Just thought I'd post this, interesting to read responses. This is what I'm building for my desktop; my current laptop and secondary laptop are doing just fine, but several of my desktops are slowly dying, and half a dozen of them have been recycled for parts. Guess its time for another one :

 

 

 

 

Not bad for the cost, although an extra $100 or so could have been saved if I'd waited for a couple of deals. I have most of the parts; its now just a matter of waiting for them to arrive and assembling. Take time to post, even if it seems stupid; I like to hear opinions :)

 

 

 

(Off topic and unrelated - Sorry mods about my "Vista vs. XP thread", I didn't realize that such threads were considered flamebait. I guess Runescape forums isn't the place for computer topics, but I had hoped to gather opinions from a different audience then I usually talk to)

 

 

 

EDIT: This is my work computer, NOT for gaming. I do that on my laptop, so no need for a huge hard drive here.

Good build.

 

The PSU i guess is because the 260 requires alot of power. I don't know if they've launched the gpu named GT200b yet, but it is 55nm instead of 65nm, and runs cooler and greatly increases overclocking.

 

I'm not a "fan-guy"... But i would have chosen 4850 or 4870. They are cheaper, 4850 is not much slower than 260 and sometimes even beats it. 4870 is faster than 260 and sometimes beats the 280. I really wonder if you'll use all the power from such a card, do you play in really high-res with highest settings?

 

E8500 is really sweet, and got a big room for overclocking.

 

I guess this is a pure gaming computer, since you've chosen an ssd disc and just 64gb.

 

Have fun =)

 

 

 

OS vs OS threads... They all have their pros and cons, whether it's OSX... Linux or Windows. And such always tends to end in people flaming lol.

I would have personally have gotten at 4870 instead of a GTX 260 as your mobo is already crossfire compatible and maybe a 10k rpm HDD as you will find your 64gb missing in a very short time (Vista, music, games etc).

How did you get it all lined up in that format? I'm guessing some sort of retailer's site :-k

 

 

 

Anyway, SSDs certainly have dropped in price since I last saw them ($1000, about a year ago lol), but yeah, 64 GB isn't much at all. At most, I'd install any games onto this drive and put all of your other files onto a 7200 RPM.

 

 

 

Do you really need $109 speakers?

 

 

 

Are you getting Vista premium? Also, I'd hold off getting x64 since it has some problems with drivers and the such.

 

 

 

Otherwise, I'm jealous :roll:

How did you get it all lined up in that format? I'm guessing some sort of retailer's site :-k

 

 

 

Anyway, SSDs certainly have dropped in price since I last saw them ($1000, about a year ago lol), but yeah, 64 GB isn't much at all. At most, I'd install any games onto this drive and put all of your other files onto a 7200 RPM.

 

 

 

Do you really need $109 speakers?

 

 

 

Are you getting Vista premium? Also, I'd hold off getting x64 since it has some problems with drivers and the such.

 

 

 

Otherwise, I'm jealous :roll:

 

 

 

Vista 64 is fine with drivers, don't spread false information.

 

 

 

 

 

@OP: you really need a better PSU, 340W is not going to cut it. Also I would do the HD4870 instead of GTX260.

Drop the SSD for a HDD.

 

You can get about 1.75TB of space for the same cost.

 

But if you want max performance get either 4 of these (RAID 0+1) you get 640 GB of space or a WD Rapter with 100GB (Link).

 

 

 

Personally I would get a full size case (more room for airflow/parts and easier to assemble).

 

 

 

Sound card, try the on-board then upgrade if you feel the need.

 

 

 

Speakers, personally I would get a good headset or headphones, with all those fans and that gpu its going to be a beast (noise wise) so the headphones/headset will reduce it interfering with game play.

 

 

 

Fans, go with Scythe's S-Flex fans, lots of air flow and low noise.

 

 

 

GPU, as most people have said the HD4870 is a great card (although I would wait for the HD4870X2 which will reduce prices further).

 

 

 

Apart from those little tweaks its a nice build.

 

 

 

Good luck.

How did you get it all lined up in that format? I'm guessing some sort of retailer's site :-k

 

 

 

Anyway, SSDs certainly have dropped in price since I last saw them ($1000, about a year ago lol), but yeah, 64 GB isn't much at all. At most, I'd install any games onto this drive and put all of your other files onto a 7200 RPM.

 

 

 

Do you really need $109 speakers?

 

 

 

Are you getting Vista premium? Also, I'd hold off getting x64 since it has some problems with drivers and the such.

 

 

 

Otherwise, I'm jealous :roll:

 

 

 

Vista 64 is fine with drivers, don't spread false information.

 

 

 

 

 

@OP: you really need a better PSU, 340W is not going to cut it. Also I would do the HD4870 instead of GTX260.

 

 

 

UPS - 340W

 

PSU - 750W

 

=)

UPS - 340W

 

PSU - 750W

 

=)

 

 

 

Oh. I'm stupid, I thought they just like mispelled "PSU" or something. :wall:

 

 

 

Blind too.

The people above are right. First, get a ATI 4750 graphics card, they are both cheaper and faster and second drop the SSD and pick up a hard drive or two for RAID. At the moment SSD's are tiny, expensive and not much faster then a regular hard drive. Aside from that, 64 GB is tiny, especially for current computers. Particularly because this is going to be your main computer and not a little ultraportable, you are going to fill that HDD quickly. When games can easily run 5 - 10 GB each, you are not going to have much room for stuff.

The people above are right. First, get a ATI 4750 graphics card, they are both cheaper and faster and second drop the SSD and pick up a hard drive or two for RAID. At the moment SSD's are tiny, expensive and not much faster then a regular hard drive. Aside from that, 64 GB is tiny, especially for current computers. Particularly because this is going to be your main computer and not a little ultraportable, you are going to fill that HDD quickly. When games can easily run 5 - 10 GB each, you are not going to have much room for stuff.

 

 

 

Most recent games (at least in the MMORPG spectrum) are pushing 20-25GB + . Agreed that a 64GB hard drive is tiny.

Thanks for the posts. I can feel the bias against my SSD : Guess what? My current disk utilization on my main computer (Minus photos and downloads on an external drive): 8.16 GB, with Vista. I'm careful with my space, and the most I've ever used is under 30 GB. If I ever feel the need, I'll drop in another hard drive, or add another 64 GB and put it in RAID 0. An SSD far outperforms any RAID setup in real application performance, due to the access times of < .4 ms. Sure, RAID will beat it in sheer transfer speed, but that's not what counts for my uses. As for graphics card, the HD4750 is 300$ vs. 220$ for my GTX (Prices include some extra fees, such as the cost of RMAing my old one). I made the chart in Excel, the actual spreadsheet with pictures, links, and more info is several pages.

What?

 

4870 should be cheaper than gtx 260.

 

In my country, currently (on a well known store, komplett.se) the cheapest 4870 is at 215 euros and the cheapest gtx 260 is at 260 euros.

 

 

 

Please give me the link to where you are buying these parts.

Thanks for the posts. I can feel the bias against my SSD : Guess what? My current disk utilization on my main computer (Minus photos and downloads on an external drive): 8.16 GB, with Vista. I'm careful with my space, and the most I've ever used is under 30 GB. If I ever feel the need, I'll drop in another hard drive, or add another 64 GB and put it in RAID 0. An SSD far outperforms any RAID setup in real application performance, due to the access times of < .4 ms. Sure, RAID will beat it in sheer transfer speed, but that's not what counts for my uses. As for graphics card, the HD4750 is 300$ vs. 220$ for my GTX (Prices include some extra fees, such as the cost of RMAing my old one). I made the chart in Excel, the actual spreadsheet with pictures, links, and more info is several pages.

 

 

 

 

 

While access times would be a bit faster - making application load times a little shorter, Toms Hardware shows that the overall transfer rates are not much faster then hard drives. Should you decide to RAID a pair of HDD', for the same price you could get 20 times more space then on that tiny little SSD. While SSD's are not bad, their main advantage is reliability, and I honestly hope you do not plan on throwing your desktop off a cliff.

What?

 

4870 should be cheaper than gtx 260.

 

In my country, currently (on a well known store, komplett.se) the cheapest 4870 is at 215 euros and the cheapest gtx 260 is at 260 euros.

 

 

 

Please give me the link to where you are buying these parts.

 

215 euros = 335 USD. I got my GTX 260 for 220 USD. I won't bother with a link, but it was on sale. I've seen several 260's go for that low, one (An overclocked one with a lifetime warranty) went for $210, but I had already ordered mine and didn't want to RMA again.

Thanks for the posts. I can feel the bias against my SSD : Guess what? My current disk utilization on my main computer (Minus photos and downloads on an external drive): 8.16 GB, with Vista. I'm careful with my space, and the most I've ever used is under 30 GB. If I ever feel the need, I'll drop in another hard drive, or add another 64 GB and put it in RAID 0. An SSD far outperforms any RAID setup in real application performance, due to the access times of < .4 ms. Sure, RAID will beat it in sheer transfer speed, but that's not what counts for my uses. As for graphics card, the HD4750 is 300$ vs. 220$ for my GTX (Prices include some extra fees, such as the cost of RMAing my old one). I made the chart in Excel, the actual spreadsheet with pictures, links, and more info is several pages.

 

 

 

 

 

While access times would be a bit faster - making application load times a little shorter, Toms Hardware shows that the overall transfer rates are not much faster then hard drives. Should you decide to RAID a pair of HDD', for the same price you could get 20 times more space then on that tiny little SSD. While SSD's are not bad, their main advantage is reliability, and I honestly hope you do not plan on throwing your desktop off a cliff.

 

Erm... What? That article did not show anything besides the rated speeds, which I already know and are faster then most hard drives. And sequential read speed is rarely utilized in typical desktop computer scenarios - look at hothardware.com's benchmarks vs. the VelociRaptor. In real world application tests, the SSD was an average of 400-500% faster. Only one test was it slower on, by a margin of 30%. Storage size is not an issue.

 

 

 

As for the whole ATI argument, I did a little research. Look at this graph, please... http://www.guru3d.com/flash/2008/4870/flash-wic-med.swf. Suffice to say it is a typical graph of those graphics cards (The game here is World in Conflict; I am merely linking to one of the graphs in the guru3d article. Nevertheless, they are all like that - the GTX 260 is virtually tied with the 4870 at lower resolutions, and pulls ahead in the higher resolutions (This is more pronounced in more complex games). The 4850 lags quite a ways behind both of them. Now consider that the 4870 is 80$ more expensive then the GTX - Why buy? Here's a graph of the 3dMark Vantage scores: http://www.guru3d.com/flash/2008/4870/flash-vantage.swf. Again, the GTX 260 outperforms the 30% more expensive 4870 (And this is the one with the fast memory!). The final nail in the coffin is the Crysis-on-high-with-anisotropi -filtering graph: http://www.guru3d.com/flash/2008/4870/flash-crysis-2.swf. Also consider that ATI cards are generally even weaker at anti-aliasing. So stop with the GTX bashing, please. I like opinions, but not false ones :

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh, and the 4870 runs louder and MUCH hotter then a 260. Idles at 60, pushing 90 when under load. = Short lifespan, loud computer, hot computer...