Why I use high end parts

[EricMartello]

Back in 2005 I put together a nice system for myself, considering of high end parts. By that I mean, I did not choose parts based on "bang for the buck" so much as "what is the best I can get RIGHT NOW".

I'm running an AMD X2 4200+ (which I easily take to 3.0 GHz if I want to, however I prefer NOT to overclock), Corsair 3500LL Memory rated as DDR433, Radeon 1900xtx video card and a RaptorX hard drive, yes, the one with the clear window on top.

By today's standards my system isn't very impressive, but in 2005 it was pretty close to the top without being ridiculous (4200+ X2 $480 instead of the FX60 priced at $1100 at the time). The reason I am posting this, is to state that this system still keeps up well with apps AND games TODAY. That is over 2 years of solid, fast performance, which set me back about $2,600 and change.

I can still run most of the newest games in full res (1920x1200x32) with full FX (everything on and maxed out), getting more than adequate framerates (30+ fps avg). I run Vista nice and smooth, no issues there. Overall, I haven't felt the need to upgrade for over 2 years because I haven't played a game or used an app that slowed my system down to a crawl...and yes, I do play plenty of games including Bioshock, Fear, WoWcraft, Doom 3, C&C3...you name it.

So what I am saying is that spending a little more on parts has cost me less in the long run since I did not need to upgrade my system once every 6 to 12 months (as I used to do). If I spent $1,300 a year going for "bang for the buck" upgrades, I'd essentially be paying a lot for slight bumps in performance, and most likely would have to over clock to be "competitive".

Today I am planning out my next upgrade, which will most likely be a C2D based system. I have to do my research first but I'll post my new system up as soon as I piece it together. I'm going to shoot for 3 year longevity on a $2,500 budget...so I am hoping a new video card comes out that is as fast today as the 1900xtx was in 2005, I think that was the trump card for me back then.

 

[MarcVenice]

With a turbulent market as with hardware it's hard to say, but I'm pretty sure you can spend 1500$ and still have a pretty good system in 3 years time. Bang for buck doesn't mean cheapest, it's where the best price/performance is at. You could buy a 2.4ghz q6600 for 266$ or you could buy a 2.66ghz qx6700 for double the money, and gain virtually nothing. Thats 266$ thrown away right there. You could also buy ddr2 1066 for 200$ for 2gb, but it doesn't get you any extra performance over ddr2 800mhz. More money thrown away. The videocard is pretty much the most important part in games though, and buying a 8800ultra vs a 8800gtx is more money thrown away. The extra performance, which is very little, doesn't weigh up to the extra cost. In fact, you'll have more power if you spend 275$ right now on a 8800gts, and 275$ on a new card in a years time, then when you buy a 8800gtx right now. It's all about how much you can spend though, but if you aim for longevity, it IS better to upgrade every year, year and a half, opposed to buying the best stuff out there for a lot of money.

 

[geokilla]

I agree with you guys. I got a best bang for buck system and so far I ended up upgrading the power supply ($100+) and adding another 512MB of RAM ($70). Next I have to upgrade my video card because it's so old....

BTW, my system is only 1 year old. I think I'll have spent like $500 on upgrading the computer after my new video card and possibly more RAM. That means I spent around $1300CAD on the comp.

 

[corkyg]

All very good points. The old saw, "you get what you pay for," generally holds true in terms of quality and value. I always like to shoot for "Best Value."

My friends and I have a term we use - if we really want something, price becomes secondary - we call that, "Technolust."

 

[EricMartello]

Yeah it is true that you get diminishing returns as you climb the pricing tiers for computer hardware, where you spend a lot more $$$ for little or no performance gain. The same thing happens if you jump on bleeding edge gear too soon, such as the current DX10 video card lineup. They all work well with DX9 games, but DX10 performance isn't quite there yet. There is an element of timing, and a lot really depends on the market when it comes to building a system that stays in the upper performance percentile for years at a time.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: EricMartello
Today I am planning out my next upgrade, which will most likely be a C2D based system. I have to do my research first but I'll post my new system up as soon as I piece it together. I'm going to shoot for 3 year longevity on a $2,500 budget...so I am hoping a new video card comes out that is as fast today as the 1900xtx was in 2005, I think that was the trump card for me back then.

By "Today" do you mean within a day or two, a week or two or a longer period of time?
Time frame would make a difference on which components you should buy, according to your build/upgrade hypothesis.

 

[PurdueRy]

But the real question isn't how long it will hold up over time...as obviously the more expensive system will be "good" for longer. But rather, how much extra did you spend to go from bang for the buck to "top of the line".

Often times this is nearly doubly the cost. Right now I would say the idea "bang for the buck" computer runs about $1000 w/o monitor. I would say the top of the line system(granted not as high as you COULD go) costs about $1800.

So after that first year of use when the bang for the buck build isn't good enough anymore...what could the $800 get you? Probably a new CPU and GPU(both again bang for the buck models at the time).

The "bang for the buck" system is likely now FASTER than the "top of the line system...yet cost the same over time. THAT is the reason people get "bang for the buck" systems. Diminishing returns.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Bang for buck doesn't mean cheapest, it's where the best price/performance is at. You could buy a 2.4ghz q6600 for 266$ or you could buy a 2.66ghz qx6700 for double the money, and gain virtually nothing. Thats 266$ thrown away right there. You could also buy ddr2 1066 for 200$ for 2gb, but it doesn't get you any extra performance over ddr2 800mhz. More money thrown away.

That's how I see it. If you plot performance versus price with performance on the X axis and price on the Y axis, you'll find that the line is not straight. It does a dramatic upwards curve towards the right side.

"Bang for the buck" doesn't mean "lowest end that still works."

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
The "bang for the buck" system is likely now FASTER than the "top of the line system...yet cost the same over time. THAT is the reason people get "bang for the buck" systems. Diminishing returns.

Yup yup. A year ago an E6600 was what, $350? E6700 was $700? So, for a 266MHz slower CPU you could have saved $350. Today you can buy a Q6600 for $266. The E6600 was a good bang/buck for a 4MB cache chip back then, as the other two 4MB cache chips were $700 and $1000 (Core 2 Extreme).

Don't confuse that kind of "bang for the buck" with the other kind, which I often do since I'm a tinkerer of hardware. The other kind is getting the absolute cheapest and then overclocking the heck out of it... indeed just yesterday I ordered an E2140. Only out $69 if I blow it up.

 

[jspeicher]

For me, "bang for the buck" = $700 system....

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: jspeicher
For me, "bang for the buck" = $700 system....

Same here. ~$700 - $800 is the limit I set for myself when I upgraded my old Prescott system to my current one. I don't understand that $1300 number that was put forth for "bang for the buck upgrades" .

 

[SlicedBread27]

I dropped about $1000 on the system in my sig and I consider it to be very "Bang for the buck" it replaced a 3 year old system that cost $800 at the time and ran every game well up until about a year ago. If I start to see performance falling in the next 12-18 months I can just pick up a nehalem quad core and a newer Gfx card which should last me another year or two.

 

[secretanchitman]

$500 bucks was my upgrade months ago...from a p4 2.4C to my amd opteron...couldnt afford spending more on ddr2 ram. besides, my ddr-500 1GB sticks are excellent...nothing to beat them.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
But the real question isn't how long it will hold up over time...as obviously the more expensive system will be "good" for longer. But rather, how much extra did you spend to go from bang for the buck to "top of the line".

Often times this is nearly doubly the cost. Right now I would say the idea "bang for the buck" computer runs about $1000 w/o monitor. I would say the top of the line system(granted not as high as you COULD go) costs about $1800.

So after that first year of use when the bang for the buck build isn't good enough anymore...what could the $800 get you? Probably a new CPU and GPU(both again bang for the buck models at the time).

The "bang for the buck" system is likely now FASTER than the "top of the line system...yet cost the same over time. THAT is the reason people get "bang for the buck" systems. Diminishing returns.

Let me ask this: Based on what I am currently running, could you put together a system that is substantially better AND will maintain that superiority for at least 2 years?

If you jump to the obvious, you say YES and suggest a C2D system with an 8800GTX video card...but that ignores the 2 year longevity. That video card will be obsolete soon, because it was always a DX9 video card that is "DX10 ready"...it's not a DX10 video card, meaning that playing the newest games will require an upgrade to get the most out of them.

I spent $2,600 in 2005 to put together the system I have now. In those 2 years, there has not been anything worth upgrading in my system that would really provide a worthwhile benefit. In essence, I was able to scoot along for 2 years due to lack of "killer" new hardware products. The C2D processor is faster than my X2 4200+, obviously, but will switching to that platform be worth the cost? That is a matter of opinion, I suppose...for me, it would not really boost game performance by a large enough margin to warrant the upgrade.

When I upgrade, I certainly consider value...I don't just sort products from "highest to lowest" price and buy whatever is on top...that is stupid. I select parts based on how well they perform. If a quad-core CPU yielded 75% improvement in speed, I'd probably buy it even though the chip goes for $1000+...but it's just not worth the price right now, for a desktop system, because it does not contribute much to overall system performance.

Conversely, a "bang-for-the-buck" shopper would be looking at overclockable dual-core chips which can be purchased for less, but tweaked to run at speeds equal to pricier chips. I prefer not to overclock, and am willing to pay a little more for higher "stock" speeds.

To get the most value, you need to watch the current market and upgrade when the products available are better by leaps and bounds, and not just minor improvements...I think this happens every 2-3 years or so.

 

[bob4432]

i would have to disagree and personally allow my machines to evolve over time. my last upgrade was over a year ago when i moved to a pci-e m/b, a x1800xt (lcd resolution limited) and a x2 as that is what i needed at the time. this ran me $450 and is still doing everything i need and more at my resolution.

i have wanted to upgrade just because i like to build computers but have no reason to, so this one still chugs along. this may change w/ some of the new games coming out, but being resolution limited to 1280x1024 may be the determining factor and the x1800xt may still be suitable, if not i will probably move up to a x1950xt, but not the "new" cards as for my resolution, imho, they are overpriced.

i will say that a couple of areas that i do spend $$ on are in psus and cases as those usually last (if bought correctly) for many builds (hell i am still using a case i bought probably 7+ years ago).

but again, everyone is able to do what they want and that is cool w/ me, i just happen to do it differently.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
But the real question isn't how long it will hold up over time...as obviously the more expensive system will be "good" for longer. But rather, how much extra did you spend to go from bang for the buck to "top of the line".

Often times this is nearly doubly the cost. Right now I would say the idea "bang for the buck" computer runs about $1000 w/o monitor. I would say the top of the line system(granted not as high as you COULD go) costs about $1800.

So after that first year of use when the bang for the buck build isn't good enough anymore...what could the $800 get you? Probably a new CPU and GPU(both again bang for the buck models at the time).

The "bang for the buck" system is likely now FASTER than the "top of the line system...yet cost the same over time. THAT is the reason people get "bang for the buck" systems. Diminishing returns.

Let me ask this: Based on what I am currently running, could you put together a system that is substantially better AND will maintain that superiority for at least 2 years?

If you jump to the obvious, you say YES and suggest a C2D system with an 8800GTX video card...but that ignores the 2 year longevity. That video card will be obsolete soon, because it was always a DX9 video card that is "DX10 ready"...it's not a DX10 video card, meaning that playing the newest games will require an upgrade to get the most out of them.

I spent $2,600 in 2005 to put together the system I have now. In those 2 years, there has not been anything worth upgrading in my system that would really provide a worthwhile benefit. In essence, I was able to scoot along for 2 years due to lack of "killer" new hardware products. The C2D processor is faster than my X2 4200+, obviously, but will switching to that platform be worth the cost? That is a matter of opinion, I suppose...for me, it would not really boost game performance by a large enough margin to warrant the upgrade.

When I upgrade, I certainly consider value...I don't just sort products from "highest to lowest" price and buy whatever is on top...that is stupid. I select parts based on how well they perform. If a quad-core CPU yielded 75% improvement in speed, I'd probably buy it even though the chip goes for $1000+...but it's just not worth the price right now, for a desktop system, because it does not contribute much to overall system performance.

Conversely, a "bang-for-the-buck" shopper would be looking at overclockable dual-core chips which can be purchased for less, but tweaked to run at speeds equal to pricier chips. I prefer not to overclock, and am willing to pay a little more for higher "stock" speeds.

To get the most value, you need to watch the current market and upgrade when the products available are better by leaps and bounds, and not just minor improvements...I think this happens every 2-3 years or so.

I think you will find that a 8800GTX is more than capable of driving a system for two years...and yes...even with DX10 games.

However that is not what I suggested. I suggested buying cheaper parts that have the best price point...and upgrading after a year with the money you saved. In this case, that system will outperform the "high end" system built a year prior.

 

[Old Hippie]

As always, this is a situation where we should agree to disagree. Cost per perfomance ratios are always an individual perception/speculation type deal.......but I do like the "Get what you pay For" type thinking.

 

[Silex]

I too like to build systems based on what's best for me at the time. It's a fine line we tread between what we can budget for a system and what will work best for our needs. My use case...

I purchased my MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard with 3000+ and OCZ Gold Rev. 2 DDR memory along with an ATI X850XT and Fujitsu U320 SCSI hard drive with LSI Logic controller for right around $1k...3 YEARS AGO!!! Motherboard has now failed but it ran solid for half that time o/ced to a an equivalent of a 4000+. Granted that I o/ced so it does change results, but the fact of the matter is we can all spend less the the next Joe and have a system that can perform the way we want it, but hoenstly...can we all predict the future of computing?

Three years ago, I didn't even begin to image there could be quad cores, but now there are. You can just build your system at best you can in order to minimize your need to upgrade while maximizing the time spent with a sytem that can handle all the software thrown at it. Shown to withstand the test of time if youw ill. Fair enough of an assumption?

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I think you will find that a 8800GTX is more than capable of driving a system for two years...and yes...even with DX10 games.

However that is not what I suggested. I suggested buying cheaper parts that have the best price point...and upgrading after a year with the money you saved. In this case, that system will outperform the "high end" system built a year prior.

I don't think the 8800GTX would pull for 2 years. Keep in mind that playing games means full res, all FX enabled and maxed out. Have you seen DX10 benchmarks for todays "DX10 ready" video cards? It's nothing like the 1900XTX, which can still hold its own with modern DX9 games even after 2 years. I mean, who spends $300, $500 or even $600 on graphics only to have to twiddle down game settings just to get playable frames? Not me, and I would suspect others who play games max them out as well.

The flaw with your logic is that you're buying the current year's "mid range" parts, so you'll always have a "mid range" PC. Yesterday's "high end" PC is today's "mid range", at least that's how it worked out for me...but even a mid-range C2D system isn't going to mop the floor with my current system...it's faster, but for what I do with my PC, it's not going to be a notable improvement.

Spending more up front gives you a system that will at least be on top, or close to it, in terms of performance, and last long enough so that you can get a little return on your outlay of cash. Not having to upgrade yearly is nice.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I think you will find that a 8800GTX is more than capable of driving a system for two years...and yes...even with DX10 games.

However that is not what I suggested. I suggested buying cheaper parts that have the best price point...and upgrading after a year with the money you saved. In this case, that system will outperform the "high end" system built a year prior.

I don't think the 8800GTX would pull for 2 years. Keep in mind that playing games means full res, all FX enabled and maxed out. Have you seen DX10 benchmarks for todays "DX10 ready" video cards? It's nothing like the 1900XTX, which can still hold its own with modern DX9 games even after 2 years. I mean, who spends $300, $500 or even $600 on graphics only to have to twiddle down game settings just to get playable frames? Not me, and I would suspect others who play games max them out as well.

The flaw with your logic is that you're buying the current year's "mid range" parts, so you'll always have a "mid range" PC. Yesterday's "high end" PC is today's "mid range", at least that's how it worked out for me...but even a mid-range C2D system isn't going to mop the floor with my current system...it's faster, but for what I do with my PC, it's not going to be a notable improvement.

Spending more up front gives you a system that will at least be on top, or close to it, in terms of performance, and last long enough so that you can get a little return on your outlay of cash. Not having to upgrade yearly is nice.

No flaw in my logic because I never said you would have a top of the line PC.

However if you buy the top of the line PC right now, you will have top of the line right now...and ok after a year or so.

If you buy a PC with best bang for the buck parts you will have a good PC now and a good PC in a year(figuring a minor upgrade after a year.

Listen, there is really no argument for this. You will ALWAYS get more performance for your money if you buy parts which maximize your cost/performance ratio. As soon as you start putting in top of the line parts, you're money is being wasted on performance that is typically unnecessary at this point in time.

And you're claim that a C2D upgrade along with a video upgrade at this point would be "unnoticeable" is also not accurate. It would be quite noticeable. You are in the frame right now of defending your purchase. Which is fine. I could care less how someone else spends their money. However, your twisting facts in your head to support your cause. Same thing that people go through when they buy high end cabling for home theater and notice a "dramatic" improvement. It's all about cost justification.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
No flaw in my logic because I never said you would have a top of the line PC.

However if you buy the top of the line PC right now, you will have top of the line right now...and ok after a year or so.

If you buy a PC with best bang for the buck parts you will have a good PC now and a good PC in a year(figuring a minor upgrade after a year.

Listen, there is really no argument for this. You will ALWAYS get more performance for your money if you buy parts which maximize your cost/performance ratio. As soon as you start putting in top of the line parts, you're money is being wasted on performance that is typically unnecessary at this point in time.

And you're claim that a C2D upgrade along with a video upgrade at this point would be "unnoticeable" is also not accurate. It would be quite noticeable. You are in the frame right now of defending your purchase. Which is fine. I could care less how someone else spends their money. However, your twisting facts in your head to support your cause. Same thing that people go through when they buy high end cabling for home theater and notice a "dramatic" improvement. It's all about cost justification.

Yes my friend, there is a big flaw in your logic. The flaw is that you'll never have great performance, yet you'll be paying the same amount of money as I did, except that it is over time. If I split my budget from $2,500 up front into two $1,250 budgets per year for 2 years since 2005, the PC I would have now, being constrained to that budget, would not be anything great and WOULD NOT be significantly better than the current system.

With a $1,250 budget and 2005 prices, I would have to have chosen a lesser video card, a lesser CPU and slower hard drives...or simply no raptor drives, only slower 7200 RPM "storage" drives. Slower or less memory as well. I saved $1,250 but I have a mediocre system that will not be able to play the newest games of that time full res/fx.

Next year rolls around, 2006...I have $1,250 to blow. What do I get? Well, because I got crappy parts last year I HAVE TO upgrade: CPU, MB, Memory, Video Card...but oh no, I am once again limited to mediocre parts....hmm, what to do now? Splurge on the video card and cheap out on something else. Maybe I should opt for the faster CPU and stick with a "toned down" video card...or just buy the parts I was going to buy last year now that their prices have fallen. Oh wait, I could have done that in the first place and still spent about the same amount of money in that 2 year timeframe.

