Pricing a possible computer upgrade

[theorigamist]

My current computer has an Intel E8400, 4GB DDR2, and a 9500GT. When I originally built it a few years ago, my primary use was media consumption. Now I've gotten into photography as a hobby, and I notice a significant slow down while editing RAW files in Photoshop. At first I thought I'd just throw a bunch more memory at the problem, but it seems DDR2 is more expensive than DDR3 now. Also, of course, any DDR2 I buy now would be useless when I eventually upgrade anyway. So this might be a good time for a bigger system upgrade to Sandy Bridge. I'm considering the following:

- Intel Core i5-2500K
- Asus P8P67 Pro Motherboard
- 16GB (4x4GB) Corsair XMS3 DDR3
- Sapphire Radeon HD 6770
- OCZ Vertex 3 SSD 60GB

Technically, only the first three items would be necessary for the upgrade. The last two are just extras that I may buy at the same time. I had a few questions before I took the plunge, though. I don't know what resources Photoshop primarily needs. I'm sure the quad-core 3.3GHz i5 and 16GB of DDR3 will be plenty. I'm not sure if the HD 6770 is a complete waste of money or if it will actually provide extra performance. I also don't know if there are any new toys on the horizon that I'm not aware of. (I haven't followed much computer hardware in the last few years.) I particularly know very little about SSDs, but I think I've chosen a cost-effective, high performance drive. Any thoughts on these or other issues? I'll probably buy the memory today. It's on sale at Newegg, 16GB for $99. I doubt I'll find it cheaper any time soon.

EDIT: I just found:

- Asus P8Z68-V Motherboard

I don't fully understand the differences between P67 and Z68 (I'm just starting to look into this), but my impression is that Z68 is newer and doesn't lack any features of P67. But for reasons I can't determine, the Z68 board is $40 cheaper than the P67 board. Does anybody see why?

[starslayer]

The Z68 board likely doesn't support SLI (since no bridge is included, unlike the P67 Pro), it has one fewer PCI-E slot, and its slots cannot operate linked together at x8/x8 (they can only do x16/x4). It also probably isn't as strong of an overclocking board as the P67 one, and may not have as robust a feature set.

The stuff you have picked out is fine; it will be far faster than your old rig, that's for sure. I would caution that the Asus P67 boards apparently having a higher than usual rate of failure according to the rumblings on the Internet. You could probably also find a cheaper RAM kit; price, manufacturer, and speed really doesn't matter that much in that area, especially since I doubt you'll be overclocking.

EDIT: Never mind, just checked ASUS' page for the Z68 mobo. It does support SLI, not that that really matters to you.

[theorigamist]

I don't do any gaming, so I can guarantee that I won't need SLI support. Do the Asus P67 boards have a higher rate of failure since the B3 stepping bug was fixed, or are you referring to that bug? I believe the bug has been fixed in the board I linked above, and I haven't read about any similar problem with Z68. I think I'm probably leaning towards the cheaper Z68 board. Does anybody know if the integrated graphics will be good enough that I can skip the discrete card? I have dual 1920x1080 monitors, and I will be heavily using Photoshop and streaming video.

Also, a cheaper RAM kit than 16GB for $99? I've been looking around Newegg, Amazon, and Tigerdirect for a few days, and the standard price seems to be at least $60 for a 2x4GB kit. In any case, I bought the $99 RAM kit yesterday, since the deal only lasted through the end of the day. I'm sure it will be good enough for my purposes.

[EvanED]

My impression is that integrated graphics are plenty good enough for most non-gaming tasks. I mean, most (or at least many) laptops don't have discrete graphics cards, and they'd do fine for day-to-day stuff and Photoshop (and wouldn't be GPU-limited). There's probably some hardware decoding for video in the Z68 somewhere.

[Endless Mike]

If you're committed to an SSD, I would suggest getting something a bit bigger. I have a 60 GB SSD as my boot drive, and I'm often really close to bumping against its capacity, despite not really putting much more than Windows 7 and non-gaming apps on it.

[GeorgeH]

I've heard that in some instances Photoshop can get a very substantial speed boost from GPU acceleration. I don't use it myself, but it might be something to investigate.

P67 was intended to be an easy to make chipset that would allow Intel to get Sandy Bridge out quickly and without drama. Z68 was intended to be the "real" performance Sandy Bridge chipset. Z68 gives you access to the integrated GPU (with its encoding abilities) and SRT (SSD caching.) If those boards were the same price I might lean towards the P67, but with the price difference I'd go Z68.

[theorigamist]

I found the following link that suggests the HD 6770 will enable GPU acceleration in Photoshop. I've dug around the Intel website a bit, but I can't determine if the integrated graphics will meet the requirements for GPU acceleration. Maybe I'll just hold off buying the graphics card and see how the integrated graphics perform first.

P67 was intended to be an easy to make chipset that would allow Intel to get Sandy Bridge out quickly and without drama. Z68 was intended to be the "real" performance Sandy Bridge chipset. Z68 gives you access to the integrated GPU (with its encoding abilities) and SRT (SSD caching.) If those boards were the same price I might lean towards the P67, but with the price difference I'd go Z68.

I don't understand this. If Z68 was intended to be the "real" performance SB chipset, and it includes integrated graphics and SRT, why would you lean towards P67? Also, which would I get more performance benefit from: SSD caching or an SSD boot disk? I won't likely be buying two SSDs, since they're expensive and unnecessary.

If you're committed to an SSD, I would suggest getting something a bit bigger. I have a 60 GB SSD as my boot drive, and I'm often really close to bumping against its capacity, despite not really putting much more than Windows 7 and non-gaming apps on it.

Windows 7 recommends 20GB of free space for the 64-bit version. What takes up so much more space? I was trying to keep the costs down with the 60GB version. I don't think I'll shell out $230+ for the 120GB. I've never used an SSD boot drive before. If you hit the capacity of the SSD, can you just keep installing things on a regular hard drive?

[GeorgeH]

why would you lean towards P67?

Becuase the P67 board has:

Three x16 (x8, x8, and x?) PCIe slots, while the z68 has two (x16, x4)
What looks to be more robust power circuitry for the CPU
Two more SATA ports (6Gbps)
Intel networking (instead of Realtek)
Bluetooth (instead of none)
Two PS/2 ports (instead of one)
6 back panel USB 2.0 ports (instead of 4)
4 USB 3.0 ports (instead of 2)
Firewire
eSATA

If you're already planning on a larger SSD, caching won't impress you as much. You're already planning on a discrete GPU (that's fairly quiet and power efficient) so the ability to switch between the IGP and discrete graphics won't be as useful. Quicksync might be a problem, but most people don't use it.

If the boards (and that's a big if) were the same price, the P67 looks like it might be a better fit for you (depending upon how valuable that extra stuff is.) For $40 less, though, the Z68 board is superior.

Also, which would I get more performance benefit from: SSD caching or an SSD boot disk?

SSD caching will give you 90% of the SSD experience. If you start doing lots of new things SSD caching won't help much, but the things you use regularly (that's where the 90% comes in) will be essentially identical to a pure SSD. With caching you also don't have to worry about fitting everything on a smaller SSD, so it can be less of a hassle to just throw a 2TB drive and a small cache SSD in a PC and forget about it.

[theorigamist]

why would you lean towards P67?

Becuase the P67 board has:

Three x16 (x8, x8, and x?) PCIe slots, while the z68 has two (x16, x4)
What looks to be more robust power circuitry for the CPU
Two more SATA ports (6Gbps)
Intel networking (instead of Realtek)
Bluetooth (instead of none)
Two PS/2 ports (instead of one)
6 back panel USB 2.0 ports (instead of 4)
4 USB 3.0 ports (instead of 2)
Firewire
eSATA

None of these are P67 vs. Z68 points, I think. It's just that I was comparing a lower level Z68 board to a higher level P67 board. I think I'd have to jump to this $209 board for a Z68 board matching the connectivity of the P67 board I linked before. Are there chipset features that P67 has that are missing from Z68? I didn't think so.

As for the connectivity, I don't think I'll need most of these. I'll only be using one graphics card (or zero), so the x8/x8 vs x16/x4 and 3 slots vs 2 slots won't affect me. I have nothing that needs Bluetooth or PS/2 ports. I don't need Firewire. Even though USB 3.0 on your list, I think both boards have the same USB 3.0 connectivity (at least according to Newegg specs and pictures). I didn't realize the Z68 board had fewer 6Gbps SATA ports, but the only 6Gbps drive I'll own is the SSD (if I buy it). Is Intel vs. Realtek networking a big deal?

With caching you also don't have to worry about fitting everything on a smaller SSD

Now two people have pointed this out. How much do I really have to worry about a 60GB boot drive filling up? I do use a few large programs (Photoshop, MATLAB, Eclipse, etc.), but I don't play any computer games. And once these few programs are set up, the only thing taking up additional space will be Windows updates. Will 60GB really not be enough? (It seems especially silly, since I've got a full Linux installation taking up less than 8GB on my netbook.)

Also, as I asked before, if the 60GB drive were to fill up, can I continue installing programs on a larger storage drive? Or would I just be SOL?

[GeorgeH]

Are there chipset features that P67 has that are missing from Z68? I didn't think so.

And you are right. Z68 is P67+. I was just responding to the two boards you appeared interested in.

Even though USB 3.0 on your list, I think both boards have the same USB 3.0 connectivity (at least according to Newegg specs and pictures).

The P67 board has 2 USB 3.0 headers, which you could connect to the front of your PC or use a bracket on the back.

I didn't realize the Z68 board had fewer 6Gbps SATA

Just to be clear that isn't a Z68 issue, the P67 board has an additional SATA controller (electrically equivalent to an add-on board you'd put in a PCIe slot.)

Is Intel vs. Realtek networking a big deal?

Not at all. I'd pay $5 more for an Intel controller, but that's about it.

Also, as I asked before, if the 60GB drive were to fill up, can I continue installing programs on a larger storage drive? Or would I just be SOL?

You could install programs to another drive, and there are even ways of tricking programs into thinking the extra drive is the main one. For example, it's very common to trick Steam into thinking all of your games are on your C:\ SSD when in fact a lot of them are on your D:\ HDD.

60GB should be fine for what you describe. I'd plan on 16GB for Windows 7 x64 and basic programs, and another 16GB for a pagefile (Windows defaults to matching your RAM size.) A 60GB drive will be ~55GB formatted, so that's 55-32 = 23GB for your programs. If that's too tight, it'd be pretty safe to slash the pagefile down quite a bit and regain some space.

[theorigamist]

The P67 board has 2 USB 3.0 headers, which you could connect to the front of your PC or use a bracket on the back.

The Z68 board that I linked to before also has 2 USB 3.0 headers, and both boards have 2 rear-panel USB 3.0 ports. The cheaper Z68 board just had fewer USB 2.0 on the rear panel, but it actually had an extra USB 2.0 header.

60GB should be fine for what you describe. I'd plan on 16GB for Windows 7 x64 and basic programs, and another 16GB for a pagefile (Windows defaults to matching your RAM size.) A 60GB drive will be ~55GB formatted, so that's 55-32 = 23GB for your programs. If that's too tight, it'd be pretty safe to slash the pagefile down quite a bit and regain some space.

This is good to know, and I would cut the pagefile down significantly. (I'm sure 4GB would be plenty, or even 2GB. I doubt I'll exhaust my RAM.) It seems I can save about $40 today on the Crucial m4 instead of the OCZ Vertex 3. Although the speed specs on Newegg seem to favor the Vertex 3 quite heavily, this review suggests the difference isn't so clear in practice. I think I'll save the money (and get 4GB extra).

[EvanED]

Also, as I asked before, if the 60GB drive were to fill up, can I continue installing programs on a larger storage drive? Or would I just be SOL?

You can. Occasionally you'll run into a program that won't let you choose the destination drive (I'm looking at you, Chrome!) or a program that will let you put some stuff on another drive, but still puts things on your system drive (Visual Studio).

60GB should be fine for what you describe. I'd plan on 16GB for Windows 7 x64 and basic programs, and another 16GB for a pagefile (Windows defaults to matching your RAM size.) A 60GB drive will be ~55GB formatted, so that's 55-32 = 23GB for your programs. If that's too tight, it'd be pretty safe to slash the pagefile down quite a bit and regain some space.

This is good to know, and I would cut the pagefile down significantly. (I'm sure 4GB would be plenty, or even 2GB. I doubt I'll exhaust my RAM.) It seems I can save about $40 today on the Crucial m4 instead of the OCZ Vertex 3.[/quote]
So here are a couple tradeoffs regarding the pagefile. First: if you have a non-SSD, put the pagefile there. You don't want the system paging to your SSD if you can help it, speed benefits notwithstanding. If you are going to cut it down to 2 GB or 4GB with 16GB RAM, I think you should consider eliminating it.

The downside is that if you don't have a sufficiently-sized pagefile, you can't hibernate. (I'm not 100% sure what the requirements are.) How much that matters is up to you.

[theorigamist]

So here are a couple tradeoffs regarding the pagefile. First: if you have a non-SSD, put the pagefile there. You don't want the system paging to your SSD if you can help it, speed benefits notwithstanding. If you are going to cut it down to 2 GB or 4GB with 16GB RAM, I think you should consider eliminating it.

The downside is that if you don't have a sufficiently-sized pagefile, you can't hibernate. (I'm not 100% sure what the requirements are.) How much that matters is up to you.

Somehow, even though I've done so in Linux, I didn't realize Windows let you put the pagefile on a non-boot drive. If that's the case, I'll just use the default size of 16GB. Non-SSD space is cheap, and I have tons of it to spare.

[theorigamist]

My last computer build was my first build from scratch, so this will be the first time I've transferred some parts to a new build, and I have a few questions that are probably basic:

1. I may not buy the SSD right away. (Newegg sold out of the daily deal on the M4 before I pulled the trigger.) If I take my current internal hard drive with Windows 7 installed and just plug it into the new build, will the computer start up as normal? Or will Windows somehow recognize that it's a new build and have a licensing issue?
2. When I eventually buy the SSD, is there an easy way to transfer the Windows 7 installation and installed programs over to the SSD, or will a fresh install be necessary?
3. Can I easily reconfigure the pagefile? That is, can I move the Windows 7 installation to the SSD, resize the pagefile to 16GB, and move the pagefile to one of the 2TB drives, all at the same time?

[EvanED]

3. Can I easily reconfigure the pagefile? That is, can I move the Windows 7 installation to the SSD, resize the pagefile to 16GB, and move the pagefile to one of the 2TB drives, all at the same time?

I don't know about the first two questions, but this is easy.

Under system properties, click "Advanced system settings". In the top box ("performance"), pick "Settings". "Advanced" tab, then the "change" button in the lower box ("Virtual memory"). Uncheck "Automatically manage paging file size for all drives." Choose your SSD from the list box, then "no paging file" below, and click "set". Choose your hard drive then either set a custom size or "system managed size", and choose "set."

[theorigamist]

There's an upcoming deal on a Corsair Force Series 3 60GB SSD on Newegg. Judging from the one review that I've briefly looked through, this SSD seems comparable or better in performance to the OCZ Vertex 3 and Crucial m4 that I had been considering. Is this correct? If so, I may buy the SSD today (depending on how good the deal is).

Unrelated note: the DDR3 arrived, and one of the four modules had scratches on it, like it was very carelessly plugged into a motherboard. These were supposed to be new modules. Of course, I won't know if there is a problem with the module until I finish buying parts. Luckily Corsair offers a lifetime warranty.

[Endless Mike]

1. I may not buy the SSD right away. (Newegg sold out of the daily deal on the M4 before I pulled the trigger.) If I take my current internal hard drive with Windows 7 installed and just plug it into the new build, will the computer start up as normal? Or will Windows somehow recognize that it's a new build and have a licensing issue?
2. When I eventually buy the SSD, is there an easy way to transfer the Windows 7 installation and installed programs over to the SSD, or will a fresh install be necessary?
3. Can I easily reconfigure the pagefile? That is, can I move the Windows 7 installation to the SSD, resize the pagefile to 16GB, and move the pagefile to one of the 2TB drives, all at the same time?

1. Hard to say. Works sometimes, not others. Worst case, it gives you 30 days to give MS a call and tell them you built a new computer, at which point they should transfer the license without issue.

2. Not that I ever figured out unless you have your Windows install on a separate partition less than or equal to the size of the SSD, in which case there's plenty of tools to do this. I couldn't find any way to even take a mostly-empty partition from one drive to another when I tried to do exactly this. I ended up just doing a clean install without an issue.

3. No idea.

[theorigamist]

It seems there was a recall of the Corsair Force 3 120GB drives due to some stability issues. I can't find any indication that this problem exists in the 60GB drive that's on sale at Newegg today.

Also, thanks Endless Mike. I guess I'll eventually have to do a fresh install.

EDIT: The Newegg deal was just made available. The price is $100 for the Corsair F3 60GB, $35 cheaper than the usual price. At that price, perhaps I'll consider getting two, and putting them in a RAID 0 for a super-fast boot drive. (One of the Newegg comments suggests that with two of these drives in a RAID 0 array, the max read/write speeds become 1.05GB/s and 847MB/s, respectively.) I'm pretty sure the 2 SATA III ports in the Z68 board that I'm considering can be used in RAID 0.

[theorigamist]

I ended up with the following build:

- Intel Core i5-2500K
- Asus P8Z68-V LE motherboard
- EVGA GTX 550 Ti graphics card
- 4x4GB Corsair memory
- Cooler Master Silent Pro M600 power supply
- Corsair Force 3 60GB SSD
- 2x2TB Samsumg EcoGreen hard drives
- Asus DVD burner

I've built the computer, but I'll wait until tomorrow to do any testing. Some points worth noting:

1. The "Silent Pro" power supply is silent, in part, because of two rubber pieces that you put around the front and back to reduce vibration. But with these rubber pieces attached, the power supply won't line up correctly with the case, so I had to leave them off. I don't know what affect this will have on noise.

2. The 4+4 pin of the power supply is about 2 inches too short to make use of the 600T's excellent cable routing, so that wire goes right across the case from bottom to top. A mild eye sore.

3. I thought the case had an adapter for the cable that connects the front panel USB 3.0 ports so that you can plug them into a rear panel USB 3.0/2.0 port (because at the time the case was released, USB 3.0 headers on motherboards were hard to find). I was wrong. This isn't done via an adapter. You HAVE to use up a rear panel USB 3.0 port. Mildly annoying.

4. The rear port cover of the motherboard wasn't cut properly or something. It had a bunch of extra metal flaps hanging off all over the place that I had to bend back in order for the motherboard to stick through it. And after all that, it was slightly too big for the whole in the case, which prevented the motherboard from sitting correctly over the standoffs. In the end, I just left the rear port cover off entirely. Is this an issue?

Overall, though, the build was very easy and very quick. The 600T is a fantastic case to work in. There's so much extra space, and it's completely tool-less.

[EvanED]

2. The 4+4 pin of the power supply is about 2 inches too short to make use of the 600T's excellent cable routing, so that wire goes right across the case from bottom to top. A mild eye sore.

You could consider getting an extension cable. Probably be all of $3 or something.

[theorigamist]

It's just a mild annoyance, not worth spending money on. I've got the cable tied off to the side of the case, and it's certainly not inhibiting air flow. I'm more concerned about leaving off the rear I/O panel, but I think that should be okay.

On an unrelated note, I just started memtest86+, and it's going to take a LONG time on 16GB of memory. It looks like it will take about 40+ minutes per pass, and I usually do several passes. I think when I built my last computer I let it run for 20 passes, but now that would take about 14 hours. How many passes do other people run?

EDIT: I was mistaken about the time. After 40 minutes of memtest86+ running, I'm only 47% through the first pass. I guess I'll just let it run until tomorrow and hope that will complete enough passes.

EDIT: I decided to be patient and wait for the 20 passes. Final time is 46 hours and 15 minutes.