New build, how does this look?

[SnowJim]

Hi,

Im about to build a new computer and this is the spec :

CPU : Intel Core i7 2600K 3,4GHz
Motherboard : Gigabyte Z68XP-UD3P B3
Memmory : Corsair 8GB (2x4096MB) CL9 1600Mhz XMS3 1.5V
Graphic : Gigabyte GeForce GTX 570 1280MB Windforce Rev 2.0
Power supply : Corsair TX 750W M 80+
Main HD : Intel SSD 320 80GB
Harddrivs : 4 Western Digital Green
Chassi : Cooler Master Silencio 550 or Corsair Graphite 600T

I will use this computer mainly for Visual Studio and Battlefield.

What do you think?

BestRegards

 

[stargazer7]

i would suggest replacing the 2600k with a 2500k. there isnt a worthy game performance advantage of it

http://www.overclock.net/intel-general/1126054-2500k-vs-2600k.html

WD Greens are slow so they will be a bottleneck source. those would slow you down, therefore i would replace them with Blue's. the rest is all good.

 

[SnowJim]

Yes, I have head that to but look at the graphs in this page :

http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

Yes, Green is only for storage.

 

[stargazer7]

well there was no difference in the first test. the second one... yeah, but you have to keep in mind that the Frostbite engine is very CPU dependant. it's in a class of it's own. also ht is known to mess up gaming performance so you still can't make it worth over a single test. about the Green's, it'd be pretty hard to squeze all the things you use into 80gb. not to mention SSDs degrade. you can't just delete and reinstall. you actually can but in a few years flash could die outta nowhere. which is scary because there is no way to recover data from virtual media.

get a pair of Black's or Blue's to raid together with an another pair Green's for storage. use the faster drives for your regularly accessed data, and the SSD for os.

 

[SnowJim]

Thanks!

I will probably run BF3 on medium or high and according to this test the I7 2600K will make a diffrence, but I will have a better graphiccard then in the test so its not that easy to decide as you said.

But If I switch to a I5 2500K and then buy a WD black would that be good?

Today I am fitting all things I need(Office, Visual Studio, Battlefield Bad Company 2 and some other small applications) on to the 80GB SSD. Important data is mirrored to a online drive.

 

[stargazer7]

true, you should spend that extra on a better graphics card. not cpu. GPU is the most important part in games. everybody gets the 2500k for games. and thats what you should do, to say in a simple way. as for the hdd, you'd be much better off with Black's TBH. those Green drives are crap and will bottleneck everything once accessed. they really only are good for offline storage. they're 5400 rpm drives that turn themselves off to save power... if you have other hdds laying around, you may as well pony up that 570 to a 580

 

[arnoo1]

2500k and 570 are enough for bf3, a gtx580 does 37frames in bf3 on 2560x1600 everything maxed out
If i was you get a 1/2WD black drive for games and green for storage, a wd black does 140/140mb/s read write

 

[stargazer7]

being "enough" is subjective. 37 fps on a 2560x1600 panel is nowhere enough at all. considering frame dip downs, i want a card that can render beyond 60 fps. so that it'll never lag down. if the op wants both high settings and a smooth gameplay, a 580 would certainly make a difference over the 570.

 

[SnowJim]

A GTX580 is way to expensive here in Sweden.

I will run BF3 direcly from the SSD so I see no problems here. The green discs is only used for storage.

I Supose that a I5 2500K could be OC as well so maby it will be enouth.

 

[stargazer7]

yeah, but you'll hard time with just those drives and an ssd. greens will lag your boot up, access, everything. i'd at least get one Black as a secondary drive. it WIll be hard to squeze it all under 80gb. SSDs lose their performance big time once you full them up. you have to leave about %15 space iirc. get some Black drives.

that cpu is more than enough. even an oc'ed i5 750 will be enough. any decent oc'ed quad today is capable of smooth gameplay

 

[entropy13]

being "enough" is subjective. 37 fps on a 2560x1600 panel is nowhere enough at all. considering frame dip downs, i want a card that can render beyond 60 fps. so that it'll never lag down.

You want 60 fps with high quality and smooth gameplay from a single card?

Good luck with that.

if the op wants both high settings and a smooth gameplay, a 580 would certainly make a difference over the 570.

I haven't seen word from the OP if he'll be playing at 2560x1600 or at 1920x1080/1920x1200. It's only in the largest resolution possible for a single-screen monitor that the GTX 580 substantiates its price difference over the GTX 570.

 

[stargazer7]

sorry but are you dumb? where did i say "I" wanted all those out of a single card? i only tried to say the op would see a difference in quality from a 570 to a 580. also the 580 can run many games at high settings by itself alone. what's the point of showing me the highest possible settings on the MOST intensive games?

 

[SnowJim]

yeah, but you'll hard time with just those drives and an ssd. greens will lag your boot up, access, everything. i'd at least get one Black as a secondary drive. it WIll be hard to squeze it all under 80gb. SSDs lose their performance big time once you full them up. you have to leave about %15 space iirc. get some Black drives.

that cpu is more than enough. even an oc'ed i5 750 will be enough. any decent oc'ed quad today is capable of smooth gameplay

Okay so even if all installed applications and games is placed on the SSD the green storage drives will make the computer slow? I do know that green is slow harddrives but I do only use them for storage and it works grate.

I am infact running a OC Q6600 today with a 5850OC and it works, the CPU is great but the graphic card is barely enough for BFBC2.

 

[SnowJim]

You want 60 fps with high quality and smooth gameplay from a single card?

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/Mars_II/images/dragonage2_2560_1600.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/Mars_II/images/metro_2033_2560_1600.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/Mars_II/images/crysis_2560_1600.gif
http://hardocp.com/images/articles/13195237031TucoX3qBp_1_4.gif

Good luck with that.



I haven't seen word from the OP if he'll be playing at 2560x1600 or at 1920x1080/1920x1200. It's only in the largest resolution possible for a single-screen monitor that the GTX 580 substantiates its price difference over the GTX 570.

My display is a DELL 2708WFP and I will be running 1920x1200 on it. I supose that I will have to do with medium settings, a GTX580 is way to expensive, and I do not really see the point in two GTX560 TI sli.

 

[stargazer7]

they still will affect to a degree. at boot up's or when windows or you have to access those drives. they turn themselves off and have slow access times. trust me, you don't want to have everything under 60gb. it's going to be hard... get a Black or two and use it concurrently.

560 ti sli is considerably faster than a 580. they don't leave room for an another card, but make a fairly strong combo.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/312?vs=305

 

[SnowJim]

Thanks, but that will be same price as a singel GTX580.

 

[arnoo1]

being "enough" is subjective. 37 fps on a 2560x1600 panel is nowhere enough at all. considering frame dip downs, i want a card that can render beyond 60 fps. so that it'll never lag down. if the op wants both high settings and a smooth gameplay, a 580 would certainly make a difference over the 570.

Yes i know but he wont be playing on extreme hd, so it will be fine, also if he get that 570soc he can oc the gpu easy and ser more performans

 

[stargazer7]

Thanks, but that will be same price as a singel GTX580.

if you aren't going to upgrade till next gen, it's a better option as of now. the only thing is, it lacks future proofing since you can't go beyond two cards with 560s. if you're thinking to add an another 580 later on, it could be a better choice.