BTW I did not say a C2D upgrade would be "unnoticeable". If you are going to take the time to bold and "quote" what I say, at least make sure you are quoting exactly what I said: "it's not going to be a notable improvement"

notable != noticeable

This statement means that the improvement gained would not be worth the money spent...not that there is no improvement at all...

It's also worth NOTING that you are the guy who thinks an 8800GTX is going to be a solid DX10 card for two more years, when it is a sub-par DX10 card NOW. Putting a little too much faith into driver updates, are we?

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
No flaw in my logic because I never said you would have a top of the line PC.

However if you buy the top of the line PC right now, you will have top of the line right now...and ok after a year or so.

If you buy a PC with best bang for the buck parts you will have a good PC now and a good PC in a year(figuring a minor upgrade after a year.

Listen, there is really no argument for this. You will ALWAYS get more performance for your money if you buy parts which maximize your cost/performance ratio. As soon as you start putting in top of the line parts, you're money is being wasted on performance that is typically unnecessary at this point in time.

And you're claim that a C2D upgrade along with a video upgrade at this point would be "unnoticeable" is also not accurate. It would be quite noticeable. You are in the frame right now of defending your purchase. Which is fine. I could care less how someone else spends their money. However, your twisting facts in your head to support your cause. Same thing that people go through when they buy high end cabling for home theater and notice a "dramatic" improvement. It's all about cost justification.

Yes my friend, there is a big flaw in your logic. The flaw is that you'll never have great performance, yet you'll be paying the same amount of money as I did, except that it is over time. If I split my budget from $2,500 up front into two $1,250 budgets per year for 2 years since 2005, the PC I would have now, being constrained to that budget, would not be anything great and WOULD NOT be significantly better than the current system.

With a $1,250 budget and 2005 prices, I would have to have chosen a lesser video card, a lesser CPU and slower hard drives...or simply no raptor drives, only slower 7200 RPM "storage" drives. Slower or less memory as well. I saved $1,250 but I have a mediocre system that will not be able to play the newest games of that time full res/fx.

Next year rolls around, 2006...I have $1,250 to blow. What do I get? Well, because I got crappy parts last year I HAVE TO upgrade: CPU, MB, Memory, Video Card...but oh no, I am once again limited to mediocre parts....hmm, what to do now? Splurge on the video card and cheap out on something else. Maybe I should opt for the faster CPU and stick with a "toned down" video card...or just buy the parts I was going to buy last year now that their prices have fallen. Oh wait, I could have done that in the first place and still spent about the same amount of money in that 2 year timeframe.

BTW I did not say a C2D upgrade would be "unnoticeable". If you are going to take the time to bold and "quote" what I say, at least make sure you are quoting exactly what I said: "it's not going to be a notable improvement"

notable != noticeable

This statement means that the improvement gained would not be worth the money spent...not that there is no improvement at all...

It's also worth NOTING that you are the guy who thinks an 8800GTX is going to be a solid DX10 card for two more years, when it is a sub-par DX10 card NOW. Putting a little too much faith into driver updates, are we?

So you would consider a 8800GTS system crappy?

Because you can get a system based on that for $1000. So...for the $1250 dollar budget you would have "leftover" you could EASILY build that with a quad core processor and 2 gigs of ram. That would most certainly best the performance of a year old "top of the line" system for $2500.

You call the parts you can get for $1250 crappy...and yet they are not.

Raptor hard drives? PLEASE. Look at the benchmarks, the performance increase is not worth the cost margin. ESPECIALLY with the uber 1337 window you got.

Because you bought an expensive system, you are now "stuck" with DDR memory which is still expensive and wasteful to upgrade and most likely a AGP graphics card(although I believe the 1900 was made in both versions). You're on a board you can't upgrade at this point so to do anything you would have to alter most of your build.

