how is my build

Meteos

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2014
4
0
0
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3qv3y

i dont plan to overclock
i want to upgrade to a 800 series gpu
please edit the build if you can give me the best performance for as little amount of income

but let the prices be the same

Moved from CPUs to General Hardware. GH is our build forum, so you should get some really good advice from here
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
That cooler is probably not as good as your stock cooler.

If you're not going to overclock, swap to a locked Haswell i5 an and a cheaper B85 chipset motherboard (ideally with 4 RAM slots and two PCIe 16x slots but it's up to you) and use the stock heatsink. The 8320 is a decent chip but if not overclocking, I see little merit over a similarly priced locked i5.
 

Meteos

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2014
4
0
0
That cooler is probably not as good as your stock cooler.

If you're not going to overclock, swap to a locked Haswell i5 an and a cheaper B85 chipset motherboard (ideally with 4 RAM slots and two PCIe 16x slots but it's up to you) and use the stock heatsink. The 8320 is a decent chip but if not overclocking, I see little merit over a similarly priced locked i5.
this is why i like computer forums

so intelligent
 

NewYorksFinest

Senior member
Mar 27, 2014
455
1
0
First, Seagates have a high failure rate. I would buy a Western Digital or Toshiba.

Second, the AMD CPU is actually a really good CPU. You can go with the 4430, but IMO the AMD is fine.

Third, I would buy the Cooler Master Hyper 212EVO cooler.
 

Essence_of_War

Platinum Member
Feb 21, 2013
2,650
4
81
First, Seagates have a high failure rate. I would buy a Western Digital or Toshiba.

Yeah, there was a large thread about this previously. Suffice it to say that the statement "seagates have a high failure rate" is dubious at best, and highly misleading at worst.

lehtv is perhaps too gentlemanly to re-post own remarks, but I'll quote them here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35981494&postcount=11
You can find the model numbers used in the study here: http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21...-should-i-buy/

The drive with the highest fail rate, ST31500341AS (25.4%), is a Seagate 7200.11 drive from 2008. A six years old model using three 500GB platters. This makes me doubt there are any useful conclusions to be drawn from this drive's survivability when compared to newer 1TB per platter drives. It is clearly an outlier which you can't use to judge Seagate's reliability in general, especially that of their current drives. The second highest failure rate was on ST31500541AS (9.8%), much improved over the -341AS. But even this one is a five year old model, not exactly relevant any more. For example, ST4000DM000 is a new drive with 3.8% failure rate, similar to WD's numbers.

I don't think these results should be taken as "Seagate sucks, Hitachi rocks", one has to look at each model separately instead of blindly trusting one brand over another, and also weigh the cost of the drive and the length of its warranty against the likelihood of it failing.

Also, importantly, the study did not include many of the popular general purpose home PC drives, sorted here in order of number of reviews on newegg:

1. WD Black WD1002FAEX
2. WD Blue WD10EZEX
3-6. Smaller WD Blue drives
7. (was included) ST3000DM001
8. ST1000DM003
9. ST2000DM001
10. WD Black WD2002FAEX

Instead, mostly lower RPM drives or older 7200RPM drives were in, and results for either of those may not apply to new 7200 RPM drives. I would also love to see results for Toshiba hard drives.
(emphasis mine)
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,335
10,043
126
First, Seagates have a high failure rate. I would buy a Western Digital or Toshiba.

TBH, it's been my experience, that unless the drive in question is part of a known-bad model series of drives (DeathStar 75GXP, Seagate 7200.11, etc.), then it matters more how the drive was handled during mfg, shipping, etc., than the brand of drive. Seagate, WD, Hitachi, Toshiba, all make top-tier quality HDDs. They have to, otherwise the RMA and AFR would eat into their margins too much.

That is why I prefer to purchase retail-boxed drives when possible, because I believe that they survive transport much better than "OEM" drives do.

Now, granted, Newegg primarily sells OEM (bare drive) drives, so I have purchased some from them as well. I'm glad that they are now packaging their HDDs sufficiently to survive transport.

I had been pretty lucky before, when I would order bare drives, I would order quantity, so they would ship me five drives in an OEM box, which contains something like an egg crate of foam, with slots for 20 HDDs. Usually the qty. limit on orders was only five drives though.

I ordered five drives from Dell, and they shipped them in a nice HDD shipping box, with 1" thick foam around the outside and between each drive. They must have experience shipping drives (servers, etc).

I've also ordered a HDD from ZZF back in the day, and it came in a little 1" thick foam "coffin".
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
According to whom? Backblaze? Please.



It seems the OP can afford an i5.
Me for one, I've had many Seagates die on me myself personally.

They were older Barracuda's and I just haven't even bothered again.

And still have many WD's still bonking along much longer than I expected.
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,640
2,652
136
Enterprise grade drives actually have a significant difference in the probability of failure after the unit survives the "shipping trip" compared to a desktop hard drive, which is characterized by the higher MTBF, which after some "maths" using "e"(the exponential function), is part of the equation that can calculate the probability of failure. Whereas, MTBF of desktop HDDs are no long published, but it is safe to assume it is lower than their enterprise counterparts.

http://ftp.automationdirect.com/pub/Product Reliability and MTBF.pdf