PDA

View Full Version : PC spec again...



LowKey
03-05-2013, 05:54 PM
Hello handsome people, I am looking at a built PC from Dell refurb and was hoping for an assessment on this -

Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-3770 (3.40GHz, 8MB), Windows® 8 Pro
2 TB 3.5inch SATA Hard Drive (7200RPM), Hard Drive: 256 GB Solid State Mini Card
8 GB Memory 1600MHz NON-EDD, Graphics: 1.5 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660
Windows 8 Professional (64 Bit OS), 6X Blu-Ray ROM Combo (Blu-Ray read only, DVD, CD read & write)
Wireless : Dell Wireless 1703 802.11b/g/n, Bluetooth v4.0+LE, Dell USB Keyboard

Comes in at just over £700, alternatively from Chillblast -

Intel Core i5 3570 "Ivy Bridge" Processor overclocked to 4.5GHz
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
Asus P8Z77-V LX Motherboard
8GB PC3-10666 DDR3 Memory
Chillblast GeForce GTX 660 2GB Graphics Card
2000GB SATA III 7200rpm Hard Disk
LG Blu Ray / DVD-RW Combo Drive
Chillblast 700watt EZCool PSU
Onboard High Definition Audio
Windows 7 64bit

For £800 with a 23" monitor (which I need as I do not have one atm), and longer warranty. So I guess my question is which seems to be the better deal, I am leaning towards the latter, and if in general it seems reasonably priced (I appreciate I wont get the better deal if I was to build it).

Thanks!

Tikey
03-05-2013, 06:04 PM
Just a question. What are you going to use it for? Just gaming?

Feldspar
03-05-2013, 06:19 PM
Well, I'd say the second one was probably better for gaming, but the first will boot faster. OS is a matter of personal choice, really.

I'd lean towards the second, adding an SSD if you decide you need one isn't a hassle and it should come with a better case and have the cooling sorted. The monitor should make it cheaper all in all, too.

LowKey
03-05-2013, 06:45 PM
Thanks! Aye mainly gaming, just updating from my frankly ancient laptop.

Vicious
03-05-2013, 07:05 PM
Are you willing to self build? I'd lean towards the Dell one personally, i7 3770 should perform roughly the same as the i5 3570 (without the noise, power consumption and heat of overclocking), the Dell 660 is most likely the stripped down OEM version so won't be as powerful as the Chillblast version, but an SSD is an absolute must for any new build. More than any other component, this will make day to day computer usage pleasant.

Sakkura
03-05-2013, 09:32 PM
The Chillblast build looks like crap. They're dumb enough not to know the difference between a Core i5-3570 and 3570K, and they put slow-ass memory in the build along with a bad noname power supply.

LowKey
03-05-2013, 10:15 PM
Hmm interesting thanks, they have three at that price (as I said I am interested in a package) -

http://www.chillblast.com/Chillblast-Fusion-Orb.html
http://www.chillblast.com/Chillblast-Fusion-Longbow.html

Cant see a reason not to go for the Orb over the Longbow? I have a wee bit of extra cash to customise, although not a great deal, thanks for the advice!

Vicious
04-05-2013, 02:01 PM
Both have abysmally bad graphics cards.

LowKey
04-05-2013, 05:31 PM
Huh thanks for the heads up, better look at something different then!

Jambe
04-05-2013, 07:52 PM
Of the two pre-builts, I'd trust the Dell. Their PSUs are usually burly (if older-topology) Deltas.

I just threw this together on Amazon for £698.58 shipped:


Intel Core i5-3570 Processor (3.40GHZ, 6MB Cache, Socket 1155)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0083U94D8/

EVGA Nvidia GTX 660 2GB DDR5 PCI-E Graphics Card
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00A11YWW0/

ASRock H77 Pro4/MVP Motherboard (Socket 1155, Intel H77, DDR3, S-ATA 600, ATX)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007NOYCZ0/

Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 8GB 1600MHz CL9 DDR3 Vengeance Memory Two Module Kit
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004CRSM4I/

Corsair Builder Series CXM 430W Modular 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX/EPS PSU
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00ALYP208/

Antec One Midi Tower Case - Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX, ATX, 2 x USB 3.0
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B006TVQU6C/

Seagate Barracuda 3.5 inch 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB 6GB/S Internal SATA Drive
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B006H32Q3S/

LiteOn IHOS104 4x SATA Internal BD-ROM Drive Bare Including CyberLink Software
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0079GI0OQ/

Microsoft Windows 8 64 bit OEM, WN7-00403, English Version
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009HI2W66/


I'm unfamiliar with UK shops; you can probably do considerably better with sales.

If I were building that PC for gaming and general use, I'd get an i3 3220 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008F65MO0/) instead and put the extra cash towards this Samsung 840 250GB SSD (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009LI7C9Y/) in place of the HDD (saving £11.52 in the process). You lose 1750GB of storage but the speed of an SSD greatly enhances the perceived responsiveness of a PC and usually dramatically lowers the time it takes to load a game; imo that's definitely worth being more selective with installed software.

Vicious
04-05-2013, 08:10 PM
An SSD is not a replacement for a HDD in a desktop PC.

Jambe
04-05-2013, 09:50 PM
An SSD is not a replacement for a HDD in a desktop PC.

It's a perfect replacement if, as I said, one can make do with the reduced space.

Clearly, since my desktop only has an SSD for storage, I'm not a PC user. Burn the witch!

Vicious
04-05-2013, 10:32 PM
It's a perfect replacement if, as I said, one can make do with the reduced space.

Clearly, since my desktop only has an SSD for storage, I'm not a PC user. Burn the witch!
Nothing in your post refutes the statement "An SSD is not a replacement for a HDD in a desktop PC". Also, your second sentence is an excellent example of one of the more common logical fallacies.

sabrage
04-05-2013, 10:49 PM
Honestly, I'm barely scraping by with a terabyte and a half. My "Games" folder alone is taking up 112GB, with Steam taking up another 280, to say nothing of the movies, music, screenshots, Adobe Suite, comics, schoolwork, back-ups and related ephemera, with the OS taking up about 35GB alone.

Vicious
04-05-2013, 10:54 PM
Honestly, I'm barely scraping by with a terabyte and a half. My "Games" folder alone is taking up 112GB, with Steam taking up another 280, to say nothing of the movies, music, screenshots, Adobe Suite, comics, schoolwork, back-ups and related ephemera, with the OS taking up about 35GB alone.
Apparently a desktop PC shouldn't have space for photos, songs, homevideos, movies, Steam, other games etc. All it needs is 250gb of space that you manage daily, spending hours agonising over which of your precious file you must delete today.

I'd be perfectly happy with just an 128gb SSD in my laptop. However, an SSD is not a HDD replacement in a desktop PC.

Jambe
05-05-2013, 01:16 AM
I don't know why you're being so confrontational, Vicious my dear. An SSD is clearly not a 1:1 "replacement" for an HDD in terms of space or cost/gig, but I didn't make such a claim; in fact, I explicitly disclaimed the SSD recommendation if the user needs more space.

Many people don't need 378 metric bucketfuls of storage in their desktops. My dad's an avid gamer but he only needs a 120GB SSD because he only plays a few games and doesn't have much media. I use a NAS box and don't have many games installed simultaneously, so my devices don't need much local storage. You get the general idea, honey bunches. Not all PC users are media-hoarding, software-collecting gig-slurpers. I am, but I don't assume my usage model is pertinent to the needs of total strangers, hence the (qualified) SSD suggestion.

Cripes.

sabrage
05-05-2013, 08:29 AM
Many people don't need 378 metric bucketfuls of storage in their desktops.
I freely admit that I'm a fringe case, but my point was that even someone with a tenth of my hoarding proclivities will be bumping their head against that 250GB limit fairly quickly.

Vicious
05-05-2013, 11:05 AM
I don't know why you're being so confrontational, Vicious my dear. An SSD is clearly not a 1:1 "replacement" for an HDD in terms of space or cost/gig, but I didn't make such a claim; in fact, I explicitly disclaimed the SSD recommendation if the user needs more space.

Many people don't need 378 metric bucketfuls of storage in their desktops. My dad's an avid gamer but he only needs a 120GB SSD because he only plays a few games and doesn't have much media. I use a NAS box and don't have many games installed simultaneously, so my devices don't need much local storage. You get the general idea, honey bunches. Not all PC users are media-hoarding, software-collecting gig-slurpers. I am, but I don't assume my usage model is pertinent to the needs of total strangers, hence the (qualified) SSD suggestion.

Cripes.
You're arguing that extreme fringe cases disprove the statement that "An SSD is not a replacement for a HDD in a desktop PC". I'm not being confrontational, I'm now (repeatedly) pointing out the logical fallacies in your fairly silly defense. You can keep posting waffle (and indeed, you seem determined to), but it seems you have no interest in addressing the salient point: An SSD is not a replacement for a HDD in a desktop PC.

According to you: Because you can get by on just an SSD, they're suitable for everyone (although amusingly, you forgot to mention that you use a NAS box).
According to you: Because your Dad can get by on just an SSD, they're suitable for everyone.
According to you: Only people who need 378 metric bucketfuls of storage require a HDD instead of an SSD.

One short holiday's worth of uncompressed photos can be 2-3gb. A short home movie is that again. Many AAA games are breaching 20gb install size. A Windows 7 install is approaching 50-60gb of space, Windows 8 35-45gb - and you're arguing against that having a 120gb SSD in a brand new PC costing over £800 ever being anything other than the tiniest minutest minority of end users.

Again, and I don't understand why you still futilely argue on, using abridged personal anecdotes:
An SSD is not a replacement for a HDD in a desktop PC.
Hopefully that's it, and we can get back to the topic at hand rather than your nonsensical ramblings about SSD usage.

Sakkura
05-05-2013, 03:31 PM
According to you: Because you can get by on just an SSD, they're suitable for everyone (although amusingly, you forgot to mention that you use a NAS box).
According to you: Because your Dad can get by on just an SSD, they're suitable for everyone.

One short holiday's worth of uncompressed photos can be 2-3gb. A short home movie is that again. Many AAA games are breaching 20gb install size. A Windows 7 install is approaching 50-60gb of space, Windows 8 35-45gb - and you're arguing against that having a 120gb SSD in a brand new PC costing over £800 ever being anything other than the tiniest minutest minority of end users.
You're twisting his words, he didn't say an SSD would be enough for everyone, just that it might be enough for SOME people. If anything, you're the one who's claiming an SSD isn't enough for anyone.

As for Windows 7, you're completely wrong. It takes up around 15 GB plus (optional!) page file etc.

Jambe
05-05-2013, 05:29 PM
Vicious, buttercup, please read what I actually said:


If I were building that PC for gaming and general use, I'd get an i3 3220 instead and put the extra cash towards this Samsung 840 250GB SSD in place of the HDD (saving £11.52 in the process). You lose 1750GB of storage but the speed of an SSD greatly enhances the perceived responsiveness of a PC and usually dramatically lowers the time it takes to load a game; imo that's definitely worth being more selective with installed software.


It's a perfect replacement if, as I said, one can make do with the reduced space.

This is silly, sugar pie. I think LowKey (and most other reasonable humans age 13 or above) can determine for themselves how much storage space they need.

You're arguing against a clearly-bastardized caricature of my words. I recommended a 2TB HDD, but according to you I said SSDs are suitable for everyone. ?!?

I love you as I love moss-carpeted PNW forests, sweetness. Well, that's a lie, but I don't hate you, and I certainly don't want to pervert your words in defense of hasty generalizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_Generalization).

Just for you, though, you delightful gumdrop:

HDDs are of Satan! Jesus recommends solid state solutions as the panacean salve of all storage woes temporal and empyrean (yes, there are heavenly servers). Pray with me, please:


We recognize and repent for the ancient sin of worshipping motorized storage formats!
We sublimate our heathen desires for copious magnetic capacity at the altar of NAND!
We humbly promise to forevermore eschew disks of all shapes and sizes!
This we do in the name of our Lord.

Amen.

BiilyTheKid
05-05-2013, 11:03 PM
I don't rate Dell's at all really. They have some really good selling points (good processor, great storage), but I think the graphics card is a bit naff, and in terms of upgrading you have no where to go really. They are very tightly compacted together inside, so you can't really put anything exciting in there. Also, they cut it really fine with the PSU (460W last time I looked), just rules out putting a really meaty graphics card in there.

The Chillblast looks quite good, have you had a look at somewhere like PC Specialist or Scan?

Sakkura
05-05-2013, 11:28 PM
The Chillblast looks quite good
No, it really really doesn't.

Tams80
06-05-2013, 02:05 PM
My goodness, all this about SSDs and HDDs is rather silly considering we're talking about a desktop.

If we were on about a laptop with only one drive bay, I could see the point, but on a desktop I can't. A new build should be fine with an SSD of about 256GB (heck, even 128GB). If this is a first desktop, then you just have to make do with the limited space until you can afford a HDD to compliment it (should be enough for a fair few games and other stuff). That shouldn't be much of a problem as 1TB 3.5" HDD are very cheap, ridiculously cheap in fact. If this is a replacement desktop, then you can use your old HDD and then if you really want buy another HDD later. Either way, you get the benefits of an SSD sooner rather than later.

Jambe
06-05-2013, 04:14 PM
It's rather silly considering the unnecessary assumption of LowKey's preferences; LowKey can decide what storage is necessary and purchase accordingly given the suggested options.

@Sakkura: I dunno, for gaming and general use 1333 vs 1600 RAM is irrelevant. The 3570 thing is probably just a mislabeling, which is perhaps unprofessional but wouldn't affect performance. I sent them an email about the CPU in this unit, which I think is the one LowKey was looking at (although it had Windows 7 instead of 8):

http://www.chillblast.com/Chillblast-Fusion-Blaze.html

Aside from the questionable PSU, that doesn't look unreasonable. I am quite worried about EZCool though; many a report of overrating. It'd have to be super-overrated to not handle that PC even with the overclock, but overrating is also usually associated with crappy components and poor QA...

Sakkura
06-05-2013, 04:28 PM
There is some scaling from DDR3-1333 to 1600. They also cost nearly the same because 1600 is standard today. So there's no reason to go 1333.

http://i.imgur.com/rTrzxrL.png

Jambe
06-05-2013, 05:53 PM
FPS is a pretty poor (http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking) measure of the visual (http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus) consistency of GPU output (http://techreport.com/review/24553/inside-the-second-with-nvidia-frame-capture-tools), as explicated by Scott Wasson of the Tech Report in the previous three links and by Ryan Shrout of PC Perspective in this one (http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Dissected-Full-Details-Capture-based-Graphics-Performance-Testin). In any case, I don't think 1.5 frames of difference is "relevant".

Marginally-faster RAM is nice, but it's not necessary for gaming and general use. I'm unfamiliar with UK shops so I just judge what's presented, and the listed ChillBlast unit (if the power supply doesn't fry things) would be fine.

tbh I'm more offended by the brand name (Chillblast, really?) than I am worried about the components (PSU aside). That's almost as damned-silly as MSI's "Twin Frozr" marketing, but it's the name of the whole company.

Of the two, I'd still lean towards the Dell because, as I said, they usually have overbuilt (if older) PSUs.

Sakkura
06-05-2013, 06:25 PM
FPS is a pretty poor (http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking) measure of the visual (http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus) consistency of GPU output (http://techreport.com/review/24553/inside-the-second-with-nvidia-frame-capture-tools), as explicated by Scott Wasson of the Tech Report in the previous three links and by Ryan Shrout of PC Perspective in this one (http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Dissected-Full-Details-Capture-based-Graphics-Performance-Testin). In any case, I don't think 1.5 frames of difference is "relevant".

It's more than a 5% performance difference, and that's not likely to be distributed evenly, ie. it helps prevent FPS spikes or stuttering and thus most likely represents a larger performance difference in practice.

And it's basically free.

Jambe
06-05-2013, 06:37 PM
It's more than a 5% performance difference

Yes, and if the benchmarks were ten frames slower it'd be 7%, and twenty frames slower would be 15%, and so on. A frame and half of difference is irrelevant.


it helps prevent FPS spikes or stuttering and thus most likely represents a larger performance difference in practice.

I sincerely doubt that is the case, but I know of no studies to that effect. Do you?

LowKey
06-05-2013, 06:48 PM
Thanks for discussion guys very interesting, I have thought about storage actually as I am currently using a fairly limited 500GB, think I will stick with the conventional storage for now as I cant quite stretch to both, think I will stick to the first chillblast one and swap in a better PSU and ram which shouldn't cost too much more.

As for the name, very much agree, looking at one at DinoPC and leaning there just for the name (although its not much better), any recommended retailers would of course be appreciated, thanks again!

Sakkura
06-05-2013, 07:56 PM
Yes, and if the benchmarks were ten frames slower it'd be 7%, and twenty frames slower would be 15%, and so on. A frame and half of difference is irrelevant.
No, a 5% difference is not irrelevant, and it's not a fluke since the pattern is very clear.

Jambe
06-05-2013, 08:24 PM
@LowKey: heh, I was just bemoaning silly marketing. MSI's Twin Frozr graphics cards are actually pretty good.

There may well be better pre-built computers available, but I know nothing about UK PC retailers...

A good 400W PSU would be plenty for a 3570/GTX 660 with the overclocks; the Corsair CXM 430W (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00ALYP208/) for £40 is good. If you think you'll ever upgrade to a beefier GPU, you'd probably need two PCI-E power connectors, so you might go ahead and get a PSU with two PCI-E power connectors (e.g. the CXM 500W (£50) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00ALK1GFC/)). There are non-modular versions of those that are a bit cheaper. There are probably other good Bronze-rated PSUs in that price range, but most of the PSUs I see at Amazon are unfamiliar to me.

@Sakkura: if one cannot discern 28.5 FPS from 30 FPS, then the difference does not matter. If you actually know of evidence which would indicate that a human being can discern such a difference, or that 267Mhz of RAM speed would improve gaming or general use performance in any way that is meaningful to an end user, I'd gladly read it. Otherwise we're just volleying an inconsequential triviality.

Sakkura
06-05-2013, 08:33 PM
It's not 267 MHz, it's 133 MHz.

Anyway, if you apply the same logic about 5% across all components, you'd end up with much more than a 5% difference, and then the difference would be immediately obvious even if 5% isn't (though it probably is).

Jambe
06-05-2013, 08:43 PM
Well, 133.3~ if you want to be technical, but yes, DDR.

I don't know what you're trying to say with that last bit. RAM effects every component in the system and human beings can "probably" tell 28 FPS from 30?

Again, I've no reason to feel this difference in RAM speed is meaningful if one's just gaming. I've never actually read a controlled analysis of this particular issue, though; I could be wrong. I find what you're positing extremely unlikely.

LowKey
06-05-2013, 10:34 PM
Righto a few revisions and a lean towards DinoPC has left me with -





CPU:
2085 - Intel Core i5 3570K


CPU Overclocking:
oc43 - 4.3Ghz - Moderate Overclock


CPU Cooler:
3019 - Xigmatek Dark Knight Nighthawk SD1283


Operating System:
11014 - Microsoft® Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit


Motherboard:
4164 - Asus P8Z77-V LX2


RAM:
5041 - 8GB Corsair 1600mhz Vengeance (2x4GB)


Hard Drive:
6029 - 2TB S-ATAIII 6.0Gb/s


Optical Drive:
7003 - 22x DVD±RW DL S-ATA


Graphics card:
8087 - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 2GB


Sound card:
10001 - Onboard 7.1 Audio


Internet:
13006 - Wireless 802.11N 300Mbps MIMO PCI card


Keyboard and Mouse:
14001 - Keyboard, mouse and speakers


Monitors:
15043 - LG 21.5" 22EN33S-B LED


Case:
17024 - Xigmatek Asgard


PSU:
18046 - 550W Corsair VS


Warranty:
sc-1 - 3 Year SureCare Warranty



Going to get the monitor on ebuyer which will save me enough to cover the delivery, totalling £850, which is as much as my poor wallet can take unless there are any game breakers.

Edit: should note that the overclocking is included without cost.

Jambe
06-05-2013, 10:49 PM
Looks alright. Corsair's VS series PSUs appear to be old and rather inefficient designs (being the bottom tier of the company's offerings), but they're put together by (post-QA-tuneup) CWT and should at least be stable (which is more than can be said for the other computer's EZCool unit, which is a total crapshoot afaict).

Jambe
07-05-2013, 02:15 PM
fwiw, Thom from sales@chillblast.com says:


The Processor would be the K variant. Apologies for the typo on the website.

Kind Regards

Sakkura
07-05-2013, 03:11 PM
Well, 133.3~ if you want to be technical, but yes, DDR.

I don't know what you're trying to say with that last bit. RAM effects every component in the system and human beings can "probably" tell 28 FPS from 30?

Again, I've no reason to feel this difference in RAM speed is meaningful if one's just gaming. I've never actually read a controlled analysis of this particular issue, though; I could be wrong. I find what you're positing extremely unlikely.
Humans are surprisingly good at distinguishing different frame rates. Even more so when stuttering is involved, which it may very well be where memory is concerned.

RAM speed is meaningful in games, it's just a matter of where you cut off. A modern computer with EDO RAM would perform horribly. The gap between DDR3-1333 and 1600 is not huge, but neither is the gap between 1333 and 1066, and so on. So you could use the same argument recursively until you reach EDO RAM (or worse). The point is you need to draw the line somewhere, and since DDR3-1600 is a bit better than DDR3-1333 while costing practically the same, it's the most logical place.


Looks alright. Corsair's VS series PSUs appear to be old and rather inefficient designs (being the bottom tier of the company's offerings), but they're put together by (post-QA-tuneup) CWT and should at least be stable (which is more than can be said for the other computer's EZCool unit, which is a total crapshoot afaict).
Yeah, I also think it looks okay. Corsair VS isn't actually old at all (http://www.techpowerup.com/177599/corsair-unveils-vs-series-entry-level-power-supplies-for-220-240vac-markets.html), it's just their bottom-rung series intended for poor countries (India and such). Corsair CX would normally be their cheapest set of PSUs in our part of the world.
The VS units are 220-240V only, so they'll never show up in the US, but I guess they figured Scottish people are Scrooges and brought them in.

Jambe
07-05-2013, 07:51 PM
I agree that you might as well get 1600, but it's not a major purchase point...

Anecdotal evidence from years poking at and in computers leads me to believe it's unnoticeable, but if you know of perceivable knock-on effects emerging from this tiny difference in RAM, I'm sure the likes of Scott Wasson et al. (who make a living from pointing out such things) would be interested in a note. What little study I've seen of RAM speed's correlation to perceived visual smoothness in games (from TR, PCPer, and Anand) indicate that the difference between 1333 and 1600 is unnoticeable (tests were conducted with a mainstream GPU and 60hz 1080p monitors iirc).

Corsair's VS series are rebadged Channel Well GPA platforms; they've been around since early 2011. They're the cheapest platform I'd personally feel comfortable using, and I wouldn't recommend such a unit if one was buying a PSU by itself, but it's not bad by any means. Corsair insists on more stringent QA on their CWT-built units, which is a bonus; the VS series probably has caps from the more reputable Taiwanese and/or Chinese suppliers (as opposed to just "whatever they can get").

KilgoreTrout_XL
07-05-2013, 08:13 PM
Good luck with the build- that ought to be a great rig.

My only suggestion would be to swap out the Asgard for... anything, really. There's a reason it's so cheap. I went shopping for a case and rebuilt my pc just this past weekend, and the asgard was on display at the local store. Everything about it seemed flimsy, from the metal enclosure to the drive bays. The tool-free design was a horror show. The sales guy mentioned that people had reported having a hell of a time with installing and securing their motherboards (and it was noisy as hell).

LowKey
07-05-2013, 08:32 PM
Ohh interesting, I just went with it as it was the plainest :), I'll look at something a bit smarter.

KilgoreTrout_XL
07-05-2013, 08:57 PM
Hah- I promise you won't regret it. I liked the look of this Fractal case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811352031

The friendly salesguy recommended it , and it looks like newegg agrees.

I went with a corsair 550D. Excellent venting, quiet as a whisper, easy to work with. A couple of the case fan mounts really only fit corsair fans (though you can improvise a bit), but that's just a minor grumble compared to the rest of the package.

Good luck.

Sakkura
07-05-2013, 09:47 PM
Corsair 550D is a sound-dampened case. Fractal Design Arc Midi isn't. They're both much more expensive and much better than the Asgard. Really, the Asgard isn't bad for the price, you just get what you pay for.

When you're buying an assembled computer, I think it may make sense to get a relatively affordable case. You're not going to be affected by it much if the case is difficult to work with. There is such a thing as too cheap though, with regard to noise for example.

Jambe
07-05-2013, 10:45 PM
Yeah, DinoPC offers the new Arc Midi and 550D (among many others) as an upgrade. Corsair's Carbide 200R is the cheapest of their offerings I'd recommend; the 300R's better. Neither are spiffy dampened chassis like the 550D, but they're not £86.60 extra, either. Fractal Design's Define R4 is also dampened and is £40.30 cheaper from Dino; it doesn't have quite the fit & finish of the 550D but I've messed with both, and the R4's a fine, solid choice...

If this is what you're looking at:

http://www.dinopc.com/shop/pc/configurePrd.asp?idproduct=1578

then you only need alter the HDD, GPU, optical, peripherals and finally the case (those speakers will be a touch bad, btw). The stock 450W PSU will be fine and the Dark Knnnnniggit Nighthawk CPU cooler isn't necessary over the Norse God of Mischief unit. Now, if they had the Super-Blasto Ultra-Mega Black Warrior Mamba 6500 MkII, that'd be the cooler to get. Alas.

LowKey
08-05-2013, 06:55 PM
Great! I have moved the PSU and cooler down and changed the case to the 300R over the R4 as its quite a bit more compact, thanks again for all the advice guys I am really pleased with how its turned out!