Building a new system!

[Rogue Nine]

Okay techheads, I've decided it's high time for me to seriously look into putting together a new box for myself. My old one has serviced me for quite a few years now, but is definitely starting to show her age. I would like for her replacement to be able to keep up relatively well with the current trends in processor power and gaming graphics without being too much of a strain on the wallet. Realistically, I'd like to keep it under $800 USD, but I know that's probably a pipe dream with my aspirations. But hopefully you all can help me out somehow!

 

After doing a fair bit of research, I've patched together a rough list of what I'd like in my new box (all are under Newegg pricing, because I'm a fanboy )

 

Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX - $95

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz - $230

RAM: G.SKILL 2GB DDR2 800 - $50

GPU: SAPPHIRE ATI Radeon HD 3850 256MB - $180

HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB - $85

OS: Windows Vista Home Premium x64 - $105

CD/DVD ROM: ASUS DVD+R 8X - $40

 

Rough Total (not including taxes/shipping): $785

 

I can be swayed on almost all of these items, specifically the CPU (could go for the E6550 @ $170 or the E6420 @ $200) or the RAM (lots of choices, I'm partial to Corsair or OCZ). I would really like to get the GPU at that price, since I've read that it outperforms its Nvidia contemporaries in almost everything. I figure to tack on a few more expenses, probably a geeky-looking case for $30-$50, maybe a decent sound card.

 

Tech geeks of LF, please take a look at what I've got so far and make recommendations/critiques. I've been out of the computer scene for a while, so I've probably made a few iffy/incompatible/downright stupid choices, so feel free to let me know how I could improve this, and/or help me cut costs. Thanks! :3

[tk102]

Don't forget the awesome Antec case if you don't already have one. I've got the P182 and I was impressed with the numerous design features. Highly recommended.

 

They make nice power supplies too and I believe Darth333 got one bundled with her last case purchase.

[Thrik]

Don't get the E6600.

 

The Q6600 recently dropped in price after a new, more efficient version of the Q6600 was released; in the UK you can get it for just £20 more than the E6600, and from a quick look at Google Products the difference is only $20 in the US:

 

E6600: http://www.google.com/products?q=e6600

Q6600: http://www.google.com/products?q=q6600

 

This is one of the best hardware deals in quite some time as far as value for money goes. Quite why the E6600 hasn't also dropped I don't know, but four cores of 3GHz is not be sniffed at.

 

Also, unlike newer E6600 revisons these new Q6600s almost always overclock to at least 3GHz with standard air cooling, which happens to be what I've got mine overclocked to. Just make sure you look for the 'G0 Stepping' version, which is the newer, more efficient model and thus runs cooler.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Niner I'm cutting off your supply of me if you get Vista on purpose.

[Astrotoy7]

Niner I'm cutting off your supply of me if you get Vista on purpose.

 

lolz...well that's just ridiculous. Not talking to someone just because of an OS. wtf ? poor niner - to have such maladjusted confederates

 

 

@Niner - Im disappointed with the techies not asking you the most important question first ! :

 

*What do you intend to do with this pc ?

>>Which apps, which games, and what rez do you game at ??

 

Im a smallform fan myself, they fit under your arm All the pcs in my house are shuttle smallforms now, theyre decent on your power bills too. The SN37P2 and similar are quad core ready and will run the core2duo in the interim if thats what you end up getting.

 

more info at http://www.shuttle.com

 

a bit pricier than a standard case but hell of alot more sexier, and portable When I had a monster sized case, I never used to Lan game, but its a natural thing to do when you have such a portable rig. Laptops are of course portable too, but to get a lappie with an 8800M processor is supremely more expensive than popping an 8800GTs/x or similar in a rig of your choice. Easier to cool a high end card in a smallform than a laptop

 

Ive noticed you chosen x64 and coupled it with 2GB RAM only. Please make sure you take into consideration the apps you use/need and research their vista and or/vista x64 compatibility. I am a very satisfied x64 user, and the x86 emulation is superb in vista(compared to xp x64). I do run 4GB corsair xms and can report on superior performance in video editing and encoding apps. If your happy to stay at under 3gb, you might as well just use x86.

 

once youve done your research and youve found there is a significant number of apps youuse that may be a bit dicey in vista, then you may want to stick to xp

 

good luck - if you have any more x64 specific queries, fire away, both stinger and I are running vista x64 rigs nowdays.

 

essential tidbit:

If you play a variety of media files >> make sure you install the vista codec pack and the x64 componenst add on. Includes ffdshow, haali/matroska/xvid, everything. Highly tweakable. As someone with 2 full time vista mediacenter hometheater pcs, and one x64 gaming rig, this is a must install !! (vista codec pack on its own is cross platform)

 

WMP11 is x86 by default, but even switching it to x64 via cmd line, still leaves some filetypes open it in x86 mode. Some codecs wont work in x64 WMP/mediacenter until you have installed versions that are configured to play in that environment.

 

downloadable all over the place, but I like to keep track of it at the compilers site >>

 

http://shark007.testbox.dk/

 

good luck !!

 

mtfbwya

[Thrik]

I'd have to highly recommend that you use the 64-bit version if you're installing a new system. The industry is inevitably going to go completely in the direction of 64-bit, if nothing else for the memory (RAM) limit 32-bit has.

 

Critically though, there's no clean upgrade path from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows, so the only option is a total format/install and the labour of reinstalling all your stuff and getting all your data onto something else so you can transfer it back later. I may be alone on this, but this is one of the most unenjoyable processes imaginable for me.

 

I've been using Vista 64-bit for a while now, and I've had no significant problems with anything thus far. Everything I've wanted to use, ranging from games to Adobe's multimedia applications, all runs flawlessly. Vista's 32-bit emulation is so strong that you'd hardly know there's anything going if you didn't know better; and unlike the emulation you're probably used to, it doesn't slow down your applications.

 

Regarding the smaller PC cases, do cards like the 8800 GTX actually fit in those things? The GTS is pretty big, but the GTX is even bigger and has trouble fitting in many normal PC cases. I wouldn't be surprised if the 9800 ends up being a monster too.

[Astrotoy7]

@thrik - those cases are designed with high end gaming in mind. They will fit standard 8800GTS and 8800GTX neatly and nicely There are some AC overclocked editions of these cards by EVGA that wont fit due to their extra heatsink tacked on. I myself run an evga 8800GTS 640mb. Considering its a smallform case with a card with such a large heatsink/fan attached - it is remarkably quiet !

 

anyway >> back to niners rig

 

mtfbwya

[Ray Jones]

Mister Nine, I think you should stick with Windows XP, especially if you already got a copy, because that would save you some more bucks. Alternatively you'd spend those 100 credits for additional RAM or something. And I mean, which real advantage would Vista give you over XP anyway? I assume you have better things to do with the additional resources Vista *will* take from your system. Especially when you could have 4 GiB of RAM instead.

 

 

As for a 64 Bit OS, which common software is using natively 64 Bit today? And what do you need a 64 Bit OS for, when none of the software you're going to use is 64 Bit?

[Rogue Nine]

Well, I'll admit that I wanted to get Vista x64 for the very reasons Thrik stated. Technology is making leaps and bounds everyday and I kind of want to make this system last for at least a couple of years while staying relatively up to date. Since things will probably go x64 eventually, I just wanted to be ahead of the curve.

 

And I'd be using this rig mostly for just general use, with the occasional computer game. The only games I play nowadays that are graphically intensive are Guild Wars (which runs totally fine) and Hellgate: London (which has its hiccups, being a brand-new game running on an older video card and processor). I'd like to be able to run Hellgate at decent settings, nothing mindblowing, but just better than the choppy crappiness I get right now. Plus, Guild Wars 2 is bound to be out late next year and I'm pretty sure it'll be quite the pretty game, and I want to be sure I can appreciate that to the fullest extent.

 

Now, I have a copy of XP that I'm running on my current system, I couldn't use that on my new rig, could I? Because while having a new OS would be nice, saving a little bit more money would be nicer. Maybe I could use it to buy that Q6600 that Thrik suggested (darn you Thriky, making me spend more when I want to save! )

[Ray Jones]

Well, I'll admit that I wanted to get Vista x64 for the very reasons Thrik stated. Technology is making leaps and bounds everyday and I kind of want to make this system last for at least a couple of years while staying relatively up to date. Since things will probably go x64 eventually, I just wanted to be ahead of the curve.

You are already kind of ahead of the curve when you have 64 Bit hardware, because that means you could go 64 Bit OS any time. However, right now, there is not much software running natively 64 Bit, that means your 64 Bit OS runs at 32 Bit compatibility mode most of the time. Why would you do that? Plus, there will be software/drivers not running at all on systems with a 64 Bit OS. That is why I switched back to 32 Bit too.

 

And I'd be using this rig mostly for just general use, with the occasional computer game.

Another reason why you must not go Vista or 64Bit now. Another pro for staying XP would be that you should be able to keep that software you are using now, without that you need to obtain "vista compatible" stuff.

 

Now, I have a copy of XP that I'm running on my current system, I couldn't use that on my new rig, could I?

Hmmm. Technically you have a license, and in case you "delete" that old installation.. Cannot say for sure though.

 

Have you considered getting a nVidia card, btw?

[Thrik]

As for a 64 Bit OS, which common software is using natively 64 Bit today? And what do you need a 64 Bit OS for, when none of the software you're going to use is 64 Bit?

32-bit Windows cannot use more than 3GB of RAM, so part of the 4GB of RAM you just mentioned yourself would be entirely useless. This is the leading argument most people use for 64-bit, and is also why 64-bit is inevitable and not just a 'maybe'.

 

And also as I said, there's no clean upgrade route from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows. As such, why not just get on board now? Vista 64-bit is so good at supporting 32-bit software you'd hardly know there was a difference; additionally, every significant manufacturer produces 64-bit drivers for their hardware. It's much, much better than 64-bit XP.

[Thrik]

As for program compatibility, almost all 32-bit software works without incident on 64-bit Vista. Additionally, the chances are that the manufacturer for your hardware has 64-bit drivers unless you're using hardware that's more than a few years old. And even then, some such as NVIDIA still give you drivers.

 

The only problems you're likely to encounter are when you try to install a really old game with a 16-bit installer; however, most of these games have had patches (official or unofficial) to allow installation.

 

It's important to understand that running 32-bit applications on 64-bit Vista does not cause significant performance loss, even if it is technically emulation. 'Compatibility' and 'emulation' doesn't always have to mean performance loss, although this is an understandable perception as most people's only exposure to the word 'emulation' is with old video game consoles.

 

Your arguments would be been appropriate about a year ago Ray when driver support was admittedly flaky, but now things have moved on.

[Rogue Nine]

I thought about getting the GeForce 8600GT, until I heard and read up on how it underperforms and is generally not the way to go for gaming. I've been a pretty staunch Nvidia user for a while, my last three cards being part of the GeForce series, but I decided to give ATi a looksie. I did some reading up on the current generation of Radeon cards and was pretty impressed by the way the 3850 handled itself. It's similarly priced to the 8600, but seems to consistently seems to outperform it's Nvidia contemporary, which is why I've decided to give it a shot.

 

The 8800 series, while very nice and definitely something I'd want, is priced quite high and that makes getting one pretty much out of the question. And with Nvidia having nothing comparable to the Radeon 3850 down the line from the 8800, that was enough for me to decide to go ATi.

[Ray Jones]

32-bit Windows cannot use more than 3GB of RAM, so part of the 4GB of RAM you just mentioned yourself would be entirely useless. This is the leading argument most people use for 64-bit, and is also why 64-bit is inevitable and not just a 'maybe'.

OK, he could buy only 3 Gigs, alternatively, and get more once he switches to 64 Bit.

 

And also as I said, there's no clean upgrade route from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows. As such, why not just get on board now? Vista 64-bit is so good at supporting 32-bit software you'd hardly know there was a difference;

I think a clean fresh install of 64 Bit (no matter which OS) will do better than any upgrade anyway. Why not Vista now? Because the same hardware performs better with XP. And since Niner does not want to spend a truckload of dollars for his new PC, I simply suggested that he'd have a better performing PC and saves money when he keeps on using his Windows XP. That is all.

 

And in case he'd go Vista, he sure as hell has at least one program where he needs to get the Vista version for.

 

 

additionally, every significant manufacturer produces 64-bit drivers for their hardware. It's much, much better than 64-bit XP.

64 Bit drivers is not the problematic issue about an 64 Bit OS. Mostly you will use applications, and there are not many using 64 Bit. And some software will not run on 64 Bit, even with emulated compatibility modes. So why buy 64 Bit stuff, when you want to stay low cost, and no software will take the advantage of 64 Bit anyway?

 

Or is there any software you use that is 64 Bit only?

[Darth333]

Btw, if you don't get the q6600, the e6750 is much cheaper than the e6600 (the first gen core 2 duo cpus were more expensive): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115029

 

As for the video card, the radeon 3850 is currently the only real mid range card that's worth looking at (if you are ready to put a bit more money on the gpu, the 3870 offers a great preformance/price ratio) See this thread for more info: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183735

[Thrik]

Ray I've already made the argument about 32-bit compatibility, and once again will reaffirm it: almost nothing doesn't work on Vista 64-bit. I've yet to encounter one, and I've got a huge range of applications installed on my computer.

 

As for buying 64-bit stuff, Windows Vistas comes with both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions at no extra cost; there's absolutely no financial decision to be made between the two, unlike XP.

 

And finally, I once again bring up my original point of there being no clean upgrade path to 64-bit, which means a reformat is inevitable, just like moving to 64-bit is inevitable (4GB+ of RAM will become the norm). Why do it in a year or so instead of now? Reformatting is a huge ball ache.

[Thrik]

Rogue Nine, is the NVIDIA 8800GT (brand new) out of your price range? Like the Q6600, it's a much more efficient revision of the 8800 series and delivers performance roughly halfway between the 8800 GTS 640mb and the 8800 GTX 768mb, yet at a price roughly equivalent to the 8800 GTS 320mb.

 

It's another 'value for money' biggie right now and a lot of people are falling over themselves to get one. Performance-wise it gets about 70 fps in Oblivion: Shivering Isles as opposed to the 3850's 40 (compare the red line on this page to the green line on this page. The NVIDIA's shader performance gives it a big boost in certain games.

 

Only things to consider, of course. By no means is your current GPU choice a bad one; it's just I have a small fetish for graphics.

[Rogue Nine]

The cheapest I can find a 8800GT for is around $260-280, which is about $100 more than I wanted to spend for a GPU. If I tack on the $50 more for the Q6600 and keep the $105 for the Vista x64, that's brings up the total to $935, which isn't bad, since I want to future-proof my system as much as possible, but I don't know if I have that much to spend. There's a reason I set a limit on myself. :S

 

If I keep XP (assuming I can use my current version), go with the E6750 that D3 suggested and stick with the Radeon 3850, that knocks about $130 off the price, bringing it down to $655, which is a more manageable price.

 

I haven't even factored in the case yet. I was planning on just getting a $30 case that comes with a 450W PSU, since those Antecs, while nice, are another $100+ expense and they don't come with PSUs. :x

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Ray I've already made the argument about 32-bit compatibility, and once again will reaffirm it: almost nothing doesn't work on Vista 64-bit.

Holy ****. Vista 64-bit runs stuff? Currently, XP Pro is faster than Vista (LOL CRYSIS) and has even less compatibility issues, and SP3 will increase the speed gap between Vista and XP even more.

 

And since Niner's probably not doing any encoding or 3D rendering, why would he need a full 4 GB of RAM anyway?

 

As for your future-proofing argument, Microsoft has confirmed that they're working on a new OS that's due out in 2010. Given that the wait for Vista was by far the longest wait between versions of Windows, I'd say it'll probably be out around that time. IMO, Microsoft knows they ****ed up with Vista and are going to get this new version on the market as soon as possible.

[stingerhs]

^^^^

yeah, Vista 64-bit runs stuff. i should know: i use it daily. you know what? i really don't give a rat's turd that XP runs at a measly 10FPS better on most games. what i do care about is that Vista works rather nicely with my system, and Vista has few compatibility problems in my own personal experience. i could go on about why i actually prefer Vista over XP, but quite frankly, i'm getting tired of trying to shout over the voices of the naive and inexperienced.

