Five Z87 Motherboards Under $220, Reviewed

[Crashman]

Humm, lol.

Practically no laptops on the market (maybe 1% of models out there) even have the ability to stuff two internal drives and the majority of people do not even know what RAID is.

I'll go one better. The real concept here is that hardly anyone uses several high-bandwidth devices at the same time. So you RAID 0 two SSD's for your system drive and, at best, use up half the DMI bandwidth. Then you transfer a file to a super-fast USB 3.0 drive and use up another 25%, assuming all the traffic has to go through the CPU. And they you'd still have 25% left in this unrealistic scenario.

These guys that argue about having multiple drives for multiple purposes (system drives, storage drives) with some in RAID aren't usually being honest about their use patterns. They're not stuffing all the channels at the same time.

It's almost as bad as the guys who say they "never" use an optical drive when they know that the truth is that they rarely use them. They're prone to exaggeration. When they use words like always and never they're not even being honest with themselves.

I realize that there are a few exceptions. I can't represent the 0.3% to the exclusion of the 99.7%. The best I can tell the 0.3% is to shift to a higher-cost platform, include them with the ~5% that also need more than four cores, and address those higher-cost systems as aspirational if I want to get the attention of lower-budget buyers.

 

[InvalidError]

I'll go one better. The real concept here is that hardly anyone uses several high-bandwidth devices at the same time. So you RAID 0 two SSD's for your system drive and, at best, use up half the DMI bandwidth. Then you transfer a file to a super-fast USB 3.0 drive and use up another 25%, assuming all the traffic has to go through the CPU. And they you'd still have 25% left in this unrealistic scenario.

If you are copying from SATA3 to USB3 or vice-versa at ~500MB/s (probably the only task where typical PC users are ever going to use anywhere near this much bandwidth), you actually still have ~75% of the DMI bus free since it is symmetrical and you are only using ~25% of it both ways.

The easiest way to burn through DMI's bandwidth budget would be putting a video card (or two) on the IOHub's PCIe lanes. The DMI would be maxed out in at least one direction a lot of the time with the GPU(s) in use. No surprise Intel recommends against using such setups.

DMI may not look like it has much bandwidth but for its intended purposes, it is still more bandwidth than most people are likely to care about in the foreseeable future. I wouldn't be surprised if DMI 2.0 stuck around until Intel moves the IOHub on-CPU with Skylake or possibly sooner with some Broadwell variants.

 

[sna]

And you are mistaken , even Notebooks are using Raid 0 in SSD today consuming 1G/s of bandwidth ... add a 2.5 SSD to it thats 1.5G/s

The desktop ? I allways used Raid 5 Raptors on my desktops .. I dont know where do you get your info that no one is using raid on their desktops... almost every one I know had Raid5 Raptors 10k rpm drives 10 years ago

Humm, lol.

Practically no laptops on the market (maybe 1% of models out there) even have the ability to stuff two internal drives and the majority of people do not even know what RAID is.

yes they do , in Msata , High end Notebooks have 2 Msata ports in raid 0 , and one 2.5 bay for another hard disk.

you seem out of reach here , update your knowledge ...

 

[sna]

Humm, lol.

Practically no laptops on the market (maybe 1% of models out there) even have the ability to stuff two internal drives and the majority of people do not even know what RAID is.

I'll go one better. The real concept here is that hardly anyone uses several high-bandwidth devices at the same time. So you RAID 0 two SSD's for your system drive and, at best, use up half the DMI bandwidth. Then you transfer a file to a super-fast USB 3.0 drive and use up another 25%, assuming all the traffic has to go through the CPU. And they you'd still have 25% left in this unrealistic scenario.

These guys that argue about having multiple drives for multiple purposes (system drives, storage drives) with some in RAID aren't usually being honest about their use patterns. They're not stuffing all the channels at the same time.

It's almost as bad as the guys who say they "never" use an optical drive when they know that the truth is that they rarely use them. They're prone to exaggeration. When they use words like always and never they're not even being honest with themselves.

I realize that there are a few exceptions. I can't represent the 0.3% to the exclusion of the 99.7%. The best I can tell the 0.3% is to shift to a higher-cost platform, include them with the ~5% that also need more than four cores, and address those higher-cost systems as aspirational if I want to get the attention of lower-budget buyers.

you missed something , I will use 6 SSD in Raid 0 not only two . you need to go up and read the original post .. it was about 6 SSD in raid 0 not 2 .

so you wont have the extra bandwidth.

the notebook was just an example.

 

[Crashman]

The best I can tell the 0.3% is to shift to a higher-cost platform, include them with the ~5% that also need more than four cores, and address those higher-cost systems as aspirational if I want to get the attention of lower-budget buyers.

you missed something , I will use 6 SSD in Raid 0 not only two . you need to go up and read the original post .. it was about 6 SSD in raid 0 not 2

What were you saying?

 

[RedJaron]

yes they do , in Msata , High end Notebooks have 2 Msata ports in raid 0 , and one 2.5 bay for another hard disk.

you seem out of reach here , update your knowledge ...

Um, you pretty much validated the point you were trying to counter. Only high-end specialty laptops offer that kind of drive layout. The vast majority don't even offer a single mSATA connector. Techies tend to have techies for friends, so you may well have friends with RAID setups like the one you describe for the last decade ( though I highly doubt ALL of them do, as you assert. ) The overwhelming majority of desktops in use don't use RAIDs, and even most enthusiast level desktops don't use them ( though that's a closer ratio. )

Assuming the majority of computer people share your preferences and practices is unrealistic. You seem out of touch with reality, update your mind.

 

[InvalidError]

you missed something , I will use 6 SSD in Raid 0 not only two . you need to go up and read the original post .. it was about 6 SSD in raid 0 not 2 .

His point (and mine) is simple: less than 0.001% of PC end-users will do what you are doing.

If getting such crazy bandwidth out of your storage solution is critically important to you, you can get an LGA2011 platform which uses QPI instead of DMI between the CPU and IOHub... you also get 24 extra PCIe 3.0 lanes to play with - LGA2011 is where the money is at for people with somewhat outlandish system requirements.

Alternately, you can use an LGA1150/1155 board with SLI/CFX support and stick a PCIe x8 storage controller in one of the x8/x4 PCIe 3.0 slots.

 

[sna]

you missed something , I will use 6 SSD in Raid 0 not only two . you need to go up and read the original post .. it was about 6 SSD in raid 0 not 2 .

His point (and mine) is simple: less than 0.001% of PC end-users will do what you are doing.

If getting such crazy bandwidth out of your storage solution is critically important to you, you can get an LGA2011 platform which uses QPI instead of DMI between the CPU and IOHub... you also get 24 extra PCIe 3.0 lanes to play with - LGA2011 is where the money is at for people with somewhat outlandish system requirements.

Alternately, you can use an LGA1150/1155 board with SLI/CFX support and stick a PCIe x8 storage controller in one of the x8/x4 PCIe 3.0 slots.

Only SandyBridge-E Xeons Support PCIe 3.0 Sadly .. I am waiting for the Ivy-Bridge-E for sure and will skip the Haswell .

now that I know about the 2G/s limitation

 

[sna]

yes they do , in Msata , High end Notebooks have 2 Msata ports in raid 0 , and one 2.5 bay for another hard disk.

you seem out of reach here , update your knowledge ...

Um, you pretty much validated the point you were trying to counter. Only high-end specialty laptops offer that kind of drive layout. The vast majority don't even offer a single mSATA connector. Techies tend to have techies for friends, so you may well have friends with RAID setups like the one you describe for the last decade ( though I highly doubt ALL of them do, as you assert. ) The overwhelming majority of desktops in use don't use RAIDs, and even most enthusiast level desktops don't use them ( though that's a closer ratio. )

Assuming the majority of computer people share your preferences and practices is unrealistic. You seem out of touch with reality, update your mind.

I am not trying to counter anything. who cares about your statistics , which I doubt as well . and who cares how many will buy or need , I was not talking about that at all. I was talking about the fact that they cheat us when they say 6 Sata 3 Ports , 6 USB3 ports , without saying CLEAR that there is a bandwidth Limit and they are SHARED . you CANT say to people , this chipset supports 6x Sata 3 in Raid 0/1/5 and hide from them it is not REAL .

you came in and connected it to demand .. WHO CARES.

and all the people I know pay at least $2000 for their desktops and more for Notebooks , we are not kids at Uni. yes we all used Raptors in Raid 0 .

we dont buy cheap entry level stuff . I never went to Garbage level of Fake PC at 500$ or 1000$ .. I paid for my old Amiga 2000 more than 3000$ back in the 90's , you expect me to pay less for PC today ? wake up.

oh yes and the old $$$ in the 90's is worth double of today so I paid $6000 Dollars by today standards.

you people dont know and never lived the old times. you are living in cheap garbage PC time and making it as standard , a Real PC starts at $2000 without Monitor ! My NEC monitors alone are $2000 each

 

[RedJaron]

I am not trying to counter anything. who cares about your statistics , which I doubt as well . and who cares how many will buy or need , I was not talking about that at all. I was talking about the fact that they cheat us when they say 6 Sata 3 Ports , 6 USB3 ports , without saying CLEAR that there is a bandwidth Limit and they are SHARED . you CANT say to people , this chipset supports 6x Sata 3 in Raid 0/1/5 and hide from them it is not REAL .

you came in and connected it to demand .. WHO CARES.

and all the people I know pay at least $2000 for their desktops and more for Notebooks , we are not kids at Uni. yes we all used Raptors in Raid 0 .

we dont buy cheap entry level stuff . I never went to Garbage level of Fake PC at 500$ or 1000$ .. I paid for my old Amiga 2000 more than 3000$ back in the 90's , you expect me to pay less for PC today ? wake up.

oh yes and the old $$$ in the 90's is worth double of today so I paid $6000 Dollars by today standards.

you people dont know and never lived the old times. you are living in cheap garbage PC time and making it as standard , a Real PC starts at $2000 without Monitor ! My NEC monitors alone are $2000 each

You're not trying to counter anything? Are you sure? See, usually when one person says one thing, and another says something along the lines of, "No, that's not right and here's why," that's called a counter argument.

Now, obviously YOU care about this, otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to prove us "Garbage PC" people wrong. Look again at Intel's graphic. It specifically says "Up to 6 x USB 3.0 Ports" and "Up to 6 Gb/s" on the SATA ports ( my own emphasis added. ) That's called marketing and every company does it. They didn't claim everything could be run at full speed simultaneously. In fact I don't know any mboard that claims all it's ports and connectors can be used at full bandwidth at the same time. I'll agree that it might be a little misleading, but it's not an out-right lie. It's no different that a PSU that claims a high wattage simply because its 5V rail can crank out 250W. It's up to the consumer to do their research on what products they buy.

That's a lovely run of assumptions you make at the end. Almost as impressive as the epeen you're trying to throw around, bragging how much money you spend on hardware. Is that supposed to impress me? Is it supposed to establish your tech savvy? Your computer prowess? Your elite technological know-how? My terminology for what you're describing is "more money than brains." You see most of us recognize a principle in the technology world that components continually get cheaper to manufacture while improving in quality and computational power. I would hope that YOU would hope to spend comparatively less on computer hardware now than you did in the past. Perhaps it is you that needs to wake up, especially if you think a "real" PC starts at $2000.

But why are you even complaining about this? If you're so set on spending such top notch money for such marginal gains, shouldn't you be looking at enterprise level stuff, and not worry about the Fake PC line of consumer level components?

 

[Sonny73N]

*** Troll post deleted ***

Go f yourself TH

 

[InvalidError]

I was talking about the fact that they cheat us when they say 6 Sata 3 Ports , 6 USB3 ports , without saying CLEAR that there is a bandwidth Limit and they are SHARED . you CANT say to people , this chipset supports 6x Sata 3 in Raid 0/1/5 and hide from them it is not REAL .

you people dont know and never lived the old times. you are living in cheap garbage PC time and making it as standard , a Real PC starts at $2000 without Monitor ! My NEC monitors alone are $2000 each

Intel is not 'cheating' anyone out of anything; the shared and limited nature of the DMI link between chipset and CPU is in nearly every architecture diagram. People who complain about getting "cheated" simply failed to do their research. Few review sites ever bother to mention it since normal people (and even most hardware sites) hardly ever run into issues caused by that since even hardware reviews rarely make intensive use of more than 3-4 devices at any given time.

If you have such a large budget and want workstation/server-class IO, you should simply stop complaining about consumer-grade chips and get a 'real' PC based on LGA2011 workstation/server-grade chips and be done with it instead of dissing consumer-class hardware for not supporting your server-class requirements.

The sub-$1000 "fake PCs" which are the bulk of the PC market does not need server-class IO with associated power and cost.

As for "cheap stuff", I'm personally very happy that I can build a very respectable PC that gets everything I need to do done faster than I care for less than $1000 instead of paying over $4000 for my first PC (486DX33) that already felt frustratingly slow even back when it was still the fastest chip on market.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

you missed something , I will use 6 SSD in Raid 0 not only two . you need to go up and read the original post .. it was about 6 SSD in raid 0 not 2 .

His point (and mine) is simple: less than 0.001% of PC end-users will do what you are doing.

If getting such crazy bandwidth out of your storage solution is critically important to you, you can get an LGA2011 platform which uses QPI instead of DMI between the CPU and IOHub... you also get 24 extra PCIe 3.0 lanes to play with - LGA2011 is where the money is at for people with somewhat outlandish system requirements.

Alternately, you can use an LGA1150/1155 board with SLI/CFX support and stick a PCIe x8 storage controller in one of the x8/x4 PCIe 3.0 slots.

Only SandyBridge-E Xeons Support PCIe 3.0 Sadly .. I am waiting for the Ivy-Bridge-E for sure and will skip the Haswell .

now that I know about the 2G/s limitation

Actually, Ivy Bridge supports 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0

Also, by that logic an intercontinental flight in the 50s would have cost tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands in today's dollars. Does that mean you book a private plane every time you want to go somewhere?

The point of diminishing returns has lowered a lot.

 

[Dax corrin]

I think I'll stick with my i7-2700 a bit longer

 

[Onus]

Even the i7-2700 is considerable overkill for PvZ.

 

[sna]

I am not trying to counter anything. who cares about your statistics , which I doubt as well . and who cares how many will buy or need , I was not talking about that at all. I was talking about the fact that they cheat us when they say 6 Sata 3 Ports , 6 USB3 ports , without saying CLEAR that there is a bandwidth Limit and they are SHARED . you CANT say to people , this chipset supports 6x Sata 3 in Raid 0/1/5 and hide from them it is not REAL .

you came in and connected it to demand .. WHO CARES.

and all the people I know pay at least $2000 for their desktops and more for Notebooks , we are not kids at Uni. yes we all used Raptors in Raid 0 .

we dont buy cheap entry level stuff . I never went to Garbage level of Fake PC at 500$ or 1000$ .. I paid for my old Amiga 2000 more than 3000$ back in the 90's , you expect me to pay less for PC today ? wake up.

oh yes and the old $$$ in the 90's is worth double of today so I paid $6000 Dollars by today standards.

you people dont know and never lived the old times. you are living in cheap garbage PC time and making it as standard , a Real PC starts at $2000 without Monitor ! My NEC monitors alone are $2000 each

You're not trying to counter anything? Are you sure? See, usually when one person says one thing, and another says something along the lines of, "No, that's not right and here's why," that's called a counter argument.

Now, obviously YOU care about this, otherwise you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to prove us "Garbage PC" people wrong. Look again at Intel's graphic. It specifically says "Up to 6 x USB 3.0 Ports" and "Up to 6 Gb/s" on the SATA ports ( my own emphasis added. ) That's called marketing and every company does it. They didn't claim everything could be run at full speed simultaneously. In fact I don't know any mboard that claims all it's ports and connectors can be used at full bandwidth at the same time. I'll agree that it might be a little misleading, but it's not an out-right lie. It's no different that a PSU that claims a high wattage simply because its 5V rail can crank out 250W. It's up to the consumer to do their research on what products they buy.

That's a lovely run of assumptions you make at the end. Almost as impressive as the epeen you're trying to throw around, bragging how much money you spend on hardware. Is that supposed to impress me? Is it supposed to establish your tech savvy? Your computer prowess? Your elite technological know-how? My terminology for what you're describing is "more money than brains." You see most of us recognize a principle in the technology world that components continually get cheaper to manufacture while improving in quality and computational power. I would hope that YOU would hope to spend comparatively less on computer hardware now than you did in the past. Perhaps it is you that needs to wake up, especially if you think a "real" PC starts at $2000.

But why are you even complaining about this? If you're so set on spending such top notch money for such marginal gains, shouldn't you be looking at enterprise level stuff, and not worry about the Fake PC line of consumer level components?

lol .. yes a Real PC does Start At $2000 ... you never tried !

and you dont know how to try ! when people were using IDE I was using SCSI Drives , and All the powerfull Machines used SCSI drives , the PC market is cheap as standard. when People were using P4 and never tried Multi CPU , I was using dual CPU motherboards from the time of old P3 Times .. and it did make a difference , the difference YOU today enjoy when using dual core Machines and Multi cores ... I had that pleasure 10 years b4 you ever tried Multi CPU experience.

and TODAY I am enjoying what you will enjoy for 500$ after 10 years.

you get what you pay for !

 

[sna]

you missed something , I will use 6 SSD in Raid 0 not only two . you need to go up and read the original post .. it was about 6 SSD in raid 0 not 2 .

His point (and mine) is simple: less than 0.001% of PC end-users will do what you are doing.

If getting such crazy bandwidth out of your storage solution is critically important to you, you can get an LGA2011 platform which uses QPI instead of DMI between the CPU and IOHub... you also get 24 extra PCIe 3.0 lanes to play with - LGA2011 is where the money is at for people with somewhat outlandish system requirements.

Alternately, you can use an LGA1150/1155 board with SLI/CFX support and stick a PCIe x8 storage controller in one of the x8/x4 PCIe 3.0 slots.

Only SandyBridge-E Xeons Support PCIe 3.0 Sadly .. I am waiting for the Ivy-Bridge-E for sure and will skip the Haswell .

now that I know about the 2G/s limitation

Actually, Ivy Bridge supports 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0

Also, by that logic an intercontinental flight in the 50s would have cost tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands in today's dollars. Does that mean you book a private plane every time you want to go somewhere?

The point of diminishing returns has lowered a lot.

The Xeons have 40 Lanes of PCIe 3.0

I am waiting for IvyBridge-E

 

[sna]

I was talking about the fact that they cheat us when they say 6 Sata 3 Ports , 6 USB3 ports , without saying CLEAR that there is a bandwidth Limit and they are SHARED . you CANT say to people , this chipset supports 6x Sata 3 in Raid 0/1/5 and hide from them it is not REAL .

you people dont know and never lived the old times. you are living in cheap garbage PC time and making it as standard , a Real PC starts at $2000 without Monitor ! My NEC monitors alone are $2000 each

Intel is not 'cheating' anyone out of anything; the shared and limited nature of the DMI link between chipset and CPU is in nearly every architecture diagram. People who complain about getting "cheated" simply failed to do their research. Few review sites ever bother to mention it since normal people (and even most hardware sites) hardly ever run into issues caused by that since even hardware reviews rarely make intensive use of more than 3-4 devices at any given time.

If you have such a large budget and want workstation/server-class IO, you should simply stop complaining about consumer-grade chips and get a 'real' PC based on LGA2011 workstation/server-grade chips and be done with it instead of dissing consumer-class hardware for not supporting your server-class requirements.

The sub-$1000 "fake PCs" which are the bulk of the PC market does not need server-class IO with associated power and cost.

As for "cheap stuff", I'm personally very happy that I can build a very respectable PC that gets everything I need to do done faster than I care for less than $1000 instead of paying over $4000 for my first PC (486DX33) that already felt frustratingly slow even back when it was still the fastest chip on market.

It is cheating. for example , try to hook 6 SSD to the Z87 chipset in raid 0 or 5 you will not get the 3G/s bandwidth and at the same time will bottleneck the USB3 Ports.

as for your $1000 Machine , I am sorry to say , it is not a respected PC ... you just compare the performance , big NO I dont , I have a fixed budget for PC , and I never go cheap ... your argument for the 486DX33 is not valid , why dont you compare it to IBMPC AT 286 ? it is the same.

and now is the same ... I enjoy 4G/s Raid using SSD , NEC 1600P Monitor , 2x SLI 680 GTX , 64 G of Ram , 32G of them Ram disk .. try a Ram Disk you will never look back !
Plus a 200$ sound card you WILL Feel the difference

if you paid $4000 for a 486 , and not paying at least $3000 for a pc today then you are Crazy .. Missing alot.

you cant compare this to a 1000$ machine , and at the 486 Time it was the same , a 4000$ machine Had scsi Drive FAST HD in it and more ram and for sure a Sony Trinitron

 

[RedJaron]

lol .. yes a Real PC does Start At $2000 ... you never tried !

and you dont know how to try ! when people were using IDE I was using SCSI Drives , and All the powerfull Machines used SCSI drives , the PC market is cheap as standard. when People were using P4 and never tried Multi CPU , I was using dual CPU motherboards from the time of old P3 Times .. and it did make a difference , the difference YOU today enjoy when using dual core Machines and Multi cores ... I had that pleasure 10 years b4 you ever tried Multi CPU experience.

and TODAY I am enjoying what you will enjoy for 500$ after 10 years.

you get what you pay for !

*sigh* And you still continue with the horribly misconceived assumptions about me, my building history, and my technology practices. Where's the "mute" button for this troll? . . .

 

[InvalidError]

lol .. yes a Real PC does Start At $2000 ... you never tried !

For most people, throwing more than $1000 in a PC is a waste of cash.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

So, you seriously think this: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($460.00 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus P9X79 DELUXE ATX LGA2011 Motherboard ($349.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 64GB (8 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($529.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Samsung 840 Pro Series 512GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($434.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($161.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($161.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair Obsidian Series 800D ATX Full Tower Case ($259.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic X Series 1250W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($249.44 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG WH14NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer ($67.94 @ Outlet PC)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($185.97 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $5895.21
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-06-14 01:01 EDT-0400)

Is seriously worth $4.5k over something toned down with a 3570K and a 780, for the average gamer?

Also, what would you consider to be the equivalent of a dual-processor board in today's world? Not an SSD; they're common in anything above $1k. By the time you start running a RAM disk you have to load everything into it while booting the OS - that could be ~30s at 500MB/s.

 

[RedJaron]

So, you seriously think this: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($460.00 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus P9X79 DELUXE ATX LGA2011 Motherboard ($349.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 64GB (8 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($529.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Samsung 840 Pro Series 512GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($434.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($161.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($161.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair Obsidian Series 800D ATX Full Tower Case ($259.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic X Series 1250W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($249.44 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG WH14NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer ($67.94 @ Outlet PC)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($185.97 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $5895.21
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-06-14 01:01 EDT-0400)

Is seriously worth $4.5k over something toned down with a 3570K and a 780, for the average gamer?

Also, what would you consider to be the equivalent of a dual-processor board in today's world? Not an SSD; they're common in anything above $1k. By the time you start running a RAM disk you have to load everything into it while booting the OS - that could be ~30s at 500MB/s.

No, NO, NO! He has RAIDs of Raptors and six SSDs, remember? All over SAS! All used simultaneously!

 

[chechak]

Asus WINS AGAIN...what a consequence

 

[sna]

So, you seriously think this: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($460.00 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus P9X79 DELUXE ATX LGA2011 Motherboard ($349.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 64GB (8 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($529.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Samsung 840 Pro Series 512GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($434.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($161.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($161.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX Titan 6GB Video Card (3-Way SLI) ($1010.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair Obsidian Series 800D ATX Full Tower Case ($259.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic X Series 1250W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($249.44 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG WH14NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer ($67.94 @ Outlet PC)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($185.97 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $5895.21
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-06-14 01:01 EDT-0400)

Is seriously worth $4.5k over something toned down with a 3570K and a 780, for the average gamer?

Also, what would you consider to be the equivalent of a dual-processor board in today's world? Not an SSD; they're common in anything above $1k. By the time you start running a RAM disk you have to load everything into it while booting the OS - that could be ~30s at 500MB/s.

No, NO, NO! He has RAIDs of Raptors and six SSDs, remember? All over SAS! All used simultaneously!

you can mock as you wish . but I will enjoy my System , and you will not even come close to it until some 5 years in the future !

so keep mocking !

btw , I have 16 SSD in raid and using PCIe 3.0 8x raid card .. (yes I can reach around 7-8G/s whenever I want , using 2x8 right now at 4G/s)

I was asking about the possibility of 6 SSD in Raid 0 for cheap systems

the 6 SSD in Raid 0 using onboard chipset , for me is a cheap entry level system.

I never pay less than $2000 for any pc . my entry level is $2000.

have fun !

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Then you're wasting money. What do you do, eat at McDonalds to save that much?

Sounds like you should have just gone for a PCIe SSD. Have you ever actually moved more than ~500MB/s in anything other than benchmarks?

I wonder if you are just trolling - somebody earning that much should know how to use the 'shift' key.