1. #1

    New rig specs help/thoughts?

    Hello everyone ,

    Would just like a little advice on a new rig im making. Have had some help from you guys and this is what ive come up with.
    Anything that doesn't look right ?
    Mainly using this computer to play wow but may get into BF3 in the near future.


    MOBO:ASRock Z68 Extreme 4
    RAM: Corsair Vengeance Low Profile DDR3 PC12800/1600MHz 2x4GB
    CPU: Intel i5 2500k
    SSD: Crucial m4 128gb
    PSU: Corsair 750W
    GPU: MSI 6950 2gb Twin Frozor 3
    Cooling: Cool Master Hyper 212+


    Im still undecided about the case but have looked at the Cool Master Silencio, not sure how good it is at keeping everything cool with all its insulation etc etc.

  2. #2
    Looks really nice. Should easily max wow and give at least high settings in bf3 (though not likely ultra at any decent framerate).
    My favorite cases are the Haf 922, corsair carbide (400r or 500r), and Fractal Define R3. For cheap ones Rosewill are awesome... the Rosewill challenger is only $50 with free shipping and has plenty of room/airflow.
    If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

  3. #3
    I would recommend getting a smaller SSD(40-60GB) for boot/general use stuff(drivers/browser/etc) and just using a large 500GB+ HDD for the games/storage.

    The Cool Master Silencio looks like it really lacks air flow(especially considering you are buying a case vented video card).
    The CM690 II Advanced will serve you better.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldchaos View Post
    I would recommend getting a smaller SSD(40-60GB) for boot/general use stuff(drivers/browser/etc) and just using a large 500GB+ HDD for the games/storage.

    The Cool Master Silencio looks like it really lacks air flow(especially considering you are buying a case vented video card).
    The CM690 II Advanced will serve you better.
    Kind of defeats the purpose of an ssd in a gaming rig if you don't put games on it.
    If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by taekvideo View Post
    Kind of defeats the purpose of an ssd in a gaming rig if you don't put games on it.
    Not really, using two separate drives allows your OS and drivers to process into hardware significantly faster. Along with allowing the pagefile/swap to be close to RAM speed.

    Outside initial loading a normal HDD won't perform that much worse then an SSD for in-game loading(dependent on game).

    Also, if you do want that kind of performance get two smaller SSDs and a large HDD.
    SSD1: OS/Drivers/etc
    SSD2: Games you play often.
    HDD: Storage/Games you aren't playing.
    Last edited by Coldchaos; 2011-11-02 at 11:06 PM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldchaos View Post
    Not really, using two separate drives allows your OS and drivers to process into hardware significantly faster. Along with allowing the pagefile/swap to be close to RAM speed.

    Outside initial loading a normal HDD won't perform that much worse then an SSD for in-game loading(dependent on game).

    Also, if you do want that kind of performance get two smaller SSDs and a large HDD.
    SSD1: OS/Drivers/etc
    SSD2: Games you play often.
    HDD: Storage/Games you aren't playing.
    You're better off with 1 larger ssd than 2 smaller ssd's. You get more size for the price... you won't have space on your os drive not in use and unavailable for games... and the larger ones tend to be faster.
    If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by taekvideo View Post
    You're better off with 1 larger ssd than 2 smaller ssd's. You get more size for the price... you won't have space on your os drive not in use and unavailable for games... and the larger ones tend to be faster.
    The large ones and small ones tend to be the same speed, the only thing that changes is the hardware/firmware with a new generation.

    The only difference with having two is that they don't share the same speed, which means your game will be basically running independent of your OS/drivers. The SATA bus is more then sufficient to handle both at the same time. If price is that big of an issue you can pick up a 40GB for OS and an 80-90GB SSD for a $20-30~ increase, space wise you don't loose much. Speed wise you gain everything.

    Edit - I'm not saying you can't just buy a big one, but it just seems to defeat the point of having an SSD if everything is running off it. At least to me.
    Last edited by Coldchaos; 2011-11-02 at 11:27 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldchaos View Post
    The large ones and small ones tend to be the same speed, the only thing that changes is the hardware/firmware with a new generation.

    The only difference with having two is that they don't share the same speed, which means your game will be basically running independent of your OS/drivers. The SATA bus is more then sufficient to handle both at the same time. If price is that big of an issue you can pick up a 40GB for OS and an 80-90GB SSD for a $20-30~ increase, space wise you don't loose much. Speed wise you gain everything.

    Edit - I'm not saying you can't just buy a big one, but it just seems to defeat the point of having an SSD if everything is running off it. At least to me.
    Larger ssd's are significantly faster.
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/426?vs=425
    The minimal occasional usage of the ssd by the OS will definitely not come close to making up that difference.

    If you want to, check any other 60ish with its equivalent 120ish ssd... it's almost double the speed with the larger one.
    If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by taekvideo View Post
    Larger ssd's are significantly faster.
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/426?vs=425
    The minimal occasional usage of the ssd by the OS will definitely not come close to making up that difference.

    If you want to, check any other 60ish with its equivalent 120ish ssd... it's almost double the speed with the larger one.
    That isn't entirely accurate, the primary reason those numbers vary is the larger ones usually come out later and are shipped with the new(or updated) firmware/controllers. Brands that ship with identical firmware/controllers (ex Corsair) don't vary nearly as much, also allotting that large drives in general have an advantage on some while smaller drives on others.
    Last edited by Coldchaos; 2011-11-03 at 01:18 AM. Reason: Comparing Apples to Cucumbers

  10. #10
    Get a larger SSD if you can afford it. It really isn't that complicated. Could have got a smaller one myself but I am always playing multiple games at any one time and want them to load as quickly as possible.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldchaos View Post
    That isn't entirely accurate, the primary reason those numbers vary is the larger ones usually come out later and are shipped with the new(or updated) firmware/controllers. Brands that ship with identical firmware/controllers (ex Corsair) don't vary nearly as much, also allotting that large drives in general have an advantage on some while smaller drives on others.
    It is an accurate benchmark...
    The smaller drives don't have an advantage on anything... the 128gb in the one I linked beat the 64gb in every test except a few sequential read tests, and those were all really close... the 128gb won by about twice as fast in almost every other test. The same is true for the Ocz Agility 3 (even more-so... the 120gb trashed the 60gb in every test), Crucial RealSSD. For the OWC Mercury Extreme and Corsair Force the differences were less pronounced, but they were definitely there.

    Here are some other benchmarks if you seriously don't trust anandtech's ability to benchmark accurately....
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...on,2957-3.html
    and there's a few more here:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...d,2783-15.html
    (not many matching pairs of different sizes, but you can see on a few that even 100gb to 120gb makes a difference)

    You can't really just ignore the benchmarks and rationalize it away... the larger ssd's are faster.
    Complement that with the fact that using a single larger ssd is much easier and more cost effective... you'd only be hurting yourself if you got separate small drives for your os and for games.
    If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

  12. #12
    I'm saying that you are comparing granny smith apples to red delicious. They are all SSDs but the larger ones get the advantage of being released after the fact in almost every case. I'm not arguing that they aren't faster, I'm arguing that they aren't faster because they are larger, it's because they get the advantage of a few months of tech development. Anandtech and Tom's both use stock hardware for benchmarks, not update firmware/etc.

    You also have to remember that even if the smaller ones are slower you have to account for the fact that two can preform tasks in tandem, where as a single drive cannot; considerable performance difference there also. Sure a large drive can read 30MB/s faster, but when two can do 60MB/s over the large one. It's nice when the system resources being used to handle your games have difference sources then the game itself.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldchaos View Post
    I'm saying that you are comparing granny smith apples to red delicious. They are all SSDs but the larger ones get the advantage of being released after the fact in almost every case. I'm not arguing that they aren't faster, I'm arguing that they aren't faster because they are larger, it's because they get the advantage of a few months of tech development. Anandtech and Tom's both use stock hardware for benchmarks, not update firmware/etc.

    You also have to remember that even if the smaller ones are slower you have to account for the fact that two can preform tasks in tandem, where as a single drive cannot; considerable performance difference there also. Sure a large drive can read 30MB/s faster, but when two can do 60MB/s over the large one. It's nice when the system resources being used to handle your games have difference sources then the game itself.
    Where exactly are you getting this information?
    If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by taekvideo View Post
    Where exactly are you getting this information?
    Basic math/comprehension and the same sources you linked.

    edit- Plus knowing that the max speed of a SATA Bus is no where near that of any drive.
    Last edited by Coldchaos; 2011-11-03 at 04:33 AM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldchaos View Post
    Basic math/comprehension and the same sources you linked.

    edit- Plus knowing that the max speed of a SATA Bus is no where near that of any drive.
    So you're just guessing that they use different versions of firmware on different drives for the benchmarks? And that the variation in firmware causes +/- 100% error? Without an actual source indicating any of that? Do you have any source at all to indicate that a firmware update a few months later on most ssd's causes a doubling of performance? Because that seems pretty farfetched.
    If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by taekvideo View Post
    So you're just guessing that they use different versions of firmware on different drives for the benchmarks? And that the variation in firmware causes +/- 100% error? Without an actual source indicating any of that? Do you have any source at all to indicate that a firmware update a few months later on most ssd's causes a doubling of performance? Because that seems pretty farfetched.
    Hehe, after a post like this...
    Not really, using two separate drives allows your OS and drivers to process into hardware significantly faster. Along with allowing the pagefile/swap to be close to RAM speed.

    Outside initial loading a normal HDD won't perform that much worse then an SSD for in-game loading(dependent on game).
    is there any question that he's just guessing? I don't know that he's said anything that's actually correct.


    Getting back to the op....your build looks good. As far as cases, Corsair has a nice set going right now so you may want to look.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by taekvideo View Post
    So you're just guessing that they use different versions of firmware on different drives for the benchmarks? And that the variation in firmware causes +/- 100% error? Without an actual source indicating any of that? Do you have any source at all to indicate that a firmware update a few months later on most ssd's causes a doubling of performance? Because that seems pretty farfetched.
    No, I've use multiple SSDs in my system and there is solid performance scaling for both RAID0 and alternate drives(OS/games). The page/swap is the big one because, for some reason lost to me, game developers still use pagefile when there is(lots of) RAM available; disabling it isn't much of an option because it causes all kinds of havoc with some games if you don't allow it. Now if it is on the same drive that you are loading the game off of you are now using a large chunk of the drive IO to function like RAM, which drastically drops speed for loading.

    Edit- If the drives are separate this obviously doesn't occur because your pagefile is being used on your OS drive and the game is loading out of your secondary drive.

    is there any question that he's just guessing? I don't know that he's said anything that's actually correct.
    It's not really hard to check that I'm right. Load up a SATA Bus monitor while you are gaming. Any game that dynamically loads resources does not use that much speed to do. The only thing you are gaining with an SSD is actual loading screen times where the engine/resources and initial memory are instantiated.


    Edit2-You will be fine with a large SSD if you want to go with that, but I still would recommend at least some kind of secondary storage. 128GB gets gobbled up pretty fast with modern games.

    And back slightly more on topic, still think that using the Silencio tower with a case vented video card isn't that good of an idea. It will be quiet, but you will sacrifice air flow for it.
    Last edited by Coldchaos; 2011-11-03 at 07:39 PM.

  18. #18
    Cold is right about SSDs; the only time they're genuinely better than a mechanical drive is the initial load; after that, everything's in RAM more or less and the more of that you have, the better off you are. Personally, I don't feel that SSDs have really broken the price/performance threshold to be worth it, given that you can get a very similar effect from loading up RAM, and 16GGB can be had for around $100 where you're often looking at $200 or more for a decently sized SSD.

    And for those of you thinking I'm nuts, Win7 offers smart drive caching where it will preload frequently used programs into extra RAM, saving load times. SSDs get you performance gains similarly by reducing seek times vs a platter HDD.

  19. #19
    Im a bit worried about the headsink and fan system i have. its 158.5mm high, will it fit inside any cases? Or will I have to have the side off....lol

  20. #20
    Dreadlord Evildeffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nieuwegein, Netherlands
    Posts
    760
    What the hell are you on about Chaos?

    Larger SSD drives are better due to the fact on HOW they are built comapred to smaller ones (comparing 64 vs. 128GB), 64GB has less channels thus cannot achieve the speed to the 128GB because of the simple fact that it uses double the amount of channels (it works much like a raid0 format inside the SSD, crudely described but in essence true).

    Taking 2 seperate SSDs is not an advantage at any point.
    Also i have no page file at all with 12GB of RAM, all games have had 0 issues and did not crash (barring Crysis 1 with it's Memory leaking managing to fill up 10GB worth of RAM), so no incorrect.

    I suggest you check out the speed differences defined for ALL SSDs between 64GB and 128GB (60 and 120 aswell ofcourse).

    Honestly i don't know where you got this info from, but i suggest you google the inner workings and speed differences with larger sizes.

    The ONLY possible advantage i can think of with 2 seperate SSDs like that is for 2 reasons:
    1. RAID0 hookup - Which then i can possibly understand, but brings an inherently higher chance of failure (2 drives that can fail instead of 1)
    2. Drive safety - 1 can break, can be replaced by the other.

    But otherwise there is none.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-04 at 01:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JThelen View Post
    Cold is right about SSDs; the only time they're genuinely better than a mechanical drive is the initial load; after that, everything's in RAM more or less and the more of that you have, the better off you are. Personally, I don't feel that SSDs have really broken the price/performance threshold to be worth it, given that you can get a very similar effect from loading up RAM, and 16GGB can be had for around $100 where you're often looking at $200 or more for a decently sized SSD.

    And for those of you thinking I'm nuts, Win7 offers smart drive caching where it will preload frequently used programs into extra RAM, saving load times. SSDs get you performance gains similarly by reducing seek times vs a platter HDD.
    Difference is the abundance of RAM is far lower then SSD storage and you've obviously never played games with SSDs or used CAD/CAM or Photoshop or w/e.

    I'd like to see you load of World of WarCraft/StarCraft2/Battlefield 3/Rage/Namethegame into your RAM, it STILL has to be loaded from a spindle based mechanical drive INTO your ram, which is still a much more limiting factor.

    If you don't THINK it's worth it, that's ofcourse your opinion, the fact of the matter remains however that an SSD is the single highest speed upgrade any "recent" rig can get if it doesn't have one.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-04 at 03:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by noobielol View Post
    Im a bit worried about the headsink and fan system i have. its 158.5mm high, will it fit inside any cases? Or will I have to have the side off....lol
    Should fit without issue.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •