add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments (Continued)

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

More like $70, since yours does not have a HDD.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

The machine has an SSD plenty large to be up and running with a decent selection games installed, it does not require an HDD to operate.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

250GB is not that much storage at all with todays games. GTA V takes 60GB by itself.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

It makes more sense to start a build with a large SSD and add more storage (or ideally, more SSD) later. A 120GB SSD, for the reasons you have pointed out, is a nightmare to micromanage the contents of. Upgrading a 120GB SSD is a lot more work than adding storage to a system that already has an SSD large enough to work with for a decent library of software.

Besides, mechanical storage is quickly becoming obsolete for use as as "live" media (to run applications from). The manufactures of mechanical drives have already began shifting away from a focus on access performance for consumer drives, as they are no longer intended for use as software/boot drives.

I'll take a single 240GB SSD over a 120+1TB to start off a system any day. It's a better starting point for the system that not only allows MORE software to reside on an SSD, also affords better components up front everywhere else in the machine.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

I disagree that mechanical storage is becoming obsolete. That is not going to happen until the price per GB for SSD is a lot closer to HDD. For gaming, unless the game is constantly reading and writing from the drive, like Mindcraft, having the game stored on an SSD offers little in the way of benefits.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

60GB open world games (like the one you used as a reference) constantly read from the drive as you move about the world.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

That's not an apples to apples comparison. The larger SSD starting point counts for something. Exactly how much it counts for, is subjective.

By the standard you are using to make that argument, I could just as easily point out that you'd have to add 2 cores, 5 VRM phases, and a better quality PSU to the originally proposed build to "match" what I have proposed.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

That's not an apples to apples comparison. The larger SSD starting point counts for something. Exactly how much it counts for, is subjective.

You are right it is subjective. What is not is how much overall you will spend for he same amount of storage in the end.

By the standard you are using to make that argument, I could just as easily point out that you'd have to add 2 cores, 5 VRM phases, and a better quality PSU to the originally proposed build to "match" what I have proposed.

Those things are not going to improve game performance.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

Those things are not going to improve game performance.

The extra VRM phases mean a higher overclock when the time comes (which is one of the only reasons to build on this platform in the first place for gaming), and the extra module is absolutely useful for any game that scales to 4 or more threads.

http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html

The 4.7ghz overclocked quad module is producing up to 14% better performance than the overclocked tri-module, and 40% better performance than the stock clocked FX-6300.

49FPS vs 35FPS.

Yes VRMs and more execution resources are indeed useful.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

The extra VRM phases mean a higher overclock when the time comes (which is one of the only reasons to build on this platform in the first place for gaming), and the extra module is absolutely useful for any game that scales to 4 or more threads.

Not many games, almost none, use more then 4 cores. As for overclocking, the results are never guaranteed. Battlefield 4 is also know to be CPU intensive and will use up to 6 cores.

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

Any game that runs better on an i5 than an i3 will probably run better on a quad module vishera than on a tri-module vishera. That's a pretty extensive list if I'm honest. If it weren't, then the i3 would be the go-to in gaming build recommendations.

Of course, then there's the issue of background applications and tasks going on. Lots of gamers like to alt-tab to a browser full of open game related sites for reference, (or have a second monitor for this). Nobody plays benchmarks. People USE computers.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube