Ok-I'm officially jealous. gonna post a picture of my current rig (XPS 17 used for school work+CAD software)

CoolerMaster Storm Scout
Intel Core i5 2310 @ 3.8Ghz ( i know... )
Gigabyte Z68AP-D3
8gb of Ripjaws G.Skill /1600mhz
Gigabyte GTX 560Ti OC @ 900mhz
CoolerMaster GX650W PSU
1.5TB Western Digital @7200rpm HDD
Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit

edit: Might go for 16gb of RAM, im doing lots of rendering lately..

Alright, so here's the battle plan for the build:

CPU: i7-3930K (waiting for C2 stepping to come in stock)
Cooler: Corsair H100
Mobo: Asus Rampage IV Extreme
RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance
PSU: Corsair 1200AX
Case: Cooler Master Cosmos II
GPU: To be decided. Either GTX 580 (SLI) or then I'll wait for GTX 680 (SLI).

To be continued.

Replace the 580 with 7970.

Quote from bmwe30m3 :

Replace the 580 with 7970.

This.

Or in Crossfire-X.

Quote from bmwe30m3 :

Replace the 580 with 7970.

But he needs a card that has driver.

Quote from bmwe30m3 :

Replace the 580 with 7970.

Nope.jpg

I'll wait for the 680, will soldier on with my single 580 until then. Shop informed me that rest of the components should arrive next week.

Quote from Matrixi :

Nope.jpg

I'll wait for the 680, will soldier on with my single 580 until then. Shop informed me that rest of the components should arrive next week.

Great decision!
Keppler will most likely have really great performance, as it looks now.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

But he needs a card that has driver.

But he needs a card that has working drivers and a card that doesn't melt because it has a nuclear reactor as chip.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

But he needs a card that has driver.

You have 6-toes, what do you know?

Anyways, have you ever owned a ATi card?
I've owned several, never had any problems with drivers.
I've owned one Nvidia card, never going back to Nvidia.

I need CUDA (Adobe..) so that automatically rules out anything AMD has to offer. Have owned a ton of cards from both brands, have just grown to prefer NV.

But, let's not start another NV vs. AMD war, mmkay? Anyone can freely buy whatever card they like the best.

I owned two ATi cards before, now with nVidia and im really amazed. Never going back to ATi !

Quote from FRZN-95 :

I owned two ATi cards before, now with nVidia and im really amazed. Never going back to ATi !

Yeah, that's usually when you trade old/slow hardware for modern/fast hardware. That's no argument.

I had 5870 but the VRAM died, and the second one had a faulty fan. Also had no problems with drivers or whatever don't know why you lot are going about that ATi has better feature and drivers are better.

Quote from FRZN-95 :

I had 5870 but the VRAM died, and the second one had a faulty fan. Also had no problems with drivers or whatever don't know why you lot are going about that ATi has better feature and drivers are better.

We never said they're better.

And a problem with a a piece of hardware can happen everywhere.

Quote from Bose321 :

And a problem with a a piece of hardware can happen everywhere.

But statistically NVidia cards have way less hardware errors.
EVGA failure rates on 500-series GeForce's in 2011: 1.3%
SAPPHIRE failure rates on 6000-series Radeon's in same year: 4.1%
Talk about almost 3 times more failures.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

But statistically NVidia cards have way less hardware errors.
EVGA failure rates on 500-series GeForce's in 2011: 1.3%
SAPPHIRE failure rates on 6000-series Radeon's in same year: 4.1%
Talk about almost 3 times more failures.

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10 ... av-cartes-graphiques.html
- GeForce GTX 280 : 9.9%
- GeForce GTX 260 : 4.3%
- Radeon HD 4870 : 3.2%
- Radeon HD 4850 : 1.9%

Talk about 3 times more failures...
You can see that it varies by manufacturer too, maybe evga is just better than sapphire. And you didn't cite source either.

Quote from FRZN-95 :

Intel Core i5 2310 @ 3.8Ghz ( i know... )

Mind explaining this?

Quote from AutoPilot :

Mind explaining this?

Yep, so as it is it's a locked processor and the turbo speed is upto 3.5ghz, if you go to bios disable turbo boost you can actually overclock upto 3.8 (that is the maximum) and the re is no problem with stability and heat issues had it tested for about 7 hours..

My Main Computer:

ASRock M3A770DE 770 AM3
Phenom II X4 965 (C2) - Xigmatek Cobra Cooler
MSI GTX 560 Ti Factory OC
Kingston DDR3 1333 Hyper Blu OC @ 7-7-7-21 (4 x 4 GB =16 GB)
Samsung Spinpoint F3 1 TB HDD - W7 x64 Professional SP1
RaidMax Smilodon
RaidMax Hybrid 630 W LED Modular PSU
1080p AURIA 22" HDTV
AltecLansing 15 W 2.1 speakers
Phillips 200 W 5.1 Surround via S/P-DIF COAX

Computer No. 2 (mainly a recording studio, but I use it sometimes for light gaming/DED's):

BioStar 760G mATX AM3
Athlon II X4 435 - Stock Cooler
G.Skill DDR3 1333 (2 x 2 GB)
HIS ICE-Q 4670
WD 80 GB PATA 133 - Ubuntu Server 11.10 AMD64 w/LXDE GUI
Seagate 500 GB SATA - W7 x64 Professional SP1
Ultra mATX case
Thermaltake 430 W PSU
Random Gateway 1280x1024 DVI Monitor
M-Audio 24/96
ZOOM R8 USB Audio Interface

My Friend's Computer (which I built):

ASRock 770 DE+ AM3
Athlon II X4 440 OC @ 3.38 GHz - Xigmatek Apache Cooler
Corsair DDR2 800 5-5-5-15 OC @ DDR2 960 4-4-4-18 (2 x 2 GB)
2 x Sapphire 5770 CFX
WD 160 GB - W7 x86 Ultimate SP1
Seagate 300 GB - Storage
Hitachi 80 GB PATA - Storage
NZXT Zero ATX Fulltower
ABS/TAGAN 700W Modular PSU
Samsung 20" 1280x720 DVI
AltecLansing 2.0 Speakers
Creative Fatal1ty Headset


As far as nVIDIA vs. AMD/ATI, I have no preference. I go with the best I can afford. They are both about the same, one is usually a little better, but they switch off. It is usually nVIDIA with the best performance, imo, but AMD has those deals, man. I am training for my CompTIA A+. also, the CPU and both GFX cards in my buddy's comp were once mine. I have owned both, and honestly don't see a difference, other than that the newer cards are more powerful than the older cards, but that is a given lol.

oh, teh lulz...

Quote from AutoPilot :

http://www.hardware.fr/news/10 ... av-cartes-graphiques.html
- GeForce GTX 280 : 9.9%
- GeForce GTX 260 : 4.3%
- Radeon HD 4870 : 3.2%
- Radeon HD 4850 : 1.9%

Talk about 3 times more failures...
You can see that it varies by manufacturer too, maybe evga is just better than sapphire. And you didn't cite source either.

What's ATI? I was talking about AMD.
Also let's talk how AMD CPUs were better than Intel ones 15 years ago.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

What's ATI? I was talking about AMD.
Also let's talk how AMD CPUs were better than Intel ones 15 years ago.

dadge, the facepalm is at your part.
I think what E.Reiljans meant was that AutoPilot's examples were from older cars, when the gfx card were still ATi not AMD, even if AMD owned ATi back then, the cards were called ATi, 4k series and 200 series aint that new anymore.

Quote from FRZN-95 :

Yep, so as it is it's a locked processor and the turbo speed is upto 3.5ghz, if you go to bios disable turbo boost you can actually overclock upto 3.8 (that is the maximum) and the re is no problem with stability and heat issues had it tested for about 7 hours..

I thought that the max OC would be +4 bins, so for 2310 that would be 3.3 GHz, and with turbo you could reach 3.6GHz for one core. Disabling turbo shouldn't affect this limit. This seems like a "faulty" MB implementation or something.
Given that most 2500K reach 4.4+ easily, I've no doubt that the vast majority of 2310s will work fine at 3.8 GHz if one can set it.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

What's ATI? I was talking about AMD.
Also let's talk how AMD CPUs were better than Intel ones 15 years ago.

You can't make an unqualified 'nVidia is statistically better than AMD' statement and then only accept one cherry-picked recent result. And it's only 3 years old, not 15, many people still have these. You replied to a guy who had 5870, from below, it was actually more reliable than gtx 285, so you're already generalizing to 5000 series yourself.

I've found 2 more recent results:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/810-5/cartes-graphiques.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/843-5/cartes-graphiques.html

Only the 69xx of the 6000 series is less reliable, and more like 2x, not 3x. Probably due to the fact that 580 was a refinement of Fermi, and 69xx was a larger architectural change.
And you still haven't cited your source.