Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44
  1. #1
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus LowKey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,212

    PC spec again...

    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!

  2. #2
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Tikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,219
    Just a question. What are you going to use it for? Just gaming?

  3. #3
    Lesser Hivemind Node Feldspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    634
    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.

  4. #4
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus LowKey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,212
    Thanks! Aye mainly gaming, just updating from my frankly ancient laptop.

  5. #5
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    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.

  6. #6
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,466
    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.

  7. #7
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus LowKey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,212
    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...n-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!

  8. #8
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    Both have abysmally bad graphics cards.

  9. #9
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus LowKey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,212
    Huh thanks for the heads up, better look at something different then!

  10. #10
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    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 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.
    Last edited by Jambe; 04-05-2013 at 07:54 PM.

  11. #11
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    An SSD is not a replacement for a HDD in a desktop PC.

  12. #12
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicious View Post
    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!
    Last edited by Jambe; 04-05-2013 at 09:56 PM.

  13. #13
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sabrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    GMT-7
    Posts
    3,442
    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.

  15. #15
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by sabrage View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    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.

  17. #17
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sabrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    GMT-7
    Posts
    3,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Vicious; 05-05-2013 at 11:09 AM.

  19. #19
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicious View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    Network Hub Jambe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    310
    Vicious, buttercup, please read what I actually said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jambe View Post
    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.

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •