Critique this build

Comments

• Quizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,351

  April 2011

  The Cooler Master HAF 942 is a nice case, but you can get a nice case for $100.  Do you really want to spend $190 on a case, or even $180 after rebate?  If you were going with a higher end SLI or CrossFire rig, a large full tower case with lots of airflow would be appropriate, but it seems like way overkill for a single GPU.  Or are you planning on going SLI or CrossFire at some point in the future?

  ----

  I'm not sure what you're planning to do about overclocking your processor.  If you're going to heavily overclock the processor and try to push it to its limits, then you'd want a better heatsink and fan than that.  I don't think that motherboard would hold up very well under an extreme overclock, either.  If you're not going to overclock the process or at all, then you could save some money by going with a Core i5 2500 rather than a 2500K.  If you're planning on overclocking the processor to somewhere around 4-4.2 GHz and calling that good enough, then what you've picked is perhaps appropriate.

  -----

  Speaking of the motherboard, AsRock is cheaper than Asus or Gigabyte for a reason.  They're not really a bad brand, though.  They were initially Asus' low end brand name, then spun off into an independent company, and now decided that they didn't want to be a low end brand name anymore.

  Personally, I'd sooner get this if you're getting a single video card:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131705

  That does give up CrossFire/SLI support, though, so if you're trying to leave headroom for that, then don't get the motherboard I linked.

  Actually, if you want to go CrossFire/SLI, you'll be able to get the high end chipsets appropriate to that for a Bulldozer processor when it launches in a couple of months.

  -----

  The video card looks like a higher end version of a GeForce GTX 570.  The cooler may or may not be any better (the reference GTX 570 had a pretty good heatsink), and it's internal exhaust, but the power circuitry is probably better.  It's good to see 6+8-pin PCI-E power connectors, which the reference GeForce GTX 570 really should have had.

  But there's still the question of whether you're planning on leaving room to go to SLI later.  A three slot cooler means that one card would be pressed up against the other, so that the fans would be blocked.  That's a big problem for SLI.  For a single card, that's not an issue at all.

  You should at least be aware that you can get a GeForce GTX 570 much more cheaply than that:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127568

  If you get the one you picked, you're basically paying extra for better power circuitry on the card, and likely some overclocking headroom.

  Or you can usually get better performance for cheaper than the card you picked from a Radeon HD 6970:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127554

  That doesn't have as good of a cooling system as either of the GeForce GTX 570s, but it's adequate to the card, as the card doesn't put out as much heat as a GTX 570.

  -----

  With the promo code, that's a good price on a great power supply.  The system you've picked out would likely never pull 350 W from it, though, and almost certainly never 400 W apart from overclocking, so a 750 W power supply is rather overkill.  If you're trying to leave room for CrossFire/SLI in the future, or are going to heavily overclock, then go ahead.

  -----

  Why are you looking to pay $277 for Windows 7 Ultimate Full?  If you're building the computer yourself, you can save a lot of money by getting an OEM license instead.  That has the drawback of not letting you transfer it to a different computer, but it's still usually worth the savings.

  And why Windows 7 Ultimate?  I think the main reason why Ultimate exists is so that people who don't know any better have a way to give Microsoft extra money.  If you need some particular feature of Ultimate, then sure, go ahead and get it.  Home Premium is the appropriate thing for the overwhelming majority of gaming computers.

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986

  It's likely that the only difference you'd ever notice between that and Ultimate Full is paying $177 less up front.

  ------

  Finally, I'd really recommend that you get some faster storage.  Otherwise, things will load slowly and your computer will be rather sluggish.  Running programs off of an SSD means that they load a lot faster.  The computer boots up a lot faster, too.  But that's not the half of it, really.  Whenever you have a program running and do something that means it has to access storage, if it's on an SSD, it will respond and do what you tell it faster.  That improves performance for things like web browsing considerably.  It also means that if some program in the background decides to do something stupid, it doesn't hog the hard drive and bring your system to a crawl.

  Some good choices, depending on the capacity you need, with the actual formatted capacity that you'll see in Windows:

  50 GB for $125, or $110 after rebate  (not such a good value without the rebate):

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227550

  60 GB for $130:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147062

  107 GB for $213, or $183 after rebate:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227551

  119 GB for $220:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147063

  238 GB for $346, or $316 after rebate:

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227396

  That last one is actually the slowest of the bunch, but it still performs like a real SSD, and I bring it up because of the very low $/GB price.  Other than that, larger capacity will be faster than smaller capacity, and the OCZ Vertex 2 will be faster at a given capacity than the Samsung 470.  It's arguable that among good SSDs, they're all so fast that the speed differences really don't matter.  That, of course, is only among the good SSDs, which excludes a lot of the early ones, some obscure things that never caught on, and everything based on a JMicron controller (most easily identified by claiming it has DDR2 cache).

