# Judge my PC specs



## cataclysm_child (Jul 4, 2011)

So I'm getting a new PC and a friend of mine put this together.
Does it look alright, or should I change something...? (I'm a newb at this)

Here's what to choose from:
Komplett.no

And here's the chosen specs:

Cabinet
CM Storm Sniper Black Edition Vifter: 1x 200mm Front, 1x 200mm Topp, 1x 200mm Side, 1x 120mm Bak, Blå LEDs

Powersupply
Corsair HX 750W PSU ATX 12V V2.2, 80 Plus Silver, Modular, 4x 6+2-pin PCIe, 12x SATA, 140mm Vifte

Motherboard
MSI X58A-GD65, Socket-1366 ATX, X58, DDR3, 3xPCIe(2.0)x16, SATA 6Gb/s, USB 3.0, Firewire, Military Class

Processor
Intel® Core i7-960 Processor Socket-LGA1366, Quad Core, 3.2Ghz, 8MB, 130W, QPI: 4,8GT/sec, Boxed w/fan

Watercooling
CoolIT ECO A.L.C. CPU Kjøler Socket 775/1155/1156/1366, AM2/AM2+/AM3, 120mm Vifte, 300mm Rør 

DDR3
Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333MHz 6GB CL9 Kit w/3x 2GB XMS3 modules, CL9-9-9-24, for Core i7

Graphic card
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 560Ti 1GB AMP! ® PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-miniHDMI, 950MHz

Harddisc
Western Digital Caviar® Blue 1TB SATA 6Gb/s (SATA 3.0), 32MB, 7200RPM

Harddisc SSD
Corsair SSD Force Series F80A, 80GB SATA2, 2,5", 285MB/275MB/s read/write, incl 2,5" to 3,5" bracket

With these specs it ended up at 12.372 Norwegian kroner, which is approx. $2300.

That's without a display. If you have any recommendations on a 24" - 27" display, that would be great.

Also, what's the difference between 32 and 64bits Windows? All I know is that 64bit can take advantage of more ram, but my friend here told me you get a lot of stuff he doesn't know what is that runs in the background with the 64-version, and that it tend to run a bit slower.

He also says having more than 6gb ram i bullshit. Is this correct?
It's mainly a gaming computer, but I may use it for music/video-production too. Have to see how I like reaper compared to logic etc. first.

Hope the long thread didn't put you off. Any opinions are welcome


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 4, 2011)

Pretty solid.
I'd run more RAM, but otherwise, can't really go wrong with that build.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 4, 2011)

Thanks. But why?


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 4, 2011)

6Gb of ram is kinda paltry these days. When ram is cheap as hell like it is now, get as much as possible. 

In terms of gaming, you may or may not get a benefit (depends on the game) but for any recording process where you have tons of processing going on or have many layer, the more ram you have, the better you're quality will be and the more efficiently you can work, particularly if you need to cache voices in memory (as you need to in some programs).

If I can make another recommendation, don't use Zotac. Their QC is still pretty abysmal and your chances of gettinga dud fairly high. Their RMA process is a pain in the ass. 

64-bit Windows has nothing extra going on in the backgroun. A 64-bit operating system simply allows you to utilize your processor more fully (assuming you are running 64 bit programs). To make it as simple as possible (not entirely accurate description, but I'm making it real simple) A 64 bit processor has a larger address space for any given computation, this allows more processing per clock cycle of any given processor. Its not quite twice the power (as you would expect going from 32 to 64 bit, but a properly written 64-bit program can process much more data than its 32-bit counterpart.

64 bit can run virtually anything the 32 bit variant can. There's really no reason not to get 64 bit in this day and age.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 4, 2011)

Thanks man. So which of the following would you recommend, if not the Zotac:

EVGA GeForce GTX 580 1536MB PhysX CUDA PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-HDMI, HDCP, Graphics Plus, CUDA, [info]	+458.48

Gainward GeForce GTX 570 1280MB PhysX PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, 732MHz [info]	-741.52

Gainward GeForce GTX 570 1280MB PhysX PCI-Express 2.0, "Golden Sample - GS", GDDR5, 2xDVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, 750MHz [info]

Kun Ikke på lager. 10 stk. 7.jul.2011 (Bekreftet dato)	-641.52

Gainward GeForce GTX 570 1280MB PhysX PCI-Express 2.0, "Goes like Hell - GLH", GDDR5, 2xDVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, 800MHz [info]	-541.52

Gainward GeForce GTX 580 1536MB PhysX PCI-Express 2.0,"GOOD", GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-HDMI, DisplayPort, 783MHz [info]

Kun Ikke på lager. 97 stk. 7.jul.2011 (Bekreftet dato)	+358.48

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 1536MB PhysX PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, HDMI, Windforce 3X, 795MHz [info]	+558.48

HIS Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5 PCI-Express 2.0, 2xDVI, HDMI, 2xmini-DisplayPort, HDCP [info]	-741.52

MSI GeForce GTX 580 1536MB PhysX PCI-Express 2.0, "Twin Frozr II", GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-miniHDMI, HDCP, CUDA [info]

Kun Ikke på lager. 48 stk. 22.jul.2011 (Ubekreftet dato)	+558.48

PowerColor Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5 PCI-Express 2.1, 2xDVI, HDMI, 2xmini-DisplayPort [info]	-786.52

Sapphire Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5 PCI-Express 2.1, 2xDVI, HDMI, 2xmini-DisplayPort [info]	-641.52

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 560Ti 1GB AMP! ® PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-miniHDMI, 950MHz [info]	-1141.52

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 570 1280MB PhysX CUDA PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-mini HDMI, HDCP, Graphics Plus, 732MHz [info]

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 580 1536MB PhysX CUDA PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-mini HDMI, HDCP, Graphics Plus, 772MHz [info]	+558.48

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 580 1536MB AMP! ® PCI-Express 2.0, GDDR5, 2xDVI, native-mini HDMI, 815MHz [info]


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 4, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> Thanks. But why?



Better to have too much then too little.

I run 12gb of RAM and I'm glad I do.



Granted I work on some extremely resource-heavy projects..


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

I just ordered the specs I posted first. Googled Zotac problems, but didn't come up much except for the older cards. And if 6gb ram isn't enough I'll just put in more. Read about it on tomshardware, and going over 6gb is a waste in most cases it seems.



> Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the &#8220;sweet spot&#8221; for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.
> 
> We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.
> 
> ...


----------



## dacimvrl (Jul 5, 2011)

if you are spending that much..

go for 2nd gen i7s (LGA 1155s) instead of some 2yr old tech..(LGA 1366s), but that's just me..

for motherboard, grab a GA-P6X UD3 or if you have more money, grab a UD7...etc. Gigabyte is way more solid than MSI imo.

prebuilt system = selling shit for price of diamonds..


----------



## HighGain510 (Jul 5, 2011)

I built a system with similar specs (some better, in fact) myself for about $1200USD. You DO end up paying them for the labor, and it's really not much that you can't do yourself with some reading or watching YouTube vids I'm sure. Spec out the parts you need, order them (does NewEgg ship to Norway? if so, go there!) and assemble everything. Just make sure you buy the important stuff like thermal paste to put between the heatsink and the processor since if you haven't built a PC before you wouldn't think to buy stuff like that.  I also opted for about 12GB of some nice Corsair RAM, it's definitely worth it considering how cheap it is these days and if you're using this PC for recording you'll want the extra memory. I'd also say make sure you buy Windows 7 64-bit version so you can actually use all the RAM and it won't just be used as kernel memory.


----------



## loktide (Jul 5, 2011)

that's pretty expensive for what it is, imo. i would never buy the latest CPU or GPU since price/performance is WAY off. 
you could save a few hundreds or even half for a rig that will be 5-10% slower.


----------



## beneharris (Jul 5, 2011)

loktide said:


> that's pretty expensive for what it is, imo. i would never buy the latest CPU or GPU since price/performance is WAY off.
> you could save a few hundreds or even half for a rig that will be 5-10% slower.


yeah i agree. while that is going to be a screaming machine, it wont be in a year. thats the only problem with buying the best stuff, is by the time you get it put together, it isn't the best stuff anymore.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 5, 2011)

My opinion is go i5 and gtx 580 not i7 and gtx 560. if you have the money then go i7 gtx 580 for sure. I would go with the sandy bridges 2600k i7 and I suggest 580 because you see the most performance boost from you graphics card and the 580's like double the speed of the 560. I actually think the 480 runs faster than the 560 albeit hotter as well, but faster. In either case I agree only a little about the memory only because if you are getting 6gb then that means your are prob getting 2gb sticks which means you will literally have to replace sticks when you stick mor mem in. I'd suggest at the very least 2 4gb sticks. And as someone stated before you should go with second gen which would be an 1155 board 1366 is to some degree offically old technology. just my


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

HighGain510 said:


> I built a system with similar specs (some better, in fact) myself for about $1200USD. You DO end up paying them for the labor, and it's really not much that you can't do yourself with some reading or watching YouTube vids I'm sure. Spec out the parts you need, order them (does NewEgg ship to Norway? if so, go there!) and assemble everything. Just make sure you buy the important stuff like thermal paste to put between the heatsink and the processor since if you haven't built a PC before you wouldn't think to buy stuff like that.  I also opted for about 12GB of some nice Corsair RAM, it's definitely worth it considering how cheap it is these days and if you're using this PC for recording you'll want the extra memory. I'd also say make sure you buy Windows 7 64-bit version so you can actually use all the RAM and it won't just be used as kernel memory.





loktide said:


> that's pretty expensive for what it is, imo. i would never buy the latest CPU or GPU since price/performance is WAY off.
> you could save a few hundreds or even half for a rig that will be 5-10% slower.





flint757 said:


> My opinion is go i5 and gtx 580 not i7 and gtx 560. if you have the money then go i7 gtx 580 for sure. I would go with the sandy bridges 2600k i7 and I suggest 580 because you see the most performance boost from you graphics card and the 580's like double the speed of the 560. I actually think the 480 runs faster than the 560 albeit hotter as well, but faster. In either case I agree only a little about the memory only because if you are getting 6gb then that means your are prob getting 2gb sticks which means you will literally have to replace sticks when you stick mor mem in. I'd suggest at the very least 2 4gb sticks. And as someone stated before you should go with second gen which would be an 1155 board 1366 is to some degree offically old technology. just my



Remember, everything in Norway is more expensive compared to pretty much anywhere else + 25% tax on top of all goods -_-

Anyway, it's really time-consuming reading up on all kind of parts. And some parts works better together than others and so on, so I'll just leave that for the pros. The standard setup of the computer was actually 17.495 NOK, that's $3266. So the setup I ended up with was pretty downgraded, or maybe not downgraded, but going last generation instead of the latest and greatest saves some money while not losing too much performance, like the graphic-card was the cheapest choice of the options there and in the reviews I saw it came out as one of the greatest just a couple of months ago, haha. And it's actually better to just go 6gb than having extra 6gb on top that you don't use IMO, it doesn't matter if you have 500mb free og 6500mb free you know.
Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM? : Is

But we'll see. I mainly wanted a new computer because my old one is so slow it barely works for surfing, if I have more than 5 tabs open all kinds of weird stuff happens, haha.

I'll try reaper and see how I like it, but I'm a big fan of logic so I'll probably stick to that, although I want to move over to something on PC because macs are just too damn expensive. My macbook have only 4gb ram and I have never had any troubles with it though, so I think 6gb will be just fine.

Mostly I just wanted a QUIET computer because the one I have now is like having 5 xbox 360's on top of each other, some gaming, maybe some amateur video-editing for youtube and maybe some music production, and then just surfing. I'll probably keep this new one for 10 years. The one I'm on now is probably about 7 years old and is NOISY and even too slow for regular surfing...

To be honest I'm kinda over gaming on pc, but the current generation consoles is getting pretty damn old now, so I thought what the hell, as I'm a BF fan I'll get one that can play bf3. Hated the anti-aliasing issues on bf:bc2 on the ps3 too, so there you go! This setup should run it fine, and I'll have a computer that last for maaaany years.

Anyway, thanks for your opinions, although I'm VERY skeptic to this more is better about ram how much ram is enough?
Having articles like that etc.

Anyywaaaay, this is getting long. I ordered it with the specs in my first post, also decided to go for a Dell UltraSharp U2410 24in Monitor
Can't wait to replace my old ibm thinkvision with that one! Going to be a whole nother world


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> And if 6gb ram isn't enough I'll just put in more. Read about it on tomshardware, and going over 6gb is a waste in most cases it seems.



Sure, if you're doing basic everyday activities.


But I record music on this computer with upwards of 60 tracks per song. 
Hence the extra RAM.
Plus, running video editing programs. 
I'd rather have too much than too little.
Your link talks about gaming and regular users. Gaming indeed does not require a lot of RAM. Your Graphics Card usually takes the hit on that one.



I'm just saying to keep that on thought if you plan to do anything intensive.

Otherwise, nevermind!


----------



## Razzy (Jul 5, 2011)

dacimvrl said:


> if you are spending that much..
> 
> go for 2nd gen i7s (LGA 1155s) instead of some 2yr old tech..(LGA 1366s), but that's just me..



I disagree with this completely. The LGA1155 might be newer, but it was built to be a more affordable option to the LGA1366 i7's.

LGA1366 is still king, and will spank that 1155 ass, every day of the week.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> I just ordered the specs I posted first. Googled Zotac problems, but didn't come up much except for the older cards. And if 6gb ram isn't enough I'll just put in more. Read about it on tomshardware, and going over 6gb is a waste in most cases it seems.



I remember that Tom's article, its old and outdated. I still run 4Gb and while its fine for most games, for recording it gets its ass handed to it with a quickness.

As far as video cards go, I've had nothing but good experiences with Gigabyte. MSI and Asus I've both used but have a 50/50 rate of success with. In so far as the type of processor, it really depends on which games you will be playing. Certain GPUs do better with certain games. Go off the updated Tom's charts and check what games you're going to be playing and go with the GPU that performs best for the price.


----------



## Razzy (Jul 5, 2011)

I prefer EVGA for both GPU and motherboard.

I'm still running a 780i. It's time for me to upgrade, haha.


----------



## Sicarius (Jul 5, 2011)

6Gb of ram is more than enough for gaming.

If you want to use all 6Gb of ram, get 64bit Win7. 32bit systems cap at 3.2Gb and though you can install all 6, it won't acknowledge the rest.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

I also googled around, sony vegas recommends 2gb ram, haha.

I have to say I start to believe my friend here saying that when it comes to ram 'more is better' is COMPLETE bullshit.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> I also googled around, sony vegas recommends 2gb ram, haha.
> 
> I have to say I start to believe my friend here saying that when it comes to ram 'more is better' is COMPLETE bullshit.



Its not complete bullshit. I can peg 16Gb of ram in a heartbeat using multiple tracks of DSP. Not to mention you can also cache your entrire operating system, or setup to a ram disk or set aside ram for VMs. There's a million different cases I could lay out where you will use the ram. 

If you don't want to use more ram, that' fine. Its your system, but don't ask for recommendations from people and then insult them because you "think" you found something that contradicts what you've been told. Its offensive.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

I did say what I was going to use it for though:
"It's mainly a gaming computer, but I may use it for music/video-production too."


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 5, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Its not complete bullshit. I can peg 16Gb of ram in a heartbeat using multiple tracks of DSP. Not to mention you can also cache your entrire operating system, or setup to a ram disk or set aside ram for VMs. There's a million different cases I could lay out where you will use the ram.
> 
> *If you don't want to use more ram, that' fine. Its your system, but don't ask for recommendations from people and then insult them because you "think" you found something that contradicts what you've been told. Its offensive.*



No shit.

You came here looking for advice, I shared my advice as a person who regularly comes close and/or maxes out 12gb of RAM, a 920 I7 and SSD's. It's used for Music and Video production, and gaming. Exactly the same as you.

You may not need it for your application. That's fine.

But don't ask for opinions if you don't want them.




You can get to 100mph in a Civic. But you can get there easier in a Ferrari.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> I did say what I was going to use it for though:
> "It's mainly a gaming computer, but I may use it for music/video-production too."



That's fine. you asked for opinions, and they were given. I just took offense to the bullshit comment because it was uncalled for and inaccurate. 

You may never touch all 6Gbs, but that's not the point. Windows 7 works to utilize every spare amount of memory, the more you have, the faster it runs as it will cache anything it needs to run in memory and leave it there resident until memory starts to run low. 6Gbs is not enough to completely disable disk caching, but its plenty for most uses. I recommend more memory because it is still ridiculously cheap right now and its best to buy more than you need when memory is cheap than to realize you need more later when memory is expensive and costs 3 times what it does currently. Its one of those habits you develop when you've been building PCs for 20 years - to buy when prices are low (memory specifically since it fluctuates more than any other component).


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

Taylor said:


> You can get to 100mph in most cars. But you can get there easier in a Ferrari.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

My friend JUST took that example earlier. And said RAM is NOT like that, and that is the misconception.

And don't take it personally. IMO this ram-talk sounds like COMPLETE bullshit. After heard what my friend have said, showing me examples.

Please, show me screenshots where you use more than 6gb running a music/video-software or a game.

It's just so funny how you took that car-example though, because my friend talked about that just an hour ago, haha.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
> 
> My friend JUST took that example earlier. And said RAM is NOT like that, and that is the misconception.
> 
> ...




I'm not going to prove myself just to make a point.


You want 6GB of RAM? Have at it.



That'll teach me for giving advice!


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
> 
> My friend JUST took that example earlier. And said RAM is NOT like that, and that is the misconception.
> 
> ...



Read through this, though, judging by what you've said so far, it will be over your head a bit:

Windows 7 memory usage: What&#039;s the best way to measure? | ZDNet

You'll notice it doesn't say, "more memory is better" in so many words, it explains how Windows 7 uses memory (not previous versions like XP which tried to be as conservative as possible with memory).

There are plenty of ways to optimize performance on a system with low memory. I know them all. I've been building and tuning performance systems for half of my life.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

This friend works for a big computer company with support of the systems within the company, so he knows a thing or two.

He have also shown me screenshots running reaper with tons of tracks and sony vegas and the latest games. Non of them exceed 2gb ram.

But I'll read that. Everything he have said just sounds more logical up until now, especially because of what he have shown.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

Taylor said:


> I'm not going to prove myself just to make a point.
> 
> 
> You want 6GB of RAM? Have at it.
> ...



You're not going to prove yourself, but you think it's offensive that I think a guy that does is more trustworthy?


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> This friend works for a big computer company with support of the systems within the company, so he knows a thing or two.
> 
> He have also shown me screenshots running reaper with tons of tracks and sony vegas and the latest games. Non of them exceed 2gb ram.
> 
> But I'll read that. Everything he have said just sounds more logical up until now, especially because of what he have shown.



If you read through the article, it will highlight where you two were both probably looking at in terms of memory usage, which is the wrong indicator in Windows 7. 

Again, the memory management aspect of the operating system changed dramatically from Windows XP to Vista (and ultimately in 7). Win XP used a very conservative memory management where it utilized paging more frequently and would not hit ram unless it had to. 

When I used to play World of Warcraft, the game alone would routinely cache over 2Gb by itself, not counting the 1-2Gb overhead the system used. And this was on a system with 4Gbs of ram, running 32 bit Windows XP. Windows 7 seeks to use every once of ram you have by design, so while it will actively cache out memory resident programs when you load a memory hog (like a game), you'll get better performance from not having to constantly cache in and out programs.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 5, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> If you read through the article, it will highlight where you two were both probably looking at in terms of memory usage, which is the wrong indicator in Windows 7.
> 
> Again, the memory management aspect of the operating system changed dramatically from Windows XP to Vista (and ultimately in 7). Win XP used a very conservative memory management where it utilized paging more frequently and would not hit ram unless it had to.
> 
> When I used to play World of Warcraft, the game alone would routinely cache over 2Gb by itself, not counting the 1-2Gb overhead the system used. And this was on a system with 4Gbs of ram, running 32 bit Windows XP. Windows 7 seeks to use every once of ram you have by design, so while it will actively cache out memory resident programs when you load a memory hog (like a game), you'll get better performance from not having to constantly cache in and out programs.



Now you're taking the lead over my friend here.

Btw, a couple of hours ago I sent an email asking if they could change the order to 12gb (you can go to MG.org and see the timestamp)

The reason I come out as offensive is because then I get more explanation, I'm the same way to my friend 

My friend was all like, what a waste of money and blahblah. But I seriously don't know. I mean, it's not THAT much more money for 12gb, and there's so many claiming it's better, so I just thought, what the hell. Maybe it's a waste but whatever, haha.

But isn't the CPU more limiting than the ram anyway?
This IS rocket-science, lol.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> Now you're taking the lead over my friend here.
> 
> Btw, a couple of hours ago I sent an email asking if they could change the order to 12gb (you can go to MG.org and see the timestamp)
> 
> ...



The thing is that there is a balance to a properly tuned system. There is not just one area that can get bottlenecked.

To give you an honest assessment, I'd need to know what kind of resolution you are going to run, if you are going to try for a multimonitor setup. 

To keep it simple though, RTS type games get bottlenecked by the CPU & RAM, more is better is the rule of thumb there. FPS are purely bottlenecked by GPU and VRAM, more is better is rule of thumb. 

There is a ratio of CPU speed to GPU speed where one will bottleneck the other so the general rule of thumb is just to go as high as your budget allows.

Personally, I find CPU is rarely the limiting factor and I would save money by going with a Phenom x6. However, changing that component would cause you to reevaluate your whole rig. I always shop for best bang for the buck because I just can't afford high-end. To my credit, I have years of skill in overclocking, so I can usually guarantee eeking out another 25-40% performance boost by a series of careful overclocks of each component.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 5, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> You're not going to prove yourself, but you think it's offensive that I think a guy that does is more trustworthy?



You asked if there's anything we would change.


I said I'd have more RAM because of how I use my computer.



Problem?


----------



## dacimvrl (Jul 5, 2011)

Razzy said:


> I disagree with this completely. The LGA1155 might be newer, but it was built to be a more affordable option to the LGA1366 i7's.
> 
> LGA1366 is still king, and will spank that 1155 ass, every day of the week.



you are either ignorant or retarded..or both....

Aside from the Extreme editions of the LGA1366s that cost at least a grand, 1155 i7s top the 1366s, and they're not built to be a more affordable option. Did you just pull out these false opinions out of your behind? For future ref., back your argument up with facts, please.

Here, I saved you the trouble of looking for CPU benchmarks, wait do you know what benchmarks are?

AnandTech - The Sandy Bridge Review: Intel Core i7-2600K, i5-2500K and Core i3-2100 Tested

on the very top of the benchmarks, they say i7-2600k, that means i7 2600k gets more fps and performance than previous gen i7s which give less FPS.

Let me rephrase it with simple words - More FPS is better, you know?

More fps = better performance, kk?

More fps = better performance, kk?

More fps = better performance, kk?

/facepalm




here, video encoding benchmarks. Here, less is better, because it's measured in seconds. That means videos are encoded faster. 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/16

What do you see at the top of the charts? i7-2600k, is that a 1155 or a 1366? 

Let me put it in simple words here, again.

Faster is better.

Faster is better.

Faster is better.

Got it?


----------



## Sicarius (Jul 6, 2011)

Holy shit you guys got butt hurt fast. 

You gave your advice, and he took what sounded good to him. 

You guys are trying to get him to buy 10+ Gb of ram on a system that "might do some" production work. Not full on maxing out every god damn component in the build.

It's no wonder that he thinks it's bullshit because those of you recommending it are pushing hard for him to go overboard, because "It's better to have more than not enough".


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 6, 2011)

Taylor said:


> You asked if there's anything we would change.
> 
> 
> I said I'd have more RAM because of how I use my computer.
> ...



I did. Maybe I was unclear, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory really, but what I meant was opinions on the specs for *my* use. Which is why I had a little line on what the pc mainly would be used for.

So no problem really, you just answer on something that haven't been asked.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 6, 2011)

Believe it or not, many of us on this board use computers for the same applications as you, gaming and music/video production. 

Fact of the matter is that more ram IS better because of the way that Windows 7 uses ram like Mordacain explained, but depending on your own uses you may not need it. For primarily gaming, you don't need that much ram - 4gb is plenty for most games right now. For music and video production you can certainly get by with the 6gb you had planned, though you may want more depending on how many tracks, plug-ins, vst's, etc. you use in your productions. 

Considering the cost of ram right now, it's not that expensive to go with more, but you can always get the 6gb now and upgrade later if you find it's not enough.



Sicarius said:


> Holy shit you guys got butt hurt fast.



It's one thing to take the bits of advice that sounded good to him, it's another to repeatedly tell everyone, especially those with far more experience, that what they're saying is "complete bullshit."


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 6, 2011)

WickedSymphony said:


> Fact of the matter is that more ram IS better because of the way that Windows 7 uses ram like Mordacain explained



I hear you say that, but I have yet to see the boost in performance. The tests I've seen there's no difference. In some of them the one with LESS ram have performed better, haha.

As I said earlier, please, show me test results that back up what you're telling me. Just because someone is said to have more experience than me doesn't mean I'll blindly do what they say. Especially not from a guitar-forums when dedicated computer-forums says otherwise.

Not being offensive, just thinking loud here. Just because the majority of people believe in a God doesn't mean they're right you know. 
I'm not religious, I need proof.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 6, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> Especially not from a guitar-forums when dedicated computer-forums says otherwise.



Seriously? Why come here asking for advice in the first place then?



> Not being offensive, just thinking loud here. Just because the majority of people believe in a God doesn't mean they're right you know.
> I'm not religious, I need proof.



Your tone most certainly is offensive when you tell others what they say is bullshit. You can think out loud and still not be offensive to people who are in this thread trying to help you spec out your computer since you asked.

-----
Now, with all that aside, here is the test you asked for:

Memory Upgrade: Is It Time To Add More RAM? : Introduction

This article shows that increasing available ram improves performance, and that's just in single applications. If you plan on running multiple programs at once, as I'm sure most people do, your computer will run even smoother with the added ram. 

Keep in mind that things like music/video production would be even more intensive than other applications, and as I said, depending on your use of vst's, plug-ins, amount of tracks, and so on, having more ram would improve performance. And again, there's the fact that Win7 will occupy as much memory as it can in order to save the trouble of having to cache programs in and out of memory which also helps your hard drives out a bit, too. You can certainly live with less ram and get along just fine in most cases, but more ram isn't a bad thing.


----------



## dacimvrl (Jul 6, 2011)

all the OP ever needs is 4gig, if 6gigs sounds good, grab 6, if you want 8 cuz it's cheap, grab it, you don't need 12...etc. 

Realistically, 4~6gigs is plenty even if you wanna do some audio work cuz realistically, the software industry is quite a bit behind. Most of the DAW programs don't even support 64bit processing natively. So what's the point?


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 6, 2011)

dacimvrl said:


> all the OP ever needs is 4gig, if 6gigs sounds good, grab 6, if you want 8 cuz it's cheap, grab it, you don't need 12...etc.
> 
> Realistically, 4~6gigs is plenty even if you wanna do some audio work cuz realistically, the software industry is quite a bit behind. Most of the DAW programs don't even support 64bit processing natively. So what's the point?



Guys, I'm not trying to be a dick here and maybe being in my field gives me a better idea of how ram actually works. Believe it or not it is entirely dependent on the operating system. A particular program may be written to access as much as it can or it may not (that depends on how it is written) but the operating system dictates how memory is used.

With Windows XP 32 bit, you could not physically address more than roughly 3.25 Gb. You could do just fine running 4Gb on a 32 bit system and disabling virtual memory. You could even set up video ram address space with the remaining memory that your system could access, but the operating could not that could improve performance as it can precache textures to pipe faster to vram. 

However, with Windows 7 64-bit, a completely different memory management system is used. That system seeks to use every once of memory you have available. No one is saying that the system will crash or be unstable, just that it will be faster when heavily tasked with more memory available to it. 