 

lol, and the previous statement coming to you from somebody that was willing to dump XP for Linux. guess what?? i never really got into Linux. i installed it and fiddled with it for a while. then, i found Vista. the rest is history.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

^^^^

yeah, Vista 64-bit runs stuff. i should know: i use it daily. you know what? i really don't give a rat's turd that XP runs at a measly 10FPS better on most games. what i do care about is that Vista works rather nicely with my system, and Vista has few compatibility problems in my own personal experience. i could go on about why i actually prefer Vista over XP, but quite frankly, i'm getting tired of trying to shout over the voices of the naive and inexperienced.

I've used every version of Vista since the first beta and I test drove an alpha of Longhorn. And clearly your vast amount of experience as an IT EXPERT explains away the fact that a majority of businesses aren't even willing to switch to Vista until SP1 if at all and a large number of OEMs and customers are reverting back to XP.

 

i could go on about why i actually prefer Vista over XP

Dodged a bullet on that one. You might have had to back up your argument with something other than "I LIKE IT BETTER SO I AM RIGHT YOU'RE AN IDIOT KBAI".

 

lol, and the previous statement coming to you from somebody that was willing to dump XP for Linux.

Yes, clearly because I prefer *nix systems (I switched my server to FreeBSD by the way) to XP that means I hate XP (I actually just rebooted into SP3).

 

guess what?? i never really got into Linux. i installed it and fiddled with it for a while.

Facinating. I'll bet that month of using Kubuntu netted you enough experience with *nix to pass judgment over every distro ever made. Ever.

[Thrik]

Do you really think games won't be routinely making good use of at least 4GB of RAM before 2010, jmac? Seriously? Bear in mind that by 2010 we'll be looking down the barrel of a whole new generation of consoles, and who knows what kind of PC games considering how much we've moved on since 2004.

 

2GB of RAM was considered an extremely rare luxury in 2005, but now it's become very widespread. I've every reason to believe that 4GB will become similarly widespread before 2010, and to use it people need to have 64-bit Windows Vista -- as simple as that. If the majority of gamers aren't using 64-bit Vista by 2010 I'll give you a cookie.

 

Whether or not Microsoft replace the OS in 2010 is an irrelevant point. That's about three years away! The user base of Vista is already significant, and it's only going to get larger now that XP is on the verge not being distributed any more and Vista is pre-installed on almost all new PCs.

 

As for the performance difference, I think at this point it's negligible. I've also used both operating systems for quite some time, and I've observed an almost entirely insignificant difference between the two operating systems in all games I've tried, ranging from Company of Heroes to BioShock to Source engine games.

 

The latest beta NVIDIA drivers released just over a week ago have once again moved performance forward for Vista, and now it's gotten to the point where some games perform better in XP and some perform better in Vista (Oblivion is one where outdoor scenes have better performance in Vista).

 

NVIDIA drivers were pretty much the chief performance inhibitor, as Vista's multi-core and memory support is superior to that of XP. NVIDIA has released driver after driver throughout the year, improving the performance every time. With the exception of people on inadequate hardware who need to squeeze out every last frame, I don't think the performance difference is an issue.

 

Of course, I have no idea how ATI's drivers fare. Probably worth looking into.

 

It's probably worth noting at this point that by no means am I advocating Vista as an operating system in its own right, nor am I saying I particularly like it over XP. However, from an objective view it's clear that until Microsoft follow it up with something superior we're stuck with it, and history has told us that no matter what the OS is like games will move forward to use the new technologies and leave the old behind.

 

DirectX 10 is going to become standard just like its nine predecessors did, and 4GB~ of RAM is going to become standard. You need Vista to use either.

 

You can rip this post apart and dispute every last fine point if you wish, but I have absolute confidence that time will prove my thoughts to be correct.

[Jae Onasi]

OK jmac, I've got XP on a decent desktop and Vista on my new laptop. I actually like Vista better.

Why? My programs run smoothly and I can have a lot of stuff going on in the background without crashing or stressing the system. I've had zero problem running any of the games on Vista that I ran on XP. My Vista system runs the games the way they should without glitches. They look good and play well.

 

My laptop performs faster than the desktop (which has equal RAM and similar processor speed). It has better security features than XP (yes, I know that's like saying this cancer is less bad than that cancer, but it's still better). Not that I've really ever been concerned much about this feature, but it just looks better than XP. I'm able to run multiple programs without noticeable slowdown--Guild Wars, Ventrilo, Skype (former to talk, later to IM with LFers), IRC, Messenger, iTunes, Firefox, AV and firewall in the background, and whatever else I feel like running at the time such as Word or Excel. I don't like to shut off the game if I have to check a report post/email for instance, hence all the multi-tasking.

 

When the latest generation games/programs that will only run on Vista come out (and that _will_ happen in time, as it has with all previous generations of Windows), I'll be set.

 

Niner, don't skimp on the RAM and drop to 1G to save a few bucks--I've not had any problems running on 2G, and it seems (in my limited experience) that a lot of the crash problems have come from those who only had 1G.

[Rogue Nine]

I wasn't planning on skimping on the RAM, in fact I was thinking about tacking on an extra two sticks. I intend to have this rig for quite a few years and as such, I want to be able to keep up with the Joneses at a decent capacity.

 

As it stands, here's what I'm thinking of getting:

 

Case + PSU: Logisys Area 51 Black - $35

Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX - $90

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33 GHz - $170

RAM: G.SKILL 2GB DDR2 800 - $50

GPU: XFX GeForce 8800GTS 320MB - $300

HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200:10 320GB - $85

OS: Windows Vista Home Premium x64 - $105

CD/DVD ROM: ASUS DVD+R 8X - $40

 

Biggest change is the GPU, I've heard enough from various people to take the step to a 8800GT, which adds quite a bit of money even though I've decided to take a different, less-expensive processor. The grand total is around $875, without taxes and junk and it's a somewhat prohibitive price. Guess I've just gotta start pinching those pennies. :S

[stingerhs]

I've used every version of Vista since the first beta and I test drove an alpha of Longhorn. And clearly your vast amount of experience as an IT EXPERT explains away the fact that a majority of businesses aren't even willing to switch to Vista until SP1 if at all and a large number of OEMs and customers are reverting back to XP.

and have you ever really bothered to think about that one for a moment?? the main reason is because businesses want smooth running computers. well, when you buy crap hardware that barely meets the requirements for Vista, guess what: the computer doesn't run very smoothly. on the other hand, an identical hardware setup running XP will run much smoother.

 

the problem, therefore, comes down to the age old way that businesses operate: cut costs to maximize profits. right now, businesses can afford to run crap hardware with XP more so than they could with the same hardware running Vista.

 

and, correct me if i'm wrong, but we're not talking about a computer that's going to be used in the business world. yeah, Niner will probably use an office suite of some kind every once in a while, but i think its pretty clear that he does have gaming in mind. in that case, he's not looking to use cheap hardware like a business would.

Dodged a bullet on that one. You might have had to back up your argument with something other than "I LIKE IT BETTER SO I AM RIGHT YOU'RE AN IDIOT KBAI".

yeah, well, that comes from putting up a post about 15min before i go to bed.

Facinating. I'll bet that month of using Kubuntu netted you enough experience with *nix to pass judgment over every distro ever made. Ever.

that's not what i said. i said i used Kubuntu for a while and then i quit using it once i had Vista. that had nothing to do with me disliking Kubuntu. instead, it just had everything to do with me just simply using Vista all the time. my point is that Vista suits me enough that i never really needed to install Kubuntu in the first place. i'm not passing judgement down on every distro. the only person that seems to be reading into that is you.

 

and, jmac, try not to take everything so serious. this isn't a life or death situation you know.

Biggest change is the GPU, I've heard enough from various people to take the step to a 8800GT, which adds quite a bit of money even though I've decided to take a different, less-expensive processor. The grand total is around $875, without taxes and junk and it's a somewhat prohibitive price. Guess I've just gotta start pinching those pennies. :S

you could always save some money and go with the 3870 instead. seriously, all these people that want to talk about this card being better than this card, but in the end, its clear that it comes down to price and performance and not just one or the other.

 

by choosing the 8800 cards, you're choosing about 10 extra FPS on your games compared to the 3870. when you choose the 3870 over the 8800 cards, you're choosing to save yourself about $20-100 of savings. that can go towards something else. yeah, it won't be the fastest system on the block, but what's more important to you: getting a better deal or an extra 10 FPS??

 

just my two pennies.