How do you guys feel about SeaSonic power supplies? The SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold is currently cheaper than the power supply I had chosen and it seems better too. Based on reviews, the brand seems quite reliable, but I don't know anybody that has any personal experience with them. Does anyone here have any thoughts on it?
Awesome. I figured they must be pretty good as I had a very hard time finding negative reviews for their power supplies and the fact that when that one went on sale for $99 on newegg they were sold out on the first day. Luckily they got more and I just got it.
Thanks again for your help. I normally don't have a very hard time resisting the urge to buy stuff impulsively, but these sales are getting to me and its nice to get some reassurance that I am not doing something completely stupid.
Although things should get better now, since I was the most indecisive about the case, psu and mobo and I have bought the case and psu, so now I just need to wait for a good deal on the motherboard. The rest of the parts are pretty standard and I know a lot more about them.
Yeah I've never understood the desire to buy a small SSD for the OS and a large mechanical hdd for the apps. That setup will get you fast bootups, but nothing more.
Most idiotic sentence ever.
Who the f*** does not want faster boot ups ? And im talking major difference not small!
Spending $100ish dollars just to gain a few seconds on Windows bootup is not a very wise use of money.
And thats not all? How about EVERY single program and game you install on it wil load install update
Please reread my post, as you missed my point. Why buy a small SSD to install Windows and a large mechanical to install all your programs and games? You certainly won't be loading those apps or games any quicker.
download a hella lot faster, or the fact that if you install your OS on it that meens then that your internet download speed wil go up, way up, and the pages on the webbrowser wil open much faster, and the general refresh rate of pritty much annything gets boosted up.
None of these things are true. When downloading, the speed limiter is your internet. Mechanical drives can write anywhere from 66 to 100+ MB/second. On the low end, that's a 528 megabit internet connection. That is significantly faster than any home internet connection available. The pages in your browser won't load any quicker either.
So a atleast 120gb ssd is highly recomended.
Let me get this straight. You flame me for inquiring why people are buying small 64gig ssd drives and then turn around and recommend a 128?
Or else its nothing more then just a pc, and deffenetly not a high end or even a low budget gaming pc, or a gaming pc at all.
An ssd hardly defines what kind of system you have. It'll give you quicker boots, app/game loads, etc but it isn't going to magically increase your frames per second. A high end gaming pc works just fine without an ssd. Until prices come down, they are little more than frivolous expenditures. And I have a couple.
I have a budget of $800 and I want to buy a computer that would run Diablo 3 and Amnesia. I would like to build this but I have no idea what stuff to get. Please let me know asap!
I have a budget of $800 and I want to buy a computer that would run Diablo 3 and Amnesia. I would like to build this but I have no idea what stuff to get. Please let me know asap!
I put together a package at Newegg that should suit your needs. Can probably be improved a bit but it's a good start.
Cart Item List: EVGA GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) Superclocked 01G-P3-1372-TR Video Card
Item #:N82E16814130571
Return Policy: VGA Standard Return Policy
$169.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130661 instead. Has a $15 savings card which makes it ~the same as the 460.
SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3EG 500GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
Item #:N82E16822152305
Return Policy: Standard Return Policy
$99.99
Antec Three Hundred Black Computer Case
Item #:N82E16811129042
Return Policy: Limited Replacement Only Return Policy
$69.99
$54.99
Spending 100$ on a ssd is wise usage of monney, not doing so is greedy use of monney, even the regulair gamer should have a ssd.
English doesn't seem to be your first language, which is ok and is probably why you don't understand what I'm saying here. But there's no excuse to insult anyone. I'm not sure how saving your money is greedy. At this price-point, an ssd is a luxury, not a necessity.
And mind me asking how manny benchmarks you have done in our life time ? I meen why am i even asking for gods sake, its a fact there is no argument over it dude, wtf are you talking about ''you wont be loading those programs up faster ?'' Are you dumb ? Are you trying to sound smart trying to flip the tables arround ? I am amazed by this guys stupidity, how can you say it wont run programs faster ? Thats the hole use of a ssd that what ssd's do thats whats worth buying a ssd is for !
For the third time....installing the operating system on an ssd and all your programs/games on a mechanical hdd WILL NOT increase the loading speed of those apps because they are still installed on a slower mechanical drive. Your OS will boot up faster and anything on that ssd will be quicker, but anything installed on the mechanical drive will not magically be quicker just because your os is on the ssd.
And regarding the internet connection part: I think you dont fully understood me. Because what you basicly r saying is that if for example my internet connection is 5mbps and i run my OS on a normal 7200rpm hdd then my download speed would be the SAME as when would run the same OS with the SAME internet connection but this time on a ssd... Dont get me wrong, a ssd does not increase your internet connection, it just uses its full potential, if you for example have 10 mbps connection, installed your os on a regulair hdd, then it wil never ever use that full 10 mbps, a ssd however wont ether, but itl come MUCH closer to use the full 10mbps then a regulair hdd would.
If you have your os installed on a mechanical drive it will still use the full 10megabit connection, and very easily. 10 megabit is only 1.25 MB/second. While that is speedy for most internet connections, that is terribly slow for any kind of harddrive. As I said, just about any mechanical drive you buy these days will at least hit 66 MB/s. I have 12megabit and routinely hit the max on a computer with a mechanical hdd.
Also i sayd ATLEAST 128gb, because im trying to put myself in other peoples positions, not eveyone has the same luxury as some of us. 64 to 128gb is a massive improvement for a ssd, its not a storage drive we r talking about here.
I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying...
For your last quote: i never sayd ssd's increase framerates.
You say al this with the ''prices'' in your mind, you have to put yourself in a position where you should base your opinion on FACTS of technical stuff, not say: Ugh ugh ssd this that meh, prices r to high... Thats just stupid because you clearly did in your last quote.
You have to consider price, as not everyone can afford an SSD so it won't even be an option for them. You mention facts, but you have yet to use any. In fact, most of your claims are devoid of any facts. Feel free to link resources to back up your claims.
A gaming pc is NOT a gaming pc without a ssd, thats final.
You'll need to expand on this comment, as it's silly without an explanation. A ssd doesn't offer increased fps or any improvement at all once the game is running. If a game is installed on an ssd you'll decrease your loading time by a few seconds, that's it. After that, your gaming experience on a hdd is the same as an ssd. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else who agrees with your definition of a gaming pc.
Now looking at those 2 quotes i say, with ''mechanical'' i hope to god you ment to say a storage hdd/regulair NOn ssd. because if not then im going to coontinue laughing my ass of if you wil excuse me for a moment.
What else would I be talking about....
I meen, dude we are talkign facts here, your argument is truely INVALID here, because you are putting up your opinion against a FACT. Thats like saying, ''There is no water in the world...'' Ye i know waaaaay off example, but trying to give you an idea on how you come over toords me when you say what you say
Please post links to these "facts" you keep talking about. Frankly, I still don't think you understand my original statement, despite going into detail twice.
I don't want to hop in the debate but as far Windows 7 OS is concerned when gauging disk space requirements the formula is this:
Current OS space requirements + 1 and 1/2 times RAM for the paging file + disk space for 3 years estimated patches + space need for upgrade (if you plan on upgrading to the next version of the OS.)
At least that is how you estimate needed space on a server. Windows 7 (C:\Windows directory) takes about 30GB of space, if you have say 8GB RAM then tack on another 12 GB for the page file, and the one that gets people the most is amount of space needed for Windows updates over time. I typically tack on another 100GB for good measure that covers that plus upgrade space IF that is the path that is wanted for the next version of the OS.
This thread needs to be moderated. It is not suppose to be a flame war between both of you, Hpnot1Q and Supafula.
The only person flaming is him, so please don't lump me in there. I haven't thrown a single insult out there, despite receiving several.
Take a chill pill, relax and think this through. This thread is to help others with their computer issues (atleast that is what I thought).
And that's what I'm trying to do, but apparently he doesn't want to be helped. I should have recognized that after his first post.
From what I understand, the person never said he would only install windows on the SSD. Both of you went from one assumption to another and started going at each other. Also, there are some misunderstandings between both of you but you are unable to see it as you are way into the thick.
What else are you going to fit on a 64 gig harddrive? One or two more games maybe? It's certainly no assumption as it's very common for people to get a small ssd just for Windows and a large mechanical for everything else. There's really no other reason to go with that setup. It still doesn't make much sense when you can save just a bit more money and go with a 128gig.
64GB SSD is more than enough for OS, apps and games. I have BF3, Skyrim and Prototype installed on mine. It is around 54GB.
With your OS and three games installed, you don't have much room for anything else. It certainly isn't more than enough for Windows, apps and games.
SSD is a great upgrade/buy if you can afford it. End of.
