Hardware Building a new PC for 2013!

[trumpet-205]

Looks nice. I can't say too much about the Intel CPU since I strictly build AMD, but the K series Intel stuff has always been overpriced in my opinion. I'd get a non-K Intel 4770, or go for an AMD FX-8350 instead, which is nearly comparable to a 4770 (non-K), has twice the cores (arguably better for multitasking, but some dispute this), and is half the price. If OC'd right, the 8350 might be able to outperform a non-K 4770.

I can only recommend AMD FX-8350 under a very specific requirement. For generic use it is much better to stick with Core i5/i7. AMD FX-8350 extra "core" counts are only useful in certain workloads. I briefly did x264 video encoding with an overclocked FX-8350, and the result was slower than stock i5 and i7. Unlike online benchmarks which always shows 2-pass encoding, I'm doing quality based CRF encoding, which is always single pass. People who does online benchmark online couldn't even tell the meaning of 2-pass video encoding (average bitrate encoding, sacrifice video quality for predictable file size).

If you are building a Linux/BSD system, doing some serious cryptography workloads (except AES), need ECC RAM on a budget, etc, FX makes sense.

CPU are priced according to performance. AMD has in the past released "overpriced" CPU, such as FX-57 and FX-60.

Also, ASUS MoBos aren't the best around anymore. I had two DOAs in a row last time I used them, and my prior system had an ASUS that gave nothing but headaches. I'd look at MSI. If you need something hard to get nowadays (IDE, a floppy controller, etc.), then AsRock is where to look. They make a few boards with old (and occasionally strange) features on them.

Unless you need floppy controller (last time I saw it was on Z68 Extreme3 Gen3), the rest all be found in the forms of PCI or PCIe expansion cards.

The RAM...for $5 less, you could get 1866.

For the power supply, I see you mentioned switching it for a SeaSonic...good choice.

 

[techboy]

As someone who has an 8350, it really is insanely fast. Nothing from AMD is going to beat Intel, it's been that way for years. It doesn't mean that Intel products aren't overpriced though.

Also, my 8350 beats an i5 when OC'd, and under certain circumstances can close in on a 4770 non-K with a decent OC.

When I learned to build PCs, I was always told AMD was "1/2 the price for 2/3 the performance". It still seems to hold true today, although its more like 3/4 the performance now.

I can only recommend AMD FX-8350 under a very specific requirement. For generic use it is much better to stick with Core i5/i7. AMD FX-8350 extra "core" counts are only useful in certain workloads. I briefly did x264 video encoding with an overclocked FX-8350, and the result was slower than stock i5 and i7. Unlike online benchmarks which always shows 2-pass encoding, I'm doing quality based CRF encoding, which is always single pass. People who does online benchmark online couldn't even tell the meaning of 2-pass video encoding (average bitrate encoding, sacrifice video quality for predictable file size).

Hard to argue for video encoding, but I use mine for VMs mainly, along with file compression work, development work, and Minecraft when I'm bored. It also runs Folding at Home. I don't do video encoding regularly, but the two times I have done it for a friend, my 8350 did beat his i5.

It's also hard to tell people asking me for a new PC any of what you said. I've had people ask for Intel, and when they see the prices of an i7 vs the 8350, take a guess which they pick. Explaining the technical differences to a normal person is sadly a waste of time and effort.

Unless you need floppy controller (last time I saw it was one Z68 Extreme3 Gen3), the rest all be found in the forms of PCI or PCIe expansion cards.

As strange as it sounds, floppy controllers are quite common requests for me. I suggest USB floppy drives, but some refuse, especially if I replace the internals of an older PC that has a floppy. That's why I mentioned it.

So I am not looking to do the same thing with the RAM at the moment, but what 1866 DDR3 were you looking at that was $5 cheaper?

These: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231560

 

[raulpica]

Haswell left me TOTALLY unimpressed. I'd go with Sandy / Ivy myself. Proven platform, pretty cheap, and it is equal with Haswell on almost everything.

There's not even the idea of getting a Haswell and then later upgrading to Broadwell, since it'll have an integrated PCH and that will most certainly require a new socket to avoid people inserting Haswell in Broadwell MBs and vice-versa.

Getting Ivy/SB will make you think "Dude, but what then? Broadwell comes out next year, and it'll be insanely fast and I'll be behind with a new-but-still-old build!", well... it'll still happen, since Haswell is crap anyway and won't let you upgrade to Broadwell without changing the MB too.

tl;dr: Desktop Haswell's been one of the biggest blunders Intel has done in the last 6 years.

 

[LegendAssassinF]

I would say a big issue is just 660 Ti... if you are going to pay 2K for a gaming rig I would just beef up the GPU. You are also just building your dream computer it seems do you really need an SSD 256GB I would go for a smaller one like 120GB and you can usually get a good deal around 100$ for one. I would use that extra money to buy a 1TB HDD for everything else and just use the 120GB for your top playing games and OS.