  If you don't want to get an SSD, then at least get a faster hard drive.  A Western Digital Caviar Black of whatever capacity you need is significantly faster than the Samsung Spinpoint F3.

  If they say 100 MB/s or 150 MB/s or whatever for sequential read and write numbers, those don't matter much.  It's random reads and writes that matter, as hard drives typically fall well below 1 MB/s on 4K random reads, and don't do that much better on random writes.  SSDs can push into the tens of MB/s in those tests, which is fast enough that you don't have to wait on them like on a hard drive.

  Depending on how much capacity you need, some people get both an SSD and a hard drive.  You put programs that you want to be fast on the SSD, and then data where speed doesn't matter, such as videos, music, or pictures, on the hard drive.  Personally, I have just an SSD and no hard drive, but I don't have a ton of random junk to store.
• bishbashbosh Member Posts: 57

  April 2011

  If it was my rig I would get a Asus P67 Pro.

  G.skill Ripjaws X CL8 (the blue one)

  a good SSD for os (OCZ vertex 3 coming soon, pricey but should be fast ~500 read/write), and a WD black for secondary

  for the case I wouldnt go for that one, but everyone have different tastes, a nice and clean case like a silverstone fortress 2 for me. but Im sure the CM HAF is a good case,go for a case you like and perform well cooling wise, thats the thing who'll be siting on your desk.

  a pionner optical drive if no doors on the case (no white writing on the disk tray)

  CPU cooler Noctua nh-d14, expensive and huge but it is one the the best cooler on the market.

  edit: and save some cash, get W7 premium.

  
• Quizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,351

  April 2011

  "G.skill Ripjaws X CL8 (the blue one)"

  The clock speed, voltage, capacity, and latency timings of memory all matter.  The color of the heatsink does not, and G.Skill has a lot of different memory kits branded as "Ripjaws X" with a blue heatsink.  So that's a strange recommendation.

  "a good SSD for os (OCZ vertex 3 coming soon, pricey but should be fast ~500 read/write)"

  The OCZ Vertex 3 is out.  And it really only has that large of a speed advantage in the 240 GB and 480 GB versions.  The 120 GB version is nice, sure, but not dramatically better than older SSDs.  It is a lot more expensive for the same capacity than older SSDs, though.  There's also a much larger risk of firmware problems right after an SSD comes out, so I'd advise against getting a Vertex 3 just yet.

  "a WD black for secondary"

  The idea of getting a big enough SSD to run your programs is that, if you even still need a hard drive, the only stuff you put on it is data where speed doesn't matter.  So if you're getting a big enough SSD and still need a hard drive, you might as well save some money and get a cheap 5400 RPM hard drive.

  "CPU cooler Noctua nh-d14, expensive and huge but it is one the the best cooler on the market."

  A large, expensive heatsink is only useful if you're going to overclock the processor pretty far.  If not, then a relatively cheap aftermarket cooler will do nicely.
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  April 2011

  I would recommend looking at the monitor if at all possible, before you buy it.

  It only supports 1920x1080 at 27" - some monitors that size that only support that resolution look poor if you are sitting at a desk. Most "good" monitors >24" bump up the resolution to 2560x1440.

  I'm not saying this one is horrible, or that this is a bad or good monitor. I think monitors are very subjective, and what looks good to me, or Reviewer #45, or you may all be very different things.

  I am saying, that for any monitor you consider purchasing, you should go look at it in person if at all possible, even if you just go to the store, look at it, and then go buy it online for $XX less.
• Quizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,351

  April 2011

  However much nicer a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor might be, it's also a lot more expensive than the $270 monitor he's looking at.  That doesn't automatically mean that you shouldn't get something more expensive if it's also better.  But it's not free to get something better.
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  April 2011

  ---

  Originally posted by Quizzical
  
  The idea of getting a big enough SSD to run your programs is that, if you even still need a hard drive, the only stuff you put on it is data where speed doesn't matter.  So if you're getting a big enough SSD and still need a hard drive, you might as well save some money and get a cheap 5400 RPM hard drive.
  

  ---

  This advice I agree if you are running really close on a tight budget.

  If you have the money, get a faster secondary drive too. If there's no reason to skimp, don't. There are plenty of times that I run games off my secondary drive, just because I want to poke around, and I don't take the time to juggle around the stuff I have on my SSD just to put it on there.

  Besides, the price difference between a WD black, and a lesser performing drive isn't all that much when your looking at the total cost of the computer. But if your trying to meet a budget, I agree, this is a good place to save a little bit of money.
  
