Rate My PC.

[Prestonification]

I was just going through the forums and I saw that someone else had done this. Just rate my build specs on scale of 1-10(10 being good). Built since 2012 but the gpu is new.

 

• CPU
  i5 3570k @4.5 Ghz
• Motherboard
  Asus P8Z77-m Pro
• RAM
  4x4GB Corsair Vengeance @1600 Mhz
• GPU
  Zotac GTX 980 Extreme AMP! 4GB(previously gtx 670 then sli)
• Case
  Arctic White Fractal Design Define R4
• Storage
  1x120GB Kingston now 2x1TB WD Blue HDD
• PSU
  500W Raidmax 80 Bronze
• Display(s)
  1x27" Viewsonic VX2739wm 
• Cooling
  Corsair H60i
• Keyboard
  CM Storm Quickfire
• Mouse
  Corsair M65 
• Operating System
  Windows 8.1 Pro (Legit)
• PC Part Picker URL
  http://pcpartpicker.com/user/prestonslade/saved/mTqPxr

[nanowatt]

Why you need someone to rate your pc?

[Prestonification]

Why you need someone to rate your pc?

I don't just saw it was trending. So I just want to see results of poll. Completely satire.

[nanowatt]

I don't just saw it was trending. So I just want to see results of poll. Completely satire.

I may be rude but i don't see any point in this,sorry.Also sorry for offtopic i will vote on that pool

[nckthebeast]

Good rig but personally I'd save up and get a nh-d14 noctua cooler, its on par with an h100 and x60... You may be able to get 5ghz with a new cooler

[Sheldon_King]

I rate it 5/10 for multiple reasons.

 

1. PSU:  Raidmax is not a quality brand iirc. It may last fine, or it may take out your system tomorrow, luck of the draw there.

 

2. Storage: If you are running windows, 128GB is the bare miunimum for OS and programs. You would gain points by going to a 240+ GB SSD. Also, more drives gives more points of failure. Gain points by moving the 2x1TB to a single 2+TB drive. (Note if you are running them in RAID 1, then the above does not apply).

 

3. Completely opinion, and I am guilty too, but I take points away for not maxing the RAM. 2x8GB would be better in all cases than 4x4GB that you have.

[Prestonification]

I may be rude but i don't see any point in this,sorry.Also sorry for offtopic i will vote on that pool

I understand where you're coming from, don't worry. I find it silly too, but monkey see monkey do(just called myself a chimp ).

[Prestonification]

Good rig but personally I'd save up and get a nh-d14 noctua cooler, its on par with an h100 and x60... You may be able to get 5ghz with a new cooler

I agree, but at the same time I didn't even plan on overclocking to that point and luck out and get it stable. I was also thinking about getting that Swiftech 220x that's been floating around.

[nanowatt]

2. Storage: If you are running windows, 128GB is the bare miunimum for OS and programs. You would gain points by going to a 240+ GB SSD. Also, more drives gives more points of failure. Gain points by moving the 2x1TB to a single 2+TB drive. (Note if you are running them in RAID 1, then the above does not apply).

Aahah say what?"128GB is the bare minimum" you must be joking 60 is enough for os and just programs."Also, more drives gives more points of failure" wut again?Yeah having 2 separate hdds are more dangerous than only 1.Where is your logic?They are not even raid to say yes if one fail all data is lost but separate cmon dude

[Prestonification]

I rate it 5/10 for multiple reasons.

 

1. PSU:  Raidmax is not a quality brand iirc. It may last fine, or it may take out your system tomorrow, luck of the draw there.

 

2. Storage: If you are running windows, 128GB is the bare miunimum for OS and programs. You would gain points by going to a 240+ GB SSD. Also, more drives gives more points of failure. Gain points by moving the 2x1TB to a single 2+TB drive. (Note if you are running them in RAID 1, then the above does not apply).

 

3. Completely opinion, and I am guilty too, but I take points away for not maxing the RAM. 2x8GB would be better in all cases than 4x4GB that you have.

1. Really? I never really heard too many bad things about them. I do know of the issues of having a weak psu, but I strive for at least 80 bronze.

2.Ssd I feel like its half and half. I might need more space but I haven't had to compremise yet. The separate drives are gaming only and the other is general media. I do have an offsite backup but the guilt taste so good.

3.I agree whole heatedly.I am getting to the point of pushing it and since I play in VM definitely could use more for head room.

4. love you!

[Majestic]

42

[Prestonification]

Aahah say what?"128GB is the bare minimum" you must be joking 60 is enough for os and just programs."Also, more drives gives more points of failure" wut again?Yeah having 2 separate hdds are more dangerous than only 1.Where is your logic?They are not even raid to say yes if one fail all data is lost but separate cmon dude

The funny thing is, see the 60GB config too often and I don't know how people co-op. I have a buddy who is a complete disaster atm. 30 GB ssd for boot and external drive for apps and games. Meanwhile money gets blown on games everyweek instead of proper hardware.

[nanowatt]

The funny thing is, see the 60GB config too often and I don't know how people co-op. I have a buddy who is a complete disaster atm. 30 GB ssd for boot and external drive for apps and games. Meanwhile money gets blown on games everyweek instead of proper hardware.

30 gb is not enough can't disagree here but 60 is just fine windows will take between 15-25 at most and with all the basic programs most likely 10 gb more.On the other hand he is buying more games

[Sheldon_King]

Aahah say what?"128GB is the bare minimum" you must be joking 60 is enough for os and just programs."Also, more drives gives more points of failure" wut again?Yeah having 2 separate hdds are more dangerous than only 1.Where is your logic?They are not even raid to say yes if one fail all data is lost but separate cmon dude

I am hoping YOU are joking. 128GB is only enough if the OS, drivers, and a Single game or program is ALL you want to install to your system. (Not counting word processing or browsers as programs, as they are bare necessity in all computers these days and take less than 1GB each).

 

Also, you do not seem to understand points of failure. The less of anything you have, the less points of failure, the more components, the more points of failure. With storage, 3,2,1 is always best, with the minimum drives necessary to pull it off. 3 copys of ALL data (note games through Uplay, Steam, and Origin all count as one of those copies for them), 2 different versios of the data (for instance one backup drive, one CD/DVD/Blueray), 1 offsite.  Less hard drives, the better (same with every other component). The more you have, the more likely statistically that something is going to fail.

 

1. Really? I never really heard too many bad things about them. I do know of the issues of having a weak psu, but I strive for at least 80 bronze.

2.Ssd I feel like its half and half. I might need more space but I haven't had to compremise yet. The separate drives are gaming only and the other is general media. I do have an offsite backup but the guilt taste so good.

3.I agree whole heatedly.I am getting to the point of pushing it and since I play in VM definitely could use more for head room.

4. love you!

Again, I am working off memory, but iirc Raidmax is a low end brand. Also, the 80+ rating has 0 to do with the components inside. The higher the rating, the better components generally, but that is only because as the efficiency goes up, it gets harder to cheap out on the quality to meet the rating.

 

Fair enough, and note you can go RAID 0 in the future if you feel the need. It is completely dependent on your needs, but for most gamers or professionals, 240GB is the minimum to have any free space.

 

I agree with the idea here too. I would love to get more, but on my system it would require a full disassemble, and the prices are too high now anyway. Just have to make due with 16GB.

 

(I hope not. Sorry. )

[Prestonification]

I am hoping YOU are joking. 128GB is only enough if the OS, drivers, and a Single game or program is ALL you want to install to your system. (Not counting word processing or browsers as programs, as they are bare necessity in all computers these days and take less than 1GB each).

 

Also, you do not seem to understand points of failure. The less of anything you have, the less points of failure, the more components, the more points of failure. With storage, 3,2,1 is always best, with the minimum drives necessary to pull it off. 3 copys of ALL data (note games through Uplay, Steam, and Origin all count as one of those copies for them), 2 different versios of the data (for instance one backup drive, one CD/DVD/Blueray), 1 offsite.  Less hard drives, the better (same with every other component). The more you have, the more likely statistically that something is going to fail.

 

Again, I am working off memory, but iirc Raidmax is a low end brand. Also, the 80+ rating has 0 to do with the components inside. The higher the rating, the better components generally, but that is only because as the efficiency goes up, it gets harder to cheap out on the quality to meet the rating.

 

Fair enough, and note you can go RAID 0 in the future if you feel the need. It is completely dependent on your needs, but for most gamers or professionals, 240GB is the minimum to have any free space.

 

I agree with the idea here too. I would love to get more, but on my system it would require a full disassemble, and the prices are too high now anyway. Just have to make due with 16GB.

 

(I hope not. Sorry. )

Fun on friendship!

[nanowatt]

I am hoping YOU are joking. 128GB is only enough if the OS, drivers, and a Single game or program is ALL you want to install to your system. (Not counting word processing or browsers as programs, as they are bare necessity in all computers these days and take less than 1GB each).

 

Also, you do not seem to understand points of failure. The less of anything you have, the less points of failure, the more components, the more points of failure. With storage, 3,2,1 is always best, with the minimum drives necessary to pull it off. 3 copys of ALL data (note games through Uplay, Steam, and Origin all count as one of those copies for them), 2 different versios of the data (for instance one backup drive, one CD/DVD/Blueray), 1 offsite.  Less hard drives, the better (same with every other component). The more you have, the more likely statistically that something is going to fail.

 

Now i am blurry...."The less of anything you have, the less points of failure, the more components, the more points of failure"This is practically right but why does this apply to hdd?If you have lets say 4 hdd's lore likely 1 or more will fail but you will not lose all data if you have one and that will fail you will lose verything

[Sheldon_King]

30 gb is not enough can't disagree here but 60 is just fine windows will take between 15-25 at most and with all the basic programs most likely 10 gb more.On the other hand he is buying more games

Sure, 60GB is enough. You must be happy with a really barebones install of windows.  (It takes (at least on my laptop) 50GB to install JUST windows 7, Firefox, Chrome, Malewarebytes, MSE, and Sony Vegas). If I were on a 60GB drive/partition, that would be full with anything more than a game from 2006 or so, let alone if one needed to run adobe products on it.  128GB would leave still a little room, but drop any AAA game from teh last few years and you are more or less full.

For more info, windows 8.1 on my desktop (250GB partition on 256GB SSD), takes up nearly 100GB with windows, updates, Malewarebytes, drivers, uplay (just the programs, games on HDD), Steam (same), Origin (same), itunes (no media on SSD), Vegas, CS6, and 2 games (Farming sim and ETS2).  a 128GB SSD is FULL there, as in no space to use.

 

Fun on friendship!

Fair enough.

[Prestonification]

Fair enough.

Was a line in grim adventures of billy and mandy if you watched. Other than that keep the conversations going I am entertained :]

[Sheldon_King]

Now i am blurry...."The less of anything you have, the less points of failure, the more components, the more points of failure"This is practically right but why does this apply to hdd?If you have lets say 4 hdd's lore likely 1 or more will fail but you will not lose all data if you have one and that will fail you will lose verything

No, you will not loose everything unless you (you as in the user, not you as in yourself)  are a retard with backups. Again, the less components, the less likely the failure. This does not REPLACE backups. You still should have at least 1 backup, but in the best case have 3 copies in 2 media types with at least one offsite. Otherwise, you are going to loose everything in the case of Burglary, natural disaster or Electrical surge anyway, no matter how many drives you have installed.

[Sheldon_King]

Was a line in grim adventures of billy and mandy if you watched. Other than that keep the conversations going I am entertained :]

I never watched that show... I am more into documentaries than cartoons. 

[nanowatt]

Sure, 60GB is enough. You must be happy with a really barebones install of windows.  (It takes (at least on my laptop) 50GB to install JUST windows 7, Firefox, Chrome, Malewarebytes, MSE, and Sony Vegas). If I were on a 60GB drive/partition, that would be full with anything more than a game from 2006 or so, let alone if one needed to run adobe products on it.  128GB would leave still a little room, but drop any AAA game from teh last few years and you are more or less full.

For more info, windows 8.1 on my desktop (250GB partition on 256GB SSD), takes up nearly 100GB with windows, updates, Malewarebytes, drivers, uplay (just the programs, games on HDD), Steam (same), Origin (same), itunes (no media on SSD), Vegas, CS6, and 2 games (Farming sim and ETS2).  a 128GB SSD is FULL there, as in no space to use.

 

Fair enough.

15 gb windows with all the programs i use all the games,pic and so on are on the hdd.I guess it depends from case to case to case even tho i can't imagine how can windows take 50 gb with basic programs.Sorry for laughing at you without hearing you first but to my ears it still sounds "wrong"

[Sheldon_King]

15 gb windows with all the programs i use all the games,pic and so on are on the hdd.I guess it depends from case to case to case even tho i can't imagine how can windows take 50 gb with basic programs.Sorry for laughing at you without hearing you first but to my ears it still sounds "wrong"

Its okay, we were just on different wavelengths there. And on a desktop, puttings media and the like on a HDD woud be fine, but not every system can do that. For example, I use a laptop with only one HDD/SSD drive bay for most things, and a single SSD must hold everything. Noted I do have several USB hard drives, but have you tried to run a program like Photoshop off a USB2 HDD? It is not a fun task. (let alone importing a 1080p 200GB recording off of it).   We each have different needs, but I still feel that 128GB is a minimum drive for Windows (linux would be a different story, as would BSD (Unix), and OSx).

[Prestonification]

15 gb windows with all the programs i use all the games,pic and so on are on the hdd.I guess it depends from case to case to case even tho i can't imagine how can windows take 50 gb with basic programs.Sorry for laughing at you without hearing you first but to my ears it still sounds "wrong"

 

Its okay, we were just on different wavelengths there. And on a desktop, puttings media and the like on a HDD woud be fine, but not every system can do that. For example, I use a laptop with only one HDD/SSD drive bay for most things, and a single SSD must hold everything. Noted I do have several USB hard drives, but have you tried to run a program like Photoshop off a USB2 HDD? It is not a fun task. (let alone importing a 1080p 200GB recording off of it).   We each have different needs, but I still feel that 128GB is a minimum drive for Windows (linux would be a different story, as would BSD (Unix), and OSx).

I see both points. The storage solution I chose does work for me for many reasons. I also discovered long ago when I did have a 60GB boot drive that the appdata folder got clutter way to easily during my use. But it's subjective.

[Real_PhillBert]

Looks like a pretty solid machine. I gave it a 7/10

 

But FYI:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/18323-rate-the-pc-specs-above-you/

[Prestonification]

Looks like a pretty solid machine. I gave it a 7/10

 

But FYI:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/18323-rate-the-pc-specs-above-you/

Lmfao yea that was the first one I seen. I thought it was fun. Attention whoring(sorry for lack of better phrase) but fun. And thanks.