Are the PC specs good for gaming?

March 24, 2011 at 08:46:45
Specs: Windows 7 Home Premium, i5 2500 / 8GB
Specs include:

CPU: i5 2500 6mb cache
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212+
Mobo: P67 Pro3 LGA 1155
RAM: Corsair 8GB (2x4) 1333
GPU: nVidea GTX 570 1280mb
Primary HDD: Corsair Force Series 60GB SSD
Secondary HDD: 1TB 7200rpm SATAIII
PSU: Corsair TX750 High Efficiency (>80%) Max Output 924W
Optical Drive: 22x
Case: Thermaltake Element G Gaming Case
Audio: Integrated 7.1 Channel HD audio

Will be great to see some feedback?


See More: Are the PC specs good for gaming?

March 24, 2011 at 14:06:56
Why do you even need to ask?

Report •

March 24, 2011 at 15:46:34
Step 1:
Google 'GTX 570 Review'

Honestly though, if you need to ask if a SSD, a new Sandy Bridge CPU, an 8x/8x mobo from Asus, and 8GB of RAM will be 'good for gaming', you might not be as much of a gamer as you think you are. Thats like my grandma asking if a Porsche is good for racing.

In other news, the SATA III 7200 RPM drive is unnecessary, as it will not even use SATA II speeds. SATA II is all it requires to go as fast as it can.

The SSD is a little small, if you ask me the investment is best made in an 80GB or larger drive that you can fit more than an OS on. Games on your SSD are great.

The Corsair PSU is fine.

Report •

March 25, 2011 at 04:25:54
Sorry I admit I asked the question terribly.
What I meant to add was 'what are your thoughts / suggestions. Is it sufficient enough to you, or would you recommend changes?

Yes, I'm well aware the CPU/GPU/RAM are sufficient.

I value your comment on the SSD and the PSU however. I wasnt completely sure about the PSU (i.e. if it would be worth just upping it a bit more).

The SATAIII thing with the HDD was news to me. I just have that drive because it is 1TB, I wasnt too fussed on the fact that it was SATAIII. How exactly do I utilise this more?

And doesnt Windows 7 OS take up like 20GB? I figure 40GB on the SDD will be sufficient enough for preferred games (i.e. empire: total war needs an SSD more than Starcraft 2...You still need to wait for the other players to load the game in SC2 :P)

Report •

Related Solutions

March 25, 2011 at 09:35:17
Windows 7 Home Premium will take up a little more than 20 due to recovery partition, also take into account the SSD usually has less than advertised space because some space is set aside for the controller. Now in the case of the Force Series, I believe they take this into account (thats why they have a 120GB drive and the competition has a 128GB drive, the 8GB is not available on the competition drive so they are actually 120GB).

You'll also want to put some applications on there I'm sure. I don't know if all you do is game, but things like photo/video editors that have to open large files, as well as things like Office are nice to put on there as well. If you aren't interested in all that (or are interested in saving $) then the 60GB will probably be fine. I was just offering some thoughts.

SATA III is just a protocol that allows for higher data transfer rates. So, if you had a drive that could transfer over 300mb/s (3GB/s is the SATA II limit) then you were getting bottlenecked before by SATA II. That wasn't ever a problem, because most platter drives, even 10k Velociraptors, can't break past 200mb/s even in RAID configurations. However, new SSD's actually can break the 3GB/s bottleneck, and hence make good use of the SATA III connection. The 7200RPM drive is going to go as fast as 7200RPM drives go, whether its SATA II or SATA IIIII. In the case of your SSD, it uses a Sandforce controller which peaks at ~285mb/s, so SATA II is fine. Honestly, even the new SATA III SSD's make some concessions to use that speed, and I prefer the balance and value of the Sandforce models too (which the Force series obviously is).

I also just noticed you're rocking the P67 Pro with a non 'K' series i5 2500. Was this intentional? The P67 boards are designed for overclocking, but there is very little overclocking to be done if your CPU isn't the 'K' series, as the multiplier is locked. You could probably switch to an H67 in that case, fine motherboards just weren't designed to overclock.

Report •

March 25, 2011 at 18:00:24
Right, thank you for your description I actually learnt quite a bit there! Cheers.

Well what actually has happened is I dont particularly want to overclock my system. They guy selling me the system says that overclocking a system could burn it out within even 2-8 months, however keeping it at stock speeds will keep it around for a few years.
As such, I didnt pay extra for the 2500K.
Do you agree with what he said about burning out the system? I mean, I'm assuming you overclock your system? Do you need to replace parts often?

I wasn't aware the P67's were designed for overclocking. I guess its bad luck if I paid for more than what I needed. (I paid $1,779 for this system by the way..worth it? Not so much?).

Report •

Ask Question