Also, what do you plan on doing with 32GB of RAM? Unless you plan on making movies you should just go for either 8GB or 16GB. I wouldn't go over board with a 4TB either since if that goes bad the whole 4GBs goes down with it. I would just keep with the smaller SSD and 1TB and save a couple bucks and if you want to upgrade later just buy internal 1TBs rather than a huge HDD that will go bad all at once rather than 1 at a time.

The dual monitor stand is a bit of overkill too if you are good with your hands or know someone you could easily build something for half the price. Also, where is your second monitor? If you plan on getting that one I would go for a different one since 24in for 230$ if a bit much when you could get a 21 inch for around 150-175$. And if you do plan on buying a second monitor you are looking at around almost 3K after tax.

Everything else seems pretty good. Just seems as though you are looking at a rig that might only last the next two years though in terms of Graphics for 1080p

I would also just invest in buying everything in one go to test things out since I've actually ordered parts and waited a bit just to find out the part was broken and had to send it to repairs.

 

[Originality]

Haswell isn't all bad. It's the first Intel CPU to make use of faster RAM since... Forever? But yeah, I impressive. I'm sitting on Sandy Bridge for the time being.

The second monitor is the one listed. He is almost certainly retaining his current monitor for this build.
Likewise, he already has a 120GB SSD. He wants another one. In fact, he's doing the same thing I did - get a Samsung 840 as a second SSD. The difference is, I got a 3TB drive along with it (to join my other 3TB drive), since 4TB drives get a huge price hike.

 

[trumpet-205]

There's not even the idea of getting a Haswell and then later upgrading to Broadwell, since it'll have an integrated PCH and that will most certainly require a new socket to avoid people inserting Haswell in Broadwell MBs and vice-versa.

Broadwell will go completely SoC for mobile/laptop SKU. It is already confirmed that Broadwell will get Z97 and H97 desktop chipset (along with SATA Express).

 

[Sop]

You know, I am not dead set on the video card. Last time I went balls to the wall on a graphics card....was back when the Radeon 9700 Pro was all the rage. I am a casual gamer, usually just a few steam games here and there. I have had Diablo 3 sitting on my desk for 4 months now and still have not installed it. I am really into older games like Diablo 2, Quake 1 and 2, Doom...etc.

Diablo 3 is a waste of money. You should play Diablo 2 LoD!

 

[Phillyman]

Storage is something I am always running out of. Maybe 2 years ago I built a i3 Sandy Bridge with 8GB of RAM, 14TB of Storage and a Ceton InfiniTV 4. I am damn near out of space on that HTPC and outside of that computer I have 11 hard drives floating around my apartment with sizes ranging between 80GB and 2TB. I run Retromags.com and as such I have tons of scanned documents, then retouched, then compiled in various forms. I also like to digitalize my BR movies and use MediaBrowser as a front end on my TV. In building this new computer, I am hoping that I can use this machine to re-encode WTV files and remove the commercials and put them into a less bloated format....then send them back to the HTPC. I will probably end up taking the three 4TB drives and RAID them for speed and redundancy, then drop all 11 hard drives onto that partition and be rid of them forever. As for the 128 OCZ Agility 3 that is in my old machine, I am just going to eBay/Craigslist it to recoup some of the costs with this new build. I was down to like 7GB of free space anyways. I think I may do something like this.....

256GB SSD - OS and some programs
1TB Western Digital Black - Games and non essential programs
4TB x3 - Raid them together for a data drive

This is my current monitor....

ASUS VH242H

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236052

and my current video card is a Galaxy Geforce GT430

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162067

So I think anything new that I buy will outperform the video card I have been using!

 

[trumpet-205]

Well, Intel CPU does support QuickSync, which is good if you want a fast transcode.

As for the idea of RAID, don't bother. RAID has no place for average desktop user. Redundancy offered by RAID is for computer/server uptime, not file backup or reliable means for file integrity. Just so you know there is always a chance of data corruption when you try to rebuild RAID. Also, you'll need a RAID card unless you are doing RAID 1. RAID5 or any other RAID that involves parity will be slow without a RAID card.

 

[Phillyman]

Well, Intel CPU does support QuickSync, which is good if you want a fast transcode.

As for the idea of RAID, don't bother. RAID has no place for average desktop user. Redundancy offered by RAID is for computer/server uptime, not file backup or reliable means for file integrity. Just so you know there is always a chance of data corruption when you try to rebuild RAID. Also, you'll need a RAID card unless you are doing RAID 1. RAID5 or any other RAID that involves parity will be slow without a RAID card.

I may just throw the 4TB drives into a Synology unit then and let that thing handle all my data storage needs (minus the HTPC).

 

[trumpet-205]

I may just throw the 4TB drives into a Synology unit then and let that thing handle all my data storage needs (minus the HTPC).

Just use those HDDs individually with backup being external HDDs or burning them on BD-R.

To ensure file integrity i would recommend hashing all files with SHA-256. You just compare hash of the same file from different media (HDDs, external HDDs, or BD-R) to see if the file is still intact.

Hard to argue for video encoding, but I use mine for VMs mainly, along with file compression work, development work, and Minecraft when I'm bored.