My recommendation was based on personal experience and extensive knowledge of how ram functions. Its also a recommendation based on cost. If ram was expensive right now I would advise getting the minimum, just to the point where it will not overly restrict your system. However, ram is dirt cheap now, so its wise to overspec in that area.

/EDIT - meant to include this msdn that explains memory access with the various windows operating systems:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx


----------



## Sicarius (Jul 6, 2011)

WickedSymphony said:


> Believe it or not, many of us on this board use computers for the same applications as you, gaming and music/video production.
> 
> Fact of the matter is that more ram IS better because of the way that Windows 7 uses ram like Mordacain explained, but depending on your own uses you may not need it. For primarily gaming, you don't need that much ram - 4gb is plenty for most games right now. For music and video production you can certainly get by with the 6gb you had planned, though you may want more depending on how many tracks, plug-ins, vst's, etc. you use in your productions.
> 
> ...


But you understand where he's coming from, right? It does sound like bullshit, completely. Personally I'd change to an AMD chipset because it'd be cheaper and still perform great. but if he calls it bullshit I'm not going to lose my mind over it, he's a novice computer builder. Instead of shoving 12Gb of ram down his throat why not give the best advice with out going overboard, which anything over 6Gb of RAM for a "Mostly gaming" PC is.

You guys saw "maybe some music/video production" and went fucking crazy and tried to spec his machine out for a "mostly production with some gaming" rig.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 6, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> But you understand where he's coming from, right? It does sound like bullshit, completely. Personally I'd change to an AMD chipset because it'd be cheaper and still perform great. but if he calls it bullshit I'm not going to lose my mind over it, he's a novice computer builder. Instead of shoving 12Gb of ram down his throat why not give the best advice with out going overboard, which anything over 6Gb of RAM for a "Mostly gaming" PC is.
> 
> You guys saw "maybe some music/video production" and went fucking crazy and tried to spec his machine out for a "mostly production with some gaming" rig.



I didn't lose my mind. I took offense to the "COMPLETE BULLSHIT" remark, which I explained in a calm manner. I then proceeded to educate regarding how Windows 7 uses ram to illustrate my point. My point still stands.

I did say several times 6 gig would be fine but that going higher while ram is cheap is a smart investment move. I also don't know a single person that just uses a computer for gaming. I know many performance enthusiasts, who, like myself build a system spec'd to play games as its primary build objective, but many of us will encode video, play videos on an second or third monitor and do other crap on the computer while we play games. Based on how Windows 7 actively seeks to utilitze memory, the better performance you'll get as you add task to the system's overhead. That's the long and short of it.

However, I will say it again for emphasis:

"6 gigs of ram will be fine for virtually any game, provided all you are doing with your computer at the time is playing that game."

However, there are some MMORPGs where you will get a fairly massive (+20fps) improvement in. World of Warcraft and Lord of the Rings come to mind. Any world that actively loads the terrain data as you move will see improvements from more ram. I'm NOT saying you'll tack 20 fps on to your top frame rate, but your bottom frame rates will more consistently be raised, as they will not take a frame rate hit while terrain data is being cached.


----------



## Maniacal (Jul 6, 2011)

That looks very expensive for what you get. Why dont you look on ebay for a 2nd hand system.


----------



## Sicarius (Jul 6, 2011)

What programs are going to be going on in the background to soak up resources?

Who in the hell would try to render a video while trying to play WoW or CoD?

There's being intelligent enough to recommend a good amount of ram based on common sense, and then there's you.

The most that this guy is going to be doing at any one time (based on common sense):
option 1) Surfing the internet while listening to music/watching a movie 
option 2) Playing a game while Skype/Vent/Mumble/TS3 is on, and music going.
Option 3) Rendering a video/ song
Option 4) special "alone time" while some smooth Jazz or Marvin Gaye is playing.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 6, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> What programs are going to be going on in the background to soak up resources?
> 
> Who in the hell would try to render a video while trying to play WoW or CoD?
> 
> ...



And nothing I said warranted an insulting remark. I know plenty of people that continue to get work done on their machines while they play games. In fact, no one I know personally is ever not doing more than one thing on a computer. Possible exceptions to my parents and when I built their system, they got 2 gigs...and that's likely all they'll ever need.

The long and short of it is that you disagree with my opinion (however educated it might be, I do realize its still an opinion), there's no call to be a dick about it.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 6, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> But you understand where he's coming from, right? It does sound like bullshit, completely. Personally I'd change to an AMD chipset because it'd be cheaper and still perform great. but if he calls it bullshit I'm not going to lose my mind over it, he's a novice computer builder. Instead of shoving 12Gb of ram down his throat why not give the best advice with out going overboard, which anything over 6Gb of RAM for a "Mostly gaming" PC is.
> 
> You guys saw "maybe some music/video production" and went fucking crazy and tried to spec his machine out for a "mostly production with some gaming" rig.



It's fine to disagree or question our statements, but outright calling it "complete bullshit" and then implying our advice is worth less than someone else's because it is posted on a guitar forum rather than a computer forum is fairly insulting, especially when he came here to ask for opinions.

I also did not recommend that he get 12gb ram. I said for gaming 4gb is plenty, and 6gb should be fine for what he plans to do although it depends on his specific uses. I even suggested that he can always upgrade to more ram down the road if he finds it necessary. Personally, I find 12gb excessive for my own purposes, but the general statement that "more ram is bullshit/useless" is absolutely false, especially given the way it is utilized in Win7.


----------



## Sicarius (Jul 6, 2011)

It's not insulting at all. People don't expect to find decent advice from a forum that's not dedicated to that particular thing.

You don't go to a paintball forum and expect people to give you the best advice on where to find an LS1 engine. 

He is getting his information first hand from someone that knows him, and his computing habits. So if his friend, that knows him, is saying that he doesn't need that much and it's bullshit for him to get more than whatever amount. 
More ram is useless if it's going to be wasted, and not used. There's no point in having 10Gb of RAM if all you ever do is max out 3 on a heavy load, just because "it's cheap".
Having far too much RAM is stupid, and a waste of money that could have been put towards something else, like a better MoBo, better HSF, or even a better PSU.

Obviously if you didn't recommend an excessive amount of RAM then the statement isn't aimed toward you.


----------



## groph (Jul 6, 2011)

I'd only get more RAM if you're doing stuff like recording. 6 GB is plenty for gaming and anything else.

As far as graphics cards go, the GTX 580 is the fastest single GPU on the market, the HD 6970 is a tiny bit behind it in performance but it's a lot cheaper.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 6, 2011)

ITT : I get slammed for going for the safe route.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 6, 2011)

Taylor said:


> ITT : I get slammed for going for the safe route.



Yep, I learned my lesson: don't try to educate people when they specifically ask for an education.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jul 6, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> It's not insulting at all. People don't expect to find decent advice from a forum that's not dedicated to that particular thing.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this because my viewpoint is that if decent advice wasn't expected then there was no need to ask us. Also, even though the majority of the forum isn't dedicated to computer discussion, this particular section of it is. 

I'm not one to flip out about it, but I do think that kind of tone is unnecessary given the circumstances.



> More ram is useless if it's going to be wasted, and not used. There's no point in having 10Gb of RAM if all you ever do is max out 3 on a heavy load, just because "it's cheap".
> Having far too much RAM is stupid, and a waste of money that could have been put towards something else, like a better MoBo, better HSF, or even a better PSU.



I don't disagree with you in the general sense. If you have no need for that much ram then you probably won't miss not having it, and you can always add more later if you find that you do. All I'm trying to say is that it _will_ improve system performance (the OS is designed to make use of as much as possible) and it is fairly cheap at the moment, so it is worth considering, especially considering he said he plans to keep it for 10 years. I think that's a fair enough assessment.

Also on the topic of wasting money, I'd suggest building his own machine (/having his friend build it for him) rather than ordering a pre-built system as it should save him a nice chunk of change, possibly enough to cover several of the upgraded parts (depends, of course, on the prices he can get the parts for out there).


----------



## dacimvrl (Jul 6, 2011)

@mordacain.... he isn't you. All everyone is saying is that he doesn't need 12 gigs. It's redundant for what he does.... 4 ~8 gigs will do the job for him, kk?

seriously, give it a rest.

It's like a dude asks which car to buy for a bit of "fun driving", grocery shopping...etc., and you recommend him a BMW M3. Course, it's not that expensive, but does he really need one? No, a Mazda3 or even a TSX would suffice. More HP, torque..etc is good, but really? Does he really need that much? NO, HE DOES NOT.

@OP, if you think adding 12 gigs is complete BS and is a waste of money, well, you really have no ground to say it, cuz getting a prebuilt system is a waste of money in the first place. Like I said in my first post, paying that much for 2yr old tech is like using diamonds to buy shit. You know, bending over, lubing it up youself and beg for it. 12 gigs does help in some scenarios. Though not noticeably in your case, it still helps thus it's not complete bs.

We run PTHD on windows 7 here, 4 gigs of DDR3 2200 ram, tight timings. We do projects with like 40~50 tracks often w/ quite a few plugs like AASMC..etc. It has NEVER given us a problem, so in that regard, we don't need 12, cuz 4gigs is doing the job nicely. And for what the OP does, does he really *need* 12? It's not even a "safer route" like somebody put it, it's simply redundancy, nothing more. So, the short answer is no, and the long answer is noooooooooooo.


----------



## Taylor2 (Jul 6, 2011)

dacimvrl said:


> @mordacain.... he isn't you.
> 
> ------------
> 
> ...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 7, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> Processor
> Intel® Core&#8482; i7-960 Processor Socket-LGA1366, Quad Core, 3.2Ghz, 8MB, 130W, QPI: 4,8GT/sec, Boxed w/fan


Just personal preference, but I'd go for a slower hexacore if the price difference isn't large. But that is personal preference entirely, and I chose a quad-core over dual-core for my laptop, and not regretting it a bit.



cataclysm_child said:


> Harddisc
> Western Digital Caviar® Blue 1TB SATA 6Gb/s (SATA 3.0), 32MB, 7200RPM


I have the 2.5" version in my laptop, and good running so far. 



cataclysm_child said:


> Harddisc SSD
> Corsair SSD Force Series&#8482; F80A, 80GB SATA2, 2,5", 285MB/275MB/s read/write, incl 2,5" to 3,5" bracket


Can I recommend going with a Sata-3 SSD? I would think the extra speed desirable. Again, that's personal preference, and I personally went with Sata-2, only because I'm cheap.  Still has great speed, though.



cataclysm_child said:


> With these specs it ended up at 12.372 Norwegian kroner, which is approx. $2300.
> 
> That's without a display. If you have any recommendations on a 24" - 27" display, that would be great.


On the small end of your range, ASUS VE248.



cataclysm_child said:


> Also, what's the difference between 32 and 64bits Windows? All I know is that 64bit can take advantage of more ram, but my friend here told me you get a lot of stuff he doesn't know what is that runs in the background with the 64-version, and that it tend to run a bit slower.


Depends entirely on what you run. If you only run 32-bit apps, then you'll see a performance hit running 64-bit Windows. However, (and I cannot guarantee this) most games made within the last 2-3 years should be 64-bit, or have both versions. Just speculation, of course.



cataclysm_child said:


> He also says having more than 6gb ram i bullshit. Is this correct?


Well, of course, going with more than 3GB if you go for 32-bit Windows will be wasted money. But with 64-bit, more ram is more better. Reaper and other music editing software can suck more RAM than a whore. Go for 4GB sticks if the price difference isn't too much.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 7, 2011)

Wow, lot's of arguing about the RAM. I'd like to share my real world experience. I'd been using 3gb of triple channel DDR3 1333 memory for quite some time with no problems whatsoever for my audio work. The only issues I ever came across was trying to sample some super large Superior metal Foundry kits that were larger than the applications allocatable memory space of 2gb. But in real world use, even using my own Superior kit with Metal Foundry samples I have never had a problem. I have an electronic project, my main band, where I use tons of drum samples and often over a dozen VSTi synths and record my singers vocal tracks. Again, never once had an issue.

Just recently I switched over to Windows 7 64bit but am using the 32bit install of Cubase 6 - since I absolutely need all my softsynths to work 100% and some are no longer developed. So, I upgraded to 6gb, just since Win7 takes more memory - the idea being at least the app still has the max amount of memory available it can allocate. And, it still gives me a little more performance boost since now the OS isn't taking away from the app's memory available.

Point in all this is to say over 6gb is really needed isn't very accurate. If your argument is, "Well I personally have super large Superior kits that are several gigs in size so I need more than 6 for the kit, OS, and apps" then yeah you have a point. But in real world use most people are not loading so many gigs of data into memory and will never see any benefit going past 6gb.

6gb is a large amount of memory even if you don't want to believe so with some people having mega maxed out systems. Anyhow, I've never had any real issues with 3gb, so I personally think for *most* real world use it wouldn't be much benefit going over 6gb. Again, sure there are some instances where one would need more, it's just not all that common.


Rev.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 7, 2011)

Maniacal said:


> That looks very expensive for what you get. Why dont you look on ebay for a 2nd hand system.



Have you ever visited Norway? Apparently not, everything is twice as expensive here, so no matter what I would get it would sound too expensive for what I get. Even if I got one sent from somewhere else it would came to the same price after shipping, customs and tax -_-



WickedSymphony said:


> It's fine to disagree or question our statements, but outright calling it "complete bullshit" and then implying our advice is worth less than someone else's because it is posted on a guitar forum rather than a computer forum is fairly insulting, especially when he came here to ask for opinions.
> 
> I also did not recommend that he get 12gb ram. I said for gaming 4gb is plenty, and 6gb should be fine for what he plans to do although it depends on his specific uses. I even suggested that he can always upgrade to more ram down the road if he finds it necessary. Personally, I find 12gb excessive for my own purposes, but the general statement that "more ram is bullshit/useless" is absolutely false, especially given the way it is utilized in Win7.



I thought it sounded like complete bullshit after what my friend told med, and the screenshots he showed and links. I didn't mean to offend anyone, just my thought. Guess I could have been less direct about it.

Also, we tried running reaper, first with one track and took a look at the ram usage, then we added tracks and vst's and what not, and surprisingly the ram was pretty constant, the cpu however had to work. Did the same with sony vegas, same thing happened. Then we ran reaper AND sony, and finally we saw some more ram being used, but I would never run many heavy programs at the same time. This was w7 64-bit btw.

He also told me that more ram could potentially increase the chance of getting blue screen and other system fuck ups. 




Rev2010 said:


> Wow, lot's of arguing about the RAM. I'd like to share my real world experience. I'd been using 3gb of triple channel DDR3 1333 memory for quite some time with no problems whatsoever for my audio work. The only issues I ever came across was trying to sample some super large Superior metal Foundry kits that were larger than the applications allocatable memory space of 2gb. But in real world use, even using my own Superior kit with Metal Foundry samples I have never had a problem. I have an electronic project, my main band, where I use tons of drum samples and often over a dozen VSTi synths and record my singers vocal tracks. Again, never once had an issue.
> 
> Just recently I switched over to Windows 7 64bit but am using the 32bit install of Cubase 6 - since I absolutely need all my softsynths to work 100% and some are no longer developed. So, I upgraded to 6gb, just since Win7 takes more memory - the idea being at least the app still has the max amount of memory available it can allocate. And, it still gives me a little more performance boost since now the OS isn't taking away from the app's memory available.
> 
> ...



We can lay it to rest now. The computer is ordered. I actually sent them an email asking to upgrade the ram, but to do that they would have to cancel the whole order then put in the order again with the correct specs, so I didn't bother as I was skeptic about it already.

Thanks for the posts anyway.

Got my new Dell UltraSharp U2410 24" monitor today btw, and this thing kicks all kinds of ass!

Click to view the full image!

Full res of old screen:






Full res new one:





Love it!


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 7, 2011)

I moved from 1280x1024 to 1080p, first on my desktop, then when I built my new laptop, one of my primary requirements was a 1080p display. Worth it!

Also, is that second screenshot downsized? If not, you've got some screen real estate awaiting you in the settings pane. 

As for blue screens due to too much RAM, not happening unless some of said RAM is bad, which can happen at any quantity. Very serious, high-load webservers these days take, and are typically run with 32, 64 or more GB of RAM. Blue screens are not acceptable in the server market.

And nice to see you run a serious OS... Not too many people are doing that these days, unfortunately.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 7, 2011)

Yeah, it's downsized. My res is actually 1920x1200 (16:10).

My windows computer died 6 months ago or something, and I had experimented a little with linux with the one I got before that one. You can imagine how slow this thing is, haha. Have to say I like linux now that I've used it for a while though. Too bad more people don't embrace it so companies would support it more.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 7, 2011)

Ha, just noticed you're a fellow Ubuntu user! Kick ass 

I'm using 10.04 since it's long term support. My secondary machine at work, what I'm typing on now, is also setup with Ubuntu. Heck, as a matter of fact, the wife, my sister in law, and my mother's computers are all Ubuntu - I got sick and tired of cleaning out viruses and malware for people so switched them all over and they love it.


Rev.


----------