If you would have spent $1250 you would be out much less money and would have had money left over after a year or two to buy that PCI-X/DDR2 board that supports C2d(or whatever is better at the time)

But like I said, you can be perfectly happy with your system. However, you will always get more performance over the long run for the cost by buying the most cost efficient parts at the time. Right now that would be:

Q6600
Gigabyte DS3R
2 gigs crucial ballistix DDR800 4-4-4-12
Corsair VX450
8800GTS 640MB

This system is not "crappy" as you put it.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
So you would consider a 8800GTS system crappy?

Because you can get a system based on that for $1000. So...for the $1250 dollar budget you would have "leftover" you could EASILY build that with a quad core processor and 2 gigs of ram. That would most certainly best the performance of a year old "top of the line" system for $2500.

You call the parts you can get for $1250 crappy...and yet they are not.

Raptor hard drives? PLEASE. Look at the benchmarks, the performance increase is not worth the cost margin. ESPECIALLY with the uber 1337 window you got.

Because you bought an expensive system, you are now "stuck" with DDR memory which is still expensive and wasteful to upgrade and most likely a AGP graphics card(although I believe the 1900 was made in both versions). You're on a board you can't upgrade at this point so to do anything you would have to alter most of your build.

If you would have spent $1250 you would be out much less money and would have had money left over after a year or two to buy that PCI-X/DDR2 board that supports C2d(or whatever is better at the time)

But like I said, you can be perfectly happy with your system. However, you will always get more performance over the long run for the cost by buying the most cost efficient parts at the time. Right now that would be:

Q6600 $277
Gigabyte DS3R $130
2 gigs crucial ballistix DDR800 4-4-4-12 $110
Corsair VX450 $100
8800GTS 640MB $365

This system is not "crappy" as you put it.

My system is 2 years old, and NOW I am looking to upgrade...but if you were going to upgrade LAST YEAR, 2006, you need to adjust your part selections to reflect those prices. I don't have a history of part prices handy, but I did pop in current market prices for the parts you suggested. They total up to $982. Anyway, I don't dispute your system there, it's a decent build. I didn't realize the Q6600 was going for < $300...now I might have to pick one of them up.

As for the RaptorX not being worth the money...the drive is well worth the money, and that is the RaptorX 150GB drive I am referring to and not the original 36 and 74GB units. Check out storage review benchmarks, it outperforms all SATA drives in pretty much all categories...especially with "real world" disk access patterns such as those used by games. This drive makes an excellent "system" drive to run your apps and OS off of, due to it's ability to handle lots of IO/s and do so quickly.

 

[PurdueRy]

http://www.anandtech.com/stora...howdoc.aspx?i=2922&p=9

If you saw it worthwhile to pay the same amount for a 150G drive that you could get a terabyte drive for that's your own perogative. But .7s,3 sec,(slower in anyDVD), and 10s Dont' really make it worth it to me. The performance difference is just too small.

 

[JDub02]

I went for "bang for the buck" 5 years ago and my system still does everything I want it to (although sometimes slower than I like).

Athlon XP 2500+
512 MB Ram
80 + 160 GB HD
nvidia ti4400

My wife says the desktop is too much clutter and she wants it gone. Sounds like the perfect time to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo laptop.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
http://www.anandtech.com/stora...howdoc.aspx?i=2922&p=9

If you saw it worthwhile to pay the same amount for a 150G drive that you could get a terabyte drive for that's your own perogative. But .7s,3 sec,(slower in anyDVD), and 10s Dont' really make it worth it to me. The performance difference is just too small.

The RaptorX still is the fastest SATA drive out there for all intents and purposes, and it is noticeably faster in games, boot-up and app-loading. Considering that the HD is the bottleneck in any system, you always want the FASTEST one you can get even if it is by a small margin. You can nitpick all you want but you fail to change my mind about it, and anyone else who bought one.