Intel Core i5 3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz LGA 1155 Quad-Core Desktop Processor + ASUS Sabertooth Z77 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard $354 + Free Shipping (expired)

Quote from tp4tissue : I knew people "like" to pick this one as a "reason" But Raid SSD truly provides little to no improvement.

Sure it does. I pick up Intel 160GB drives for $60-70 (about one a month) and use them striped to give me more space. The performance I don't care about - it's the expanded space that I find useful. Once a 512GB drive comes to 50 cents per gigabyte, then I won't care.

How isn't a single larger drive, where the disk usage is evenly distributed across the drives, helping by providing equal free space per drive for adequate wear leveling, a negative?

Quote from tp4tissue : FFS, you don't play BF3?

Yeah I do.

I wish I could notice the 30% difference

Quote from tp4tissue : nah.. completely off... 512gb drives, the slightly lower spec ones "are" in fact $0.50 per gb. The only reason for SSD higher than 256GB would be for "media" storage, in which case SSD provides Zero benefit, at greatly increased cost over traditional Harddrives. Do your research bro...

My application and steam folder drive on this PC is nearly 400GB. Applications and games take up too much room, and if you max out the space on an SSD with read-only files, it can only repetitively overwrite the same cells, quickly wearing them out, on any write commands the drive receives.

Right now I still have to micromanage the layout of files on my computer. I know these Intel drives are good for well over 10,000 writes per cell according to long term tests, but I'd still prefer to keep the wear down. If I filled 149GB of data onto one 160GB drive and something wrote and overwrote logs to the remaining few megabytes, the NAND would get destroyed in a matter of months.

For media storage, I DO use multiple 2TB drives in my home workstations and server, mirrored, and backed up to two separate locations. I use about 1TB of precious files, 2TB of revolving media, and 500GB of application/OS files. The 500GB needs SSD storage.

Yes 512GB drives are coming down in price. If I can pickup 420, M4, or equivalent for around $250, I will be on it. It will be soon. Since I am using 500GB of data on SSD though, I need two. They do not need to be striped at those capacity levels.

Quote from tp4tissue : I can tell you're NOT serious enough about BF3... sigh... Deep breath... You need a fast graphic card. Yes.. correct.. Play to win? YES.. of course.. Graphics setting?.. All ON LOW exceptions of Highest resolution available Highest Mesh quality Anisotropic filtering 16x Vsync Disabled Disable Frame rate Cap of 200fps On a modern graphic card 7950, this should give you around 150fps average, and 200-300 in low density areas. It's about tight control and view distance. This is not how the game was meant to be played. this is how serious players pwn n00bers.

Now you just sound like you're trolling. You're joking about the 150fps thing right? Unless you're using a 240hz monitor there is no point in doing that. The maximum fps that most monitors can show is 60, because the refresh rate of the monitor is usually 60hz, which means having 150fps is completely pointless since you can't see them. Maybe you should take a break from playing battlefield and learn at least a little bit about computers. I don't know what's "serious" about playing battlefield but I have over 280 hrs in the game since it came out last October. I know many have much more than that, but I actually have other things that I do.

anybody got their order cancelled? I just got a cancellation.

Quote from tp4tissue : So, you collect 400gb of games that you couldn't possibly play simultaneously to occupy space and justify your wasteful purchase. ... Got it.... Consumerism wh00t

About 300GB for steam, yes. 200GB usage on a 256GB drive would also be pushing it IMO - you'd always have to remove something to add something else. I'm not a heavy gamer, I haven't played a single game at a time in over 10 years, but when someone wants to play something with me, having it already installed lets me jump in without waiting for half an hour for steam to download the game and install it while I'm also uninstalling something else to make room. We never know what kinda of game we'll be in the mood to play, or perhaps try something new, so having it all installed is pretty much required. I will say I only have a portion of the steam games installed - mostly more recent ones that I'd actually be likely to play.

Just because someone doesn't do things the same way you do, it doesn't make them wrong. This is why I buy the 160GB drives for dirt cheap - it doesn't affect my wallet in any way different than buying a larger drive. I currently have "480GB" that I paid under $200 for, striped and giving me 700MB/sec sequential speeds, 500MB/sec 512K. 4K random didn't change. Always the first to get loaded up, not that it matters much as I rarely do FPS since it became repetitive with nearly everything after Q3A/UT.

I still think the combo in this thread was an excellent deal. No stability issues since I built the same system; the computer sleeps properly, uses 60-70W of power at idle with a HD7950 and 4x4GB sticks of RAM, soundcard, three SSD drives and one 2TB Caviar Black, 5 120mm fans, everything turned on and silent. Too bad the Fractal case was a terrible purchase. It was worth the upgrade from my previous P5E-VM system that would randomly fail to sleep and sat at the post-POST screen, before loading windows, for 30 seconds doing nothing before it would start to load and be up in another 10 seconds.

Quote from tp4tissue : Since there's quite little risk in Delidding, I suggest you do that.

Sure, no risk... except for that whole "void your warranty" thing.

Quote from Rippa_MD : GC that would go with this setup? $200-250 budget maybe even $300 if there's a bang for your buck deal out...this might be my setup...very tempting

I'd recommend a GeForce 660 Ti. They just came out last month and are wicked fast -- essentially the same performance as a 670 but lower temps. Not sure if the "free Borderlands 2 w/ purchase" promo is still running, but even if not, it's a great chip.

I got the MSI GTX 660 Ti Power Edition Graphics Card with Triple Overvoltage and Enhanced PWM Design (N660TI PE 2GD5/OC) [amazon.com] from Amazon for $299 w/ $10 rebate ($289) and I love it so far.

Quote from badong : anybody got their order cancelled? I just got a cancellation.

When did you place your order?

Quote from ikcizokm : Sure, no risk... except for that whole "void your warranty" thing. I'd recommend a GeForce 660 Ti. They just came out last month and are wicked fast -- essentially the same performance as a 670 but lower temps. Not sure if the "free Borderlands 2 w/ purchase" promo is still running, but even if not, it's a great chip.

Umm no. 660ti is a good card, but I would have issues recommending that card, when you
can pick up the superior 7950 for the same price (or lower).
http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?...GE_big.png
http://www.hardocp.com/article/20..._hd_7950/2

It all depends on your budget.

This will be US190 in thanksgiving day,, I will wait

Quote from tonyftw : Umm no. 660ti is a good card, but I would have issues recommending that card, when you can pick up the superior 7950 for the same price (or lower). http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?...GE_big.png http://www.hardocp.com/article/20..._hd_7950/2 It all depends on your budget.

I wouldn't exactly call the 7950 a "superior" card. Even per your own link to the HardOCP comparison, the cards are virtually neck-and-neck. And the 7950 averages around $320 whereas the 660 Ti averages $290, thus keeping within his requested budget. The 660 Ti also runs cooler (IME), thus allowing for greater OC capability.

I understand that there's a lot of room for personal preference/bias, but dismissing the 660 Ti so quickly in favor of the 7950? LOL

Quote from ikcizokm : I wouldn't exactly call the 7950 a "superior" card. Even per your own link to the HardOCP comparison, the cards are virtually neck-and-neck. And the 7950 averages around $320 whereas the 660 Ti averages $290, thus keeping within his requested budget. The 660 Ti also runs cooler (IME), thus allowing for greater OC capability.

False statement. If anything, the 7950 has a lot more overclocking headroom because
tahiti scales very well, compared to kepler. Cooler running cards does not equal greater
OC capabilities. When it comes to overlclokcing, ymmv, regardless if it's reference or custom.

384 bit bus > 192 bit bus. Again, the 660ti is a good card, but it falls short when compared
to the 7950. By the way, you can pickup a custom 7950 as low as $269.99 after rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...6814150616

If the 660ti was $250, I would definitely recommend it. At its current price, I can't, unless you
absolutely want nvidia.

Any one get a tracking number yet

Quote from ek9cv5 : Any one get a tracking number yet

Not yet.

Have a feeling mine will be canceled. Just looked up the bundle and the price is coming up as $458