 200% as much as the 560 TI, but only providing 25% better performance.
Oh one note on DVD drives, buy a RETAIL drive, not an OEM. This is very important and will only cost like $10 more, but a retail drive comes with all the appropriate software, and most importantly a dvd decoder! An OEM DVD will not play dvds out of the box, you'll have to pay for a 3rd party dvd decoder/codec. - If you do not plan to watch dvds on your computer this isn't a problem, but its something I've done in the past and will avoid doing now. Same is true for bluray afaik.
If I was going to buy a new video card today, and paid $150-200, I would get a card 3x as fast. Now, If I paid $400 for a card 3 years ago, I would still likely be able to buy a card today that is 2x as fast, in the same $150-200 range.
Price curves, high end video cards are never worth it.
And then consider support, say I paid $600 for a GPU that was significantly faster than the 8800 GT, and was still a blazing fast card today. Lets say its a DX10 card like the 8800, I would be shit out of luck with all the fancy new DX11 features. - This happens far too often in the GPU market, a ridiculously expensive card being obsolute not because its slow, but because it doesn't support the latest tech. So its better to buy a reasonable card every couple years instead.
Big thanks to everyone involved
EDIT:
I agree with EQ, just like processors you end up paying through the nose for "top of the line" performance which is quickly replaced in weeks/months. You pay 2-3 times the price of a card 1-2 steps down and only get 2-10% performance gains, when the thing is pushed to its limits. you really gotta ask yourself "am I going to hit that limit?" "Is the boost really that great?" Really they are banking on the people that can't answer those questions going for the higher priced card because they're freaked out what they get won't be enough. But the silly thing is at some point all hardware becomes useless, if you're going to wade into the ultra high end, know that it gets replaced ultra fast... so the price to stay on the bleeding edge is really high and if you start to look at the performance of everyday operations then it starts to become clear its just chasing the wind and bragging rights.
Leave the long term planning for purchases like a house, a car, a washing machine, a monitor things that aren't likely to be outdated in the time it takes to ship it.
even though i spent like 3x his budget on mine...
How does that sound?
I'm still rocking my 8800gt, I usually stick to the $200 card and buy when another $200 card is 2-3x as fast. Has worked for many years although I have ridden the 8800gt train for quite some time. Great advice here.
The 470 does not out perform the 560 TI. However, as you say, that performance is difference is so minimal, it's hard to justify spending the extra money for it. If anything, maybe get two 460's and put them in SLI. They cream the 560 TI from what I remember seeing on Toms.
Don't simply look at Passmark's benchmark ratings, you need to interpret them too. Those results are the collection of thousands of user submissions in which those users are running various configurations, some of which are overclocked.
A better place to look would be on Anandtech or Toms Hardware where they use similair setups to test against the competition / older cards. I don't always like looking at their benchmarks either. Sometime's I prefer reading the articles in which they talk about the cards, or do a small benchmark against a few other cards vs. a whole list of cards.
I checked out Tom's Hardware, Its a pretty intimidating site at first but once you get to know your way around its amazing!
I've been checking benchmarks for games I play (I can't look past a good chart :P) but focussing more on their reviews and recommended cards.
Tom's confirms that the Radeon 6850 is a winner in my price bracket, but I'm still reading up on a few in-depth reviews to make sure its going to be a good choice across the board.
As for anyone that has taken interest in or been assisted by this thread such as Lennyagony, I'm sorry its cooled off a little bit. I personally am getting a bit hectic with uni assignments right now but I'll be back with a thousand more questions as I come closer to placing my order in the next week or so.
If you have related questions of your own and want to hijack the thread for bit, feel free! I love reading about this stuff and have read every single post on this thread, many of them 5 or 6 times.
I'd especially like to hear about AMD processors, I've always heard Intel is the way to go. Although I don't plan on changing something so fundamental to my build at this stage I'd be interested to hear who sides with ValugaTheLord and why. Thanks as always,
Powerbored
I've owned both Nvidia and ATI cards and ATI drivers always give me a headache. Plus, it seems like the lines have been drawn in regards to intel going with nvidia and amd going with ati. AMD aquired ATI I think anyway. It doesn't mean much though. You can still mix and match.
If I recall correctly, the article I'm thinking about slotted an ATI card and the 560 Ti card in the same price bracket but deffered to the ATI card for some reason. Either is a fine choice, but it was nice to see that there was a comparable Nvidia card to compete against ATI that I could purchase.
I just purchased the Asus Maximus IV Extreme off of chiefvalue.com... a sister site to Newegg. It was way more money than I hoped to spend on a mobo, but I'm tired of waiting for Gigabyte boards to get back into circulation, and the rest of Asus boards weren't in the color I wanted (So tired of blue on everything).
There's an $80 - $150 price difference between ATI (6850) and similar powered Nvidia (460) cards over here so ATI 6850 takes the cake at this point.
Once again I'm sorry for picking on you and ranting a bit but I'm a little annoyed that you didn't seem to read any of the thread before posting.
Intel Core i7 2600
Asus P8P67-LE-only B3 MBoard in stock, in my price range at Umart
Gigabyte GTX460 1G
G Skill 8G(2x4G) DDR3 1600Mhz PC12800 RL 9-9-9-24
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
Samsung DVD - which i wont bother to link
Thermaltake Litepower 700W ATX PSU
CoolerMaster Elite 335 Case - and added a cheap but well reviewed fan for the front
Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64bit OEM
Most of my decisions were influenced by advice in this this thread, as initially i had intended to go with an AMD/ATI setup, with support for crossfire. However when i took a step back, thought about my intentions for this system (workstation) i decided to let the overclocking/multi card idea go and work toward a safer more stable system build.
I also had a hard ceiling on my budget, and although i like the idea of OCing my system ill just pickup a SSD and a bigger video card some months down the track.
Powerboard - if i had a larger budget i would consider a 2600K and a board that supports SLI. Although im not convinced the $ outlay gives you good bang for your buck when you take into consideration the extra outlay for the unlocked processor/more expensive motherboard, the after market cooler and extra video card. I like that it becomes more of a hobby at that point ... but i think ill save that extra time and effort for other interests
Lenny