Ah there are days I wish I could take these home... on my mind since we threw in a new server and added 5 enclosures of hard drives to the SAN, alas tis all for work though. I'd never have to worry about heating my house again and I'd probably blow power the moment I hooked them up, not to mention I don't have any L6-30-amp plugs at home. I guess I should wish for a data center first.
Dell R815, quad AMD 6 cores, 256GB RAM, 4 15/K 146GB drives, PERC RAID controller, QLOGIC Dual FC 8GB HBA, and DRAC.
230TB (usable) Compellent SAN Series 40 controllers (2nd tower in) [170 disks total, 56 600GB 15/K SAS drives, 114 7/K 2TB drives]
Note:
XFX - GPU Speed of 830MHz & Memory Speed of 5200MHz, while
SAPPHIRE - GPU Speed of 800MHz & Memory Speed of 5000MHz.
Also on XFX's official site, it states that the cards have DDR5 and not GDDR5...
Question 2:
Difference between DDR5 & GDDR5 for GFXs?
I know G stands for GraphicsDDR5. I've seen GFX cards with either of these and I dunno the exact difference...I read that the "G" is just added to DDR5 of the GFX Memory cause it's well graphics memory, so there is no difference.
Also read that with GDDR5 you can open the memory bank of your GFX or something like this...
SO if both cards use GDDR5 and/or there is no performance wise difference between those two, the XFX is obviously better.
Note:
XFX - GPU Speed of 830MHz & Memory Speed of 5200MHz, while
SAPPHIRE - GPU Speed of 800MHz & Memory Speed of 5000MHz.
Also on XFX's official site, it states that the cards have DDR5 and not GDDR5...
Question 2:
Difference between DDR5 & GDDR5 for GFXs?
I know G stands for GraphicsDDR5. I've seen GFX cards with either of these and I dunno the exact difference...I read that the "G" is just added to DDR5 of the GFX Memory cause it's well graphics memory, so there is no difference.
Also read that with GDDR5 you can open the memory bank of your GFX or something like this...
SO if both cards use GDDR5 and/or there is no performance wise difference between those two, the XFX is obviously better.
XFX just decided to call it DDR5 as opposed to adding a G, for whatever reason. DDR5 doesn't even exist yet, so it would be tough to use it. DDR4 is supposed to hit the market sometime next year. GDDR and DDR are two different things and perform two different functions, with DDR as your standard ram and GDDR as your graphics memory. Also, the GDDR numbering is not homologous to any DDR designation. DDR2 is more advanced than GDDR2, DDR3 more advanced than GDDR3 and on down the line. They have similarities but are different products. EG, DDR isn't the desktop memory version of GDDR, nor is GDDR the graphics version of DDR.
So long story short...the XFX is slightly faster on paper, but I doubt you'll ever notice it. If you can find reviews of each or a website that compares them head to head, you'd know for sure.
Note:
XFX - GPU Speed of 830MHz & Memory Speed of 5200MHz, while
SAPPHIRE - GPU Speed of 800MHz & Memory Speed of 5000MHz.
Also on XFX's official site, it states that the cards have DDR5 and not GDDR5...
Question 2:
Difference between DDR5 & GDDR5 for GFXs?
I know G stands for GraphicsDDR5. I've seen GFX cards with either of these and I dunno the exact difference...I read that the "G" is just added to DDR5 of the GFX Memory cause it's well graphics memory, so there is no difference.
Also read that with GDDR5 you can open the memory bank of your GFX or something like this...
SO if both cards use GDDR5 and/or there is no performance wise difference between those two, the XFX is obviously better.
XFX just decided to call it DDR5 as opposed to adding a G, for whatever reason. DDR5 doesn't even exist yet, so it would be tough to use it. DDR4 is supposed to hit the market sometime next year. GDDR and DDR are two different things and perform two different functions, with DDR as your standard ram and GDDR as your graphics memory. Also, the GDDR numbering is not homologous to any DDR designation. DDR2 is more advanced than GDDR2, DDR3 more advanced than GDDR3 and on down the line. They have similarities but are different products. EG, DDR isn't the desktop memory version of GDDR, nor is GDDR the graphics version of DDR.
So long story short...the XFX is slightly faster on paper, but I doubt you'll ever notice it. If you can find reviews of each or a website that compares them head to head, you'd know for sure.
It's funny cause there isn't a source on the internet that give me a definite difference between the two or one that gives an answer the way I want it! Thanks anyways.
Funny enough, the XFX is cheaper than the Sapphire where I'm gonna buy it... <_< Not complaining though. I'll give an update on my about to be new pc soon!
Note:
XFX - GPU Speed of 830MHz & Memory Speed of 5200MHz, while
SAPPHIRE - GPU Speed of 800MHz & Memory Speed of 5000MHz.
Also on XFX's official site, it states that the cards have DDR5 and not GDDR5...
Question 2:
Difference between DDR5 & GDDR5 for GFXs?
I know G stands for GraphicsDDR5. I've seen GFX cards with either of these and I dunno the exact difference...I read that the "G" is just added to DDR5 of the GFX Memory cause it's well graphics memory, so there is no difference.
Also read that with GDDR5 you can open the memory bank of your GFX or something like this...
SO if both cards use GDDR5 and/or there is no performance wise difference between those two, the XFX is obviously better.
XFX just decided to call it DDR5 as opposed to adding a G, for whatever reason. DDR5 doesn't even exist yet, so it would be tough to use it. DDR4 is supposed to hit the market sometime next year. GDDR and DDR are two different things and perform two different functions, with DDR as your standard ram and GDDR as your graphics memory. Also, the GDDR numbering is not homologous to any DDR designation. DDR2 is more advanced than GDDR2, DDR3 more advanced than GDDR3 and on down the line. They have similarities but are different products. EG, DDR isn't the desktop memory version of GDDR, nor is GDDR the graphics version of DDR.
So long story short...the XFX is slightly faster on paper, but I doubt you'll ever notice it. If you can find reviews of each or a website that compares them head to head, you'd know for sure.
It's funny cause there isn't a source on the internet that give me a definite difference between the two or one that gives an answer the way I want it! Thanks anyways.
Funny enough, the XFX is cheaper than the Sapphire where I'm gonna buy it... <_< Not complaining though. I'll give an update on my about to be new pc soon!
Yeah I bet. A lot of misinformation and bits and pieces around. The only reason I know is because I had wondered the same thing at some point.
GFX - 200MHz faster memory clock speed and 30MHz faster core speed than the other GFX's for the same/less of the price (in RSA though).
RAM - It's good. The best RAM for that price that I could find (again in RSA though).
PSU - I used Asus's Wattage Calculator and the recommended PSU wattage required came up at 650watts. So I searched for 700watt and 800 watt PSU's. And most 800watt PSU was just a bit more expensive, but for 100watts more, it's nothing. It's just for in case I get another HDD or something.
MOBO - The mobo is the one thing I'm the least educated about, so suggestions openly welcome! I don't want to spend more than the current one I want though, if possible. And I don't really want 7 PCI-E slots, just have my GFX (which will probably take up 2 slots (how many slots is really necessary?), cause of the fan and cooling on it). Also want 4 dimms for future RAM instalments and don't need to be Asus. Thanks.
PS - Well the specs says that one of the memory speeds is 1600MHz. And the cheaper mobo's memory speed is 1600MHz (OC - overclocked). Since the RAM I wanna buy is 1600MHz, does this mean that for the 1600MHz (OC) memory speed mobo, I have to overclock the memory, for the RAM to achieve it's full potential?
CASE - I don't want a "flashy" pc case neither a dullone. And that one seems just fine. And my current case is rusty (live near the ocean)
BUT they said my GFX and case isn't in stock atm and will be in stock next year. They gave me alternatives for my GFXand case.
Note: This GFX has a 5000MHz clock speed and a 830MHz memory speed. Whereas my initial one has a 5200MHz clock speed and a 830MHz memory speed. Is this extra 200MHz really that much? (They are the same price btw).
And the case is basically the same one but the side panel differs. (more flashy).
So any help, especially with the mobo and GFX, are welcome!
Edit: My current pc (from what I can remember):
CPU - Intel Core2Duo 2.8GHz
GFX - Sapphire HD 4830 512MB
RAM - some shitty Kingston ones
PSU - Some Vantec 460watt one
MOBO - Asus P5KPL1600
Case - Vantec TSX 300b
So should I upgrade now (with the other GFX and another case) or wait till next year?
I just read that you only need a 2GB GFX card if you intend to play games at a resolution higher than 1920x1080 (My monitor is 1680x1050 and I don't intend to buy a new one soon) or for games basically with better GFX than BF3 or that needs a shit load of anti-aliasing...
So my question is whether I should buy the 2GB (R3020 or $368.07) even though I won't be using the full 2GB OR should I buy a 1GB card (R2858 or $348.33)?
Thanks again for your help. I normally don't have a very hard time resisting the urge to buy stuff impulsively, but these sales are getting to me and its nice to get some reassurance that I am not doing something completely stupid.
Although things should get better now, since I was the most indecisive about the case, psu and mobo and I have bought the case and psu, so now I just need to wait for a good deal on the motherboard. The rest of the parts are pretty standard and I know a lot more about them.
Spending $100ish dollars just to gain a few seconds on Windows bootup is not a very wise use of money.
Please reread my post, as you missed my point. Why buy a small SSD to install Windows and a large mechanical to install all your programs and games? You certainly won't be loading those apps or games any quicker.
None of these things are true. When downloading, the speed limiter is your internet. Mechanical drives can write anywhere from 66 to 100+ MB/second. On the low end, that's a 528 megabit internet connection. That is significantly faster than any home internet connection available. The pages in your browser won't load any quicker either.
Let me get this straight. You flame me for inquiring why people are buying small 64gig ssd drives and then turn around and recommend a 128?
An ssd hardly defines what kind of system you have. It'll give you quicker boots, app/game loads, etc but it isn't going to magically increase your frames per second. A high end gaming pc works just fine without an ssd. Until prices come down, they are little more than frivolous expenditures. And I have a couple.
I put together a package at Newegg that should suit your needs. Can probably be improved a bit but it's a good start.
If you need a DVD burner you can swap the HD to http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145299 which includes one for free
English doesn't seem to be your first language, which is ok and is probably why you don't understand what I'm saying here. But there's no excuse to insult anyone. I'm not sure how saving your money is greedy. At this price-point, an ssd is a luxury, not a necessity.
For the third time....installing the operating system on an ssd and all your programs/games on a mechanical hdd WILL NOT increase the loading speed of those apps because they are still installed on a slower mechanical drive. Your OS will boot up faster and anything on that ssd will be quicker, but anything installed on the mechanical drive will not magically be quicker just because your os is on the ssd.
If you have your os installed on a mechanical drive it will still use the full 10megabit connection, and very easily. 10 megabit is only 1.25 MB/second. While that is speedy for most internet connections, that is terribly slow for any kind of harddrive. As I said, just about any mechanical drive you buy these days will at least hit 66 MB/s. I have 12megabit and routinely hit the max on a computer with a mechanical hdd.
I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying...
You have to consider price, as not everyone can afford an SSD so it won't even be an option for them. You mention facts, but you have yet to use any. In fact, most of your claims are devoid of any facts. Feel free to link resources to back up your claims.
You'll need to expand on this comment, as it's silly without an explanation. A ssd doesn't offer increased fps or any improvement at all once the game is running. If a game is installed on an ssd you'll decrease your loading time by a few seconds, that's it. After that, your gaming experience on a hdd is the same as an ssd. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else who agrees with your definition of a gaming pc.
What else would I be talking about....
Please post links to these "facts" you keep talking about. Frankly, I still don't think you understand my original statement, despite going into detail twice.
Current OS space requirements + 1 and 1/2 times RAM for the paging file + disk space for 3 years estimated patches + space need for upgrade (if you plan on upgrading to the next version of the OS.)
At least that is how you estimate needed space on a server. Windows 7 (C:\Windows directory) takes about 30GB of space, if you have say 8GB RAM then tack on another 12 GB for the page file, and the one that gets people the most is amount of space needed for Windows updates over time. I typically tack on another 100GB for good measure that covers that plus upgrade space IF that is the path that is wanted for the next version of the OS.
If you did, you wouldn't have replied to me in the first place. And more insults. Nice.
No one's definition of "mechanical hdd" is a second or third ssd. Mechanical...meaning moving parts. An ssd has no moving parts.
The only person flaming is him, so please don't lump me in there. I haven't thrown a single insult out there, despite receiving several.
And that's what I'm trying to do, but apparently he doesn't want to be helped. I should have recognized that after his first post.
What else are you going to fit on a 64 gig harddrive? One or two more games maybe? It's certainly no assumption as it's very common for people to get a small ssd just for Windows and a large mechanical for everything else. There's really no other reason to go with that setup. It still doesn't make much sense when you can save just a bit more money and go with a 128gig.
With your OS and three games installed, you don't have much room for anything else. It certainly isn't more than enough for Windows, apps and games.
My point, which is apparently lost on others.
Dell R815, quad AMD 6 cores, 256GB RAM, 4 15/K 146GB drives, PERC RAID controller, QLOGIC Dual FC 8GB HBA, and DRAC.
230TB (usable) Compellent SAN Series 40 controllers (2nd tower in) [170 disks total, 56 600GB 15/K SAS drives, 114 7/K 2TB drives]
Yup, change out your CMOS battery, typically a model CR2032.
Question 1:
XFX Radeon HD 6950 2GB XXX or SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6950 2GB?
Note:
XFX - GPU Speed of 830MHz & Memory Speed of 5200MHz, while
SAPPHIRE - GPU Speed of 800MHz & Memory Speed of 5000MHz.
Also on XFX's official site, it states that the cards have DDR5 and not GDDR5...
Question 2:
Difference between DDR5 & GDDR5 for GFXs?
I know G stands for GraphicsDDR5. I've seen GFX cards with either of these and I dunno the exact difference...I read that the "G" is just added to DDR5 of the GFX Memory cause it's well graphics memory, so there is no difference.
Also read that with GDDR5 you can open the memory bank of your GFX or something like this...
SO if both cards use GDDR5 and/or there is no performance wise difference between those two, the XFX is obviously better.
XFX just decided to call it DDR5 as opposed to adding a G, for whatever reason. DDR5 doesn't even exist yet, so it would be tough to use it.
So long story short...the XFX is slightly faster on paper, but I doubt you'll ever notice it. If you can find reviews of each or a website that compares them head to head, you'd know for sure.
Funny enough, the XFX is cheaper than the Sapphire where I'm gonna buy it... <_< Not complaining though. I'll give an update on my about to be new pc soon!
Yeah I bet. A lot of misinformation and bits and pieces around. The only reason I know is because I had wondered the same thing at some point.
Ordered PC (this is from the site I ordered it from, so ignore the prices):
CPU - Intel i5 2500K
GFX - XFX Radeon HD 6950 XXX Edition 2GB
RAM - Corsair Vengeance 8GB
PSU - Vantec ioN2+AS van-800A 800W
MOBO - Asus P8Z68-V LE
CASE - CoolerMaster CM Storm Enforcer Gaming Case plus 200mm fan for on top
Reasons:
CPU - Best cpu for it's price.
GFX - 200MHz faster memory clock speed and 30MHz faster core speed than the other GFX's for the same/less of the price (in RSA though).
RAM - It's good. The best RAM for that price that I could find (again in RSA though).
PSU - I used Asus's Wattage Calculator and the recommended PSU wattage required came up at 650watts. So I searched for 700watt and 800 watt PSU's. And most 800watt PSU was just a bit more expensive, but for 100watts more, it's nothing. It's just for in case I get another HDD or something.
MOBO - The mobo is the one thing I'm the least educated about, so suggestions openly welcome! I don't want to spend more than the current one I want though, if possible. And I don't really want 7 PCI-E slots, just have my GFX (which will probably take up 2 slots (how many slots is really necessary?), cause of the fan and cooling on it). Also want 4 dimms for future RAM instalments and don't need to be Asus. Thanks.
PS - Well the specs says that one of the memory speeds is 1600MHz. And the cheaper mobo's memory speed is 1600MHz (OC - overclocked). Since the RAM I wanna buy is 1600MHz, does this mean that for the 1600MHz (OC) memory speed mobo, I have to overclock the memory, for the RAM to achieve it's full potential?
CASE - I don't want a "flashy" pc case neither a dullone. And that one seems just fine. And my current case is rusty (live near the ocean)
BUT they said my GFX and case isn't in stock atm and will be in stock next year. They gave me alternatives for my GFXand case.
Note: This GFX has a 5000MHz clock speed and a 830MHz memory speed. Whereas my initial one has a 5200MHz clock speed and a 830MHz memory speed. Is this extra 200MHz really that much? (They are the same price btw).
And the case is basically the same one but the side panel differs. (more flashy).
So any help, especially with the mobo and GFX, are welcome!
Edit:
My current pc (from what I can remember):
CPU - Intel Core2Duo 2.8GHz
GFX - Sapphire HD 4830 512MB
RAM - some shitty Kingston ones
PSU - Some Vantec 460watt one
MOBO - Asus P5KPL1600
Case - Vantec TSX 300b
So should I upgrade now (with the other GFX and another case) or wait till next year?
So my question is whether I should buy the 2GB (R3020 or $368.07) even though I won't be using the full 2GB OR should I buy a 1GB card (R2858 or $348.33)?