Here's the situation: my current computer is about ready to buy the farm
and I'm thinking of getting a new one built.  It will be a 'gaming
computer' and, although the place that's building it hasn't failed me so
far, I thought I'd ask a few of the regulars in this group for advice
before I take the proverbial plunge.

Here is the list of parts that the place suggested that I have
installed:

- an Asus motherboard
- 16GB of DDR3 1600 RAM
- a Western Digital 1TB HDD
- a Kingston 240GB Solid State Drive
- a DVD+-RW Dual Layer Drive
- a Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD7870 video card with 2GB video memory
- on board High-Definition Audio
- an on-board Gigabit Ethernet Network Card
- a multimedia card reader (???)
- a Cooler Master 1000W Gaming Power Supply

and either an:

AMD FX-8150 processor
or
Intel i7-2600 processor

all inside a Cooler Master HAF 922 case.

The operating system will be Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

I may swap the 1TB HDD and Solid State Drive for two 2TB hard disks and,
if there's room, have the 1TB drive in my current system installed as a
'slave' to make transferring my old files a lot easier.

I already have a keyboard, mouse, speakers and a wide-screen LED monitor
so I'm covered that way.

So my question is: Are these the best parts available or are there other
parts that could be used instead?

Thank you for all your help. ^_^

Signed,
Warewolf
who was able to get a good 5-7 years out of his current rig. ^_^

4GB is all you really need for gaming today, but 8GB should future
proof you for a long time and is really the mininum anyways.  16GB is
cheap enough but there's a good chance you'll never notice unless you're
running particularily memory hungry 64-bit applications.

Since you're also getting an SSD, which should be your main drive, you
can get a "green" 5400 RPM 2TB pretty cheaply.  Otherwise, I'd just use
your old drive.

Something else you could just move over from your old PC.  Though,
you might want to think about a Blu-Ray drive, they're getting cheap.

I wouldn't get this unless you know you're actually going to using it.

Way bigger than you need.  500W would be enough, even if you add more hard
drives later (~5W each).  You'd only need bigger if you want a dual GPU
(CrossFire/SLI) configuration.

AMD is no longer competitive in the mid to high range CPU segment anymore.

This processor is almost two years old now and is essentially obsolete.
The i5-3570K is the same clock speed (3.4 GHz, 3.8 GHz turbo) but with
a newer Ivy Bridge rather than Sandy Bridge core it should be about 10%
faster overall.  Also since it's 22 nm rather than 32 nm it's also a
cooler chip, 77 W instead of 95 W.  The "K" suffix means that it has a
unlocked multiplier so you can easily overclock it if you want.

If you don't want to overlock then the slightly slower i5-3450 (3.1/3.5
GHz) would be a more cost effective option.

                                        Ross Ridge

--
 l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
 db  //  

Not best available.  You could literally double the effective gaming
speed of the PC where it counts most by dropping a GTX 690 in there.
For Approx $700-800 more, which seems like a lot for a GPU but when
you consider what it does to your total performance and longevity
before next upgrade, I personally would not build a new system today
without one.

Actually to get the most efficiency and stay in the quiet range of
most power supplies it is best to have it run at about 50% of its
power rating.
The efficiency rating is how well it performs in converting the power
from the wall outlet into PC power. That is if you have a 70%
efficiency power supply that is putting out 1000 watt to the PC, it
will need to draw 1300 watts from the wall outlet.
Most power supplies run at their best efficiency at around half their
load rating.
   http://www.coolermaster.com/product.php?product_id=6662

Here is a power load test of a game system with the HD 7870 card. The
7870 system is about 310-330 watts total at load.
So to run a power supply at its most efficient (and quiet) for this
system you would want about a 620-700 watt rated power supply.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5767/capsule-review-sapphires-radeon-hd...
The GTX 690 system was about 430 watts total. IMHO that card is still
way too expensive.
I don't know what Cooler Master model is the "Gaming Power Supply" but
I would try to get a high rated efficiency (90%) and at least 600 watt
power supply.

It is indeed a very expensive card, but when building a high-end
gaming system that cost around $1500-$2500 or so, if you look at it
from the perspective that the GTX 690 only adds an additional $700 or
so to the build cost while simultaneously more than doubling the real
world performance in-game at highest graphic settings, its actually a
good value.  That card will likely still be tearing through the most
recent AAA titles that are released four or five years from now like
hot butter.  There are not many PC components that you'll get that
kind of longevity out of.

It may not be the right card for everyone, but he did inquire about
the best....

Hi Lou
Do you think a GTX 690 QUAD SLI system is powerful enough to get max
enjoyment from a replay of DNF, or do you think I should wait for
another generation or two of cards to come around?

I agree... When I upgrade, I usually try to extend the budget a little
bit and get something that will last, but its just a waste of money to
buy this card to run a bunch of XBox ports.

It'll be a $150 card before anything that takes advantage of it is
released.

news:hm8h98l886m0q8l6gqan8goebm8c5c8g4k@4ax.com...

"powerful enough to get max enjoyment from a replay of DNF" ?
Hmm, that's a tough question.
Maybe wait so you can run it in HD.

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 03:07:48 GMT, Warewolf <warewolfmypa...@shaw.ca>

Warewolf?

There Wolf! ;-)

Or Maximum PC

Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
news:k76ojo$ch4$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:

I have a feeling that I'll be using this 'gaming computer' for more than
just gaming. ^_^

In fact, if the extra memory can make vector animation and 3D rendering a
little easier, that could be another advantage. ^_^

I'm actually considering using my old drive as a 'slave' to one (hopefully
two) 2TB drive(s).

Although I'm sure a solid state drive has its advantages, I'm not sure if
could handle a lot of heavy use.

I might, actually, have the DVD-RW drive installed anyway in case the older
DVD/CD-RW drive that gets salvaged gives up the ghost.

I'm also not sure about a Blu-Ray drive but I'll keep it in mind. ^_^

I'll cross this off the list, then. ^_^

All right, I'll keep that in mind. ^_^

All right then. ^_^

I'll do some digging on these before I make my decision.

Thank you again for your input. ^_^

Signed,
Warewolf
who hopes that the new operating system (Win7 or Linux) will be able to
handle his collection of old games

Rin Stowleigh <rstowle...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:euvd98l6g1feepcijsug69k43drqg98nha@4ax.com:

I'll look into this graphics card as well, then.

Thank you for your help.

Signed,
Warewolf

Leg...@Invalid.com wrote in news:rgem98104gr2insfh2igcbnq8rmolkj6bc@
4ax.com:

All right.  I'll do that then. ^_^

My 'budget' for this computer is $2000-3000.

(The 'suggested gaming system' that I asked about would have cost $2089)

Still, if I can get a powerful, long-lasting computer built that can run
any type of software without hassle, it will be worth any amount of money.

(The one that I'm replacing gave me 9 long years of trouble-free service
and that should tell you something) ^_^

Signed,
Warewolf
who can only imagine how many other (classic) computers were built to last

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:19:06 GMT, Warewolf <warewolfmypa...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

As long as it is within your budget, I don't think you'll be
disappointed.  Those who game at the low end only might try to talk
you out of it on the grounds of depreciation, but I'll give you a real
world example:

I have the GTX 590 (dual GPU predecessor of the 690), which I bought
for about $700 around May of 2011.

Today, I cannot find one for under $900... The price on high end
nVidia cards actually goes up after time as they become backlevel
versions diminishing from inventory.

Today you could get a GTX 680 for about $500 or so, but a single card
would not keep up with my GTX 590.

And some of the games like BF3 do put the GTX 590 properly through
it's paces with all graphics options maxed.

Opinions are like assholes and there are no shortage of either in this
newsgroup.  What matters is whose opinion you pay attention to.

I'm not suggesting limiting yourself to my advice, as I too can be an
asshole at times :)

But this NG is composed primarily of a more frugal bunch... nothing
wrong with that... and if you want to discuss higher end gear with
folks that are more in touch with the performant side of gaming, there
are other places where you'll find a more like-minded bunch.

An SSD is a massive step in performance.  Even in RAID-0 two harddrives
won't come anywhere near the perfomance and in RAID-0 will be more prone
to failures.  SSDs don't have the endurance of a harddrive, but unless
you're using it in an server 24/7 it won't make a difference.

Hmm... that seems high.