Yes, VM is also one of those workload that works well with FX processor. That along with AMD-Vi/IOMMU makes it a good budget VM system.

You also mentioned f@h. Though people often overlooked electricity cost of an overclocked FX processor. Depending on where you live, initial savings on AMD processors can be offset rather quickly. Back in the days when I debated on i7-3770K and FX-83xx I did a calculation on 24/7 electricity cost. My conclusion is that in California $100 saved from AMD will be offset by Intel after 1.5 years. Since I do intend to keep a system for a long time (although for a 24/7 video encoder, I looking forward to see how Haswell-E will perform), it'll cost me more in the long run with AMD.

As strange as it sounds, floppy controllers are quite common requests for me. I suggest USB floppy drives, but some refuse, especially if I replace the internals of an older PC that has a floppy. That's why I mentioned it.

That is really strange. I mean these days for those who need floppy drive are just going to read data from the floppy disk and copy it to a flash drive or some other storage. Do people even still write new data to floppy disks? USB floppy drive aren't exactly as good as internal one, but should still be more than enough for reading.

These: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231560

 

[raulpica]

Broadwell will go completely SoC for mobile/laptop SKU. It is already confirmed that Broadwell will get Z97 and H97 desktop chipset (along with SATA Express).

Cool. Still a lackluster architecture, anyway.

SATA Express isn't really needed for anything except if you've got big bucks to spend on $300+ SSDs.

 

[techboy]

Hard to argue for video encoding, but I use mine for VMs mainly, along with file compression work, development work, and Minecraft when I'm bored.

Yes, VM is also one of those workload that works well with FX processor. That along with AMD-Vi/IOMMU makes it a good budget VM system.

You also mentioned f@h. Though people often overlooked electricity cost of an overclocked FX processor. Depending on where you live, initial savings on AMD processors can be offset rather quickly. Back in the days when I debated on i7-3770K and FX-83xx I did a calculation on 24/7 electricity cost. My conclusion is that in California $100 saved from AMD will be offset by Intel after 1.5 years. Since I do intend to keep a system for a long time (although for a 24/7 video encoder, I looking forward to see how Haswell-E will perform), it'll cost me more in the long run with AMD.

They are indeed more power hungry, and I suspect a large bit of it is wasted as heat, since the bedroom it's in is always 5-10 degrees warmer than the rest of the house.

That is really strange. I mean these days for those who need floppy drive are just going to read data from the floppy disk and copy it to a flash drive or some other storage. Do people even still write new data to floppy disks? USB floppy drive aren't exactly as good as internal one, but should still be more than enough for reading.

At least one person I built a PC for needed it for old machining equipment at work. The stuff he has only takes floppies, and it was easier for him to take floppies home than it was to bring the data into work on a flash drive and transfer it to the floppies.

I also built a Phenom II system last year that had to have a 5.25" floppy drive in it. Guy uses a legacy system at his business that can only use those old disks, and he needed to be able to transfer data back and forth. Finding a MoBo that had a BIOS that would support it was fun.

The others have mostly been for what you said USB drives would be fine for...people with old disks.

 

[trumpet-205]

I also built a Phenom II system last year that had to have a 5.25" floppy drive in it.

5.25" floppy disk? That's really old school. Ever seen 8" floppy disk?

You can look into floppy drive emulator. it still uses floppy interface, but it allows you to plug USB or memory card at the other end. In another words computer sees USB/memory card as a floppy disk instead.

 

[Thanatos Telos]

5.25" floppy disk? That's really old school. Ever seen 8" floppy disk?

You can look into floppy drive emulator. it still uses floppy interface, but it allows you to plug USB or memory card at the other end. In another words computer sees USB/memory card as a floppy disk instead.

I remember those from when I was a toddler and my father just let me see him build. One time it fell on my foot and I cried for an hour.

 

[the_randomizer]

Ivy Bridge user here (Core i5 3750). Haven't had a single issue and it's by far the most stable processor I've ever used, and sure gets the job done!

 

[Originality]

I can say the same about Sandy Bridge.

 

[techboy]

5.25" floppy disk? That's really old school. Ever seen 8" floppy disk?

Never seen an 8", although I've read about them.

For what it's worth, I've got 3 different 5.25" drives that work, including one of those somewhat rare combo 3.5"/5.25" drives. Also got a large envelope of blank disks that are still usable. I actually use the drives a few times a year when people bring me disks to get data off them. I transfer it straight from 5.25" to either a USB flash drive or the network using a Pentium II running Win98SE. ~3 minutes a disk, a little more if I have to try to image a bad disk. I do it locally and for dirt cheap compared to the big chains that send them out for exorbitant prices (a copy is ~$15/disk, recovery if damaged is more). The independent shops near me don't have the hardware to copy these.

You can look into floppy drive emulator. it still uses floppy interface, but it allows you to plug USB or memory card at the other end. In another words computer sees USB/memory card as a floppy disk instead.

That actually wouldn't be a bad idea for the guys still using them on old systems. Seeing that disks and drives are becoming harder to find by the day...