StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I recently got my tax return and I have always wanted to build a PC (and my PC is getting a bit old), so here goes...

My budget is $1100 AUD. I'm looking to build a gaming rig that I won't have to upgrade or replace for a long time. I asked a few computer enthusiasts at my work and with their input this is the build I have come up with.

CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K
Motherboard: ASUS P8Z68-V-PRO
RAM: G.Skill-NT 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1600
Hard Drive: Seagate 1TB 7200
Graphics Card: ASUS GTX560TI
Case: Coolermaster HAF912 Advanced
Power Supply: Antec TruePower 750
Generic DVD burner
CPU Cooler: Coolermaster Universal Hyper 212

This comes to $1080.

It's fairly similar to the gaming builds I have seen on the whirlpool forum (Australian broadband site).

Any advice? Is this build any good? Am I goldplating this PC build a bit much?

You got what I got, actually. Or will get (I have the cpu, ram, a better card, and a similar case I think; I still need to get the m/b, hdd, psu and some kind of optical drive).

How much are you paying for the GPU? The base AMD 6950 is about the same price as the base Ti and significantly faster, although factory overclocks can change the picture. An SSD would be nice, but you can always add one later.

Step up to a 570 for a minimal amount more and far better performance according to the reviews.

I'd advise you to try and get two 500GB hard drives instead of a single 1TB one, if you can do so for roughly the same price; it simplifies dual-booting if you want to experiment with Linux or keep an older version of Windows around for backwards compatibility, and there's a small but noticeable performance gain from having the page file on a separate hard drive to the OS itself.

On the other questions, I defer to the experience of people who've been able to afford a new gaming rig more recently than 2004.

weemadando wrote:Step up to a 570 for a minimal amount more and far better performance according to the reviews.

Wouldn't an ATI 6950 be a better choice? its $20 more or so than the 560ti but with 2gb of GDDR and can be unlocked to a 6970 with little effort or risk.
http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/159

Zaune wrote:it simplifies dual-booting if you want to experiment with Linux or keep an older version of Windows around for backwards compatibility

Not any moreso than just partioning a single drive.

and there's a small but noticeable performance gain from having the page file on a separate hard drive to the OS itself.

I doubt it will be noticeable with 8 gigs of memory, certainly not for current games. With heavy video editing sure, but at that point even a cheap SSD becomes overwhelmingly more sensible than another HD.

Starglider wrote:How much are you paying for the GPU? The base AMD 6950 is about the same price as the base Ti and significantly faster, although factory overclocks can change the picture. An SSD would be nice, but you can always add one later.

I would be paying $255 for the GTX 560 ti. The ASUS Radeon 6950 is $289. It's not all that much more for a bit of extra performance.

I'm not looking to overclock. I don't like the idea of overclocking in general.

I'm thinking of an SSD. I will probably get it later.

weemadando wrote:Step up to a 570 for a minimal amount more and far better performance according to the reviews.

The ASUS GTX 570 is $399. $144 more. I have had a look at a few reviews, it seems to be about 10-15% better in the frame rate tests. I'm not sure that's really worth the extra $144. Am I missing something?

I haven't attempted to partition a drive under Windows 7 yet, but until recently it used to be a real pain. Separate hard drives also significantly reduce the chance of accidentally installing your second OS to the wrong partition.

Performance-wise, you're probably right about an SSD being better overall, but I have no idea what bobalot's storage needs are and they're still significantly more expensive per gigabyte.

Zaune wrote:Separate hard drives also significantly reduce the chance of accidentally installing your second OS to the wrong partition.

Is that a serious concern? A far better reason to have two 500 GB drives instead of a 1 TB drive is so that you can RAID them and not be left without a working computer (and possibly all your files, depending on whether you're good about offline backups) when one dies.

Performance-wise, you're probably right about an SSD being better overall, but I have no idea what bobalot's storage needs are and they're still significantly more expensive per gigabyte.

Normal users will be fine with a 64 GB SSD, you only need to put the OS and programs on there. You can get a pretty good 64 GB SSD for $100 now.

Starglider wrote:Normal users will be fine with a 64 GB SSD, you only need to put the OS and programs on there. You can get a pretty good 64 GB SSD for $100 now.

I'm planning on getting 64 bit version of Windows 7. If I do get a SSD (and use it as my boot drive), one of my workmates mentioned pointed out that I should be changing my default "program files" folder and "my documents" folder location to my second drive (which makes sense) and this maybe a bit tricky. Is this true? I have checked on the net and it looks like you need to do some registry editing, which doesn't look too hard.

bobalot wrote:If I do get a SSD, one of my workmates mentioned pointed out that I should be changing my default "program files" folder and "my documents" folder location to my second drive (which makes sense). Is this as tricky as he says?

