*How To Ask For New Build Advice*

[k10man]

Hello,

Trying to figure out a good gaming build for AMD 1090T.
Have a full ATX case - HAF 932 by CoolerMaster.
Speculated on the Gigabyte 890FX mobo.

The rest I have no idea...

Funds is not an issue, but would rather not build a power devourer.

Also have the PSU a Corsair 750W. Did not buy, friend's present...650 would have been enough as it was.

Any ideas?

 

[banthracis]

Fill out the form in the sticky, link in my sig.

You copied the title of the post correctly at least.

 

[joelmartinez]

I need at least budget and country to get started

 

[joelmartinez]

resolution would be nice too, please fill out the entire thing to get the best advice

 

[k10man]

Sorry about that, new to the whole posting in forum thing.


Approximate Purchase Date: Plan to purchase parts this week.


Budget Range: 800-1500


System Usage from Most to Least Important: Gaming, multimedia editing, web surfing


Parts Not Required: Keyboard, mouse, headphones with mic, webcam, psu (Corsair CMPSU-750TX 750w), AMD 1090T BE, and Cooler Master HAF 932.

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: Been using newegg, microcenter, tigerdirect, and even amazon.


Country of Origin: US


Parts Preferences: Coolermaster, Gigabyte, Corsair, etc...I am unsure of the brands so you can throw anything at me.

Overclocking: Maybe, a possibility.


SLI or Crossfire: Yes


Monitor Resolution: 1920x1080


Additional Comments: Not looking for a 'showy' computer, but one that will blow everything away...for atleast a couple months.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Parts already have:

Cooler Master HAF 932
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119213&cm_re=HAF_932-_-11-119-213-_-Product

AMD Phenom II x6 1090T
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849&cm_re=phenom_ii_x6-_-19-103-849-_-Product

Corsair CMPSU-750TX PSU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139006&Tpk=Corsair%20CMPSU-750TX

2x SAMSUNG BX2431 24" LED HD Monitors
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001440&cm_re=samsung_24_inch_monitor-_-24-001-440-_-Product


Hope this is better than my previous post.

Thanks for the help.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

assumming you want to spend that $800+ on all remaining parts, here is my suggestion:

AS Rock 870 Extreme 3: $89.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157198
a solid motherboard with 8x/8x crossfire, USB 3.0 and SATA 3.

2x Sapphire HD6870 ($219.99 ea): $439.98 (1 $20 rebate)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102913

Samsung Spinpoint F3 1 TB HDD: $64.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185

Patriot 8 GB DDR3-1600: $96.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220569

Hyper 212+ CPU Cooler: $29.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065

OCZ Agility 2 90 GB SSD: $179.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227604


total $901.93

The paired 6870s should handle gaming at your potential 3840x1080 gaming just fine, and are more powerful than a GTX 580 anyway. While this doesn't leave an 'upgrade path' by the time this system as is can't handle games, it'll be time to upgrade anyway.

 

[k10man]

Thanks. Just had a question.

Would this board be a better fit?
Had a lot of experience with Asus and Gigabyte, kind of nervous with another brand mobo.
I appreciate you comments. Just want to get opinions.

GIGABYTE GA-890FX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128441

Yes, no?

 

[ScrewySqrl]

that gigabite will only be useful if you run 3 or more graphics cards. the difference between 16x/16x crossfire and 8x/8x crossfire is less than 2%. If 16x/16x gives 100FPs, 8x/8x gives 98. It's not worth doubling your mobo price for 1-2 fps.

AS Rock was spun off from ASUS in 2002, and is probly the best of the 'middle-tier' of motherboard builders around. (AS Rock, MSI, Zotac)

 

[joelmartinez]

I'd actually recommend you buy a 6950 2gb, unlock it to a 6970 (google it) then sell it as soon as the 6990 comes out and run your monitors off that 1 6990= 2 6950s

 

[k10man]

I spent last night reading up on AS Rock and a lot of things in the few articles I read made them sound pretty good.
They are very affordable and can do a lot of the same things as the top tier mobo.
I was also looking into the 6950 just a little while ago. Read a blog about unlocking the 6950 to reach 6970. Crazy stuff. That is the card I kept seeing people using in 'youtube' videos using 3 screens in eyefinity. Not sure I will be up to do something like that yet, haha. Been playing on two moniters with Guild Wars and MW2 for a while, who knows maybe eventually I will do something like that.
Jeez, 98 fps? I only get 40 fps on my current system.

Screwy, the ssd you mentioned, what is the difference between mlc and slc?
Joel, will the 6950 support 2 monitors with 1 card or 2 cards needed?

 

[ScrewySqrl]

The OCZ Agility 2 uses a Sandforce controller, easily the top performing model in terms of price/performance. $2/gig is about par for sandforce model, though which company has that varies with a sandforce (Sometimes its OCZ, sometimes Mushkin, sometimes G.Skill)

SLC is single layer, while MLC is multi-layer control

full details here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/hardware-components-aftermarket-upgrades/223173-know-your-ssds-slc-vs-mlc.html

regardless of that article, the Agility 2 has an estimated lifespan of 3-5 years, under normal usage.

 

[k10man]

I may be wrong but an article I read before said SSD have a lifespan of 110 years or some crazy number like that. I understand wear and tear and reinstallations and common everyday use throughout multiple programs could lessen that greatly, but why is it only lasting 3-5 years? I mean I will more than likely have a new piece of technology by then, but just curious. No moving parts you would think it would last longer than that.
Is there any differences in SLC and MLC performances? Other than OS, what should be placed on the SSD? Anything?
In your opinion, on another topic....the graphics card that Joel mentioned, the 6950...would that be a wise buy considering the price and what I will get out of it? I play currently Guild Wars, Counter Strike, and GW 2 when it arrives. And use programs such as Creative Suite light use and Solidworks for work.
Not to over rule Joel, just figured I would get more than one opinion on the matter. I looked at the one you mentioned and cannot seem to figure out which one can do what I need without spending huge amount on something I will use half of.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

what causes the lifespan limit is there are a limited number of times each cell can be written to, after which point the SSD response times rise immensely. The data is still there and probly will last that 110 years, but as a high-speed device, its useless. SLC is generally preferable over MLC.

As for the GPU, the 6950 is more powerful than a single 6870, less powerful than a GTX 570. SOME can be unlocked into 6970s (what percentage I don't know, and remember, there usually a reason it gets binned down) which are about even with a 570. a pair of 6950s will be more powerful than the pair of 6870s I mentioned, but running about $100 more for the pair ($540 vs $440).

 

[k10man]

So upon buying this SSD device, what programs should be most important to store on it? Or would it be wiser to run with Raid 0?
Do you feel the 6950 is overkill for me?

 

[ScrewySqrl]

the OS and ones that you use most often. loading times will be faster.

 

[joelmartinez]

Don't use RAID 0 it doubles failure rate and eliminates TRIM support. Get a 6950 percentage unlock is really high the difference between the binnings is the temp, you need good cooling to run an unlocked 6950 and you probably won't be able to OC it much once you unlocked it. http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159 depends on brand I'd go with HIS

 

[coldsleep]

what causes the lifespan limit is there are a limited number of times each cell can be written to, after which point the SSD response times rise immensely. The data is still there and probly will last that 110 years, but as a high-speed device, its useless. SLC is generally preferable over MLC.

Where are you getting this info from?

The best estimates I have seen so far come from Anandtech's SSD Relapse, about 10 years with high usage.

SLC is certainly preferable if cost is no issue, but it's not a reasonable price point for most consumers.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

I was getting the 3-5 years estimate from 2010 SSD articles. Obviously, Anand has gone into more research since.

 

[k10man]

Coldsleep: Cost is not a problem when the money is being spent for a purpose. lol, I am not going to spend the money for slc, because honestly, it will not be useful to me.
Thanks for the knowledge though, I appreciate it.

 

[k10man]

Joel: I only asked about raid 0 because a buddy of mine told me with a convincing argument (he is typically very convincing) that raid 0 is faster tan SSD. I am not sure I would trust myself running it that way but this is the info he gave me, of course he never mentioned life span of the products when done this way.

 

[k10man]

Screwy: Thanks for the consistent amount of help through all my questions. I understand it can be difficult dealing with all this. As I am sure many other people need help I will not hold you up anymore lol, I will let you know when it is completely built. Thanks a lot everyone.

 

[coldsleep]

Joel: I only asked about raid 0 because a buddy of mine told me with a convincing argument (he is typically very convincing) that raid 0 is faster tan SSD. I am not sure I would trust myself running it that way but this is the info he gave me, of course he never mentioned life span of the products when done this way.

RAID 0 is definitely not going to be faster than an SSD by most measures.

You could possbily get a RAID 0 drive to stream data around the disk more quickly (copying a 2 GB file from one folder to another), but a RAID 0 array isn't going to have the near-instantaneous access that you get from an SSD, which is typically how you experience "speed" as it relates to hard drives in your computer. A RAID 0 array still has to spin up the drives and experiences latency because of that. An SSD, with no moving parts, has no such latency.

The best article I have been able to find comparing RAID 0 and SSDs is actually about 2 SSDs in RAID 0 vs. 8 HDDs in RAID 0, so it's not exactly what you're looking for. But even so, the conclusion says a lot: "The SSDs are better in almost every benchmark with the exception of throughput, which typically scales nicely with the number of drives used. This is where the hard drives won through sheer force of numbers."

Generally, I think the best bet for most users today (with the money for an SSD) is to get a 60-120 GB SSD and a 1 TB (or larger) HDD. Use the SSD for your commonly used programs, store everything else on the HDD.

 

[joelmartinez]

^+90

 

[k10man]

Coldsleep: That helped me out understanding it a lot. I appreciate the time you took to help me. I have a OCZ Agility 2 coming in delivery today, only 90gb but it is a start. From this point forward it is safe to say that I will be using people on here to help me with information. Thanks.

 

[k10man]

Had another question, Optical drives...what to get and what not to get...

Looking at dvd/cd and bd burner.
Any guidance on any brands to focus on let me know.

Thanks.