Page 43 of 47 FirstFirst ...
33
41
42
43
44
45
... LastLast
  1. #841
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripox View Post
    Marest, why the suggestion of pro-version SSDs? (out of curiosity)
    The Pro version is fantastic for writes, but the improved write-speed I think holds very little tangible benefit for the price increase.

  2. #842
    MLC > TLC, in terms of quality.

    That is all I can think off.

  3. #843
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeara View Post
    MLC > TLC, in terms of quality.

    That is all I can think off.
    Irrelevant when even TLC will last you longer than any other component in the PC.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  4. #844
    Fluffy Kitten Marest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,228
    This conclusion summarizes fairly well why the 840 PRO is the suggested SSD in the high-end builds:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto..._10.html#sect0

    You can also read Anandtech's review here:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6328/s...o-256gb-review

  5. #845
    Immortal Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    7,431
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    Irrelevant when even TLC will last you longer than any other component in the PC.
    At the fear of dragging this topic out, I'm sure you know MLC/TLC differences isn't only about how long it lasts. I guess to some extent the Pro version makes (more) sense in the i7 build as it could be considered a build suited more towards work related stuff (besides gaming).

    Caviar Blues should also be perfectly fine as storage drives paired with SSDs like with the 1220 build. (~$30 less)
    Last edited by Notarget; 2013-07-07 at 05:36 PM.
    CPU: Intel i5-3570k (4.5GHz) MB: ASUS Z77 Sabertooth (uefi 2003)
    GPU: Asus 280X TOP (1080MHz/1700MHz) RAM: Corsair LP/LV white 8GB 1600MHz
    SSD: Samsung 840Pro 256GB + Crucial m4 128GB (040H) PSU: Seasonic 620M CASE: Corsair 500R (White/Black) Monitor: LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2014 || AV-TEST Jan/Feb 2013

  6. #846
    Fluffy Kitten Marest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,228
    Notarget, we all know a 120GB is rarely enough space to store all games (along with Windows and other software) in a gamers library. Sure, one can shave off $30 fairly easily siding with the blue, but that's less than 2.5% saved.

  7. #847
    Immortal Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    7,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Marest View Post
    Notarget, we all know a 120GB is rarely enough space to store all games (along with Windows and other software) in a gamers library. Sure, one can shave off $30 fairly easily siding with the blue, but that's less than 2.5% saved.
    Fair enough, what about the with 256GB SSD, same reasoning as for picking pro over non-pro? I don't know maybe it's not a big deal, I'll save the min/maxing for actual/specific builds (not just samples).
    CPU: Intel i5-3570k (4.5GHz) MB: ASUS Z77 Sabertooth (uefi 2003)
    GPU: Asus 280X TOP (1080MHz/1700MHz) RAM: Corsair LP/LV white 8GB 1600MHz
    SSD: Samsung 840Pro 256GB + Crucial m4 128GB (040H) PSU: Seasonic 620M CASE: Corsair 500R (White/Black) Monitor: LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2014 || AV-TEST Jan/Feb 2013

  8. #848
    TOTALLY NOT
    Banned
    tetrisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,693
    How many games does one need to have on ones SSD at any one time? One could just rotate them. I could fit WoW, LoL and Windows yet still have space over for another game back when I was using my 60GB ssd in my desktop instead. This was with Windows and WoW optimised however.

  9. #849
    Fluffy Kitten Marest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,228
    If you are spending $1500 on a new computer, why get an (albeit very minor in most scenarios) slower drive just to save $30 (a less than 2% save)?

    And my games library spans some 240GB last time I checked, and I'm not really a hardcore gamer. Switching is a good point, although the time you make up having your game on your SSD you most likely lose during the switching. Also, you lose a lot of convenience having to spend time swapping and switching games from SSD to HDD and back (and who wants that?).

  10. #850
    Immortal Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    7,431
    So what I gathered from this, get 250GB+ SSD
    CPU: Intel i5-3570k (4.5GHz) MB: ASUS Z77 Sabertooth (uefi 2003)
    GPU: Asus 280X TOP (1080MHz/1700MHz) RAM: Corsair LP/LV white 8GB 1600MHz
    SSD: Samsung 840Pro 256GB + Crucial m4 128GB (040H) PSU: Seasonic 620M CASE: Corsair 500R (White/Black) Monitor: LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2014 || AV-TEST Jan/Feb 2013

  11. #851
    Quote Originally Posted by Notarget View Post
    So what I gathered from this, get 250GB+ SSD
    With the caveat, of course, that it doesn't hinder other performance measures (i.e. if the cost of the larger SSD is 7.5%+ in the total build cost, then it's less likely to be worth it.)

  12. #852
    Immortal Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    7,431
    Yeah, though I was kinda sorta being sarcastic about just getting bigger SSD. Personally I only use SSDs and then some external drives for storage.
    CPU: Intel i5-3570k (4.5GHz) MB: ASUS Z77 Sabertooth (uefi 2003)
    GPU: Asus 280X TOP (1080MHz/1700MHz) RAM: Corsair LP/LV white 8GB 1600MHz
    SSD: Samsung 840Pro 256GB + Crucial m4 128GB (040H) PSU: Seasonic 620M CASE: Corsair 500R (White/Black) Monitor: LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2014 || AV-TEST Jan/Feb 2013

  13. #853
    Warchief Ron Burgundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In the mountains
    Posts
    2,158
    ty updated the list marest. you have chosen wisely.
    Milk was a bad choice.

    2013 MMO-Champion User of the Year (2nd runner up)

  14. #854
    I am Murloc! Xuvial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    5,032
    There's a typo here for the GPU:
    Quote Originally Posted by Marest View Post
    Gaming 1220
    MoBo: MSI Z77A-G43$104.99
    CPU: Intel i5 3570k$219.99
    RAM: G.Skill Ares 1600Mhz 2x4GB$68.99
    GPU: Gigabyte Radeon 7970 GHz$399.99
    SSD: Samsung 840 120GB$109.99
    HDD: WD Caviar Black 1TB$89.99
    PSU: Seasonic S12II 520W$69.99
    Heatsink: Phanteks PH-TC12DX$59.99
    Case: Fractal Arc Midi$99.99
    --------------------------------------------------
    Estimated Total Price – $1224

    Recommended for:
    Strong gaming build that will take care of
    most gaming needs. With a stronger PSU
    there is room for another GPU (SLI/CF).
    That is not Ghz edition (even though it's clocked at 1000mhz) because Gigabyte's actual 7970 Ghz costs $449.

    It's just a regular 7970 and there is absolutely no reason to blow $399 on that when MSI's GTX770 TF costs exactly the same and trumps it in performance across the board.

    Just sayin'
    Last edited by Xuvial; 2013-07-11 at 07:27 AM.

  15. #855
    TOTALLY NOT
    Banned
    tetrisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Xuvial View Post
    There's a typo here for the GPU:

    That is not Ghz edition (even though it's clocked at 1000mhz) because Gigabyte's actual 7970 Ghz costs $449.

    It's just a regular 7970 and there is absolutely no reason to blow $399 on that when MSI's GTX770 TF costs exactly the same and trumps it in performance across the board.

    Just sayin'
    Hyperbole
    While it isn't a GHz-edition, it performs just about the same.
    The problem with the one you linked, is a) that it's MSI, meaning slightly worse cooling more noise b) it has a moderate overclock, meaning it will not trump it in performance across the board, since the GTX 770 outperforms the HD7970 GHz by the slimmest of margins -- on average. In games where the HD7970 GHz beat the GTX 680 already, chances are the HD7970 listed will beat this GTX 770. Just not with the same margins.
    The GTX 770 beats the HD7970 GHz with, on average, the same margin the HD7970 GHz had to the GTX 680.
    And further reasons to spend money on it, is we have the wider membus and more memory, and while the latter won't matter as much as some people pretends it does (1.5+ plus is overkill for 1080p), but it's still relevant.

    If there was ever a moment where there was "no reason to spend money" on a card that costs the same as another, both companies would've gone bankrupt six times over the last five years.

  16. #856
    I am Murloc! Xuvial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by tetrisGOAT View Post
    Hyperbole
    While it isn't a GHz-edition, it performs just about the same.
    The problem with the one you linked, is a) that it's MSI, meaning slightly worse cooling more noise b) it has a moderate overclock, meaning it will not trump it in performance across the board, since the GTX 770 outperforms the HD7970 GHz by the slimmest of margins -- on average. In games where the HD7970 GHz beat the GTX 680 already, chances are the HD7970 listed will beat this GTX 770. Just not with the same margins.
    The GTX 770 beats the HD7970 GHz with, on average, the same margin the HD7970 GHz had to the GTX 680.
    And further reasons to spend money on it, is we have the wider membus and more memory, and while the latter won't matter as much as some people pretends it does (1.5+ plus is overkill for 1080p), but it's still relevant.

    If there was ever a moment where there was "no reason to spend money" on a card that costs the same as another, both companies would've gone bankrupt six times over the last five years.
    1) It's a pretty bad idea to hand down judgement on a product without first looking at reviews, especially if it's something measurable like noise. This generation of MSI cards are as quiet as DCII and Windforce cards, look up MSI's 760, 770 and 780 reviews. Pretty much all cards are tied at 35-38db.

    2) Ghz edition = cherry-picked 7970's = the Gigabyte one listed there isn't one of them. At all. It's just a factory-OC'd regular 7970. Stop referring to it as Ghz edition, as I linked earlier Gigabyte has a proper 7970 Ghz priced at $449. If you're going to play the "almost the same" game with factory overclocks then that is pretty shallow, every card is almost-the-same as the card above it with just a bit of OC'ing and that's a slippery slope. Look up what Ghz edition means.

    3) As you continue your argument about GTX770 and 7970 Ghz trading blows, I have to remind you once again that this isn't a Ghz edition so it's not going to OC as well as a Ghz edition would and not going to perform as well either. It's a factory-OC 7970 that is still trailing 50mhz behind a proper Ghz-edition (1050mhz) card.

    4) And finally for giggles, a comparison complied from Guru3D and Techpowerup reviews for a reference GTX770 (not MSI) vs a reference 7970 (i.e. basically the Gigabyte one being recommended here), no factory overclocks so everything is fair @ 1200p/1080p:

    Guru3D:
    GTX770 - 7 games
    HD7970 - 1 game

    TechPowerUp:
    GTX770 - 15 games
    HD7970 - 3 games

    Sweclockers:
    GTX770 - 4 games
    HD7970 - 2 games

    Conclusion: GTX770 hands-down wins at the $399 mark, the industry is allowed to have clear winners at certain price points. Deal with it.

    Gigabyte 7970 is over a year and a half old now and it's age is showing, it's price hasn't been matched to it's performance in light of newer tech like GTX700 series, plain and simple. We don't recommend i5 2500K's anymore even though they're almost the same as 3570K's in gaming, because newer and faster tech is...well, newer and faster.

    At this point I've given more than enough evidence/info for Marest to make a decision (it's his thread) and am not interested in pursuing this further, thanks for whatever little discussion there was to be had.


    edit: updated argument to make things a little more obvious
    Last edited by Xuvial; 2013-07-11 at 11:01 PM.

  17. #857
    TOTALLY NOT
    Banned
    tetrisGOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    12,693
    1) The relevant parts about noise isn't measurable and something able to be portrayed in graphs.

    2) I'm aware how it works. It's still clocked almost the same as a GHz-edition is, stock.

    3) Because it's clocked at GHz version.

    4) Sweclockers, 1080p - GTX 770 5, HD7970 GHz 4. 1440p - GTX 770 4, HD7970 GHz 4.

    You're of course allowed to have whichever opinions you'd like - and I encourage this.
    However, saying something as definitive (and I'm paraphrasing) "There's absolutely no reason to spend money on Y when X trumps it across the board" is not only incorrect, but it's also ignorant.
    Different games matter, and being definitive about something that is clearly not the case for everyone, everywhere is inadvisable.

  18. #858
    Brewmaster Biernot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,250
    Small suggestion for the "Gaming 460" build:

    Change the A8-5600k to the Athlone II X4 750k. Basically identical performance, but $15 cheaper. And as you have a discrete gpu, the loss of the internal one doesn't really matter.

  19. #859
    Fluffy Kitten Marest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Biernot View Post
    Small suggestion for the "Gaming 460" build:

    Change the A8-5600k to the Athlone II X4 750k. Basically identical performance, but $15 cheaper. And as you have a discrete gpu, the loss of the internal one doesn't really matter.
    This has been suggested in the past and is a great suggestion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marest View Post
    It's a good suggestion and definitely worth a consideration.

    What's so great about the the A8-5600K is that you can still run some games until you have the money to get a dedicated GPU. If that capability and upgrade-path is worth ~$15 is up to the individual to decide. I know I'd personally prefer an on-die GPU in case my dedicated breaks as in that case I can still use the computer until the technicality has been resolved.

    It's less than 4% of the budget after all; $15 is not enough to bring you up a tier GPU wise nor warrant extra RAM or HDD capacity (although perhaps a faster drive...). At best it will give you a slightly better case or a more feature-rich motherboard. If however you are trying to shave off to hit the $400-$430 mark then that's an excellent place to start.

  20. #860
    Stood in the Fire TaintedOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    387
    to note on the 810 build seems bit odd to me to go with a unlocked cpu and no aftermarket heatsink. Although that does allow for those that may not feel comfortable oc'ing now but may try it later that option to. For those that never want to oc can downgrade to a locked i5-3570 and save a few bucks

    Just a matter of personal opinion and if you are going to oc or not I guess ^^
    | Intel i5-4670k | Asus Z87-Pro | Xigmatek Dark Knight | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB | Sapphire R9 270x | Crucial M4 128GB | 2xWD 500GB Black | Cooler Master Haf-X | Corsair AX1200 | Dell 2412m | Ducky Shine 3 | Logitech G13 | Razer Goliathus XL | Razer Carcharias | Razer Naga - working like new since >2009< |

Posting Permissions

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