New user here, building my first gaming computer

[exdeath]

@exdeath

You're exaggerating the handicap of a HDD build. Modern HDD's transfer data at up to 150mb/s or so. In fact, data transfer rate is no even nearly the main advantage of an SSD over a HDD. It's access time and random read speed of small files. This means the SSD speeds up the operating system and programs, making the PC feel snappy, and it's why an SSD is recommended if it can be afforded.

But framerate is the primary concern of gaming builds, and SSD's rarely affect it. Loading times are a secondary concern. I'd say things like screen resolution, sound and keyboard/mouse are more important than loading times as well, maybe that makes loading times a tertiary concern. I can also say from my own experience that it really doesn't make much difference to me whether a game is installed on my Vertex 2 SSD or on my 5400RPM storage drive. A few seconds saved in loading times versus $100-200 more to spend on a video card? I'd pick the better framerate any day.

150 MB/s is sequential... never seen in the real world. Start moving the heads around and it quickly plumets to < 1.5 MB/s.

My point is based on the fact that you will be doing 1080p or lower on an equally budget display, and there is no shortage of over powered budget CPUs and GPUs that can run somewhat current games at triple digit FPS at those resolutions. We are at a point where hardware is more powerful than software for a change, such that even the lowest end of CPU/GPU can run pretty much anything without a sweat.

The SSD is much more important in the overall experience of just having to sit at that PC. It's not like you're building a $700 gaming PC to run Crysis or BF3 @ 2560x1600 @ 65536x FSAA. There isn't going to be a difference between a $50 GPU and $150 GPU running WoW at 1280x1024. But the SSD will certainly be noticeable with every single mouse click and button press. It's an amazing experience when a computer capable of tens of billions of operations per second is actually faster than it's human operator for a change.

 

[lehtv]

and there is no shortage of over powered budget CPUs and GPUs that can run current games at triple digit FPS at those resolutions.

Another exaggeration. Provide data to back up such claims. What are these abundant graphics cards that run BF3, Skyrim, Shogun 2, Witcher 2 and such games in triple digit framerates on 1080p? Do you actually play games?

The SSD is much more important in the overall experience of just having to sit at that PC.

I can just dismiss that opinion because it seems you're basing it on the unfounded claim above.

It's not like you're building a $700 gaming PC to run Crysis @ 2560x1600. There isn't going to be a difference between a $50 GPU and $150 GPU running WoW at 1280x1024.

Not following this reasoning at all. A $700 PC for 1080p gaming needs to capitalize on framerates, hence the GPU is the primary thing to spend cash on. Go read some graphics card reviews.

 

[exdeath]

And you know what? Case in point all the lists here are pointing to entry level $150 GPUs anyway with or without the SSD...

OP is shoehorned into a GTX560 or 6850/70 class card as it is with or without a SSD... so whether or not he can run those games at a desired resolution and FPS is already decided. We aren't debating between a GTX560 and a GTX590 SLI, we are debating spending $10 more for a 5 MHz faster GTX560... 1 FPS is not going to make or break the build.

Since GPU is pretty much fixed by budget, we should talk going dual core instead of quad and finding places to free money for SSD since games aren't really scaling with CPU cores.

I was just more than irritated by the comment "better things to spend $90 on than SSD" when the rest of the system is pretty much constrained to cookie cutter parts as it is. Sacrificing the slowest part of the system to some generic magnetic recording device for tenths of percent differences between the same class bin of parts is like driving across town to save .05 cents a gallon on gas. There is NOTHING better to spend that money on than a part that makes your system respond as fast as your fingers instead of hitching and freezing and loading icons one at a time every time you swing out -> Control Panel.

I for one absolutely LOATHE positioning the mouse cursor to where a context menu is anticipated to appear in 6-8 seconds with my finger hovering over the button waiting for eternity while listening to what sounds like a bag of potato chips being crushed... At 10 billion ops per second there is absolutely NO excuse, it needs to to be there waiting before I can mechanically move my wrist at top speed to that location to click my selection.

If we were deciding between a drastic gap like a GTX560 vs GTX570 you might have more of a point. But with the price ranges targeted here we are talking about spending $10-20 more for a 810 MHz version of a GTX560 instead of a 800 MHz version. That $20 is better stacked towards a SSD IMO because no matter how you look at it, a sub $200 graphics card just isn't going to be as fast as we want it to be no matter which one we choose.

 

[lehtv]

and there is no shortage of over powered budget CPUs and GPUs that can run somewhat current games at triple digit FPS at those resolutions.

Provide data to back up such claims

Don't try to derail the conversation. I repeat, provide data to back up such extraordinary claims. Or concede that you don't know what you're talking about.

OP is shoehorned into a GTX560 or 6850/70 class card as it is with or without a SSD... so whether or not he can run those games at a desired resolution and FPS is already decided. We aren't debating between a GTX560 and a GTX590 SLI, we are debating spending $10 more for a 5 MHz faster GTX560... 1 FPS is not going to make or break the build.

No. As I pointed out earlier, the SSD is going to cost more than a HDD. The $100 or so difference between a 500GB HDD and a 120GB SSD is better spent on a video card - i.e. HD6850/6870 to HD6950 2GB. That's not a 1FPS difference, it's the difference between medium vs high settings.

Secondly, as pointed out by mfenn, a 120GB SSD is most likely not enough space, the OP would need a HDD in any case. A 64GB SSD is again going to cost around $100, enough to go from 6850/6870 to 6950 2GB.

 

[mfenn]

Don't try to derail the conversation. I repeat, provide data to back up such extraordinary claims. Or concede that you don't know what you're talking about.

No. As I pointed out earlier, the SSD is going to cost more than a HDD. The $100 or so difference between a 500GB HDD and a 120GB SSD is better spent on a video card - i.e. HD6850/6870 to HD6950 2GB. That's not a 1FPS difference, it's the difference between medium vs high settings.

Secondly, as pointed out by mfenn, a 120GB SSD is most likely not enough space, the OP would need a HDD in any case. A 64GB SSD is again going to cost around $100, enough to go from 6850/6870 to 6950 2GB.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: to this.

Exdeath, the extreme hyperbole isn't helping your argument one bit. I love my SSD as much as the next guy (wouldn't own a system without one), but we live in a world of limited resources. The OP has $700 to spend on a gaming machine, so he is going to have to make some sacrifices.

The goal is to make this system play games as good as it possibly can for the budget, and the SSD doesn't do much for that. That money is much better spent on a GPU upgrade like lehtv said than on making loading times faster. Game assets these days are typically stored in big files that are read sequentially, so an HDD doesn't fare to badly there.

 

[exdeath]

I seriously need to stop posting when I'm up in the AM hours still waiting on data transfers

 

[mfenn]

I seriously need to stop posting when I'm up in the AM hours still waiting on data transfers

LOL, its all good. :wub:

 

[jackscott]

Thanks again. How can I be sure a certain motherboard will fit in a case? I've heard about stand-offs (I think) lining up with holes in the motherboard. Are they all the same?
For example:
This motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121506
And this case:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146084

They're both ATX. Is that all that matters?

 

[VirtualLarry]

150 MB/s is sequential... never seen in the real world. Start moving the heads around and it quickly plumets to < 1.5 MB/s.

Actually, for most games (some MMOs excluded), they primarily load levels sequentially, so that stat actually matters for games, in fact it matters MORE than random-access performance.

 

[mfenn]

Thanks again. How can I be sure a certain motherboard will fit in a case? I've heard about stand-offs (I think) lining up with holes in the motherboard. Are they all the same?
For example:
This motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121506
And this case:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146084

They're both ATX. Is that all that matters?

Micro ATX (the mobo) and ATX (the case) don't use the same mounting holes. However, 99.99% of all ATX cases ever made (including the NZXT) support MicroATX as well as ATX, you will just have some empty space at the bottom of the case.