First Gaming Build

[Neurotripsicks]

Hi, I'm new to the forums and wanted to make sure that the build I'm currently working on is going to be good enough for gaming. The PC I have now was built in 2002 and has a single core processor in it, and it's almost impossible to play anything anymore. This is my first personal build and here's what I've got so far, any tips would be much appreciated.


Intel Core i7-950 Bloomfield
ASUS Sabertooth X58 LGA 1366 Intel X58
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready
EVGA 012-P3-1472-AR GeForce GTX 470 (x1)
Antec Nine Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower
Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000HLFS 300GB 10000 RPM
ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner


Total Build cost - $1,358

[glc]

We suggest that you don't build with the X58 chipset. Build a Socket 1156 on a P55, wait for the fixed P67 boards to come out and build with Sandy Bridge (April), or build an AMD. I'd personally wait for the Sandy Bridge.

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: February 2011 : February Updates

If you are wedded to Nvidia, I'd get a GTX560.

Don't waste your money on a Velociraptor, a Caviar Black is actually faster, believe it or not.

[Nuclear Krusader]

And don't use G.skill memory; it's given lots of headaches lately. Use Crucial, Kingston or A-Data.

[glc]

Or Corsair.

[Neurotripsicks]

Okay, I'll look into that. What's wrong with the X58 Chipset?

[Nuclear Krusader]

It's a very fussy chipset that requires lots of fiddling to get it to run stable. It also increases the cost of the system due to it using triple-channel configuration for RAM. It's an enthusiast chipset; it's not for beginners.

[glc]

Sandy Bridge is essentially going to make the X58 obsolete.

[Neurotripsicks]

What about the Solid State Drives? I was told to get a 80g SSD for my OS then a Caviar Blue or Black for slave.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Avoid SSDs for now. Too expensive, too many hassles. What is the only real advantage? Speed? Big deal. Get a very large Caviar Black or a combo of a small-medium size and a large one and you're set.

[nukeguy001]

I was considering a SSD as a boot drive for my new build, because I thought it would be more reliable than a conventional hard disk. Is that the case? If it would be more reliable, how much more reliable would it be? My plan was to get a fairly small SSD for the OS and programs/applications. All my data would be on my network attached storage unit with RAID 0 (mirroring). The SSD would be used only for the OS and installing programs.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Consider these facts:

+The cost of storage is still over $1/GB for SSDs. With the cost of an 80GB SSD you can easily purchase a 1TB Caviar Black.

+SSDs have a limited number of writes. What does this mean to you? Well, means that you cannot put the swap file in the SSD, which is the drive you're intending to use for the OS and apps. Sure, Windows lets you put the swap file in whichever drive/partition you want, but this can cause problems with the OS and apps. So much for the advantage.

+Limited number of writes also translates to less reliability. It all depends on how you use the drive; on average, it should last you about 4 years; but if you perform intensive read/write operations the durability decreases.

+Firmware can be sketchy. As a matter of fact, some SSD manufacturers are using customers as beta testers without telling them. Firmware updates are being released all the time to fix problems or "improve" performance. Does this sound like reliable?

+Unless you're rich, your budget will constrain you to a drive that will be in the vicinity of 100 GB. That's too small for the OS. Windows grows over time; so do applications. In addition to the amount of space that Windows requires for all its files, you also have to consider the swap files, the hibernation and stand-by files (they average from 1 to 2 GB), the always increasing winsxs folder, all the temps that are created during your session by Windows AND your apps, and don't forget that the OS partition always has to have at least 15% of its size free. Of course, if things get too bloated you can uninstall apps or even do a nuke and pave... aaand that brings us back to the problem of intensive writing to the drive.

Really, SSDs have nothing to offer but speed. If you don't care about your data andor have bottomless pockets, then you might consider an SSD; otherwise, magnetic storage has been weighted and not found wanting.

[Neurotripsicks]

I was told that there is no way to write virus' for solid state hard drives, I don't know this for a fact, but I'm going by what I was told. I don't like it personally, but I've heard SSD's are pretty fast booting dealing with Windows 7 or World of Warcraft in general.

[Nuclear Krusader]

That's balderdash, really. Viruses do not depend on the hardware, but the software.

[birddog_61]

The virus thing is ridiculous, no longer listen to whoever told you that. LOL

SSD are very fast, I have been running and intel SSD for about 4 months now and I love it. I have a custom built laptop that is running a SSD that was put in the laptop in late 2008, it is still running strong and it gets used every day. Are SSD as reliable as rotational drives? No However I have not had any issues with mine and really enjoy the speed boost, my computer cold boots in about 20 seconds, and programs open and close instantly.

[jdeb]

Originally Posted by birddog_61 The virus thing is ridiculous, no longer listen to whoever told you that. LOL SSD are very fast, I have been running and intel SSD for about 4 months now and I love it. I have a custom built laptop that is running a SSD that was put in the laptop in late 2008, it is still running strong and it gets used every day. Are SSD as reliable as rotational drives? No However I have not had any issues with mine and really enjoy the speed boost, my computer cold boots in about 20 seconds, and programs open and close instantly.

I second that and I prefer the Intel X25's. I have a few Crucial C300's and a couple of ADATA turbos out there but a little early to recommend those. Like Nuclear said though, the price is steep per GB so it comes down to affordability.

[Neurotripsicks]

Thanks for the info from you all. Just one more question, I am thinking about getting a Cooler Master V8 HS for the i7, would any of you recommend anything that would be better around the same price range? I'm kind of on a budget and the V8 is only around $50 depending on where I shop. I've heard it's a pain to install but it doesn't look too bad at all. Thanks.

[Nuclear Krusader]

You don't need an aftermarket cooler to begin with. Boxed CPUs come with their own stock HSF.

[Neurotripsicks]

I want to OC it though, around 3.8 - 4.0 without it getting too hot.

[birddog_61]

The cooler I am using works on the 1366 also, my 875k is OC to 4 GHz I run in the high 50's C while running Intel burn test. Its the Zerotherm Core92, its pretty small for cooling as well as it does because of the 92mm fan. If space is not a concern then there are coolers out there that will dissipate more heat, even in the 50$ price range.

Newegg.com - ZEROtherm CORE92 Socket 1156/1366 HDT Cooler
Apack Intel LGA775 Final Heatsink Temperature Comparisons - Core92 FrostyTech Review

Amazon.com: TUNIQ CR-T120-EX-SV TOWER 120 EXTREME REV1 CPU COOLER 120MM FAN CONTROLLER: Electronics

Best on the market for the 1366 but comes with no fans so you have to buy your own.
Newegg.com - Prolimatech Megahalems Rev.B CPU Cooler

Apples to Apples - Prolimatech Megahalems LGA 775 and LGA 1366 Cooler | [H]ard|OCP
Prolimatech Megahalems CPU Cooler Review - Page 9

[Neurotripsicks]

I just ordered everything and I got that CPU cooler you mentioned (Prolimatech Megahalems) with 2 120mm fans. I couldn't wait for Sandy Bridge, but I think I will be happy with the i7 950 in this Sabertooth. Total was around $1,400

[Neurotripsicks]

Thank you SO much for recommending the Prolimatech Megahalems, I am going to use a Push/Pull on that X58 Sabertooth, can't wait I get the items Wednesday.