Thread: Gaming Computer
View Single Post
  #25  
Old January 4th 18, 04:00 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Gaming Computer

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 01/03/2018 5:35 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:08:19 +0000, Ed Cryer
wrote:

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 01/03/2018 1:30 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
I want a box that can handle all the latest games; the ones that
demand everything of
the best.
I've been looking around now for a few weeks, but the market is so
confusing.
Money is not much of an object; well, let's say 5k GBP max.

Should I get one purpose-built? Or a new year bargain?

My gut feeling says 16GB RAM (DDR7); 500GB SSD with 2TB spinner;
good video card; i7
quad-core CPU.

Who knows better?

Ed

This MSI Aegis Ti3 caught my eye;
https://goo.gl/DT5ASp
But then I found this; cheaper, but good enough, and with customer
reviews;
https://goo.gl/swDdrJ

Ed

My opinion: (no humor intended)
Both computers will be good for 3-5 years of gaming before new game
requirements
exceed the power of these machines.

If you are a serious competition gamer (ie: brain and body response
time of a teenager, goes to gaming meets and competitions, connects
directly to competition LAN's) and need the last little bit of speed
and power, then get the dual 1080 one.
Minuses: in my opinion the single 850 watt power supply will not be
enough for
a 1080 SLI running at max. Replace it with at least a 1000 watt PS.
Electric cost ~£5/day.
The RAM is way too slow for this machine.
Replace with at least 3600 mhz if the MB supports it.

If you are a casual gamer then the single 1070 one will suffice.
The 730 watt PS is sufficient. RAM could be faster though.
You can easily replace the single vid card in 3 years with a better
one
for only a few hundred £ as opposed to replacing the twin 1080's for
a thousand £+.

My choice would be the predator G6-710.

1: Huge price savings
2: Same i7 7700K cpu
3: Same amount of memory
3: 256 GB ssd is plenty, I run Win 10 on 128GB with lots left over, 2TB
spinner is plenty
4: 2 Video cards are not required, mostly overkill
5: nicer looking
I would be extremely happy with that one.

Rene


Thanks for that, Rene. I think I'll place an order.



Just a quick comment: I agree with most of what Rene says, but I
disagree that a 256GB SSD is plenty. I have a 1TB SSD and 410GB of it
is used. It's better to have too much than not enough.

And whether a 2TB spinner is plenty depends on *you* and how much data
you have. Some people have lots of photos, videos, music, etc. If you
do, 2TB may be nowhere near enough.

You should determine how much disk space you need based on what *you*
have, not on what Rene or I have.


I guess its what you put on your SSD, I do not allow any software or
other stuff to install on mine, C; is only loaded with the OS.
I install all programs on another SSD called D:.
All Data Photos Etc are kept on the spinner E:.
Another external spinner is used for backups and duplicates of important
info and kept disconnected until needed.
Yes, the spinner size is whatever the OP needs for storage.
BTW my Windows 10 on C: is usually running about 32 GB, lean and mean.

Rene


I vote for one of these, just for the challenge
of getting an OS onto it :-)

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16820167440
https://skinflint.co.uk/intel-optane...-a1717910.html

Intel Optane 480GB PCI Express

Max Sequential Read Up to 2500 MBps
Max Sequential Write Up to 2000 MBps

Power Consumption (Idle) 5W
Power Consumption (Active) 14W

TBW: 8760 TB === Samsung 960 Pro is 400 TBW
Warranty: five years

960 Pro M.2 for comparison.

https://www.samsung.com/us/computing...b-mz-v6p512bw/

When you go with a bigger drive, it takes longer to back up :-)

I have two sizes of SSD, and that's what I notice about the larger one.
There's such a thing as "too much of a good thing".

You don't want to waste the SSD on a lot of "data at rest".
That's what the spindle is for.

*******

"Instant death" used to be a thing with hard drives.

Later on, "Instant Death" on HDD was associated with particular
data structures under HDD firmware control. If it was going to
happen, it wasn't usually a "zero-warning" hardware issue. But
there were still drives dying because of stupid firmware bugs
(one would kill the drive after about 30 days).

Modern hard drives seem to be better that way. You might
start to sense a performance slowdown, and generally you have
plenty of time to get the data off. It's not like the bad old
days with the Maxtor 40GB drives.

SSDs on the other hand, still suffer from "Instant Death".
One day you'll go to turn it on and... nothing.

And that's why, until you have a lot of service experience
with them, it's better to increase the frequency of backups.
Just in case.

USB sticks aren't exactly analogous. But I didn't have any
USB stick failures here, until I started buying 32GB TLC sticks.
Now I have two dead ones disassembled and sitting on my desk.
I got a year out of each one. The smaller sticks, at least
one of them is extremely slow, "but it ain't dead yet". The OCZ
Rally 8GB has a lot of writes on it and still performs like a champ.
Even if it isn't as fast as a stick you bought at Walmart last
night.

Paul
Ads