It's fiddly and you won't get the full benefit because the Windows directory won't be on the fast drive. However if you don't want to reinstall everything what you can do is make a 60 GB OS / programs partition on your main drive, format the rest of it as a data / media partition, then when you do get an SSD image the whole OS partition onto it. Windows should run normally once you set the SSD as the boot drive (and it takes over as C:).

bobalot wrote:

Starglider wrote:How much are you paying for the GPU? The base AMD 6950 is about the same price as the base Ti and significantly faster, although factory overclocks can change the picture. An SSD would be nice, but you can always add one later.

I would be paying $255 for the GTX 560 ti. The ASUS Radeon 6950 is $289. It's not all that much more for a bit of extra performance.

I'm not looking to overclock. I don't like the idea of overclocking in general.

I'm thinking of an SSD. I will probably get it later.

weemadando wrote:Step up to a 570 for a minimal amount more and far better performance according to the reviews.

The ASUS GTX 570 is $399. $144 more. I have had a look at a few reviews, it seems to be about 10-15% better in the frame rate tests. I'm not sure that's really worth the extra $144. Am I missing something?

I've seen some stores pricing them at 350 or so. Reviews seemed to point to it having better luck with higher end feature rendering, not raw power. But as you say, that jump is probably not worth it in your case.

As it is, that PC should be able to smash everything on the market.

Starglider wrote:Is that a serious concern? A far better reason to have two 500 GB drives instead of a 1 TB drive is so that you can RAID them and not be left without a working computer (and possibly all your files, depending on whether you're good about offline backups) when one dies.

I've done it to myself twice, for whatever that tells you. And a RAID is definitely the ideal solution, but a RAID controller isn't cheap and he's already $20 short of maxing out his budget.

Zaune wrote:And a RAID is definitely the ideal solution, but a RAID controller isn't cheap and he's already $20 short of maxing out his budget.

Essentially all modern motherboards have built-in RAID; it's been years since I've seen one that hasn't. All Z68 boards (that I am aware of) including the P8Z68-V-PRO will do up to 6-way RAID 0, 1 or 5. Failing that Windows has supported software RAID since Windows 2000. The performance gain is not as good as with a dedicated controller, but that's not relevant when the motivation is redundancy. Personally I have 4 SSDs in RAID-0 using the Intel chipset drivers and 4 terabyte HDs in RAID-1 using Windows software RAID, and performance is sufficiently good to make a controller card not worth giving up a slot.

bobalot wrote:I would be paying $255 for the GTX 560 ti. The ASUS Radeon 6950 is $289. It's not all that much more for a bit of extra performance.

A 2 GB 6950 is better choice than a 560 if it's only that much more.

The rest of the build looks nice, but you probably don't need the extra feature set the PRO mobo gives over the base P8Z68-V. Save yourself the $50 or whatever it is and get the base model unless there's a nice feature you really need to have/want or something.

starslayer wrote:

bobalot wrote:I would be paying $255 for the GTX 560 ti. The ASUS Radeon 6950 is $289. It's not all that much more for a bit of extra performance.

A 2 GB 6950 is better choice than a 560 if it's only that much more.

The rest of the build looks nice, but you probably don't need the extra feature set the PRO mobo gives over the base P8Z68-V. Save yourself the $50 or whatever it is and get the base model unless there's a nice feature you really need to have/want or something.

I think I may keep it so I have the option of beefing up the system at a later date.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Rule 1. Never skimp on MoBo.

Because as soon as your MoBo gets outpaced, then upgrades become pissing into a headwind.

weemadando wrote:Because as soon as your MoBo gets outpaced, then upgrades become pissing into a headwind.

In this case the only things the PRO seems to have over the DELUXE are an extra two SATA3 ports, ESATA and more overclocking options. Bobalot said that he doesn't overclock, and there's no way he's going to need eight SATA ports.

If Bobalot doesn't overclock, why the hell is he getting the 2500K. The K denotes unlock capability.

Might be part of a bundle, I know that's how I ended up with a 2500K instead of a normal 2500.

Starglider wrote:

weemadando wrote:Because as soon as your MoBo gets outpaced, then upgrades become pissing into a headwind.

In this case the only things the PRO seems to have over the DELUXE are an extra two SATA3 ports, ESATA and more overclocking options. Bobalot said that he doesn't overclock, and there's no way he's going to need eight SATA ports.

Good point. That knocks off about $40, which pays for the change from the GTX 560 Ti to the 6950.

Stofsk wrote:If Bobalot doesn't overclock, why the hell is he getting the 2500K. The K denotes unlock capability.

It's literally about $6 more, but you are correct, it is unnecessary.

The latest PCPP has a sub $200 mobo in its high end gaming builds.

I forget the exact model, but they seem fucking chuffed with its bang for buck.

I'll check the details when I'm at home.

Since you're getting 1600MHz RAM, the 2500k will automatically overclock since its default bus speed is 1333MHz. My 3.4 GHz 2600k runs at 4.3 GHz for the same reason.

It's a Gigabyte ZA68X-UD3R-B3 that they are recommending. They're using it in $2000 and $3000 "recommended" gaming builds.

And you can scab one in Australia for $170.00.