View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old January 24, 2013, 03:07 PM
Ibrihim Ibrihim is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tunbridge Wells Kent
Posts: 9

My System Specs


Originally Posted by Bond007 View Post
Overall I agree, but some of what you have said does need to be taken with a grain of salt. Of course most of us don't NEED the computers we have, but we want them. While I follow computer technology and enjoy it, I know I don't need high end parts (though I would love to have them). I shop bang for buck and don't upgrade often. My x3 710, entry level motherboard and gtx 460 (that I bought a year later) have been going strong for over 3 years, and while I have been tempted to upgrade a few times I still don't feel I have to.

I agree that sometimes the suggestions given are not always what I would do, but people are entitled to different opinions. In your case you built a rig that I think is very good for its purpose. However, if you knew that person would have more disposable income in a few months that they wouldn't mind spending on an upgrade you could have considered doing it differently (like not getting a graphics card initially and investing in a more feature rich motherboard, a faster processor or a nicer case). And while I agree none of of those more expensive components are required, they can be useful or just nice to look at. A Z77 motherboard is not required if you don't plan on OCing or getting a K series CPU, but again if there is a chance you may want to venture in OCing, then its nice to have that ability without upgrading the motherboard. I run 4gb ram in my computers and it is enough, but given the price difference from 4 to 8gb ram is now only $15 CDN or so I have a hard time telling anyone to get 4gb. Does it make your computer futureproof, NO, but it very well could help it out in the long run.

In many ways your argument can be pictured as a car. Your implying everyone should drive a yaris or a civic, and that its a waste to get corvette, or a BMW. It may be a waste to some people, but it may be worth every penny to others.

Like I said earlier, I don't disagree with your comments, but they really need to be put in context.
A yes on the memory. When I thought 4 against 8 it gave me another 10 towards graphics. Cannot argue with the car analogy and have you noticed how much cheap cars reliability and resale value have improved. Economic pressure is making manufacturers in general chase every dollar or yen. Chinese computer websites are big on budget and at least the test graphs are readable.

Originally Posted by AkG View Post
I can honestly see your POV. For the most part I agree with the underlying idea of dont over-spec the rig (most do it to screw the person over) BUT under-specing it is just as bad. It will cost the person more in the long rung.

IF you had stopped at saying hard drives dont need SATA 3...sure. I would agree. But saying that SSD's dont benefit just shows your bias and / or ignorance of the technology. Sorry to be harsh, but that is the simple truth.

As others have stated multi-core does matter. Most games can handle two threads these days (or more depending on the game). With a dual core...that leaves ZERO cores for the OS. The OS has many...many threads that need cycles too. If there is nothing left for the will rob from the "game" cores. This will bottleneck your rig. Is it a huge bottleneck if you are running a cheap GPU (as per point 4)?...not really. Cheap rigs are cheap. BUT in this day and age a good quad core doesnt cost that much more than a dual. Why cut this corner?

Cheap boards are cheap because they use cheap parts. They fail faster and usually are more issue prone than mid grade boards. Once again I would have agreed if you had said $100 - $150 vs $300 as there is a point of diminishing returns...but the cheap crappiest boards are the ones I see fail most often. This is 60 bucks that is not worth shaving UNLESS the rig is for short term increment use which will be replaced in 3 years. Most people dont upgrade their CPU, so the whole will it be around in 3 years argument does not apply. Most people upgrade a system, not a cpu or mobo. Hell its only recently average joes have caught on to upgrading the storage device! Its better to build ONE durable rig that has a lower chance of failing than taking advantage of RMA and building it TWICE.

As for point 1, I can see your POV but disagree. Z77 adds RST and SATA 3. Plop a small SSD in there (for RST, or mid grade SSD for true cross over) and watch a dog slow rig turn into a near enthusiast grade rig. On tight budgets its a nice upgrade a year down the line....and unlike us enthusiasts most people DO NOT upgrade every other year or even 3 years. Its more like 3 -5. IF peeps can spend 1bill next year and extend the life of their rig for two years or more it just makes sense. You are not doing them any favours by under-specing their build.
Thank you. on the ssd all I can say is in booting up, the web,and command and conquer 3 I cannot see the difference. I am sure I could measure one,but for average use perhaps you can see it . Here a quad core from Intel starts at 131 pentium dual 43.

Originally Posted by BFighter View Post
You don't need a Ferrari. You can't drive at top speed anywhere, right?

Then why do people have supercars and why do people want to own one?
I do not know, but if you have one you don't want and you are E.U based I can be there in 12 hrs

Last edited by Soultribunal; January 24, 2013 at 04:03 PM.
Reply With Quote