Ok, before I run through the spec, am I right in thinking that it's still the case that SSD's benefit game loading times very little, and primary use should still be OS/programs, with games being of less a concern?
On to the core spec...
I'm coming from a Q9550 (3.4Ghz), 8Gb, x-Fire 5850's.
I'm swapping over the system, so ignore the Silverstone case in the purchase list below, that will hold the old Q9550 system.
My first high spec basket was this...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2793861/higher.png
Which seemed a bit steep to be honest. So I dropped the spec, and also dropped the SSD (see my opening question in this post).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2793861/lower.png
What do you guys think?
Usage will be desktop/web/programming work, with moderate gaming (but some newer games too - Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, etc). I tend to run my systems for a while, so would rather get more power than I need, but I feel that even the lower spec above would be a massive step for me?
Comments and criticisms welcome, I'm definitely out of touch
.
Cheers!
On to the core spec...
I'm coming from a Q9550 (3.4Ghz), 8Gb, x-Fire 5850's.
I'm swapping over the system, so ignore the Silverstone case in the purchase list below, that will hold the old Q9550 system.
My first high spec basket was this...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2793861/higher.png
Which seemed a bit steep to be honest. So I dropped the spec, and also dropped the SSD (see my opening question in this post).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2793861/lower.png
What do you guys think?
Usage will be desktop/web/programming work, with moderate gaming (but some newer games too - Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, etc). I tend to run my systems for a while, so would rather get more power than I need, but I feel that even the lower spec above would be a massive step for me?
Comments and criticisms welcome, I'm definitely out of touch
.Cheers!










.