Programming/Level Design/Screencasting computer - proposed build

[Dangman]

Firstly I want absolutely nothing to with mATX or ITX or anything else. Just a full size mobo.

Why?

Speaking of mobos, is Gigabyte really all that good? Thinking about build quality here. Of course I linked to an ASrock mobo and the same doubts apply. But how good really are these cheaper mobos by Biostar, ASrock and Gigabyte?

They're generally ok for the most part.

Secondly the RAM you linked to is 1333. Is there any reason, outside of mobo and processor requirements, that I shouldn't spend a tad more and get 1600 or higher?

Price to performance. With your tight budget and the fact that an AMD APU here is not a good idea, higher speed RAM simply isn't worth it. If you were using an AMD APU, then yes higher speed RAM would totally be worth it. But since I'm recommending that it's not a good idea

Thirdly I can't use a 1gb video card. Remember I'm running 1920x1080. That 1gb is not enough as I understand it for some games, of course I'm not playing any of the newer ones, but someday I may, and I'm not really liking the idea of spending $300.00 for a video card for the system. That's $70.00 for the card you recommended and another $230.00 for a good 256 bit card later.

You keep forgeting what I told you earlier: sub $190 cards with 2GB of VRAM aren't worth it as they're not fast enough to take advantage of all that VRAM. This applies to the GPU in an AMD APU as well: They're simply not fast enough to where 2GB of VRAM would be useful. Not to mention that onboard APU uses the system RAM which means less RAM for video editing and gaming work.

Read the Xbitlabs review again: The onboard video of the A10-5800K is outperformed by the $50 HD 6570. I included the even faster HD 6670 1GB card. Adding an addition 1GB of RAM to the onboard video will not make a difference since it's not

AS for the money, with your original build you're still an extra $70 due to the overpriced motherboard and expensive RAM. So either way, you'd still be spending $70 on something you won't need later on.

Fourth I don't really see any negation of getting onboard video then using a card later, especially if I combine the onboard video and the card through Dual or Lucid Virtu. I don't understand your ligic here.

I thought my logic would be pretty easy to see but I guess not. I'll try to take you step by step here:

1) The only big advantage the AMD APUs have over AMD's FX and Intel's CPUs is the integrated video card which offers performance a little lower than the $50 HD 6570 as shown in the above Xbitlabs article. The CPU portion is definitely slower than AMD's own FX CPUs and Intel's Core i5 CPUs in multi and single threaded applications.

2) If you install a dedicated video card, you basically don't need that faster onboard GPU. Thus, you would be stuck with that slower CPU part. You've effectively negated the advantage of the AMD APU. There's nothing else the AMD APUs have that really make it stand out over the other CPUs out there besides its faster onboard video.

3) There's only a small list of compatible cards for Dual GPU and those only include low-end cards. As a result, a dual GPU with the highest-end supported GPU (IIRC, that would be the HD 6670) would still be slower than ANY $190+ 2GB Video card. As for Lucid Virtu, that technology is still relatively new and requires explicit driver support for a game. As such, if there's no Lucid Virtu driver that supports whatever game you're playing, then you won't get the performance benefits. Even if your game was supported, it may not always work well as demonstrated by the posts I referenced to earlier in your other thread.

It's perfectly fine to use a CPU with onboard video until you can afford to buy a dedicated video card. We've recommended that path multiple times here in the forum in past. However, when said CPU's sole advantage over all the other CPUs out there is the faster onboard video, what's the point of going that faster onboard video route when you're going to add a 3rd party video card anyway?

Again, it's just like cooking vegetarian food with bacon fat: Vegetarian food is suppose to be healthier. But if you're going to negate that healthiness with bacon fat, why bother going vegetarian in the first place? Might as well just eat bacon.

All total with your Intel build we're looking at $240.00 for CPU and GPU, or $200.00 for the AMD CPU and GPU. Then an additional $230.00 for a 256 bit card later. So all in that's $430.00 - $470.00 VS $360.00 ($130.00 APU and $230.00 GPU.) I don't know... Just seemed more logical to me to go without a video card for now until I earned one, build this system up as a I go along.

The problem is you're completely ignoring the cost of the motherboard and RAM here. Remember that you also chose an expensive mobo and RAM. That's not something you would need to do with the other platforms considering that you're not planning on overclocking nor have demonstrated a great need for high-end parts. Factor in those costs and you can see that things change completely here:
As noted earlier, your proprosed build costs $314 for the CPU, mobo, RAM, and GPU. My recommended small route costs $318 for the CPU, mobo, RAM, and GPU. My extra costs setup costs $356 for the CPU, mobo, RAM, and GPU. So we're talking a price difference of only $42 even once we add the 256bit card later on.

If we were talking about the same exact RAM and similar mobo, your comparison would be correct. But we're not. We're actually talking specifics here, not generalizations.

In addition, your stated budget was $600. There's still plenty of cash left for the higher performing build. If you stated your budget was $550, then I could understand the reluctance. But with $600? I don't see the problem.

So was the PSU I linked to OK?

It's ok.

 

[DreamBliss]

I just want a full sized motherboard. Easier to work with, less hassles installing components. Personal preference here only.

Well I think I get what you're saying now. The AMD APU processors are awesome as GPUs but suck as, well CPUs. The Intel i5 HD 4000 CPUs suck as GPUs, but rock as CPUs. So if I were to go for a build-up system using integrated video I would be wiser going with Intel. But I have already mentioned this idea elsewhere and this path is not recommended for me.

I may ignore that advice and go with a build-up Intel i5 HD 4000 system anyway. Everything I liked about the AMD APU build-up system would still apply. Except that I couldn't play any games released after 2009 or so on the Intel. So I would want a video card - even a 128 bit one - right away. But I could make do, most of what I would play or mess with doesn't have steep video requirements. It would make me all that more driven to save up for a $200.00 - $400.00 card. The point is I could keep using an i5 for another 6 years or so before I may need anything else. Better upgrade path with the Intel i5 system.

Basically I'm laying a foundation here. The cornerstones are the PSU, MOBO and case. I can always upgrade a processor, in the case if Intel I could go i7. I could always upgrade a video card, or add a video card, as the case may be. I could even upgrade RAM as needed. But replacing either the PSU, MOBO or case means ripping everything apart. So that's why my weird thought process here.

I should also add that I've stated my build budget is $600.00. Here's the rub... I have just under $300.00 saved up for building a system. The rest my parents may loan me in exchange for work I do for them. In other words it is money I can't depend on. The more I need, the less willing they may be willing to give me the cash. However, if I can make this thing as dirt cheap as possible, so they only have to fork over $100.00 or so, then they may be far more willing to give me the cash. Do you understand?

I have a guitar I'm willing to trade either for an older computer or some good quality parts. I'll start a thread in the Trade/For Sale section. It's worth $100.00. If I get that sold, or trade for some of the more expensive parts, then I can breathe a little easier. Ideally I would like to use my own resources to pay for everything and not need any money from my parents. So this is why I'm constantly looking at the costs of things.

Be nice to have thousands of dollars just lying around so I could get the best of everything. But I haven't manifested the reality of that kind of cash yet

I have received some news that, well I'm not sure how I will deal with it. So I may not be back here for a while. But I have started putting together a sort of dream Intel build. I'll post the parts later. I like the case, so it will be the case for my build, PSU will be the same.

Thanks for patiently explaining everything to me. I see your logic and understand it now. I appreciate this extra perspective. It really has been, and is, helping me.

 

[Dangman]

I may ignore that advice and go with a build-up Intel i5 HD 4000 system anyway.

That may not the best of ideas. The cheapest available Core i5 with the HD 4000 GPU is the $223 Core i5 3570K. That's a full $47 more than the Core i5 2310. As shown and mentioned above numerous times, the $50 HD 6570 absolutely outperforms the HD 4000. So for a 10% hit in CPU performance by going with the Core i5 2310 + HD 6570 route, you'll gain a 20% to 40% performance increase in GPU performance depending on the game for the same price as the Core i5 3570K.

Since you have not mentioned living near a Microcenter, plans to overclock, or even have the budget to afford an overclocking setup, that basically defeats the majority of reasons to go with the Core i5 3570K. In addition, if it's gonna take you longer than six months to earn the money for a dedicated $200 video card, the Core i5 2310 + HD 6570 route would ease the wait for a better dedicated card later on.

I should also add that I've stated my build budget is $600.00. Here's the rub... I have just under $300.00 saved up for building a system. The rest my parents may loan me in exchange for work I do for them. In other words it is money I can't depend on. The more I need, the less willing they may be willing to give me the cash. However, if I can make this thing as dirt cheap as possible, so they only have to fork over $100.00 or so, then they may be far more willing to give me the cash. Do you understand?

I understand. But as you clearly saw, $50 makes a huge difference in the overall performance of the system. So here's what I recommend: If you absolutely cannot get your parents to give you the $250 to $300 for work, then just forget about the build and try to save up the normal way. Unless you absolutely need the PC right away, you're better off not relying on your parents and just save up as much as you can over time. If you can wait, wait. If you can't, try to wrangle as much as money as you can get out of your parents for work.

 

[DreamBliss]

Well I'm back and things have changed again...

I've been staring at this chart:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-2100+@+3.10GHz&id=749

Please let me know if this information is bad or good. Assuming that it is good, looking at price performance, I can get these two, I'm leaning towards the first one:
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD8320FRH...F8&qid=1359105776&sr=1-1&keywords=amd+fx-8320
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FX-8350-E...F8&qid=1359105831&sr=1-1&keywords=amd+fx-8350

The second one, while gaining nearly 1,000 points, may be more than I can afford. Thinking about using the PSU, case and Saphire card someone suggested, and this processor - the FX-8320. According the the charts it outperforms all Intel i3 CPUs and a few i5s. It's right up there with a handful of i7s. Essentially this is as close as someone can get to a cream of the crop processor under $200.00 new without some sort of special deal. Sure the i7s may be double the point, but they are also triple the price.

Really after looking at this I don't know what Intel's deal is and I don't care. They give some i5s the HD 4000 then disable Hyperthreading. Or give some Hyperthreading but either no GPU or HD 2000 which is useless in my opinion. Despite the fact that I would be stuck with AMD and possible bad driver support, I don't want to go with Intel and its overpriced stuff. Especially when the price in some cases does not equal a huge jump on performance. Look at the prices surrounding the AMD CPU. Nearly twice as much! Move down and see some way overpriced i7s!

So no offense to any fanboys around here, but if thus chart is even remotely accurate it tells me Intel doesn't really want my business. If they did they would have some processors in the AMD 8 core price range that would beat the socks of the AMDs. In the end I just don't want to support a company like that.

Sorry for the rant. Please let me know about this chart, I'll look for more info later. I'll be redesigning my final build in the coming week or so. Purchasing the second week of next month I think. Have a headache right now, going to check out onboard video mobos for AMD and call it a night. I think I will be happy with this $170.00 processor. It would certainly hold its own against many of its Intel competitors. Looks like, for now at least, the integrated video idea is dead as well as the Intel dream build.

 

[Dangman]

I've been staring at this chart:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-2100+@+3.10GHz&id=749

Disregard anything from this website. It's all synthetic benchmarks which have little to no bearing on real world apps and games. As such, it means nothing.

Sure the i7s may be double the point, but they are also triple the price

Something you should learn about computer hardware pricing: Prices do not scale 1:1 with performance. This is the case for AMD, Nvidia, Intel, and any other hardware manufacturer.

In addition, which i7s are you talking? Do you not realize that there are multiple versions and models of the Core i7 lineup? Triple the price of what? Again, where are the specifics?

So no offense to any fanboys around here, but if thus chart is even remotely accurate it tells me Intel doesn't really want my business. If they did they would have some processors in the AMD 8 core price range that would beat the socks of the AMDs. In the end I just don't want to support a company like that.

The problem, as noted earlier, is that chart is completely useless.
As I noted earlier in your other thread, Intel does not need to drop their prices at all to compete against AMD. Intel is beating the crap out of AMD when it comes to desktop CPU sales and that's not due to fanboys. There's numerous legit reasons why one shoulg go Intel over AMD. I'm gonna quote myself:

The problem is that the higher prices for Intel CPUs are generally justified since they provide higher single-threaded performance (of which most PC games are), use significantly less power, and generates less heat. Not to mention that once you hit the mid to high-end range, AMD's multi-threaded performance advantage gets smaller and smaller and can even be defeated outright once overclocking is involved.

So until AMD has released CPUs that use just as much power as current Intel CPUs while providing better performance in both multi-threaded and single threaded applications, Intel isn't going to lower their prices on their mid to high-end CPUs to compete with AMD. There's already been a price reduction of sorts with Intel's lower-end CPUs however. The only reason why AMD CPUs are priced relatively low is to better compete against Intel. If AMD CPUs were the same prices as Intel CPUs, the case to go AMD would be even smaller.

So for gaming, you're better off with Intel due to their higher gaming performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/702?vs=697

The above is a comparison between the $188 Core i5 3470 and $200 AMD FX-8350. Not exactly a fair comparison but close enough. While yes the FX-8350 does trump the Core i5 3470 in multi-threaded apps, it loses in single-threaded application. Also note there will be a massive power and heat difference between the two CPUs with the FX-8350 getting the brunt of it.

Sorry for the rant.

You shouldn't be ranting about anything if you're not 100% sure about the accuracy of source or are relatively new to the computer hardware scene. This whole thread should have shown that you shouldn't rush to conclusions.

going to check out onboard video mobos for AMD and call it a night.

I can help you right there: Just assume that you'll need a dedicated GPU with an AMD mobo and don't bother looking at the AMD AM3+ and AM3 mobos with onboard video. AMD has stopped support for the HD 4xxx GPUs that are found in the AMD AM3 and AM3+ mobos with the 880G and 890GX chipsets. As such, if you ever pair an AMD card to the system later or some game has some issue with the HD 4xxx, you're SOL and JWF.

I can vouch for this because that is exactly what happened to me: I cannot use the latest AMD driver for my HD 6850 while the onboard HD 4290 GPU is enabled on my motherboard. As such, I had to disable the onboard to use the latest driver for the my HD 6850.

 

[DreamBliss]

OK so that chart is useless. So please give me an alternative. I want to stack the Intel i3, i5 and i7s against the AMD Phenom and FX. All retail releases and versions of these CPUs. I want it down in black and white which processor comes out ahead in price/performance. Also why is the chart I linked to something I should disregard? Thank you for the review link, looking now.

You are correct, I should not rush to conclusions. But I am getting tired of the Intel is better spiel. Hopefully someone can give me a link to a reputable, accurate and easy-to-reference chart to back up this statement.

Already threw out integrated video mobos as an option.

Thank you for your quick and direct response.

 

[Dangman]

OK so that chart is useless. So please give me an alternative.

I gave you an alternative right in my response.

I want it down in black and white which processor comes out ahead in price/performance.

The problem is things aren't black and white in the computer hardware performance world considering that power consumption, heat generation, and the fact that there are certain situations that favor Intels and other situations that favor AMD.

Also why is the chart I linked to something I should disregard?

Again, I answered that in my earlier response.

You are correct, I should not rush to conclusions. But I am getting tired of the Intel is better spiel. Hopefully someone can give me a link to a reputable, accurate and easy-to-reference chart to back up this statement.

If you actually had bothered to read reviews as I've mentioned multiple times before in this thread, that should have been apparent right from the get-go. Here are some reviews that should have popped up:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/22/amd_fx8350_piledriver_processor_ipc_overclocking/1
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/1
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_2.html#sect0
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed

 

[DreamBliss]

I wasn't looking for reviews. I wanted a bird's eye view of the situation. I don't know what "synthetic benchmarks" are or why they are bad, hence my question.

I stepped away a bit, looked at the $299.99 i7 with HD 4000 and mentally crunched some numbers... Essentially the HD 4000 is, roughly, a 900MHz 128 bit video card and CPU. So if I used the $120.00 Saphire 7770 as an example for what you would generally pay for a $120.00 128 bit card at the low end, then that would leave me 180.00 for the processor. Looking at it that way I can swallow the higher price tag of Intel.

So I'm going to step away for a few days and digest this. Obviously if I blow my wad on an Intel i7 I'm getting, more than likely, an awesome processor. I wouldn't need to upgrade for some time. I would still have a build-as-you-go path. But I really just don't want to support Intel. But then again who says AMD is any better?

Yeah I noticed the comparison feature there. I'll consult it briefly before I shut down for the next few days.

Later!

 

[Dangman]

I wasn't looking for reviews. I wanted a bird's eye view of the situation.

Not always the best route. Reviews can help you drill down to the essentials. As shown in the multiple reviews I posted, there are good reasons why the "Intel is better" spiel pop ups a lot of times.

I don't know what "synthetic benchmarks" are or why they are bad, hence my question.

Then you could have just asked that question.

To answer your question:

Traditionally the benchmarks you find in 90% of the reviews online are what is known as synthetic in nature. This means that the benchmarks itself does not actually perform a function outside of producing numbers and data used to provide a comparison. An example would be Sisoft Sandra and 3DMark06 and 3DMark Vantage. These programs exist so you can compare your machine against other sets of machines already benchmarked. The number provided by 3DMark06 for example gives relative performance and in and of itself does not give you a useful idea of the performance of the system or component. For example lets say we used benchmark A on a test system and received a score of 20,000 points. What does that score tell you? It tells you nothing unless you have another system, hopefully several, to compare it against. It is only when this data is compared against other systems the hardware for which is known does the data begin to provide a sense of positioning or performance.

Compare that to Real World Benchmarks:

Real World Benchmarks

On the opposite end of the spectrun are real world benchmarks. These are traditionally programs that began life offering functionality not aimed at providing scores or numbers. Examples of which are audio encoding programs, video and 3D rendering, office applications, and video games. These programs when used as benchmarks are known as real world benchmarks because they are applications that the traditional users will actually run in every day life. Few people outside of game, benchmark developers, and hardware manufacturers, create a system solely to be a benchmark platform and deliver scores on. The average consumer buys or builds a machine to run office applications, play games, create video and audio, and to access information both online and locally. So for the average consumer the real world benchmarks carry much more meaning but are often overlooked.

Real World benchmarks are much more difficult to interpret for the average consumer as they are much more subjective. Variables are introduced into running these benchmarks which can wildly affect the results. Most websites do not provide enough information when reporting real world benchmarks to enable someone to accurately read the results and place them into perspective. Websites like HardOCP have been big proponents for real world benchmarking and trying to educate people on the need for such results.

I stepped away a bit, looked at the $299.99 i7 with HD 4000 and mentally crunched some numbers... Essentially the HD 4000 is, roughly, a 900MHz 128 bit video card and CPU. So if I used the $120.00 Saphire 7770 as an example for what you would generally pay for a $120.00 128 bit card at the low end, then that would leave me 180.00 for the processor. Looking at it that way I can swallow the higher price tag of Intel.

Again, not the proper way to look at things. You're neglecting the fact that not all 128bit video cards perform the same due to the difference in GPU architecture. As shown in the XbitLabs review that I posted earlier, the HD 4000 gets trumped by the $50 HD 6570 and only outperforms the $37 HD 6450. So at best, you're looking at a $43.50 GPU that's part of the $220 Core i5 3570K or $300 Core i7 3770.

But I really just don't want to support Intel.

New to the computer hardware world and you're already developing a bias based on incomplete and improper information gathering.

But then again who says AMD is any better?

Like I've been saying, there are some situations where an AMD system makes sense if one is willing to completely ignore or accept the increased power usage and heat generation.

 

[DreamBliss]

OK first off an apology as needed to anyone requiring it. I am not ignoring suggestions or advice here. I've read everything everyone said, gone the review/benchmark route, tried a few other angles, basically went through the ringer and came out the other side. Looks like I might be able to spend $700.00. So after a long period of blood, sweat and tears here is my latest, and hopefully last, proposed build:

Corsair Carbide Series 200R Compact ATX Case

Corsair Vengeance Blue 8 GB (2X4 GB) PC3-12800 1600mHz DDR3 240-Pin SDRAM Dual Channel Memory Kit

EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Duke's Fully Loaded Package 1024 MB GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 2DVI/Mini-HDMI SLI Ready Graphics Card

Intel Core i3-3220 Dual-Core Processor

OR

Intel Core-i5 3350P Quad-Core Processor'

Seasonic 80Plus Power Supply M12II 620 BRONZE

MSI LGA1155/Intel H77/DDR3/SATA3&USB3.0/A&GbE/ATX Motherboard

Lite-On Super AllWrite 24X SATA DVD+/-RW Dual Layer Drive

Seagate Barracuda 7200 500 GB SATA 6.0 Gb-s 16 MB Cache 3.5-Inch Internal Bare Drive

I would really like to shave $25.00 - $50.00 off this if I can to give me some breathing room. I'm going to price NewEgg and TigerDirect tomorrow, compare totals with shipping and tax.

PLEASE NOTE! I have been instructed to stick with the following video cards: Radeon 6870, 7850 and GeForce 460,560, 660. Additionally I want at least 500w for the power supply, prefer 550 - 600+! Also I am looking for new or refurbished stuff, as this comes with a warranty and return policy. So keep that in mind for part suggestions you may have.

If you are a user of this forum in good standing and you have a used part that you will sell me and save me some money that way, let me know the part and price. I do have a Gibson Epiphone Acoustic Dreadnaught guitar I'm willing to trade some stuff for, and will be putting a post up for that later now that I have reached the proper post count. You can contact me with a PM. I think this forums has a PM system...

For all suggestions please also include your reasoning in great detail. I need to see things from your perspective and understand why you have made the suggestions you made.

Thank you for your continuing help. One more week to purchase!

 

[Dangman]

Whoever told you to get the GTX 560 at its current $190 price tag was an idiot. The GTX 560 is stupidly overpriced at that point considering that it only has 1GB of VRAM, uses more power than other similarily priced cards, and is considerably slower than the similarily priced HD 7850 2GB. The GTX 560 1GB only makes sense if you can get it for $140 to $150 AT MOST.

At the $190+ price point, there's really only one choice for a new card: The HD 7850 2GB since it's the right balance of power and price:
http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-mini...f=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1359819470

RAM wise, considering your tight budget and that the tangible beneifts are virtually nil if non-exisistent, you don't need DDR3 1600 RAM. Go for cheaper DDR3 1333 RAM instead:
40 - Patriot PSD38G13332 8GB DDR3 1333 RAM

Again, due to your budget and the fact that you have not made a good case for it, drop the motherboard down to this Gigabyte:
http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-Inte...f=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1359819571

CPU wise, spend the extra cash for the Core i5. It'll last longer than the Core i3 when it comes to future games. Hell there are games now that'll take advantage of those extra two cores.

While I applaud your willingness to support HardOCP, in case of the PSU, unless you absolutely need modular cables, I don't think it's a good idea to get that Seasonic considering that you can get the Antec Neo Eco 520C for $50 shipped now:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371030

Hell if you buy before February 6, you can knock off another $10 (+ $10 off w/ promo code EMCXWTW73, ends 2/6) off that Antec for a total of $40 shipped. That Antec is based on the same Seasonic PSU design as the Seasonic M12II 620. As such, you're more or less getting the same quality. Up to you if the modular cables + 100W are worth the extra $30 to $40.

 

[DreamBliss]

OK, thank you for your feedback.

To be fair, the people that suggested the 560 did also allude to the fact that the cards are overpriced. I asked where video cards are being sold online and new for the price they should be and have not received a reply.

Think I had that Gigabyte video card in my list. So I can go with that instead. Will think about the Antec PSU. Is that one of the silly ones which come without a power cord?

I think I originally picked that mobo because I wanted to play with UEFI if I could. It was $100.00+ I think, and it has since dropped to $80.00, but I will look at the Gigabyte board. I did say I want to shave off some money.

I really would like to stick to 8 gigs of 16000 RAM. Might as well get the fastest and best if the price difference is less than $10.00.

I agree that the i5 processor is probably the one I should get. Just listed the i3 because it's a juggling contest right now. How much can I squeeze into $700.00? Better way to think of it is how much can I squeeze into $600.00, then that gives me $100.00 slack.

I'll price stuff at NewEgg and Tiger tonight.

So the parts I picked are good at least?

 

[Dangman]

To be fair, the people that suggested the 560 did also allude to the fact that the cards are overpriced. I asked where video cards are being sold online and new for the price they should be and have not received a reply.

The only times I've ever seen the GTX 560 TI for $140 is in our FS/FT subforum and used models from geeks.com.

Will think about the Antec PSU. Is that one of the silly ones which come without a power cord?

Yes.

I think I originally picked that mobo because I wanted to play with UEFI if I could. It was $100.00+ I think, and it has since dropped to $80.00, but I will look at the Gigabyte board. I did say I want to shave off some money.

That Gigabyte does have a UEFI interface. May not be as slick as MSI's implementation but still UEFI.

I really would like to stick to 8 gigs of 16000 RAM. Might as well get the fastest and best if the price difference is less than $10.00.

In any case, I would not go with that specific Corsair RAM if you plan on using a 3rd party air-cooling HSF later on as the tall heatsinks on that RAM will interfere with most air-cooling HSF. However, if you plan on using an all-in-one liquid cooling kit or plan on sticking with the stock HSF, then that Corsair RAM will be ok.

So the parts I picked are good at least?

Well with the exception of the video card, your planned parts list is ok. But there were improvements to be had.