Asus P8Z77-V PRO        $205
Intel Core i5-3570K      220
16GB DDR3 1600 MHz        75
240GB SSD                200
3TB 7200 RPM HD          140
24x DVD-Writer            19
AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB   240
550W 80Plus Power Supply  79
Cooler Master HAF Case   105
Windows 7 Home Premium   105
Assembly                  50
OS Install                30
                        ----
                       $1468

That's what a local store would charge me, in Canadian dollars, for
a system that should perform slightly better than one you originally
described.  It's also the point where improving things is going to cost
a lot for only a little benefit.  You could upgrade to a Radeon HD 7970
but you're not likely to notice much improvement unless you're gaming
at 2560x1600 or higher resolutions.

                                        Ross Ridge

--
 l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
 db  //  

I would echo same and also add that when building a system for
performance, ignore subjective comments, and base your decisions off
of hard benchmark data as it relates to the games that interest you
the most.  For example, one benchmark site shows the difference in
Crysis Warhead between the 7870 and the 7970 at 1680x1050 comes down
to an average of about 46fps on the 7870 to 68 on the 7970, and most
that game at the high end, or even mid, will tell you that if you're
not achieving MINIMUM 60fps in any game, you're missing vast amounts
of immersion unless you're blind as a bat.   And, gaming is all the
sweeter and more immersive in the 80-90 or higher fps range.

It depends on the game though, so check benchmarks for the games
you're most likely to play.

I don't get how people can get away with using an SSD for their C
drive.  Things get installed on it even though I specify the
installation programs install  everything on other drives.

There is about 250GB of files on my C drive. A 250GB SSD drive, which
seems to be the largest available now, is $220 at NewEgg right now.

-pw

PW <emailaddyin...@ifIremember.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

Well one of the things you can do on a fresh system install is to move
the Program Files folder/symlink to another drive.

That's not going to stop the various things that get stuck in the
windows directory, but will sidestep some of the other stuff packed onto
C: no matter where you install the app  (C:\Program Files\Common\* being
one major location.

You could relocate the Documents and Settings folder as well as that's
another prime target.

Not the easiest things to do but they are possible with registry editing
- bit of a pain in the ass though.

I dare say you could locate the prime offender folder locations in the
windows folder and relocate them as well.

Pity MS never gave the option to actually set this stuff up but insists
that it knows best what you need.  
Very Henry Ford of them  - "You can have any color you want, as long as
it's black."

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

When I first installed Windows 7, it was on a 1.5 TB drive, but I made
my C partition only 40 GB.  I was thinking about upgrading to an SSD
and 40 GB was common size for affordable SSDs back then.  I didn't have
much too trouble keeping within that limit.

I've since installed 120 GB SSD and now use it for my C drive, but that
40 GB partion is still on my 1.5 TB drive as it was before I upgraded.
Only about 2GB is taken up by "Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)"
combined, and there's 8GB free.

The biggest space wasters I found were games that stored logs and save
games in the C:\Users\Ross Ridge\AppData directories.  In some cases
the games ended up storing gigabytes of data there.

                                        Ross Ridge

--
 l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
 db  //  

news:tsf2a85m8bake4t2ti9qgs4nhp3j7ook3k@4ax.com...

I put a 80GB Intel SSD X25-M  in my gaming PC for the C drive about
two years ago.. I use this PC just for games so I don't have many non
game programs, pictures or videos to install on the C drive.  I put
all my game files on a WD VelociRaptor 10k rpm drive.  However I do
monitor how much space is on the C drive and clean up unnecessary
files to save space. A  lot of games put the Save files in the
Documents folder on C and I they can use a lot of disc space. When I
am done with a game I delete most of the Save files and the ones I
want to save, I put on a backup drive. So I have been able to keep the
C drive at less that 75% space use, but it would be nice to have a
larger drive.  The PC boots up and opens runs apps fast. I have not
had any problems with the SSD drive.

This PC is for general use, picture and video editing. I have a
standard HD drive with a 200 GB partition for the C drive. It is also
about two years old and is about 100 GB (50%) of space use on the C
drive. I put all the pictures and video on another HD.
I have been looking at upgrading this PC and going with an SSD C
drive. Looks like 150 GB is all I need.

There are larger than 250 GB drives at Newegg. They have an OCZ 1T SSD
drive for only $2699.99 US. ; )
Seriously though, it looks like the 240 GB, 256 GB and 480 GB SSD
drives have the best value for GB/$. About 1$ US or less per GB.

Just wanted to add something here...  A good reason to avoid
AMD-anything....  They are looking for a landfill to dump their junk.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-amd-jpmorgan-idUSBRE8AC1...

I don't see why not. I originally installed XP on a 2 GB partition.
Enlarged to 4 GB, then 8 GB. It's using 4.7 GB now. Not using it much
any more but I have some old games installed there. At some point I'll
probably get rid of it...

My Windows 7 partition is 35 GB with 21 GB in use. Something has been
collecting there since it used to be 15 GB as I recall. I can see about
2 GB I can clean up instantly.

Then again, my Windows installations are pretty much for gaming only and
most games are from Steam so they go neatly whereever Steam is
installed. Same goes for other clients. I have just a few of things
installed that aren't strictly gaming stuff.

The first thing I do in a fresh install of an OS is dedicate a
partition to OS only, and give it enough space for swap etc.

The second thing I do is change the defaults so "my pictures" and etc.
belong to other partitions - just so if some program forces a default
install it goes to another partition.  I create 'net', 'utilities',
'movies', 'pictures', etc. directories on a separate and much larger
partition - or better yet, a seperate HD.  If I used steam, I'd
dedicate a 1->3 GB partition to games.  But I don't use steam, so I
create a 'games' partition and keep it clean, uninstalling games when
I'm finished (it's so easy to reinstall).  

My win8 system uses 23G of a 240G partition, so I figure I'm ripe for
buying an SSD.

The OS partition is dedicated strictly to OS activities.  I keep it
continuously backed up, so if it gets fuxored I can reinstall in 15
minutes or less and proceed as if it didn't happen.  The other
partitions never get fuxored - except in the extreme case of a HD
fail.  

The default MS file organization is lowest common denominator -
designed for the most casual user.  It works for that.  The reason I
stay with a generic PC and don't gravitate to a MAC is because a
generic PC/OS system is already designed for total hardware/software
customizablily.  

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:43:23 -0500, Rin Stowleigh

_________________

From the article:

"Advanced Micro Devices has hired JPMorgan Chase & Co to explore
options, which could include a sale, as the chipmaker struggles to
find a role in an industry increasingly focused on mobile and away
from traditional PCs"

"One source described AMD as a "legacy company" and said it might
prove difficult to sell because of its dependence on the PC industry
and lack of strong mobile offerings.

Another source mentioned AMD's game console chip business and growing
focus on embedded chips as the company's silver linings."

___________________

My notes:

I'm a PC gamer, not too much a mobile gamer, tho' "Angry Birds" is fun
doodling.  So I like to see a vibrant competitive PC market for GPUs
and CPUs.  I don't think we'd be where we are without competition.

Call me naive, but I don't like reports that cite "one source" and
"another source", giving no more information about who the "sources"
are.  That kind of reporting reminds me too much of political
reporting, which sucks on the grand hizzonier one.

I don't think this report has any bearing whatsoever on the worth of
AMD Radeon cards.  

Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

Some more supporting data.
When I bought my most recent drives I allotted 2 OS drives of 200 GB
each.
XP uses all of 27.2 GB currently (I have installed various apps and just
let them install to the default instead of putting them elsewhere.)
Win7 uses all of 15.7, but I have very little installed under win7 -
only those games/apps which can't run under XP which is pretty minimal
as yet.

Each OS also has it's own swap partition of about 11 GB each, partitions
nothing else is ever on at the other end of the drive (and technically.

I only have a couple steam games, but once I relocated steam to my games
drive all was well.
Currently using 329GB of that 500GB partition.

So yeah an SSD is certainly an option for an OS partition as long as you
don't leave things to MS defaults and install everything on C: _or_ you
just don't actually use a computer for much and thus never exceed the
size limitations of an SSD with what you do pack onto your one and only
partition.

I started putting apps under a separate directory (Winapps) in the
Win3.1 days, so when MS started the "cram everything into program files"
I was already used to putting things elsewhere.
Unfortunately there are still retarded installer programmers who don't
give an option to put things anywhere but C:\Program Files\Retard
Programmer's Company\Retard Programmer's Software and some of them also
hard code paths into the program so you can't even move the stuff later.

Flogging is too good for them.  
(Unless it's one of those whips with sharp metal bits woven into the
leather - that might get the point across.)

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr