POST A COMMENT

52 Comments

Back to Article

  • ckryan - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I really like the upscale HTPC build. I've been wanting an InfiniTV quad for quite some time now, but I've been told it won't work well with my cable provider (by one of their technicians).

    I like that all the systems have SSDs (M4s and Samsung 830s). The new Marvel controlled drives with Toshiba toggle NAND have a healthy increase in speed over the Marvel-equipped M4 and it's 25nm Micron *AAB sync NAND. The Corsair undercuts the M4 in price at the 128GB level, but the M4 seems to have gone up in price recently. The Samsung 830 is similarly fast, and I got a free copy of Arkham City with mine.
    Reply
  • A5 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Unless your provider doesn't issue Multistream CableCards, the Ceton will work fine with any system. Reply
  • konroh - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    As an alternative to the Ceton, consider the HD Homerun Prime from Silicondust (http://www.silicondust.com/products/hdhomerun/prim... I have one and love it, every machine (with windows 7 MC) on my network can tune and record cable. It was a little buggy at first but with the latest firmware it's been solid. Reply
  • konroh - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    broken link:
    http://www.silicondust.com/products/hdhomerun/prim...
    Reply
  • QChronoD - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    The technician was lying to you.

    "Cable companies in the United States are required to provide CableCARDs conforming to this specification, and must correct incompatibilities between their networks and certified CableCARD devices." - from wiki about cablecards

    You will lose some features that the cablebox provides, namely VOD and their guide data and oh-so-lovely GUI.
    Reply
  • mdlam - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    WD 2tb Green for $98 at Datavas.com = win. Reply
  • sna1970 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    heloo

    X79 is supposed to be quad channel memory ... you should add 4x4G there not 2x4
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    It's two kits of 2x4GB, which is why it says "(2) Crucial 8GB...." Reply
  • chrone - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    the board only have 4 dimm slots dude. Zach already posted that he had choosen 2 8gb kit in the above specs (2 x 2 x 4gb ~ 4 x 4gb). :D Reply
  • MrCrispy - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I recently built the following -

    i5-2500K
    Asus P8Z68-V LX
    Corsair H80
    Seasonic X760
    Fractal R3
    16GB Ripjaws X

    I feel really good about my choices now :) Haven't bought a video card, I can wait till the 7000 series debuts. Already have an old ssd and optical. The whole thing only cost me $640 incl tax+ship, no rebates involved, thanks to all the BF deals. I have a $200 budget for a video card (new or refurb) and it should be plenty.
    Reply
  • piroroadkill - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Mine's pretty similar :3

    i5-2500K
    Asus P8Z68-V Pro
    Corsair A70
    Seasonic X-660
    Fractal Design Define R3
    8GB Patriot G2

    Also, MSI Twin Frozr III Radeon 6950 (which unlocked to 1536 shaders)
    Reply
  • 87_heavyboy - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    The ASRock Z68M-ITX/HT looks nice at first glance, so I bought it, too. Together with the i7 2600K. I also thought "great, m-ITX + overclocking - something for the future". In practice, it has its problems. The mosfets don't have coolers on them, they get hot quite fast, resulting in throttling. The board can't hold 3.4 GHz for some minutes during compilation :( I did not even think about overclocking!
    The other problem: It supports Overclocking but no undervolting. SNB comes with quite defensive default-voltage, resulting in good undervolting-potential.

    Positive:
    It pulls just ~30W at idle.

    I think, it would have been a better choice to go mATX, if it should be a smaller PC.
    Reply
  • duploxxx - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    this HTPC design is a huge waste of money Reply
  • MrTeal - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I was curious about that too.

    My HTPC is a low power, quiet affair with an X3, a modded and silent 5570 and an SSD, no mechanical HDD. Any encoding I do on my main rig so that my HTPC stays low power and silent, and just stream the data over the network.

    Do many people really build powerful and expensive HTPCs? I find usingmine as a PC @ 1080p/47" is kind of a poor experience when you're sitting at normal TV viewing distances, so all I really use mine for is a media streamer and checking scores / watching Youtube. Any real computing I just do at my desktop. I'd be interested in how other people use these HTPCs.
    Reply
  • Z Throckmorton - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Generally speaking, an AMD E-350 setup is sufficient for the majority of HTPC usage scenarios. However, I have built a few more powerful HTPCs for people who want to transcode video but don't want their primary home computer tasked as a video editor, and don't want to bother with a LAN. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    That is bollocks. They clearly state they are not going with a traditional HTPC setup (i.e. just be able to play back everything). They want performance for coding, HDTV streaming capabilities and storage as well. If people are in the market for that and have the cash, there is nothing I would really see being done to bring down the price while maintaining the performance.

    I personally have a small media client and a large file server in the back and I'm not interested in HDTV stuff. I came away spending about 400€.
    Reply
  • piroroadkill - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I wouldn't recommend them, anymore. I've seen my 2GB Radeon 6950 use more than 1GB with GPU-Z open on another screen. For the slight extra cost, and the chance of unlocking (mine did, and it's not so old), 2GB 6950 all the way, all the time. Reply
  • prdola0 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Zach, wouldn't it be better to use 2x non-reference GTX560Ti in SLI instead of 2x HD6950? There is quite a lot of GTX560Ti models clocked ~15% higher than the reference card, which matches even the HD6970 performance. They are both more price-efficient than HD6950 and also SLI tends to be more stable (you usually don't see negative scaling and similar problems). Of course there is also the added value of Nvidia actually supporting gamers, unlike AMD. The Skyrim graphics setup guide they just recently released is simply great and most other GeForce.com articles are helpful just as much.

    Take care,
    Prdola
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Hm....

    According to the bench, SLI 560TI and CF HD6950 trade blows the whole time except for Civ5 where nVidia clearly wins or anything above 1920x1200 where AMD clearly wins.

    If you go with SLI/CF, gaming at 1920x1200 is moronic anyway, so I think it is very valid to recommend HD6950 over the 560TI. Also, most recent reviews of CF/SLI I have seen have them nearly on par, with nVidia leading in a few games and AMD in others. It is not a situation like two years ago where nVidia had a clear lead. And speaking for my market, there really is no difference between HD6950 and 560TI cards. You can find both at pretty much the same price points.

    So, to summarize: to each his own, every company has great cards for good prices. Look at your usage pattern and a special deal, then decide. :-)
    Reply
  • prdola0 - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    That's hardly so. I am talking about overclocked editions of GTX560Ti. In this regard the GTX560Ti is almost as easily over-clockable as GTX460 was. And there are almost as many 560Ti non-reference OC models. And those editions trade blows with HD6970, yet are priced at HD6950 mark or some between HD6950 and HD6970. Reply
  • crackedwiseman - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Why would you use a GTX560? My complaint has little to do with performance - I don't have time to game in earnest, so that's not my objection. My problem lies in the lack of mult-display capabilities. For productivity purposes - particularly programming - a pair of 1080p screens is no longer cutting it for. With your config, the user is forced to invest either in expensive 2560*1600 screens or an entire new video card to get around this limitation - and with a base price of $2100 system, lack of expandability in this area is unforgivable. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I don't know many people that use more than two displays, but obviously if that's your goal you can go with a different GPU. We mention no fewer than six potential video cards to consider on the "for work" system: GTX 560, HD 6850, GT 440, HD 6670, and a couple Quadro and FirePro options as well. It depends on whether you feel CUDA support or multi-monitor support is higher priority really; I'd personally go with CUDA (it really does help with Premiere), but the alternatives are there for a reason. Reply
  • A5 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Yeah. I'd love to work somewhere where 3x 1080p monitors is commonplace...the standard issue at my workplace is 2x 1680x1050 monitors. Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Same here, and it took about half a year of begging the helpdesk to get my 2nd upgraded from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050. I half suspect it was because I kept the ticket open long enough that one of the IT bosses OKed it because I was screwing up his metrics. Reply
  • crackedwiseman - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    I spend a lot of time programming in C/C++ with inline assembly (not exactly easy work, but it pays off here and there, especially when dealing with encryption and error correction algorithms). This is documentation-heavy work, and I often find myself dedicating as much screen-space to various documentations of the processors I'm optimizing for, compiler options, etc as I do to my IDE - screen space gets cramped fast. I got my multi-monitor setup for myself - doesn't cost to much these days, when 3+ monitors on a single card is not rare and 1080p monitors (admittedly crappy, but pixels are pixels) available for under $250 apiece. Certainly isn't cheap, but it's not prohibitive, and I'd swear by it as means of enhancing productivity for many compute-intensive tasks - I have some friends that do a lot of 3D design work, and they've gone to a tri-monitor setup without looking back.

    The way I figure it is, if I'm going to spend 6+ hours a day working with my computer, it had better be a nice experience - and being forced to tab through my information is not a nice experience.
    Reply
  • apriest - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    I have 3x 1920x1200 monitors on my workstation (photo/video editing), running on a first gen Core i7, P55 chipset, striped X25-M SSDs for boot drive, and a Radeon 5860, a pretty well-rounded machine. I occasionally play games on all three screens, but mostly older games like Far Cry 2 or Burnout Paradise which run pretty smooth at 5760x1200. I'm thinking of upgrading this spring to X79 and 6 or 8 core (if I could put a Xeon in there) to get some more horsepower and especially more RAM (32GB wouldn't be that expensive with 8 slots, and I'm maxed out at 16GB). I'd like CUDA support for some of my video rendering apps, but I'm discovering no cheap way of keeping my triple screens without going SLI or something. Doesn't appear that any nVidia card can run three screens unless it's a dual chip design or something, and then I wonder if two cards wouldn't be a better option anyway for more CUDA performance and better cooling? Just seems odd that my 2+yr old sub-$400 ATI card does something that can't be touched for that price today by nVidia, or am I missing something? I don't mind paying for something if the performance pays off and lets me bill out more, like the SSDs and 16GB I put in my current machine, but since my goal is not high end gaming I don't really want to go overkill on a $1000 video card setup either! Also, will PCI Express 3.0 video cards be out later this spring and should I just stick with my current ATI card until then? What do you guys think? Suggestions? Reply
  • BSMonitor - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Dang, are these drives still overpriced. Clearly these companies need other shops besides Taiwan. Reply
  • ggathagan - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Or Thailand Reply
  • fokka - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    i'm happy to see you using a lian li pc 9f case in your productivity build! it's much better designed, than the a05fn dustin reviewed just yesterday and that's why i used it recently for my own build. really great case and in my opinion the best looking option out there! Reply
  • Araemo - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    On the Z68 boards, how much will using Intel RST w/ a 64GB SSD suck compared to actually putting your OS and most common apps directly on the SSD?

    I have been waiting for 128GB SSDs to reach $100-ish before I buy one, because I don't think I can fit enough on a 64GB to be happy.. but if the caching works well enough, I generally only go between a couple games at a time, and a few other apps, all of that should fit in a 64GB cache, along with the OS and such.. that should be plenty to keep me snapping 90% of the time.. if the technology really works - so have any of the Anandtech guys used iRST on their main systems for an extended period yet to give a good review of it?
    Reply
  • Z Throckmorton - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Hi Araemo - Anand performed a great analysis of RST a few months ago (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chips... You can see that RST definitely does not suck compared to just going with a dedicated OS/app SSD. That said, it's also clear that RST's utility really depends on usage patterns. From the sound of it, it sounds like you'd really benefit from a 64GB caching SSD. I personally have not used RST for an extended period of time; I've just moved from a 40GB to 80GB to 120GB SSD as funds have permitted. I tinkered with it and found the time and effort was simply not worth it compared to the cost of a dedicated OS/app SSD. ...Watch for sales (Intel's 320 120GB came close to $100AR on Black Friday a few weeks ago), or grab a used one off of our FS/T forums! :) Reply
  • Araemo - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I did read that, but I forgot about the after-usage tests.. though unless I'm misreading it, he doesn't go into how long before you get back to the good speeds, is it after one more launch, or does it take a few to re-evict the other apps? Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I bought a 120 about 2 years ago, and am waiting for a 240gb model to drop below $300. I haven't seen anything except sandforce get that low, and after all the firmware problems they've had I'm hesitant to buy one even though the BSOD bug has supposedly been fixed. Reply
  • FormulaRedline - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Unless you plan to attach your ~$2,000 gaming machine to a $90 monitor, I think the gaming system with a single 580GTX is going to be severly limited by the graphics card. If I was doing a $2k build today, specifically for gaming, I'd find a way to squeeze 580 SLI in there. By no means do I think it unreasonable to spend half the money of a gaming build on the GPUs. Certainly you should be allocating more than a quarter.

    Drop that SSD down to 64GB (basically the OS and some common programs), cut back the HDD storage (add more when prices drop), get a smaller PSU (I run 480GTX SLI, more power hungry cards, with my Kill-A-Watt showing draw during gaming of <550W...so I question the bench results), swap the water cooler for a good $30-$40 air cooler (you'll still be GPU bound for gaming), and use the freed up cash on more GPU. SLI drivers are so good these days that even a 570 SLI setup would be a huge step up from a single 580. That is computer that will run the newest games on the highest setting at big resolutions (2560x1600@60Hz) or even 3D (1920x1080@120Hz).
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I'm running a 30" LCD off a single GTX 580, and even the latest games are generally playable at max details and 2560x1600. Batman: Arkham City runs fine with DX11 + AA + PhysX (post-patch), Skyrim gets 8xAA and DX11, Rage could do max details and then some, Battlefield 3 is at least 40+ FPS... I hope you get the point. My biggest gripe with a single GTX 580 is actually something SLI GTX 580 won't really fix: 1.5GB VRAM. At maximum detail, we're now starting to see games push beyond that mark, even at 1920x1200/1080p, so some time in the next year or so I expect 1.5GB to prove insufficient. Reply
  • FormulaRedline - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Maybe so (unfortunately we're still in the area of console ports for systems that came out in 2005). However, consider a modded Skyrim running high resolution textures with AF x16 and AO enabled in the Nvidia control panel. Or, as you point out, some stock games like BF3. These will bring the article's machine below VSYNC, while the added GPU power would add framrate back.

    In other words, there is something to gain, even if only in some games (though I would also argue those games are the most relevant), while the cuts to get there do not sacrifice anything. Yes, watercooling to get a few more MHz out of the CPU or a bigger SSD to load the whole CS5 suite onto would be great for a productivity machine, but that's not the purpose of this build.

    As to the 1.5GB...I'm with you there. Personally, I wouldn't be building a machine right now; I'd be waiting for the next generation of cards at this point. Of course always waiting for the next best thing is a losing game, but I think we're out of the sweet spot for top end GPUs now.
    Reply
  • l_d_allan - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Reply
  • ggathagan - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    Not a particularly intelligent comment, given the plethora of CPU, GPU, PSU, motherboard, memory cooling and case reviews on this site that supply the very metrics you crave.
    This isn't a review, it's a buyer's guide
    Reply
  • coffeejunkee - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    These systems look fairly decent but I think you'll need a 3-pin y-splitter for the workstation to connect both the PC-9F front fans.

    The R3 can fit up to 7 fans, in that case you'll probably want a separate fancontroller since the GA-Z68XP-UD3 has only 1 controllable casefanheader.

    Not convinced about H80 though, doesn't seem worth the money to me when you can get Thermalright Macho for less than half the price. 'Introduction to real watercooling' sounds like a non-argument to me.
    Reply
  • ven - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    In the gaming ring everything else is fine, but as for the case i think CM HAF 912 will be more suitable than R3. Fully vented front panel than compared to small sideways front intake in R3, so more air flow and also if you remove the HDD cage(CM) Graphics card will get direct cooling from one of the front panel fan it is also much cheaper than R3($59)

    As for the motherboard, Asus Maximus-iv Gene-Z is also nice option both the Gigabyte and Asus are almost same in the spec, Asus has some more whistles like ROG connect,Better UEFI, and also it looks cool.
    Reply
  • methudman6 - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    I really like the Work PC build. I was wondering though, any reason to choose the Crucial ssd over an Intel 320 series? I know that Crucial m4 is sata III, but do you believe Crucial to be as reliable as Intel? Reply
  • Z Throckmorton - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    In the absence of hard data from controlled studies, it's difficult to asses which products of any type, including SSDs, are the most reliable. We have to rely on anecdotal evidence from forums, reviews on retail sites, and coverage from recognized authorities like Anand. And sadly the plural of anecdote isn't data! That said, my personal opinion is that I would be comfortable running both M4s and 320s, as well as Samsung 830s. I have an M4 in my netbook and a 320 in my daily driver desktop, and none of my clients have experienced issues with either of these drives. FWIW. Reply
  • Vikendios - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    If you are going to spend hours immersing in Skyrim, the glory of what you see comes first. A 30 inch monitor running at 2650 x 1900 with full effects is such a quantum leap from anything else that I cannot imagine calling "high end" anything without,

    It is precisely like building an audiophile music systems. What makes the sound ? The speakers. That's where the money should go, and all the rest is just support electronics.

    Running 2650 x 1900, a single 580 is quite unsufficient. My rig has a two-chip 590 because I'm lazy at setting up SLI's or triple card systems. Where you can save is memory : 6 G is ample for most games, and SSD's. A good old harddrive will work fine, you won't see the difference.

    The second most important luxury is silence, so you can enjoy perfect audio. I toyed with liquid cooling, but ended up solving radically the problem by leaving the innards in a closet on the other side of the wall from my den. Only a small hole in the wall behind my desk to thread cables for the monitor, the keyboard and the mouse. The sound is hooked to the hifi system in my room. Added benefit : no case neede, all components just sit on a shelf.

    Enjoy.
    Reply
  • Zap - Friday, December 09, 2011 - link

    The Lian Li PC-Q08 is to me a curious choice for an HTPC case. There are many great looking HTPC cases out there that fits in better with the typical home theater equipment. My home theater has a receiver, DVD player, CD player and cable company provided digital tuner that are all around the same width. A micro tower would look decidedly out of place in that mix. My own HTPC uses a Lian Li PC-C50B which is "officially" an HTPC case and is the same size as all the rest of the equipment. Other nice cases which I considered are the Silverstone Grandia series and even the Silverstone Milo. Those would all fit in with the other equipment. So, why the micro tower? Reply
  • mino - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    A good way to show your incompetence. Reply
  • yorkman - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    I'm stuck with this dilemma...I'd like to build a system that Rybka Aquarium (chess engine) will really take advantage of. It eats up whatever cores you have so the more the better.

    The rig in this guide is something I'm considering...but I'm not sure how much I'd benefit over the 2600K setup, or especially 2500K when used with Rybka for 24x7 analysis. Going with the 3930K would be considerably more expensive. The cpu alone is about $350 more, plus the mobo is about $100 more than the mobo for the 2500/2600.

    I've been using Rybka for years and I noticed the higher you clock your cpu the stronger it is, for obvious reasons. So overclocking will be a must. I haven't seen any benchmarks for an overclocked 3930X so it's hard to guess. I'd also be using 6 man tablebases would be where I'd need at least 16 GB of ram.

    I'm told Rybka doesn't take advantage of hypter-threading so the 2500K seems to be more logical...but less cache and slightly slower clock than the 2600K. Plus I do the occasional video editting in Pinnacle Studio so 2600K might be better regardless.

    How much would you recommend the 3930K in my situation? Or would I be better off still with the 2500 or 2600? Perhaps there's yet another cpu I've not mentioned? I know I could go Xeons but that's way over my budget I think.
    Reply
  • vishnusivathej - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link


    totol 24CPU cores,
    24Gigs of RAM

    ASUS KGPE-D16 SSI EEB 3.61 Server Motherboard Dual Socket G34 AMD SR5690 DDR3 800/1066/1333
    Item #: N82E16813131643
    Return Policy: Standard Return Policy
    Protect Your Investment (expand for options)
    $429.99


    Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) ECC Registered Server Memory Model CT2KIT51272BB1339
    Item #: N82E16820148354
    Return Policy: Memory Standard Return Policy
    $299.97
    ($99.99 each)


    Corsair Force Series GT CSSD-F120GBGT-BK 2.5" 120GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
    Item #: N82E16820233191
    Return Policy: Limited Replacement Only Return Policy
    Protect Your Investment (expand for options)
    -$60.00 Instant
    $30.00 Mail-in Rebate Card
    $249.99
    $189.99


    AMD Opteron 6234 Interlagos 2.4GHz Socket G34 115W 12-Core Server Processor OS6234WKTCGGUWOF
    Item #: N82E16819113030
    Return Policy: CPU Replacement Only Return Policy
    Protect Your Investment (expand for options)
    $779.98
    ($389.99 each)
    Subtotal: $1,699.93
    Reply
  • yorkman - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    I assume this was directed at me?

    Problem with that is, yes, I'd get 24 cores for an extra $1100 or so...but this is the deal breaker in my opinion...it's 2.4GHz*2=4.8GHz...something I could achieve with one 2600K cpu alone when overclocked.

    The server cpu's usually can't be overclocked...so that means I'm getting 20 extra cores which is awesome, and roughly the same speed as a 2600K would get me. But it'd use up more power per month and $1100 more...plus I can't even find these parts locally which means I'd have to order them from who knows where...then add shipping on top of that and hope that no parts come in as dead on arrival.

    Not sure that's a better pc. Where did you look up the prices for this? I'm in Canada so I'd prefer to order from here and not go through the border (duty fees are extra and would cost an arm and a leg extra on top of the $1100). Definitely not worth it then.
    Reply
  • yorkman - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    Ok, I see those quotes are from newegg.com...but since I'm in Toronto, they are not available to me (cpu). The mobo is at newegg.ca, but it's deactivated anyway.

    Checked on eBay....only available to customers in the U.S. so I don't think this is even an option for me.

    It's got me curious on how much stronger Rybka 4 would run though given the extra 18-20 cores...but same clock speed.

    Without the ssd drive, and if this can be purchased from Canadian customers somewhere....it's $1500+tax which would work out to about $1700 all in minus shipping. I'm not considering duty fees because I wouldn't pay them so I wouldn't order them from outside Canada.

    And wouldn't this mobo be a better deal Supermicro H8DGU Server Motherboard - AMD - Socket G34 LGA-1944. It's about $100 cheaper when compared to the Asus in CDN dollars.
    Reply
  • yorkman - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    One more thing. This one would probably benefit me more:

    AMD Opteron 6234 2.60 GHz Processor - Socket G34 LGA-1944

    as apparently Rybka 4 doesn't take advantage of HT, and can even slow it down...so with this dual cpu combo I'd gain 400 MHz (not much I know) and save about $100.

    Either way, nobody in Canada seems to have this in stock for sale...nor can it be ordered. I wonder why.
    Reply
  • Donkey2008 - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    Where did you find this price? I have only found it at $200+. And why did you not look at the Antec HCP-850 PSU? It is equal to the Seasonic and costs $40 to $50 less.

    Just curious. I know Seasonic is the JIMP for computer geeks, but there are other companies marketing Seasonic products with their label slapped on them, including many of the top-tier Antec PSUs. I guess I do not understand why people seem willing to pay that $40 to $50 extra to get a little horse logo on their polo shir...I mean Seasonic label on their PSU. Just sayin.
    Reply
  • Jungwirsch - Thursday, December 15, 2011 - link

    When building a system with aspirations towards becoming a gamer's trusted companion for years to come, 1 TB of HDD space will most likely not cut it. Recent games (Skyrim a noted exception) routinely need 15-30 GB (Rage, SW Force Unleashed come in at the higher end), and this development will certainly continue. The size of the average game installation has increased approximately 1000-fold over the last 20 years. Personally, my Steam folder is pushing 700 GB.

    Rage really is a gaming engine with a game tucked on as an afterthought. The developers explicitly stated that they really had 150 GB of textures, but that just wasn't marketable for now. Guess what, eventually we will see games coming out with such oceans of eye candy data.

    Hence, even with the recent jackup of prices in HDDs, I'd get the biggest I can. Even more so if using Steam client, because it more or less necessitates all the games from that one vendor to reside on the same drive.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now