Looking to build a new PC

[Jtbrig7390]

Faster loading times are not a performance gain.

Thats not true. Quicker loading times is in fact a performance gain. performance gain isn't just in fps.

The thing is some like myself don't care about the loading times so they may not feel a SSD is worth it. But yes faster loading times is a performance gain since the performance of said program is improved by less loading times.

[Kagthul]

Thats not true. Quicker loading times is in fact a performance gain. performance gain isn't just in fps.

The thing is some like myself don't care about the loading times so they may not feel a SSD is worth it. But yes faster loading times is a performance gain since the performance of said program is improved by less loading times.

I feel like i need the Patrick Stewart facepalm ASCII here.

Does it allow me to turn on more AA? No
Does it allow me to turn on more AF? No
Does it allow me to run the game at higher resolutions? Nope.
Does it provide better framerates? No.
Does it let me turn up the shadows higher? Nope.
Does it let me turn up the draw distance? Nope.

It's not a performance gain.

If an application is still loading, it is not running/"performing", ergo, loading faster isnt making it "perform" faster. And once it has loaded, its not helping performance any. Its not a performance increase.

Now, there are other types of applications that the faster read/write speeds are definitely a performance enhancer, but games are not one of those types of applications.

In a build that still has real performance goals to meet, its a complete and total waste of money. Even a cheap SSD is the price difference between a GPU that will meet performance goals and one that wont. And given that the non-game-loading-faster "performance" increases of an SSD can be met almost entirely by a SSHD (faster boot time, snappy OS performance, frequently used non-game applications loading nearly instantly) that is only 10-20$ more expensive than a traditional HDD, i cant fathom why anyone on a budget with performance goals would even consider an SSD.

[Jtbrig7390]

--snip--.

This isn't a debate its a fact. SSD's have higher performance then HD's and using one gives your PC better performance via loading times and programs just opening up.

If on a HD it takes your OS 10sec to open but on a SSD it takes 5sec that is a performance gain. Performance gain is being able to run something better and do it quicker. To argue this fact is pointless and stupid. By your logic a Horse is as good as a car even tho cars are faster. HD's are slower then SSD's. SSD's provide faster loading times ergo its performance is better and that is a performance gain if you get it.

Your problem is your looking at it from a video game standpoint and thats the wrong way to look at it. HD's that is 7200RPM are better then a HD thats 5000 RPM and they perform better ergo thats a performance gain if you use it. The said can be said about HD to SSD.

Also using a SSHD "The hybrid of a SSD and HD" is also a performance gain over the HD. Anything that makes your computer do things faster is a performance gain. Like I said this isn't even up for debate its a proven fact. Stop looking at it from a improving fps standpoint and you would realise this. Everything in ur post screem's "Improves fps or it isn't a gain" when thats 100% false.

Personally I am done with this debate because like I said it isn't a opinion its a fact and your wrong. If you even had a slight clue on what you was talking about you would know this.

[Deleted]

Faster loading times are not a performance gain.

The build has been changed long ago but we can keep talking about somethign OP has already settled on if you think it's productive.

SSD allows for faster loading of textures which in some cases can smooth loading between areas, characters in busu zones etc. coming back faster from a disconnect or a crash, reloading a UI after mod changes or testing mods. A smoother feeling and snappier OS. All this is a performance gain in a sense but not in the traditional sense and it's a little harder to measure. However regardless of what you chose to call it it's a nice addition to any modern PC or laptop and definitely has some quality of life improvements, more than the few I just mentioned.

Now is it worth getting an SSD and sacrificing performance elsewhere? In most cases probably not since you can always add the SSD later but it's cost a lot more to upgrade a GPU or CPU for example. There are some people that value the overall performance higher though and not just raw GPU performance, it's just a little rough quantifying the value. In this specific case it makes sense to swap the SSD out so there is room in the budget for a better GPU and again OP has already decided to do this.

The main point here, each specific case is different and you have to evaluate each build, OP's preference, budget, needs etc.

[Kagthul]

This isn't a debate its a fact.

Maybe you should learn to read before you start saying things like "its a fact" when i shat all over that assertion above. If its a "fact" - show me one game where ANY of the performance metrics i listed (you know, actually performance metrics of the game running, not loading) is affected by an SSD?

Cant?

That's because you're wrong. So much for "fact".

SSD's have higher performance then HD's and using one gives your PC better performance via loading times and programs just opening up.

Which has what to do with performance in games? Nothing. We werent talking about general computing, we were talking about gaming performance. I already posted, quite clearly, that -other- tasks have their performance enhanced by an SSD, but gaming is not one of them. Here, ill even quote it for you, since reading an entire post seems to be a bit hard for you:

Now, there are other types of applications that the faster read/write speeds are definitely a performance enhancer, but games are not one of those types of applications.

If on a HD it takes your OS 10sec to open but on a SSD it takes 5sec that is a performance gain. Performance gain is being able to run something better and do it quicker. To argue this fact is pointless and stupid. By your logic a Horse is as good as a car even tho cars are faster. HD's are slower then SSD's. SSD's provide faster loading times ergo its performance is better and that is a performance gain if you get it.

More useless nonsense about something we already agree on...

Your problem is your looking at it from a video game standpoint and thats the wrong way to look at it.

Wrong. This was a gaming-centric build. Looking at it from a video game standpoint is exactly the right way to look at it. End statement. If this were a "i need to do the following things, and id ALSO like to be gaming" build or a build where gaming was an "if i can get decent gaming performance" consideration, then maybe you'd have a point.. but this isn't that.

This is a gaming rig. To be wasting money when on a limited budget when you still have other performance goals hanging in the wind is just dumb. The goal of a gaming rig is to game, and get the most performance while gaming. Anything else is a secondary consideration.

HD's that is 7200RPM are better then a HD thats 5000 RPM and they perform better ergo thats a performance gain if you use it. The said can be said about HD to SSD.

For gaming, once loading is done, this still isn't true. Unless you're trying to game on a system with so little RAM that it has to constantly cache to the HDD, this wont affect performance one iota. And if you ARE - again, you would still be insanely better off spending that money on more RAM and a better GPU than on an SSD.

Also using a SSHD "The hybrid of a SSD and HD" is also a performance gain over the HD.

Only in non-gaming tasks, and the only reason i even recommend them at all is because they provide what most people are -actually- looking for out of an SSD (fast boot times, frequent apps loading quickly, and snappy OS response) for a minimal price increase over an HDD of the same size. They still dont affect gaming -at all-.

Anything that makes your computer do things faster is a performance gain. Like I said this isn't even up for debate its a proven fact. Stop looking at it from a improving fps standpoint and you would realise this. Everything in ur post screem's "Improves fps or it isn't a gain" when thats 100% false.

If performance outside of gaming was an important metric, you might have a point. The point of a gaming rig is ... gaming. Performance in gaming is not improved by wasting 70-120$ on an SSD. When on a budget where you are still trying to meet your gaming goals, wasting money on an SSD is foolishness.

Personally I am done with this debate because like I said it isn't a opinion its a fact and your wrong.

Lets see those benchmarks where SSDs add gaming performance then. Put up or shut up, kiddo.

If you even had a slight clue on what you was talking about you would know this.

You're done with this debate because i utterly debunked your bullshit argument and utterly baseless assertion of "FACT FACT FACT FACT" without providing a remotely logical argument to back it up. And frankly, as long as you keep giving people terrible advice on how to spend their money on a gaming rig, ill be there to debunk your crap.

- - - Updated - - -

The main point here, each specific case is different and you have to evaluate each build, OP's preference, budget, needs etc.

And i can inform the OP that his preference is wasting money and costing him performance.

That's the point.

Ill make this easy on you, though. Since ive never actually seen you offer much in the way of solid advice, enjoy ignore.

[chazus]

Lets tone down the aggressive attitude.

People have repeated several times, SSD's are preferred not because of game performance (I.e. FPS) but quality of life (loading times). That might not be considered a 'performance factor' like a better CPU or GPU, but a lot of people consider it important. I personally consider it mandatory in any $800+ system these days. Loading time and system responsiveness might not save a significant time out of my day, but it makes the system run much smoother, and gives a much better feel to simply using it. That, and I like being able to do stuff like... Download an addon, reboot wow, and be back in the game in 8 seconds, instead of 45.

