titanmike Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 He's right about one thing. If you're on a tight budget the SSD is impractical. Better to go for the cheaper option that offers less performance, but greater storage utility, especially considering you would have to get a normal Hard Drive for storage even if you had an SSD. But hey, if you CAN afford it, SSD is the way to go. Who doesn't want to boot into Windows in a fraction of the time along with the other quality of life improvenments an SSD can bring to your computing life? Ok we can agree, here. For the money (if money is a issue) SSD is impractical. If you have the money and space, sure why not. But for me personally a SSD is not going to cut it. STO and AoC both take up about 30 gigs, toss in TOR at 20 gigs, along with X-2 and X-3 and we are already over 60 gigs. Now add in windows. Now add in that I am playing SR3 and metro 2033 off and on. Another 10+ gigs. Steam takes up (minor space) as does a few other things I like to keep handy. My mods for Oblivion or either fallout game is almost enough to consume half the SDD by its self. I am sure Skyrim is going to rack it up when the CS comes out. Its already pretty big with the new textures and such. So here it is. If you have the money and only keep a few games at a time installed a SSD is a great idea. If you need more storage space for anything it would be better to get a single HDD for less or two 500's for a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbodzioch Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Just a note I have win 7 64bit and swtor on my 120gb ssd works great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culveren Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The current AMD chips are awful for gaming. the i5 2500k is the best bang for your bucks gaming chip at the moment. Looks good OP and the Ram is fine. The i5 is hands down better in the over 200 dollar range. Technically speaking though in the under 200 dollar range AMD is faster. the issues is upgrades. If you buy an i3 2100 it may be slower than a 960t, but you could eventually pop in a used 2500k and see a huge performance increase. Not to mention the idea that AMD is terrible for gaming, honeslty games are so GPU dependent that as long as you have a half decent CPu should be okay. I consistenly get above 60FPS in every game i play on an AMD cpu. My 1100T @ 4.1 Ghz will beat a i5 2500k in multi-threaded performance (which is not important to everyone, but is to me) and i still get very good performance in game. Plus it was thirty dollars cheaper. Personally i refuse to spend more than 200 bucks on a CPU if my system budget is less than 1.6 grand. Id much rather have a more powerful gpu. If you strictly plan on gaming, and you are going to spend more than 200 bucks, you would be crazy not to buy intel. But the under 200 dollar market AMD is quite competitive. And with windows 8 and piledriver an AM3+ motherboard should have some decent upgrade options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XcSDeadDeer Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 It'll hold up great for sure, almost the exact same build I went with with the exception of I'm using a 570 vs your 560. I didnt purchase an SSD myself (though i intend to). Load times are great with an SSD/2500k from what i've heard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classicalbor Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yeah it will be just fine. Anyone even attempting to comment that AMD has better bang for your buck is crazy. For the mainstream/general PC processing computers.. maybe... but not for gaming. The 2600k and 2500k are absolutely the best performing processors for their price. My 2500k i bought from microcenter in-store... $179. The general price is about $220 for the 2500k, and thats already a good price. Don't even try to argue that an i5-2500k @ $179 isn't bang for your buck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culveren Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yeah it will be just fine. Anyone even attempting to comment that AMD has better bang for your buck is crazy. For the mainstream/general PC processing computers.. maybe... but not for gaming. The 2600k and 2500k are absolutely the best performing processors for their price. My 2500k i bought from microcenter in-store... $179. The general price is about $220 for the 2500k, and thats already a good price. Don't even try to argue that an i5-2500k @ $179 isn't bang for your buck Generally speaking the sub 200 dollar range is performance dominated by AMD. Compare the 690t and the i3 2100 for example. The i3 2100 is both more expensive and slower. How does that make me crazy for suggesting AMD has better bang for your buck in the sub 200 dollar range? its a simple fact, no bias. I have 2 desktops, a budget build i brought to school, and one i have at home. Of course i have an i5 2500k at home, but when you want to spend 135 bucks and get 6 cores at 4 ghz, i always turn to AMD (used 1100T). They are the budget option sure, but i really do not notice the difference between it an my i5. Sure with fraps on i do, but when i am just playing both my 6950s (the one at home and the one at school) perform up to the task and the game runs perfect on both machines. If you have 220 bucks for an i5, pick it up. If you have 120 bucks, you might want to consider AMD. No bias, no bull, just numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EverestMan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 It would be a mistake to upgrade your gpu in 6 months to a year, just buy another one of the same type if you really think you need more graphical muscle, but I ran BF3 on ultra with my 560 ti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iliena Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) I prefer my AMD 1055T, but I was considering using a intell for my next build, if money allows. The 1055T preforms great for me, I had it up to 3.4ghz but backed it back down to 2.8 because I honestly have no problems with it at stock clocks. The 1055T is $50 less. I run my i5 2500k @4.8GHz you do the maths! Granted I do have a very good example but most hit 4.4-4.6GHz with reasonable air cooling using the auto overclocking function in Bios, that is where the true value of a 2500k comes from. Edited January 25, 2012 by Iliena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts