Building a new gaming rig - comment / critique?

[crew_dawg16]

My 4+ year old rig using an Athlon 64 x2 is not cutting it anymore so I am building a new rig.

I will be reusing the following components:

Antec 900 case
OCZ 700w PSU
DVD burner
320 GB HDD x2 (storage)
Soundblaster Fatal1ty Champion Pro

New components:

Asus Rampage III Formula X58 mobo
Intel Core i7 950 Bloomfield
12 GB Corsair Dominator DD3 Triple Channel or equivalent priced option
Radeon 6870 or 5870 graphics card
Crucial 64GB SSD
24" ASUS monitor w/LED backlight

New stuff costs me around $1300 or so, but I don't like building a new rig every 2 years so it will last me around 5 or so.

Any input on what I've chosen and why it is or isn't a good choice, let me know what you think.

 

[CobraBob]

You're going to reuse your two 320gb drives? Assuming they are two years old, I wouldn't recommend it. Not if you intend to keep the new system for 5 years. The last thing you want is a hard drive failure. 320gb is a bit small anyway if you intend to install a lot of programs, including Microsoft Office, and games. I would go with new and larger hard drives. Maybe two 500gb drives at a minimum. One could be your backup drive, or use a separate external drive for backup. I just bought a Western Digital 1TB external drive for $69.99 for backup at my office. I'm assuming that you are using your second 320gb drive on your present system for backup.

 

[WireEater]

You're going to reuse your two 320gb drives? Assuming they are two years old, I wouldn't recommend it. Not if you intend to keep the new system for 5 years. The last thing you want is a hard drive failure. 320gb is a bit small anyway if you intend to install a lot of programs, including Microsoft Office, and games. I would go with new and larger hard drives. Maybe two 500gb drives at a minimum. One could be your backup drive, or use a separate external drive for backup. I just bought a Western Digital 1TB external drive for $69.99 for backup at my office. I'm assuming that you are using your second 320gb drive on your present system for backup.

I think he should be fine. 2x320GB for storage is plenty of room for the average person. He has a 64GB solid state drive for his OS and primary programs.

 

[FordMustangLove]

looks good, you might bottleneck your games with those hard drives, time to be looking into sata III

 

[WireEater]

Storage drives aren't a bottleneck because they aren't being accessed except for storage. He has a 64GB SSD on his list which his OS will be going which is high performance.

 

[snakevenom99]

I'd save your money on ram. 12 gigs is not needed and you should be more than okay with 6. I have 4 gigs, and never go above 75% usage on any game (even metro 2033). I'd take the extra money and put it towards getting a 6970, or GTX 580.

 

[xXGadfly09Xx]

+1
I like how wire eater pointed out twice that the op has an SSD the 320gb hds are sotrage only

 

[Dominator]

I think everything looks great except I would go with an nVidia card instead. But thats just my personal preference.

 

[RussZTT]

Agree on the memory, just make sure you have good memory on that video card. Also, make it a RAID 1 (mirror) if you run the older drives that way you can hot swap one out if it takes a crap.

 

[ChiSVT]

Asus Rampage III Formula X58 mobo
Intel Core i7 950 Bloomfield
12 GB Corsair Dominator DD3 Triple Channel or equivalent priced option
Radeon 6870 or 5870 graphics card
Crucial 64GB SSD
24" ASUS monitor w/LED backlight

New stuff costs me around $1300 or so, but I don't like building a new rig every 2 years so it will last me around 5 or so.

Any input on what I've chosen and why it is or isn't a good choice, let me know what you think.

Just that processor, board and ram will cost you a grand.

Here is my opinion as far as gaming is concerned.. Obviously having more ram and a more powerful processor has it's perks in other instances and environments.

Anyways, as for gaming, it's overkill. No current game, (or any DX11 game due anytime soon) at the highest setting will even come remotely close to utilizing that processor or 12GB of triple channel ram.

It will take 2+ years for games to utilize that kind of processing power. On-top of that, in 6 months there will be something faster than the LGA1366 processors and the price will drop dramatically. Somewhat like how people paid $1,400 for quad-core LGA775 processors the month they were released only to watch i5 LGA1156 processors for 1/4 the price come out and outperform them, (and even then, no current game fully utilizes the power of either of those processors, I'll get into that below).

If you prefer a quad-core Intel processor, I'd opt for an i5-760 with 8gb of ram and run some powerhouse video cards in SLI. When running a quad-core with 4gb of ram, the bottleneck in newer games is in the GPU at high resolutions / max settings, not the processor or ram.

Those 950 LGA1366 i7 processors are super powerful, but there isn't much out there that can remotely use it's capability, (short of web intensive database servers and 3D CAD rendering software).

As for utilizing 12gb of ram and a LGA1366 processor when playing games, keep this in mind. Only a 64bit OS can utilize more than 3GB of ram and only 64 bit applications perform better when run under a 64bit OS. As of right now, every game is written in 32bit, (even though they're compatible with x64 OSes). As far as I know, no one is even planning on releasing a native 64bit PC game anytime soon. Crysis 2 which will probably be one of the most graphic intensive games at max settings will still be a 32bit application. This mostly because these games are also available for consoles, and the hardware in consoles hasn't advanced as far as it has for the PC.

Here are some gaming benchmarks from the best PC money could buy LAST YEAR.

Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP
Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP
Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP

and so fourth....

as you can see, when it comes to gaming performance your money is better spent on a nicer video card. Since 32bit applications run through a layer in a 64bit OS, there is actually a slight decrease in performance.

That machine with 6gbs of ram was only utilizing a little less than 3gb when running a 32bit OS and it still outperformed it when running a 64bit OS utilizing all 6gbs of ram. The 64bit OS was also utilizing twice as much processing power, but again, there was no increase in performance since the applications were run under a 32bit layer.

I'd like to see the benchmarks with those games vs an i5 processor or i3 / AM3; I'm willing to bet the frame rates would be virtually identical when using the same video cards.

 

[03 DSG Snake]

Looks like overkill.


What games are worth it anyways on PC? :shrug:

 

[usmcrebel]

My 4+ year old rig using an Athlon 64 x2 is not cutting it anymore so I am building a new rig.

I will be reusing the following components:

Antec 900 case
OCZ 700w PSU
DVD burner
320 GB HDD x2 (storage)
Soundblaster Fatal1ty Champion Pro

New components:

Asus Rampage III Formula X58 mobo
Intel Core i7 950 Bloomfield
12 GB Corsair Dominator DD3 Triple Channel or equivalent priced option
Radeon 6870 or 5870 graphics card
Crucial 64GB SSD
24" ASUS monitor w/LED backlight

New stuff costs me around $1300 or so, but I don't like building a new rig every 2 years so it will last me around 5 or so.

Any input on what I've chosen and why it is or isn't a good choice, let me know what you think.

Why not go with a gigabyte board?
the i7 is great but pricey
why do you need 12gb of ram?
both are good graphic cards, have you looked at the 460 from nvidia?

reuse pretty much everything else

 

[crew_dawg16]

looks good, you might bottleneck your games with those hard drives, time to be looking into sata III

The SSD will be doing all the dirty work, and it is a Sata III.

Storage drives aren't a bottleneck because they aren't being accessed except for storage. He has a 64GB SSD on his list which his OS will be going which is high performance.

You got it! :rockon:

You're going to reuse your two 320gb drives? Assuming they are two years old, I wouldn't recommend it. Not if you intend to keep the new system for 5 years. The last thing you want is a hard drive failure. 320gb is a bit small anyway if you intend to install a lot of programs, including Microsoft Office, and games. I would go with new and larger hard drives. Maybe two 500gb drives at a minimum. One could be your backup drive, or use a separate external drive for backup. I just bought a Western Digital 1TB external drive for $69.99 for backup at my office. I'm assuming that you are using your second 320gb drive on your present system for backup.

I don't really put anything important on my pc so a failure will not be a big deal, and I do plan on running them in Raid 1.

Agree on the memory, just make sure you have good memory on that video card. Also, make it a RAID 1 (mirror) if you run the older drives that way you can hot swap one out if it takes a crap.

Will do on the RAID 1.

Why not go with a gigabyte board?
the i7 is great but pricey
why do you need 12gb of ram?
both are good graphic cards, have you looked at the 460 from nvidia?

reuse pretty much everything else

Asus has always been good to me so I choose to stick with them usually. 12gb of ram is more of a "future proofing" than anything. Also, I've debated on trying to run something on a RAM disk .

I have looked at the Nvidia options, but the AMD lineup is beating them both on benchmarks and dollars so it's an easy choice.

 

[crew_dawg16]

Just that processor, board and ram will cost you a grand.

Here is my opinion as far as gaming is concerned.. Obviously having more ram and a more powerful processor has it's perks in other instances and environments.

Anyways, as for gaming, it's overkill. No current game, (or any DX11 game due anytime soon) at the highest setting will even come remotely close to utilizing that processor or 12GB of triple channel ram.

It will take 2+ years for games to utilize that kind of processing power. On-top of that, in 6 months there will be something faster than the LGA1366 processors and the price will drop dramatically. Somewhat like how people paid $1,400 for quad-core LGA775 processors the month they were released only to watch i5 LGA1156 processors for 1/4 the price come out and outperform them, (and even then, no current game fully utilizes the power of either of those processors, I'll get into that below).

If you prefer a quad-core Intel processor, I'd opt for an i5-760 with 8gb of ram and run some powerhouse video cards in SLI. When running a quad-core with 4gb of ram, the bottleneck in newer games is in the GPU at high resolutions / max settings, not the processor or ram.

Those 950 LGA1366 i7 processors are super powerful, but there isn't much out there that can remotely use it's capability, (short of web intensive database servers and 3D CAD rendering software).

As for utilizing 12gb of ram and a LGA1366 processor when playing games, keep this in mind. Only a 64bit OS can utilize more than 3GB of ram and only 64 bit applications perform better when run under a 64bit OS. As of right now, every game is written in 32bit, (even though they're compatible with x64 OSes). As far as I know, no one is even planning on releasing a native 64bit PC game anytime soon. Crysis 2 which will probably be one of the most graphic intensive games at max settings will still be a 32bit application. This mostly because these games are also available for consoles, and the hardware in consoles hasn't advanced as far as it has for the PC.

Here are some gaming benchmarks from the best PC money could buy LAST YEAR.

Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP
Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP
Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP

and so fourth....

as you can see, when it comes to gaming performance your money is better spent on a nicer video card. Since 32bit applications run through a layer in a 64bit OS, there is actually a slight decrease in performance.

That machine with 6gbs of ram was only utilizing a little less than 3gb when running a 32bit OS and it still outperformed it when running a 64bit OS utilizing all 6gbs of ram. The 64bit OS was also utilizing twice as much processing power, but again, there was no increase in performance since the applications were run under a 32bit layer.

I'd like to see the benchmarks with those games vs an i5 processor or i3 / AM3; I'm willing to bet the frame rates would be virtually identical when using the same video cards.

First, thanks for the lengthy reply and your input.

I guess the reason I was going with the i7 to begin with was the fact that I want a PC that I don't have to replace for another 5 years or so.

I am willing to go with 6gb of ram since there really is no downside to doing so. (Other than no RAM disk for good times.)

If I get a cheaper cpu/mobo/ram setup then spend the money on a nicer video card I am just trading one expense for the other. I would rather have a solid platform to begin with that I can easily add a better video card to later instead of having to build a complete new system around a video card that I feel like I'm stuck with since it cost me $500. Also, I'm not quite sure my case can fit some of these cards and my PSU might be pushed over the limit.

In every benchmark I've seen lately, the middle of the road graphics cards do just fine, but they all use an i7 for the test rig.

If I am wrong in thinking this way let me know, but keep in mind that my requirement is a system that will last me 5 years.

 

[crew_dawg16]

Looks like overkill.


What games are worth it anyways on PC? :shrug:

I play mostly FPS games like COD. I am not a thumb jockey and still a firm believer that FPSs are way better with a good old mouse and keyboard.

 

[xXGadfly09Xx]

I went with a AMD 6 core and it works fine for me

 

[crew_dawg16]

I went with a AMD 6 core and it works fine for me

If you don't mind me asking, how much was your chip, mobo, and ram?

 

[ChiSVT]

First, thanks for the lengthy reply and your input.

I guess the reason I was going with the i7 to begin with was the fact that I want a PC that I don't have to replace for another 5 years or so.

No problem, I see what you're saying. You're better off getting something for less money and upgrading every couple of years though. The latest and greatest get outdated so fast there is no point in spending an exorbitant of money on the latest LGA1366 i7, especially in a gaming rig. You can save some money and have a rig that can run any game at max settings every couple of years.

I am willing to go with 6gb of ram since there really is no downside to doing so. (Other than no RAM disk for good times.)

6-8gb of ram is usually more than enough. Then again, I don't know what your needs are outside of gaming.

If I get a cheaper cpu/mobo/ram setup then spend the money on a nicer video card I am just trading one expense for the other. I would rather have a solid platform to begin with that I can easily add a better video card to later instead of having to build a complete new system around a video card that I feel like I'm stuck with since it cost me $500. Also, I'm not quite sure my case can fit some of these cards and my PSU might be pushed over the limit.

You could do that, but don't forget games haven't even caught up with the processing power that CPUs were capable of 2-3 years ago. Spend $1,000 on the board, memory, ram and it won't even benefit your gaming experience. The bottle neck will be your GPU(s). BTW, a 1200PS can handle 3 video cards, but that's pretty extreme.

In every benchmark I've seen lately, the middle of the road graphics cards do just fine, but they all use an i7 for the test rig.

The frame rates usually start to drop once you turn the resolution up, even with the fastest processor and 24GB of ram. Once they add a better video card or run them in SLI the frame rates dramatically shoot up.

The PC build you want is nice, but if you have $1,300 to spend it's not enough to adequately build a gaming rig that can handle anything you throw at it.

If you want to spend around $1,300 here is my suggestion.

EVGA P55 FTW SLI Motherboard - $159.99 minus rebate
Intel Core i7 875K Processor Unlocked - $295
Cooler Master HAF 932 ATX Full Tower Black Case - $100
OCZ 8GB PC10666 - $169.99 minus rebate
2 GTX 460 EVGA 768mb-1360 cards in SLI - $140 each = $280
BFG 1000W PS - $149
Corsair hydro H50 CPU cooler, (so you can safely overclock) $70

That comes out to about $1,225, you still have an i7 and you won't have a bottle neck in the GPU. :beer:

 

[FiveSpeed]

I agree with SBo3, good choices. Over 6-8gb of memory is a waste and the SLI 460's at $280 won't be beat by a single card for that price.

 

[thomas91169]

Looks like overkill.


What games are worth it anyways on PC? :shrug:

All the ones where you want to view them in their full graphical splendor :shrug:

Most the in-game footage im seeing of GT5 still looks equal to GRiD thats been out for what, 2yrs, on my archaic machine (8800GTXoc, AMD 6000+ 3.2ghz dual core, 4gb DDR2). Cant wait to see what DiRT3 will look like if i build a new rig.....