That said, SSHD's are usually not preferred largely because of their small cache. There have been several reports of people having issues with extended use and burning out the flash aspect because of that. Not only that but benchmarks have shown that they aren't much faster than HDD's, largely because they have to 'learn' what is hot data, so it only really helps on something you do a lot.

[Lathais]

I personally consider it mandatory in any $800+ system these days. Loading time and system responsiveness might not save a significant time out of my day, but it makes the system run much smoother, and gives a much better feel to simply using it. That, and I like being able to do stuff like... Download an addon, reboot wow, and be back in the game in 8 seconds, instead of 45.

So of these three very very similar systems, you are telling me you would pick the second or the third:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($229.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: be quiet! PURE ROCK 87.0 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($33.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 PRO3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($80.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.49 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card ($319.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: XFX TS 550W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($74.99 @ Amazon)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 OEM (64-bit) ($87.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $979.39
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-01 13:45 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($108.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: be quiet! PURE ROCK 87.0 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($33.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 PRO3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($80.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial BX100 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($95.99 @ Adorama)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.49 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card ($319.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: XFX TS 550W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($74.99 @ Amazon)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 OEM (64-bit) ($87.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $954.38
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-01 13:46 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($229.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: be quiet! PURE ROCK 87.0 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($33.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 PRO3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($80.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial BX100 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($95.99 @ Adorama)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.49 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card ($189.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: XFX TS 550W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($74.99 @ Amazon)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 OEM (64-bit) ($87.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $945.38
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-01 13:47 EDT-0400


I would take the first one, even though it's a little more expensive, it gets an i5-4690k and a GTX 970. The other two have an SSD but sacrifice either the i5 or the 970. This is based on a $1000 build. Once the budget goes over $1000-1200, I would totally agree with you. Go for an SSD. Not gonna argue that it's a great addition to any system. The budget mark to go for it is where I disagree with you a bit. I also totally disagree with the people who are here all the time saying that it should be the very first consideration for any system built nowadays.

[narzinor]

I understand why you might want to skip out on an SSD on a tight budgeted build like this one, but this is just becoming hyperbolic now. The increases in speed of the operating systems and loading times are documented and -are- considered performance metrics, even in a gaming setting. It might not fit into every budget, but presenting the option to the OP is very good.

This is for information purposes for the OP, and having differing opinions, both of which might be viable depending on his or her's needs is also great, and the OP might even consider stretching his or her's budget to fit both, or pick just the SSD and cannibalize a HDD from another computer.

[chazus]

So of these three very very similar systems, you are telling me you would pick the second or the third:

I wouldn't pick any of those specific builds because

A) They're US, not Canada,
B) Would go way over $1000, and
C) If it was rhetorical, I'd go with a modified #1 with an SSD over the HDD, and still keep it under $1000.

250gb is good enough for most people, and if you need storage space... an HDD can be picked up a month later or whatever. Get the main system locked in first. Storage hard drives always have lowest priority (for me) in a system, especially if its just storage that you can pull from another system (or an external)

That said, for the OP. Notarget's original build is probably the best bet. You could shave about $30 off with different RAM, PSU, and MB.. The 970 is better, but (imo) not $100 better. I'd consider a 290, possibly, if it's under like $330.

[Lathais]

250gb is good enough for most people, and if you need storage space... an HDD can be picked up a month later or whatever. Get the main system locked in first. Storage hard drives always have lowest priority (for me) in a system, especially if its just storage that you can pull from another system (or an external)

Then that is another place we differ. I do not believe 250GB is good enough for anyone. It's also easy enough to say, just pick up a storage drive in a couple months, but you can plan on that and then stuff happens.

I don't think either answer is really wrong. I do think it is good to point out both options to people though and let them make their own decision.

[Deleted]

As with all build threads and recommendations, each one is different and people have different priorities. There really is no right or wrong answer here and definitely not something people should get riled up over, it's just opinions.

[chazus]

I just base '250gb' as a good amount based off experience, because thats more than enough space for WoW, Hearthstone, D3, Heroes, LoL, GW2, and about 10-15 other games. Which is more than 'most' people play. I just can't think of a situation where someone would need more than 250gb for programs alone.

Now, if you need room for movies/music, etc, thats different.