Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

It's been months...still not sure about this computer build...

13567

Comments

  • This is the current setup I was thinking of. Adivce wanted :) This is in the senario saying that I stuck with the gtx 260 and am waiting on getting a new gpu later along with the SSD late on.

    image

  • If a part is broken, DOA, or whatever, first you try to RMA it back to whomever you bought it from. Most places will just do a straight exchange. In rare cases, they will refer you back to the manufacturer and turn it in on warranty exchange, which works more or less the same way but takes a bit longer to process.

     

    Yeah I have seem a million people say a product was DOA and they had to "RMA" it, and I figured this meant return it in someway, but not sure how to do that. Hopefully I will see a support number or something on the receipt if that does in fact happen, but thank you a milion for the stress testing information. That is greatly appreciated! :) 

    Though sadly..this HDD is several years old...so I guess I should get another :/ I really don't need that much space though. Just wanting something quality/will last me and will work efficiently.

  • RobgmurRobgmur Member Posts: 322

    good good... then when the Radion 7990 comes out grab it (I heard it will do your laundry)

    *Corsair Obsidian Series 650D *i5-2500K OC'd ~ 4.5
    *Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 mother board
    * Radeon HD 7970
    *8GB (4GBx2) 1600MHz Kingston HyperX
    *240GB Corsair Force GT Series SATA-III SSD

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383


    Originally posted by Nunez1212


    If a part is broken, DOA, or whatever, first you try to RMA it back to whomever you bought it from. Most places will just do a straight exchange. In rare cases, they will refer you back to the manufacturer and turn it in on warranty exchange, which works more or less the same way but takes a bit longer to process.

     
    Yeah I have seem a million people say a product was DOA and they had to "RMA" it, and I figured this meant return it in someway, but not sure how to do that. Hopefully I will see a support number or something on the receipt if that does in fact happen, but thank you a milion for the stress testing information. That is greatly appreciated! :) 
    Though sadly..this HDD is several years old...so I guess I should get another :/ I really don't need that much space though. Just wanting something quality/will last me and will work efficiently.

    DOA: Dead On Arrival (it didn't work out of the box, honest I didn't break it)
    RMA: Return Material/Merchandise Authorization - you call the company and tell them you need to return something, they will give you an RMA to write on the box before you mail it back (otherwise their receiving department will refuse it).

    Typically, you call the company you bought it from and say "It's broke". They say "Ok, write this RMA number on the box, and mail it back to us" You take your broken item down to UPS and ship it back to them. As soon as they get it (3-5 days), they ship you a brand new one just like the one you had before (another 3-5 days). All in all your out whatever it cost you to ship it back to them, and 6-10 days.

    Newegg and Amazon are relatively painless as far as vendors go with RMAs - usually the only big problems come from the small shops with "great deals" on the internet. When you have to go to warranty service (especially if you don't have the original receipt or packaging), then it can be a big hassle trying to deal with tech support (and convince them it really is broke), then hassling with the RMA department because you don't have the box or receipt, then it can take 2-3 weeks for them to "try to fix it" before they send you back a working card. But warranties last for year or more, whereas you only have like a 30-day window to use the return from the merchant you bought it from.

  • RobgmurRobgmur Member Posts: 322

    You have enough in your budget to get a Wetsern Digital caviar black 7200rpm HDD. Your next two goals will be a SSD and new GPU. .I'm guessing roughly 200$$ for new SSD and ~ 200-300$$ for new line GPU. 

    *Corsair Obsidian Series 650D *i5-2500K OC'd ~ 4.5
    *Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 mother board
    * Radeon HD 7970
    *8GB (4GBx2) 1600MHz Kingston HyperX
    *240GB Corsair Force GT Series SATA-III SSD

  • Ok, here is a quick question. I have been looking at the i5 2500k benchmarks and they do not seem THAT much higher then the x4 965....so why get it? Everyone is saying it's sooo much better, but wouldn't it be better if I got the cheaper x4 965 and spent the extra saved money on an SSD and new main HDD?

  • RobgmurRobgmur Member Posts: 322

    Originally posted by Nunez1212

    Ok, here is a quick question. I have been looking at the i5 2500k benchmarks and they do not seem THAT much higher then the x4 965....so why get it? Everyone is saying it's sooo much better, but wouldn't it be better if I got the cheaper x4 965 and spent the extra saved money on an SSD and new main HDD

    the 2500k is a fair bit faster and better at Over clocking.. it's the mothers choice. But if the option was to either A get the 2500k and be done or B get the x4 965 and a SSD + data drive.. I would obviously get the x4 965 ect. But keep in mind the 2500k is only ~ 90-100$$ more.. the SSD alone will be over 150-200$$.. I would just get the 2500k and the caviar black HDD and be under your 700$$ budget

    *Corsair Obsidian Series 650D *i5-2500K OC'd ~ 4.5
    *Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 mother board
    * Radeon HD 7970
    *8GB (4GBx2) 1600MHz Kingston HyperX
    *240GB Corsair Force GT Series SATA-III SSD

  • Ok so I heard the caviar black are the fast versions for things such as gaming right? Well it confuses me...I thought 7200RPM was the speed?...but it also says it's sata III which is what fast ssd's use, but I know they are slower then ssd's...so wtf...

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170


    Originally posted by Nunez1212
    Ok so I heard the caviar black are the fast versions for things such as gaming right? Well it confuses me...I thought 7200RPM was the speed?...but it also says it's sata III which is what fast ssd's use, but I know they are slower then ssd's...so wtf...

    7200 RPM's is the speed the platter is spinning at, which directly contributes to how fast data can be read/write to the drive. A WD Caviar Black 7200RPM will probably average about 120MB/s throughput on sequential reads.


    SATA III is the interface it uses to connect to the motherboard, and supports a max throughput of around 600MB/s.


    So your hard drive's connection can handle up to 600MB/s but the hard drive itself will only push around 120MB/s and never come close to being capped by its SATA III connection.

  • CatamountCatamount Member Posts: 773

    Originally posted by Nunez1212

    Ok, here is a quick question. I have been looking at the i5 2500k benchmarks and they do not seem THAT much higher then the x4 965....so why get it? Everyone is saying it's sooo much better, but wouldn't it be better if I got the cheaper x4 965 and spent the extra saved money on an SSD and new main HDD?

    The answer is future proofing.

    Right now, the Phenom II X4 is a fine budget chip. When I built my computer around a 965 almost two years ago, it was a great midrange chip (and cheaper than Intel's alternatives at the time, factoring in the deals on motherboards available tbe ).

     

    That said, there's risk that a midrange chip from 2 years ago won't necessary be up to the task 2-3 or even 4 years from now. Regardless of how long the Phenom II lasts, the Intel chip will last longer, especially factoring in the ridiculous amount of overclocking headroom (Phenom II chips only typically have a little, sometimes none; mine went from 3.4 to a paltry 3.7, even with a good cooler).

    Another option is to buy a Phenom II X4 now, but get an AM3+ motherboard, that way you have the option to get a Bulldozer CPU later IF later variants turn out better, and I think they will. AMD isn't Intel, and they don't change socket standards twice a day, so there will be new AM3+ chips for some time to come, I think. That said, AM3+ boards cost more, so at that point, you lose some of the price advantage over the i5 2500 anyways


  • Originally posted by noquarter

     




    Originally posted by Nunez1212

    Ok so I heard the caviar black are the fast versions for things such as gaming right? Well it confuses me...I thought 7200RPM was the speed?...but it also says it's sata III which is what fast ssd's use, but I know they are slower then ssd's...so wtf...






    7200 RPM's is the speed the platter is spinning at, which directly contributes to how fast data can be read/write to the drive. A WD Caviar Black 7200RPM will probably average about 120MB/s throughput on sequential reads.

     



    SATA III is the interface it uses to connect to the motherboard, and supports a max throughput of around 600MB/s.



    So your hard drive's connection can handle up to 600MB/s but the hard drive itself will only push around 120MB/s and never come close to being capped by its SATA III connection.

    Well according to what your saying...would it not be pointless to get a caviar black over a green? If the green is also 7200RPM...then why spend the extra cash on the black addition?


  • Originally posted by Catamount

    The answer is future proofing.

    Right now, the Phenom II X4 is a fine budget chip. When I built my computer around a 965 almost two years ago, it was a great midrange chip (and cheaper than Intel's alternatives at the time, factoring in the deals on motherboards available tbe ).

     

    That said, there's risk that a midrange chip from 2 years ago won't necessary be up to the task 2-3 or even 4 years from now. Regardless of how long the Phenom II lasts, the Intel chip will last longer, especially factoring in the ridiculous amount of overclocking headroom (Phenom II chips only typically have a little, sometimes none; mine went from 3.4 to a paltry 3.7, even with a good cooler).

    Another option is to buy a Phenom II X4 now, but get an AM3+ motherboard, that way you have the option to get a Bulldozer CPU later IF later variants turn out better, and I think they will. AMD isn't Intel, and they don't change socket standards twice a day, so there will be new AM3+ chips for some time to come, I think. That said, AM3+ boards cost more, so at that point, you lose some of the price advantage over the i5 2500 anyways

    Yeah, I figured as much. The am3+ boards are about $100 that I saw though and the 1155 I'm looking at is $150...so I'm not sure where your getting your prices at. A question I had to you...which would possibly determine which one to get would be, how much longer would the 2500k probably last me opposed to the 965?

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170


    Originally posted by Nunez1212


    Originally posted by noquarter
     



    Originally posted by Nunez1212
    Ok so I heard the caviar black are the fast versions for things such as gaming right? Well it confuses me...I thought 7200RPM was the speed?...but it also says it's sata III which is what fast ssd's use, but I know they are slower then ssd's...so wtf...



    7200 RPM's is the speed the platter is spinning at, which directly contributes to how fast data can be read/write to the drive. A WD Caviar Black 7200RPM will probably average about 120MB/s throughput on sequential reads.
     

    SATA III is the interface it uses to connect to the motherboard, and supports a max throughput of around 600MB/s.

    So your hard drive's connection can handle up to 600MB/s but the hard drive itself will only push around 120MB/s and never come close to being capped by its SATA III connection.

    Well according to what your saying...would it not be pointless to get a caviar black over a green? If the green is also 7200RPM...then why spend the extra cash on the black addition?

    The Green is actually a 5400 RPM hard drive and so quite a bit slower. I use one for a mass storage drive for movies and such that don't rely on performance.


    The Blue is a 7200 RPM drive, the Black still runs faster than the Blue however - most likely due to a better controller board, or possibly platter count, or just more aggressive tuning - maybe all 3. It does run hotter and louder than the Blue, and to me the performance difference between Blue and Black isn't huge so when working with a budget I just go Blue since it's been up to ~$30 cheaper in the past.


    edit: and wow, prices on hard drives have really skyrocketed due to flooding in Thailand :( Best bet atm is probably to buy from a FS/T forum..

  • czekoskwigelczekoskwigel Member Posts: 458

    Your game may load a little faster with a Black drive, but your gameplay really won't be affected.  It's a nice thing to have, but if you're tight on budget it's something that you can easily do without.

  • CatamountCatamount Member Posts: 773

    Originally posted by Nunez1212

    Well according to what your saying...would it not be pointless to get a caviar black over a green? If the green is also 7200RPM...then why spend the extra cash on the black addition?

    Well, first, the Greens are really very amazing drives, technologically, and are way faster than they should be, but they're not 7200rpm drives. Instead, they're basically really souped up 5400rpm drives, and while they're very impressive for that speed, they're still slower than even a mediocre 7200rpm drive.

     

    So how is one 7200rpm drive better than another? Well aside from capacity, which increases speed with platter drives, the Caviar Black drives make use of their hardware a little differently to reduce seek times and give MUCH better random read performance. They may only give the same sequential read speeds of a Caviar Blue, or a Samsung Spinpoint F3, or a Seagate Barracuda, but that's not where hard dives lack. Hard drives can send data at well over 100MB/s sequentally, it's in random reads where they slow to a crawl, and where the Caviar Blacks don't fail quite as badly (meaning something on the order of they're one hundred times slower instead of two hundred times slower) :)

    I don't quite know how they do this, I just know they do.

  • CatamountCatamount Member Posts: 773

    Originally posted by Nunez1212

    Originally posted by Catamount

    Yeah, I figured as much. The am3+ boards are about $100 that I saw though and the 1155 I'm looking at is $150...so I'm not sure where your getting your prices at. A question I had to you...which would possibly determine which one to get would be, how much longer would the 2500k probably last me opposed to the 965?

    What I mean is that the AM3 boards are $60-$80, so some of the price advantage of getting a Phemon II X4 on an AM3 board (which is all that's needed to run it) gets lost if you spend $20-$40 on an AM3+ board. It's not a big difference, I just figured I'd point it out.

     

    Going AM3+ would be an interesting option for you. It's a small risk, in that you pay a couple dozen mroe dollars (no biggie), and you might get stuck with a slower CPU if no better Bulldozer chip comes out, BUT, it's a small risk with a potentially huge payoff. If AMD gets their act together, and 2 years down the road they release a Bulldozer-based chip with the performance problems solved, you could have an upgrade option that would be way faster than a core i5 2500k, just about when it might come in handy. With Intel, yuo basically have no upgrade path on CPUs, because they release a different socket for every single CPU line they make now. It's not even just every generation of CPU; even WITHIN generations they have different socket for, say, the i5s and i7s, it's ridiculous. So new Intel chips will be fast down the road, but you won't be able to run them. These just aren't the LGA775 days anymore for Intel. AMD, on the other hand, hangs onto standards a little longer, and even tends to create transitional CPUs, so people with older sockets can use newer CPUs. When the Phenom II came out, AMD was nice enough (or just smart enough) to open them up to AM2+ users, who could get 940s. With Bulldozer, AMD allows newer AM3 (non+) boards to run them, as long as they're on the newer side. So it stands to reason that AM3+ will hang around for a bit, and even with AM4 (or whatever they call it) comes along, AM3+ boards will still have new fast options available to them.

     

    Frankly, I'd do it just because it's such an intersting proposition, but that's me. Don't do it just because I would ;)

    It is an option though.

     

    As for your last question, I can't answer that, I can only tell you what will play into that. Right now, computer hardware requirements aren't growing, at all really, because consoles are holding them back as a lowest common denominator. PC specs for games will change when consoles change. Right now, the PS4 is rumored to be looking at a Q4 2012 or Q1/2 2013 release, with some kind of souped up CPU and an Nvidia Kepler-based GPU (doubtless something lower end, but still).

    Once that happens, the bar will be set higher again and PC specs for games will jump. The last time that happened, we went from Far Cry and F.E.A.R. to Crysis (about a year after the new consoles released).

    If we're looking at an early 2013 release for the new consoles this time around, then I would expect big jumps in computing requirements by 2014, so basically in less than 3 years, that Phenom II X4 may prove problematic.

     

    This is based on a LOT of assumptions though, so while I'll stick by that 2014 figure, it's with the caveat that you should consider that figure to have some pretty darn big error bars (at least a year in each direction).

     

    So your options are:

    1.) Get a Core i5 2500 now, and have it be pretty decent by the time PC specs jump

    2.) Get a Phenom II X4 now (in the 955-970 range), have it start having problems around 2014 +- 1 year, and have to buy another CPU, but have it be faster than the 2500, risking the unlikely event that AMD will either not be able to make a good chip at all, or that AM3+ will face early abandonment, in which case you'll be stuck with the Phenom II. Should it pay off, you'll likely be set for several more years (2016? 2017?), so while you have to buy 2 CPUs, this way, you don't have to buy two motherboards, so it pays off big in the long run, with the worst case scenario being you needing to buy another motherboard later to upgrade your CPU.

    So the risk for option 2 is that you have to buy another MoBo, but the reward is potentially being able to skip your next MoBo purchase, and it's cheaper up front than option 1.

  • CatamountCatamount Member Posts: 773

    But now I'm just overthinking and making way too many assumptions, so let's just keep it at this:

     

    You can either pay more and buy a nice CPU now, or pay less now and potentially have a nice upgrade path. It's up to you; there's no wrong answer there.

  • Archangel326Archangel326 Member Posts: 43

    I just wanted to add some advise on the CM 430 since I did not see anyone respond to it. (i didnt read the last few posts.)

    I have just put my old hardware into this case. Mainly since I had a case that had poor cooling.

    I have found only one problem with this case. If you plan on adding anything onto a PCI slot you have to remove the MBO to remove the PCI plates. The way you remove them in insert a Phillipshead screwdriver and then turn the plate until the tabs brakes off.

    You could try to use a razorblade to cut the tabs first then remove the plate while the MBO is still installed. I have not tried this yet. 

    Other then that once you add a few more fans the case is solid

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383


    Originally posted by Catamount

    Originally posted by Nunez1212

    Well according to what your saying...would it not be pointless to get a caviar black over a green? If the green is also 7200RPM...then why spend the extra cash on the black addition?
    Well, first, the Greens are really very amazing drives, technologically, and are way faster than they should be, but they're not 7200rpm drives. Instead, they're basically really souped up 5400rpm drives, and while they're very impressive for that speed, they're still slower than even a mediocre 7200rpm drive.
     
    So how is one 7200rpm drive better than another? Well aside from capacity, which increases speed with platter drives, the Caviar Black drives make use of their hardware a little differently to reduce seek times and give MUCH better random read performance. They may only give the same sequential read speeds of a Caviar Blue, or a Samsung Spinpoint F3, or a Seagate Barracuda, but that's not where hard dives lack. Hard drives can send data at well over 100MB/s sequentally, it's in random reads where they slow to a crawl, and where the Caviar Blacks don't fail quite as badly (meaning something on the order of they're one hundred times slower instead of two hundred times slower) :)
    I don't quite know how they do this, I just know they do.

    On the Caviar Black, the read head has two pivot points that can be operated independently (they call it dual actuators, not to be confused with dual heads) - one is a course adjust and the other is a fine adjust, which allows the read head to get positioned more accurately more quickly. It also has dual processors, and uses a larger sized sector than older drives do, which all adds up to increased performance: in some cases, even faster than the Raptor line. This drive is tuned for performance, and as such uses a bit more power (~10W) and puts off a bit more heat and noise than a typical hard drive - but it's not so much that you need a dedicated cooler for it or anything, just something to be aware of if you are trying to put it into a tight space or trying to be noise conscious.

    The Caviar Green is optimized for power efficiency. It includes very aggressive sleep times, and a very long spin-up cycle: all designed to reduce the amount of power consumed and heat produced. Even if you get a Green at 7200 rpm, it will perform slower than ~most~ 7200 rpm drives because it's tuned for power efficiency rather than speed or throughput. WD lists the speed as "Intellipower: tuned to provide a balance between performance and energy efficiency" and when asked for more clarification just says "Somewhere between 5400 and 7200 RPM"

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383


    Originally posted by Catamount

    Originally posted by Nunez1212

    Originally posted by Catamount
    Yeah, I figured as much. The am3+ boards are about $100 that I saw though and the 1155 I'm looking at is $150...so I'm not sure where your getting your prices at. A question I had to you...which would possibly determine which one to get would be, how much longer would the 2500k probably last me opposed to the 965?


    What I mean is that the AM3 boards are $60-$80, so some of the price advantage of getting a Phemon II X4 on an AM3 board (which is all that's needed to run it) gets lost if you spend $20-$40 on an AM3+ board. It's not a big difference, I just figured I'd point it out.
     
    Going AM3+ would be an interesting option for you. It's a small risk, in that you pay a couple dozen mroe dollars (no biggie), and you might get stuck with a slower CPU if no better Bulldozer chip comes out, BUT, it's a small risk with a potentially huge payoff. If AMD gets their act together, and 2 years down the road they release a Bulldozer-based chip with the performance problems solved, you could have an upgrade option that would be way faster than a core i5 2500k, just about when it might come in handy.

    The only problem with this rational is that in two years, I would hope Intel would also have something way faster than a 2500k. But if it would require a motherboard upgrade or not, or that even if AMD were backwards compatible (which it may not be, I haven't seen much past piledriver for socket compatibility) if you would want to upgrade an AM3+ motherboard for other reasons (SATA4? Light Peak? PCI3, something...) : 2-3 years from now is hard to speculate with a gaming rig: it could stay pretty stagnate like is has been lately (Thanks Consoles!) or it could take off and we see rapid generations of evolution (like in the early days of 3DFX).

    The other factor to consider, when trying to speculate for the future, is that software developers may get their act together and find ways to utilize more parallel processing: this would dramatically shift the CPU scope. We'd go from fewer faster cores to more cores, which would favor AMD a good deal. Software developers have been slow to do this (it's difficult, there aren't many tools available for it, but it's slowly getting there), but once they do it will shift the way we benchmark CPUs for gaming.

  • CatamountCatamount Member Posts: 773

    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     

    The only problem with this rational is that in two years, I would hope Intel would also have something way faster than a 2500k. But if it would require a motherboard upgrade or not, or that even if AMD were backwards compatible (which it may not be, I haven't seen much past piledriver for socket compatibility) if you would want to upgrade an AM3+ motherboard for other reasons (SATA4? Light Peak? PCI3, something...) : 2-3 years from now is hard to speculate with a gaming rig: it could stay pretty stagnate like is has been lately (Thanks Consoles!) or it could take off and we see rapid generations of evolution (like in the early days of 3DFX).

    The other factor to consider, when trying to speculate for the future, is that software developers may get their act together and find ways to utilize more parallel processing: this would dramatically shift the CPU scope. We'd go from fewer faster cores to more cores, which would favor AMD a good deal. Software developers have been slow to do this (it's difficult, there aren't many tools available for it, but it's slowly getting there), but once they do it will shift the way we benchmark CPUs for gaming.

     

    Speculation, by nature, isn't a precise exercise, but I think one can be fairly certain that Intel's faster CPUs won't be available to people using sockets from previous CPUs. AMD, on the ther hand, almost always allows use of newer CPUs on older sockets. The last time I can think of them not doing that was Socket A to Socket 754. Even going to Socket 939, you could still get some of the newer chips like the 3700+ chips, for 754. Then 939 remained able to use Athlon X2s. I don't know much about the Soocket AM2->AM2+ transition, but AM2+ -> AM3 again preserved usefulness of the old sockets by releasing Phenom II X4 chips for AM2+. Then, AM3 became obsolete, but Bulldozer maintained compatibility.

     

    I think it's fair to say that regardless of what happens with AMD's CPUs, AM3+ will be able to use post-Zambezi chips. In fact, AMD has already confirmed that Piledriver will use AM3+. Will Steamroller? AMD's history suggests that that's almost certainly to be the case. The last time they didn't do that that I'm aware of, it was because they physically couldn't, because of the move to integrated memory controllers after Socket A.

     

     

    If games do start taking advantage of more cores down the road, that's yet another potential payoff to getting an AM3+ system right now, even if it means putting a Phenom II X4 in there.

     

     

    I'm not saying it's necessarily the right thing to do, but the option isn't without its potential to pay off.

  • Ok, well the decision bettween mobo and cpu now has me quite stuck because there seems to be no true answer, but instead speculation upon histroical trends between the two companies. Which is the better payout being the obvious question... I shall have to think more on this. On the other topic, being the hard drive. What are the main advantages of spending $125 for a black caviar 500GB HDD? Is there a real advantage in gaming, or is it mainly for other tasks? I have heard of things such as HDD stuttering, but not sure if that's due to the speed or just the sign of an aging drive. Another thing I have read is that some games do infact benefit from this speed because I have heard reports that Age of Conan runs much much better when put on an SSD. 

     

    Another thing that I noted was that you are saying intel will not use the same chipset, but I thought I heard that the p67, h67 and z68 boards would be compatible with Ivy Bridge chips...or are you meaning that past ivy bridge they will most likely not be compatible where on the other hand an am3+ board would be compatible for generations to come? Then that brings up the question, how long will the physical motherboard last anyways? One reason I'm building a new rig is because my mobo's rams slots have died on me with only 1 out of 4 still working. If this were to happen again, then it does not really matter how long they are compatible if the board dies anyways..

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170


    Originally posted by Nunez1212
    Ok, well the decision bettween mobo and cpu now has be quite stuck because there seems to be no true answer, but instead speculation upon histroical trends between the two companies. Which is the better payout being the obvious question... I shall have to think more on this. On the other topic, being the hard drive. What are the main advantages of spending $125 for a black caviar 500GB HDD? Is there a real advantage in gaming, or is it mainly for other tasks? I have heard of things such as HDD stuttering, but not sure if that's due to the speed or just the sign of an aging drive. Another thing I have read is that somes games do infact benefit from this speed because I have heard reports that Age of Conan runs much much better when put on an SSD. 

    The advantages of the faster hard drive are apparent through almost everything you do, from launching apps to loading games. The reason why most laptops feel sluggish is actually because of the slow hard drive in most laptops. The faster Black hard drive will generally make your computer feel more snappy. But in game you won't notice any difference in speed except the specific times when the game has to stream new textures off the hard drive. This will help with the minimum frame rates as you enter a new area (think the chugging as you first walk into Orgrimmar/Dalamar), but your average FPS won't be any different.


    Btw that chugging as you enter a new area and load up new players and textures does not happen on an SSD since it loads them almost instantly. So a Black will get you a bit less chugging than most hard drives as you enter a new area, but still slow as hell compared to an SSD. But I don't think a Black is usually worth the premium over a Blue.


    However, hard drive prices are totally jacked up right now apparently due to some flooding in Thailand. If you can find a way to wait to buy the hard drive for the prices to recover, or buy from a forum member on various FS/T forums (anandtech.com or hardocp.com forums have excellent FS/T forums), a 500GB WD Black should only be like $60 not $125.


    Given current hard drive prices, if you need a drive right now to make the build work and don't want to buy from a FS/T forum, I would just get a 120GB SSD and then buy a 1TB WD Blue/Green for additional storage in a few months after the prices on hard drives recover.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383


    Originally posted by Nunez1212
    Ok, well the decision bettween mobo and cpu now has me quite stuck because there seems to be no true answer, but instead speculation upon histroical trends between the two companies. Which is the better payout being the obvious question... I shall have to think more on this. On the other topic, being the hard drive. What are the main advantages of spending $125 for a black caviar 500GB HDD? Is there a real advantage in gaming, or is it mainly for other tasks? I have heard of things such as HDD stuttering, but not sure if that's due to the speed or just the sign of an aging drive. Another thing I have read is that some games do infact benefit from this speed because I have heard reports that Age of Conan runs much much better when put on an SSD. 
     
    Another thing that I noted was that you are saying intel will not use the same chipset, but I thought I heard that the p67, h67 and z68 boards would be compatible with Ivy Bridge chips...or are you meaning that past ivy bridge they will most likely not be compatible where on the other hand an am3+ board would be compatible for generations to come? Then that brings up the question, how long will the physical motherboard last anyways? One reason I'm building a new rig is because my mobo's rams slots have died on me with only 1 out of 4 still working. If this were to happen again, then it does not really matter how long they are compatible if the board dies anyways..

    There is no clear cut answer to this, and never really has been.

    Noquarter summed up hard drives pretty well, I can't do any better than that really.

    Yes, Ivy Bridge is supposed to work with existing Socket 1155 motherboards. Early indications, though, is that some current motherboards don't have enough UFI firmware space for the new BIOS upgrade, so many older ones may not be compatible. This isn't uncommon; AMD did the same thing with Bulldozer, that's why there are AM3 and AM3+ versions of the motherboard (the Plus indicates it will work with Bulldozer). If you got a Core i5 2500k now, though, you probably won't be upgrading to an Ivy Bridge - there won't be enough of a speed difference for that upgrade to matter to you for gaming. And you'll probably be able to safely skip the next generation past that as well, and maybe even one more.

    It's more of a pay a little now and probably want to upgrade sooner (I'd say the Phenom II has a couple more years left, as Catamount suggested), or pay a little more now, and probably not need to upgrade until very much so later (Core i5 will probably be good for the next 4-5 years). But that's a lot of probablies, and nothing is set in stone.

    Either way, you'll have a good build for the three games you mentioned, and for future releases for a good while before you'll be looking to upgrade the CPU or motherboard again. The Video card (your 260GTX) will probably want upgrading sometime mid-late next year though if you play any games that get released after then.

  • Yeah..the price on the WD Black just went up to $150 today! Tha's insane...and I just figured out that the HDD that I have is already a western digital 320gb 7200RPM...and I believe it's a blue version. So if that's true...shouldn't I just worry about getting an SSD now? Though before I do that...this new dilemna does present the question, how long does an HDD last before I should worry? It seems like a quality hard drive, but I have been using it for about 4 years now.

    Still debating whether I should get the i5 2500k or x4 or not...most of me thinks the i5 would be the better choice, but the money  saving in me says to go for the x4 so that the SSD is closer in reach.

Sign In or Register to comment.