• Shinami Member UncommonPosts: 825

  April 2011

  I do not recommend 5400 RPM HDDs. 

   

  We have the highest failure rate under 5400 RPM HDDs in our labs per year than any other HDD. The medium is really 7200 RPM HDDs and make no mistake as I am not "typing" about "Speed" but about Construction Quality. If you wish for a drive for pure data storage your choices are either to go for a 7200 RPM HDD around 1 - 2GB and only store to 2/3rds volume (and make it external and only plug it in when you need to archive data) to not slow it down or buy Velociraptors. Its true they are 300 - 600GB..

   

  ...but they are not just guaranteed for Five+ Years, these drives have the LOWEST failure rate. 

   

  Let me explain myself a bit.

   

  I have a lab with 80 computers. 32 of them are set up for a 32 player LAN. We placed an order for 100 Raptor HDDs and even with all the abuse those LAN systems have taken over the years...The HDDs have remained stable through OS changes. They have NOT failed. It is the only HDD we have where we have not had a SINGLE FAILURE in its series from extreme use within its warranty time. We have had Raptors since 2006. 

   

  When we tried 5400 and 7200 RPM under continuous 8 hour use....the failure rate was actually a lot higher for the 5400 RPMs than the 7200 RPM HDDs. 

   

  We made a decision that we will only build systems where its primary data storage was designed for a use greater than 8 hours due to the stress and wear gaming does on a system, while all 5400 and 7200 RPM HDDs are used as external archival drive. Only time we use 5400/7200 RPM HDDs internally is for tests. 
• Quizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,351

  April 2011

  If you want to get a 7200 RPM hard drive, go ahead.  But a VelociRaptor for reliability reasons?  That's ridiculous.  You could go RAID 1 at a given capacity for cheaper than that.
• Siris23 Member UncommonPosts: 388

  April 2011

  
  Originally posted by Quizzical

  "G.skill Ripjaws X CL8 (the blue one)"

  The clock speed, voltage, capacity, and latency timings of memory all matter.  The color of the heatsink does not, and G.Skill has a lot of different memory kits branded as "Ripjaws X" with a blue heatsink.  So that's a strange recommendation.

   I'm guessing he's talking about these

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231445

  While I'm not really sold on CL8, the PC3 12800 is definately worth the extra cash.

  Here's the PC3 12800 CL9

  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231314

  15$ extra is worth it, 35$ for CL8 maybe not depending on your budget.
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  April 2011

  I don't know about the latest SATA2 generation of Raptors, but the original SATA1 revisions were absolutely horrible for reliability.

  And the price/performance really doesn't stack up any longer with SSD's. Sure, you get a bit more space (but not a ton of space) than an SSD, and sure you get more speed than a 7200/5400 rpm drive (but not faster than an SSD). And they are noisy as all get out.

  If you have something were extended read/write speeds are important (say, FRAPS or multiple HD video streams/serving), then they make a lot more sense as a low cost enterprise-wannabe type solution that can have comparable performance.
• Shinami Member UncommonPosts: 825

  April 2011

  
  Originally posted by Ridelynn

  I don't know about the latest SATA2 generation of Raptors, but the original SATA1 revisions were absolutely horrible for reliability.

  And the price/performance really doesn't stack up any longer with SSD's. Sure, you get a bit more space (but not a ton of space) than an SSD, and sure you get more speed than a 7200/5400 rpm drive (but not faster than an SSD). And they are noisy as all get out.

  If you have something were extended read/write speeds are important (say, FRAPS or multiple HD video streams/serving), then they make a lot more sense as a low cost enterprise-wannabe type solution that can have comparable performance.

  Ok, I know you must be joking. 

   

  http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-001165.pdf

   

  When these HDDs came out, they were considered to be a revolution and they really impacted the world. "Enterprise Class" Drives is not just a "name." There are VERY SPECIFIC requirements for any HDD to bear such a name. Build Quality, Resilience, Failure Rates, Reliability...all factor into this and very specifc tests exist for this. These HDDs are BUILT also to withstand the temperature and strain of operating at full loads. 

   

   

  For a RAID 0 setup, the base rate of failure is:

   

  1  - (1 - failure rate)^# of drives in the array: (since this is mathematics, I should give you an example)

   

  Lets claim a failure rate is 10% like in 5400 RPM HDDs made with really cheap internals in a RAID 0 array given 2 years time.. 

   

  So we end up having 1 - (1 - .1)^2 = 0.19 (In short, a base19% failure rate that one of the two drives will fail within a 2 year period)

   

  For those reading who have math problems ^_^ (No, im not targetting quizzical or ridelynn. I just hate it when people post math formulas but do not teach others how to use them)

   

  1 - (1 -.1)^2 = ??? //Converted 10% to .1 (10%, .1 means 1/10th of 1 = 10% and put in a 2, where ^ is the exponent marker)

  1 - (.9)^2 = ??? //Notice I subtracted .1 from 1 since the inside said (1 - .1) 

  1 - (.81) = ??? //Exponents call for a number to be multiplied by itself. In this case its .9 x .9 = .81

  1 - .81 = ??? // here we multiplied the inside by a minus sign since it was outside a parenthesis to eliminate parenthesis

  1 - .81 = .19 //We have our answer which means 19% is the failure rate within a period of 3 years that one of the two drives will fail.

   

  note: Just follow the Order of Operations and you will be fine. ^_^ 

   

  I might as well throw in the equation for HDD in Raid 1 to answer the question: "Given 2 hard drives with an individual failure rate of 10% in a 3 year period, what are the chances both drives will fail together and all the data in both drives will be lost? 

   

  Formula is: 

   

  (Failure Rate)^# of drives in mirror = ??? // Here we have 2 HDDs and a 10% failure rate. The solution example is below

   

  (.1)^2 = ??? //Here we have 10% set to .1 being squared (.1 x .1) 

  .1 x .1 = .01 //Hence the chance both will fail together in a 3 year period  is 1%. 

   

  You still have a 10% chance one drive will fail, but you can simply get another Drive of the same model and rebuild the mirror. The chance that BOTH drives will fail simutaneously and you lose all data is 1% in this case.

   

  One of the major parameters for Enterprise-Class Drives is that the rate of failure of a RAID 0 setup has to fall around 1%, while the more complex setups are not to rise above 2%. 

   

  Oh yes...for those who claim that an SSD has 10 million MTBF. It should be noted that it has been scientifically proven due to the construction, controller and speeds of operation that an SSD actually can lose up to three magnitudes of power from its MTBF. What this means is that 10 Million MTBF is really 10^7 (10^7 = 10 million) and can drop down to as low as 10^4 (which is 1,000) MTBF where most models the loss at during heavy loads averages around a loss of 2 which is 10^5 or 100,000 hours. 

   

  Combine that with the fact that an SSD itself is more sensitive to temperature and has a lower tolerance too and easilly if you operate 20C above tolerance, at load, your MBTF can go from 1 * 10^7 hours to 2.5 * 10^6 hours and then to 2.5 * 10^3 hours in the worse case (average is 2.5 * 10^4)

  Edit: Corrected a numerical value for the sake of precision and wiped out a rather rude comment which had no real place in my post. 
• Quizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,351

  April 2011

  The point of RAID 1 is that if one drive fails, you not only don't immediately lose your data, but can promptly replace the failed drive with a new one and again have proper RAID 1 backup.  If both drives fail at the same time, then sure, you lose your data.  But if one drive fails, you don't have to run the other at all until you have a replacement on hand and can copy all of the data from the other drive in the RAID array over to the new one, thereby restoring the RAID array.  Depending on capacity, this could well take hours.  But the probability that the second drive will fail over the course of three years simply isn't relevant.  It has to fail at almost the same time as the first drive to be a problem.

  For the price of the cheapest 150 GB VelociRaptor, you could get three 7200 RPM hard drives of larger capacity than that, and then if one drive in your RAID 1 array fails, immediately have the drive with which to replace it sitting there waiting to be plugged in.  I'm not saying you should do this; rather, it would make more sense than a VelociRaptor for bulk data storage, which admittedly isn't saying much.

  For what it's worth, the reason why Western Digital launched the VelociRaptor (or rather, the original Raptor) in the first place was that they couldn't get "Enterprise" to buy their enterprise class drives much.
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  April 2011

  ---

  Originally posted by Shinami

  Ok, I know you must be joking. 
  

  ---

  No, I'm afraid I wasn't.

  I say - My opinion, Raptors Suck. Here's why I think that.
  You say - no, RAID is good. Here are some numbers I just made up, Chewbacca Defense wins again.

  lol

  I can call pig manure "Enterprise class" and sell it if i want, there is not governing body which tolls out the label after passing excruciating test.
• Ooklar Member Posts: 5

  April 2011

  Thanks a ton for the input all. A lot of food for thought here appreciate it greatly.
• CRAZYCAN00K Member UncommonPosts: 47

  April 2011

  I just recently built a new PC as well and I decided to go with the HAF X 942. Reason being is for a good mid tower at around $130 + the 50 bucks to ship it ... newegg offerend the HAF X for about the same cost + free shipping.

   

  Just a idea , it is a very good case and you will always have it.

  

  
  
• Ridelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383

  April 2011

  And not to nitpick your math, but 10^4 = 10,000, not 1,000.