1329 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

TheFoxyShortBus, on 02 December 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

The point of this post wasn't a game of what if's. its a post about facts or myths when it comes to computers, and I just proved that one of your myth's is actually a fact. As I stated several times, most people won't see the difference in the lane difference, but those who do things at very large resolutions will when the game is demanding enough.

Saying that "well most people won't see it" doesn't mean that it isn't any less fact. It would be the same as saying "I can't see gamma radiation so it must not exist" is a comparable to dismissing something because most won't see it.

Also it isn't a Margin of error, a margin of error is considered less than 5% on loose scientific explanations. Not upwards of 25% or higher. There is a effective boundary here. As to this.
""
That makes absolutely no sense... This has been a problem long through out PCI-E's history, you can do it with 480's or 590's etc etc. And just because something isn't "cost effective" doesn't meant it won't be in real life, I will bet you there are over 5,000 people with those types of set ups and that can push 16 PCI-E lanes past through intended throughput.

I'm not trying to rag on you, but you said provide evidence (which I did) Explained it in a clear and reasonable manner that in fact one of your myth's wasn't a myth at all, but is a fact. Your dismissal was inaccurate because there is a large difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 (its a factor of 2 improvement) so saturating 16 PCI-E 2.0 lanes is roughly the same as saturating 8 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. SO obviously it will be harder to saturate 16 PCI-E 3.0 lanes (which hasn't been done). SO it only applies to PCI-E 2.0 lanes, which a lot of people who've built a PC in the past couple of years are probably still on because most people won't see the advantage of 3.0 on their systems, but a few can over saturate the lanes and see a performance decrease.

It's a question of current generation cards, not future generation cards, and the misconception that they HAVE to have PCI-e 3.0 in order to get the performance out of their cards. Furthermore, they do fall within the margin of error between PCI-e 2.0 x16 and PCI-e 3.0 x16 lanes with current generation cards given the bandwidth is the same as a PCI-e 3.0 x8 lane.


There is not even a frame per second difference between the two bandwidth allotments as such there is far less than a 5% difference in performance, and well within a margin of error. Even when we start to see cards twice as powerful as they are now. (2-4 years from now) We would be looking at losses apparent in the difference between the PCI-e 3.0 x8 / x4 lanes in difference, averaging at less than 10% loss in performance, which is still within acceptable tolerances for most users, The only example where this begins to have issue comes in effect are those whom are able to afford high-end dual GPU cards. And anyone with that sort of budget is unlikely to not upgrade their CPU and motherboard in such a time frame. Furthermore, for anything which isn't top-end of the current generation, x8 lanes are sufficient without loss in performance for bandwidth. The only problem occurs when buying two or more of the top-end cards of a generation, which would bring up the question if they can afford that, why would they not have a motherboard with two or more x16 lanes in the first place?

[Michaelonius]

my general recommendations for a PC build at this point in the ~900$ range would be to go intel. The i5 2500k can be had for 199$ right now, and that's basically a guaranteed 4.2-4.6Ghz overclock with a 30$ HSF. @ 4.2Ghz, you need an amd 8350 @ 5.0-5.2Ghz to match it in gaming performance. and that will be an absolute MAX for that chip, max volts, high heat, etc. With the intel chip, that would be at or close to stock volts, maybe even under. My i7 2700k does 4.6Ghz @ 1.232 volts, which is technically below its VID.

I would do something like this:

CPU
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115072
MOBO
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157298
Ram
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820147096
Video
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130826
PSU
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817371016
Case
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16811119216
HSF
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16835103065
HDD
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820148442

There are a couple coupon codes etc in there as well.

I used to be all for AMD when they were competitive, but as of right now, it makes no sense to buy them unless you want something that is slower, consumes more power, runs hotter, has higher failure rates.

At the ULTRA LOW BUDGET pc level, AMD might make sense, but even then, i'd have a hard time justifying it when an un-overclockable i3 can take on some of the higher end AMD quad core chips.

How AMD chips do in modern games:

http://www.techspot....-2-performance/

[Vulpesveritas]

Michaelonius, on 03 December 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

my general recommendations for a PC build at this point in the ~900$ range would be to go intel. The i5 2500k can be had for 199$ right now, and that's basically a guaranteed 4.2-4.6Ghz overclock with a 30$ HSF. @ 4.2Ghz, you need an amd 8350 @ 5.0-5.2Ghz to match it in gaming performance. and that will be an absolute MAX for that chip, max volts, high heat, etc. With the intel chip, that would be at or close to stock volts, maybe even under. My i7 2700k does 4.6Ghz @ 1.232 volts, which is technically below its VID.

I would do something like this:

CPU
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115072
MOBO
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157298
Ram
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820147096
Video
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130826
PSU
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817371016
Case
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16811119216
HSF
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16835103065
HDD
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820148442

There are a couple coupon codes etc in there as well.

I used to be all for AMD when they were competitive, but as of right now, it makes no sense to buy them unless you want something that is slower, consumes more power, runs hotter, has higher failure rates.

At the ULTRA LOW BUDGET pc level, AMD might make sense, but even then, i'd have a hard time justifying it when an un-overclockable i3 can take on some of the higher end AMD quad core chips.

How AMD chips do in modern games:

http://www.techspot....-2-performance/

Congratulations, you posted the results for one game where Intel holds an advantage. The only reason an i3 competes is most benchmarks will show games running on older engines not optimized for multithreading. Games which are both CPU intensive and multithreaded;
Also, funbit; Vishera is 10-15% faster clock-for-clock than Zambezi. Or to be more precise about 10-15% slower clock-for-clock than Sandy Bridge. Vishera does well overclocking, and 4.5ghz-5ghz OC is completely possible on the same $30 aftermarket heatsink we all know and love. (CM Hyper 212 Evo) To match the performance of the 2500k at 4.2ghz in single thread, the FX-83xx chip needs to be at 4.5-4.8ghz. All the while though, the FX-83xx chip will wipe the floor with the i5 in multi-thread.
Another thing to keep in mind is Vishera gives you the multithread capabilities of an i7-3770k and in some applications it is faster. So for day-to-day non-gaming use, the Vishera core is actually a better choice. Which is something I take into account in my recommendations, else I wouldn't recommend SSDs in my $1200 bracket, as I know most people who are taking these rigs will be doing things other than gaming as well. I don't know a single person who uses their PC for nothing but gaming. On other bits, weak GPU for the system cost, no OS disk increasing the price, far more on the case than you should be spending in this price bracket, and cheaping out on the PSU, which is something you don't want to do if you want your system to last.
Also, for a bit on what we saw with Zambezi in CryENGINE 3 on a 7970 before catalyst improvements;

And an FX-8320 is a little bit faster than the FX-8150 in that showing, and overclocks far better. (terms of power consumption / heat output) Putting it on par with the 1st gen i7, or in other words meaning it's within 5% of the performance of that sandy bridge core at stock clocks in this engine, while being prices substantially lower. So the performance is there for gaming.
For another multithreaded game engine? How about we look at Battlefield 3, another well threaded CPU-intensive engine;

In this scenario, the performance is really more of a toss of the coin than anything. You won't see the difference in this game engine.
The Only game of note in the last two years which isn't decently threaded is Skyrim, and you can see the performance differences here. Keep in mind Skyrim only uses two cores.;

Other low threaded titles are all older titles, in which most cases you won't see the difference as you are going to be on a 60hz monitor at this price point for your main system in all likelihood. Even without, real world experience isn't going to be horrible, especially if the game engine isn't CPU intensive while being low threaded, as most older titles are.


As you can see, a lot of your basis is on a single poorly threaded game engine with out of date figures not even portraying the CPU in question.

[Michaelonius]

That is true that borderlands heavily weighs intel. HOWEVER, try posting some benchmarks @ lower resolutions, 1080p is not a CPU limited res. Try 1680x1050, or other resolutions like that, the %gain of sandy/ivy bridge over current AMD architecture is strong.

Multi-threaded, give me a good example of this, you keep saying single threaded / poorly coded applications, but almost every game from 2010 onward is not single threaded, most are 2-4 threads. The current AMD 8350/20 architecture is 4 physical nodes with 2 logical cores per node, making it effectively a quad core, not 8 core. Some apps do very well with that architecture, but not many. And that is assuming all stock clocks. If we are going to be overclocking, we have to be overclocking both the intel and the AMD.

http://www.anandtech...d-fx4300-tested

Even the most heavily threaded benchmarks, all at stock speeds, there are only 2-3 wins for AMD, versus the nearly year old i7 3770k at this point. And the 3770k is 500Mhz slower at stock speeds than the 8350. The nearly 2 year old 2500k does tend to get thrashed a bit at stock speeds (3.3Ghz 4core 4 thread). But then you start to look at the gaming scores, and again, this is a game forum. If we were talking about using the VERY SELECT FEW titles in which AMD wins (typically things like 7-zip and the like) then yes, I would say if that is all you do on your PC by all means go AMD this round. Specifically take a look @ page 5 of that review. All other things being equal, the AMD chips just get slaughtered, and the 8350 is the exact same price as the i5 2500k right now.

Like I said in my above post, I used to be what you would call an AMD Fanboy, but I just don't see it anymore. For every argument FOR AMD, there are at least 2-3 against.

I do however appreciate the time you took in your posts, compared to me being lazy.

Again, I see validity, but if you are going to make CPU arguments, you have to use CPU bound benchmarks, not GPU bound benchmarks

http://www.techspot....arks/page6.html

Another example, this one is even @ 1900x1200, and the 5 year old i7 920 is a matchup for the 8350 in gaming performance. I want AMD to have a win, but for gaming, its just not there.

I also would never skimp on a PSU. Antec has had stellar PSU ratings over the years. The total power draw from the system I have up there, is about 260w full load, no overclocking. Which is roughly 50% of the PSU's capacity. If you were going to add more videocard power (like a gtx 680 or a HD 7970) I would up that to 650-700w. The case is relatively cheap (IMO) and extremely easy to route wiring through, I wouldn't spend anything less than 70$, unless you can find a case that is on super sale. (My current PSU is a corsair HX 850)

Edited by Michaelonius, 03 December 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Michaelonius, on 03 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

That is true that borderlands heavily weighs intel. HOWEVER, try posting some benchmarks @ lower resolutions, 1080p is not a CPU limited res. Try 1680x1050, or other resolutions like that, the %gain of sandy/ivy bridge over current AMD architecture is strong.

Multi-threaded, give me a good example of this, you keep saying single threaded / poorly coded applications, but almost every game from 2010 onward is not single threaded, most are 2-4 threads. The current AMD 8350/20 architecture is 4 physical nodes with 2 logical cores per node, making it effectively a quad core, not 8 core. Some apps do very well with that architecture, but not many. And that is assuming all stock clocks. If we are going to be overclocking, we have to be overclocking both the intel and the AMD.

http://www.anandtech...d-fx4300-tested

Even the most heavily threaded benchmarks, all at stock speeds, there are only 2-3 wins for AMD, versus the nearly year old i7 3770k at this point. And the 3770k is 500Mhz slower at stock speeds than the 8350. The nearly 2 year old 2500k does tend to get thrashed a bit at stock speeds (3.3Ghz 4core 4 thread). But then you start to look at the gaming scores, and again, this is a game forum. If we were talking about using the VERY SELECT FEW titles in which AMD wins (typically things like 7-zip and the like) then yes, I would say if that is all you do on your PC by all means go AMD this round. Specifically take a look @ page 5 of that review. All other things being equal, the AMD chips just get slaughtered, and the 8350 is the exact same price as the i5 2500k right now.

Like I said in my above post, I used to be what you would call an AMD Fanboy, but I just don't see it anymore. For every argument FOR AMD, there are at least 2-3 against.

I do however appreciate the time you took in your posts, compared to me being lazy.

Again, I see validity, but if you are going to make CPU arguments, you have to use CPU bound benchmarks, not GPU bound benchmarks

http://www.techspot....arks/page6.html

Another example, this one is even @ 1900x1200, and the 5 year old i7 920 is a matchup for the 8350 in gaming performance. I want AMD to have a win, but for gaming, its just not there.

I also would never skimp on a PSU. Antec has had stellar PSU ratings over the years. The total power draw from the system I have up there, is about 260w full load, no overclocking. Which is roughly 50% of the PSU's capacity. If you were going to add more videocard power (like a gtx 680 or a HD 7970) I would up that to 650-700w. The case is relatively cheap (IMO) and extremely easy to route wiring through, I wouldn't spend anything less than 70$, unless you can find a case that is on super sale. (My current PSU is a corsair HX 850)

(okay, I was going to post a ton of benchmarks, but I am currently mad at my computer for Google Chrome force closing on me when I first started typing this.)
Anyhow. First off, the reason for 1080p benchmarks; REAL LIFE scenario. Anyone sitting on a $900+ budget for a new PC probably has a 1080p monitor laying around. It's the current industry standard resolution, as such to portray real life performance, using the industry standard resolution seems like a good idea to me.

Beyond that, after reviewing benchmarks again, they show the FX-8350 sitting at just below an i7-3770k in most scenarios, and in some cases being faster, and in just as many times they are faster the FX-8350 can fall down to the performance of an i5. Overall it is a question of what you want more, day-to-day performance and future performance, or energy efficiency and higher performance in older applications. I generally am on the side of the former and hence I recommend AMD.

The other reason I recommend AMD is I like making decisions on my own analysis of information instead of sitting and merely accepting the norm of Intel being "it" for gaming, when in most benchmarks I see there is little difference in performance, with some titles outlying and holding distinct advantages for intel, but the vast majority of those cases are at times where performance is already above 60fps for the FX-8350.

And my last reason for recommending AMD comes down to ethics and so long as AMD maintains it's current price / performance advantage over Intel and remains a company with a near spotless record, I will have a bias to recommend them over Intel who while they put more money into R&D each year than what AMD has in the bank in total, AMD still manages to be competitive, and Intel also has a track record for criminal activity. So long as Intel continues to show lack of innovation and a disregard for fair play, I am going to have to recommend a more ethical option so long as it is competitive in performance.

[Michaelonius]

I completely understand if your reasons are philosophical. I prefer the Ford Mustang over comparable priced foreign vehicles (Hyundai genesis for example).

I do more than game on my PC, but for "Every day tasks", a single core athlon or pentium 4 is typically more than adequate. For "Modern" PC usage, i'd say an i3 or a phenom II series chip is more than enough for 90% of the population. The only things that tax processors that "Normal" people use are games, benchmark programs, and things like Matlab, Adobe creation suite, and the like. And in these titles, AMD is also pretty far behind.

I will not say you are wrong for recommending them, just that your opinions seem somewhat biased. I buy based off price/performance, and this current generation, for content creation, gaming, and encoding, in 95% of applications, the winner is not AMD. Granted some of them are close, but some of them, the differences are massive. Check out MatLab (something my brother uses for work.)

I'd love to tinker with an AMD again, lord knows I went through 10 + (?) different x2's on s939 until I found the magic one that could do 3.0Ghz 24/7 stable on air. Back then the only competition was netburst based p4's .

[Vulpesveritas]

AMD is behind in Adobe?

Price: same as i5-2500k. Performance advantage; FX-8350.

The older version of Photoshop gives the i5-2500k an advantage given it's not as well coded for multithread. Point is moot if you have updated to CS5. Also the difference is less than a second in this benchmark between the 2500k and the FX-8350.


In an even newer version of Adobe CS we see AMD pull ahead of even the i7-3770k in some tasks.


In others we see i5 performance again.

But then we see again the FX-8350 give i7 performance values.

Summary of performance in synthetic tests;
Integer:

Floating point:


Summary: It's more or less a crown holder for integer tasks, but the floating point capability is behind 2nd generation and later i5s and i7s, albeit still substantially better than anything below that, beating out the six floating point units in a thubian core with only the four floating point units on the Vishera die. Not a bad improvement over a year, even if they are still behind Intel in floating point.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 03 December 2012 - 12:43 PM.

[TheFlayedman]

Does anyone know how an intel core i3 2120 or 2220 runs the game? I'm curious about dual core with hyperthreading and also I upgraded my friends pc last year with a 2120 and would hate to think I did that just as quad cores are required for games.

[Vulpesveritas]

TheFlayedman, on 04 December 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Does anyone know how an intel core i3 2120 or 2220 runs the game? I'm curious about dual core with hyperthreading and also I upgraded my friends pc last year with a 2120 and would hate to think I did that just as quad cores are required for games.

The 2120 should perform similarly to a Phenom II X4 965 in this game engine.

[Pando]

$350

Highlights - Performance at Stock, Power Consumption
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116502
Intel Core i7-3770 (Ivy Bridge)
LGA 1155 Socket
77w TDP
Quad Core + HT


Hey, That's what I have!

Edited by Pando, 04 December 2012 - 09:49 AM.

[Pereset]

I gotta put in my two cent's worth. I really liked this case, and plan to get one for myself in a month or two. http://www.tigerdire...3&Sku=T925-1520. I know, I know...it's expensive. But, if you put a 1200 watt P/S in there, with an 8-core processor, nice motherboard, 32GB of RAM, two crossfire or SLI Video cards, it will be a very nice gaming system, with multiple screens set up in an eyefinity configuration. But then...I save up for the best.

[M E X]

iron wolf, on 16 June 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

It would be a good idea to specifically note in the lower end range you'd be struggling to run modern games at any decent reso / setting...

I second that !

As I dont have much cash available, I am currently below the minimum with my old used HP dc7600c. Originally I intended to assembly a rig for less than 100€ ... but because of my new HD7750, crippled by 2GB DDR3, I have already spent more than 200€.

I got my used business HP dc7600c for 50€ with a single core P4-630 CPU, 1GB RAM and a 80GB HDD with Ubuntu installed on it.
1st upgrade was a used 320GB HDD from my USB-2.0 iomega MiniMax Dektop Hard Drive, which I ugraded to 2TB long ago.
2nd upgrade were 2x2GB PC2-6400 CL6 240-Pin DIMM which I bought new for 48.60€ ... I considered upgrading to a total of only 3GB with 2x1GB PC2-5300 for less than 20€, but decided against that.
3nd upgrade is a HD 7750 with 2GB DDR3 for 87.47€ which I bought yesterday ... I tested MWO with a GeForce 8400GS, which I bought for less than 30€, but as MWO never had more than 4-8 FPS ( even Logged Off ! ), I immediatly used the money back guarantee and got rid of this scrap.

With 5GB RAM, a single core P4-630 with 3GHz and the HD 7750 I now have 4-12 FPS in combat, up to 39 FPS in the mech bay and up to 46 FPS when I am logged off. Of course I use low settings and everything turned of including v-sync with only 1024x768 full screen resolution and only MWO running, except some background jobs of a fresh installed 64bit Windows 8 Release Preview.

4th upgrade will be a used dual core Pentium D 820, which I bought for 15€ at willhaben.at this week. I also spent 1.1€ for a flakon with 10mL AETHANOLUM 96% to clean the heatsink and the CPU with this solvent & coffee filter paper.

MfG, MEX

[Smokeyjedi]

Vulpesveritas, on 18 June 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

I'm saying that while Bulldozer was horribly overhyped, and while it should have and could have been much better, the chip itself is not horrible and is somewhat better than Phenom II, given that it has higher overclocking potential, and is better in multthreaded tasks given the fX-8xxx line.

yeah R&D developed fx to be 5+ghz modules and fell short,obviously due to it acting like a toaster.... im sure if they actually worked entirely the way they were designed to 35-45celcius topps near 5ghz under load..........this story would be diffrent. if the arch. used the short way around issues, not the long way(FPU+IPC+heat)problems.......

[Smokeyjedi]

M E X, on 06 December 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

I second that !



4th upgrade will be a used dual core Pentium D 820, which I bought for 15€ at willhaben.at this week. I also spent 1.1€ for a flakon with 10mL AETHANOLUM 96% to clean the heatsink and the CPU with this solvent & coffee filter paper.

MfG, MEX

Nice finds......I had a p4 HT @3.0ghz........
The only advice I could say to help you out is my socket 775 P4 wanted to run so hot, Money was tight(I was away at school)and the case didnt allow me to upgrade cooling at all.(BTX-MB)<---junk!

I tore that case apart and put PC into a black [Lift top footstool] that sat beside my desk strapped fans in and around that rig and ran it for almost 2 years in that footstool setup for the max cooling.
I managed to make crysis 1 playable enough to complete the game............this was no small feat,believe me.

I would suggest maximizing your cpu cooling in any way possible, keeping temps way down should help alot.

[M E X]

Smokeyjedi, on 07 December 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Nice finds......I had a p4 HT @3.0ghz........
...
I would suggest maximizing your cpu cooling in any way possible, keeping temps way down should help alot.

Cooling doesnt seem to be one of my problems, at least not until now.

I still use the CPU-heatsink which came with the HP dc7600c and its P4-630 with the dual core 820 now:
HP: P/N: 381874-001 is written on a white label on it, and below the bar code I can read CT: E98680AXCSXF3M

But the 64-bit Windows 8 CPU index did rise from 4.1 to 4.5 only ... I had expected much more
Looks like I will have to replace the 820 with a 945 as soon as possible ... or get a new mainboard with better CPU

I also have suddenly problems with Memtest86+ v4.20 from my Ubuntu installation. Looks like the 2x2GB RAM upgrade, which worked without problems with the P4-630, is causing problems with the Pentium D 820 now:
I get lots of errors after running the test for more than 15 minutes at Test #7 [Random number sequence] at 43% as soon as Test #7 starts ... this error is reproducable !
I also get this error after 5 minutes with the original 1GB RAM from HP as soon as Test#7 begins ...

MfG, MEX

Edited by M E X, 08 December 2012 - 02:44 AM.

[Glowhollow]

Hi there !

I am working with the System posted in my Signature. I am working and gaming on this machine.

The FX-CPU is ideal for me, because i am working a lot with compressing video files. Game Performance is ok.
I am normally upgrading my Systems every 2-3 Years. To have 10% more Power for a 300% increased Price - is for me
not an argument.

Sure Intel may have the best CPUs. But the time, where a technology advance - like it was between 486 and Pentium - does not really exist. So there is no Reason for me - to invest some money in a technology, who do not have an increased architecture.

A better Graphic-Card is more wise than investing in a CPU...

Just my 2 cents

[Bucser]

To the Attention of the OP:

Great post first of all:)

Second: Unfortunately the SIMPED Pedals are discontinued.Second: unfortunately the SIMPED Pedals are discontinued.

http://www.dhs-elect...dex2.php?lng=en

"Dear customers, Due to financial, request and privat reasons the production of our Simped pedals will be stopped with beginning of July 2012. All service and warranty issues will of course be handled and for those reasons I will be available under g.hofmann@dhs-electronic.de Thank you very much for your unterstanding and your support in the passed years. Gunter Hofmann, dhs-electronic"

Shame best product on that niche market. Unfortunately Dieter Hofmann died a few years back and his son took over. He was going towards the more professional segment of the market.

Third: I went through quite a selection of joytiscks over my simming years. First it was a Logitech Extreme 3D. Had 3 of those. All went dead with the twist potentiometer in a few months time. (they were used for Mechwarrior 3 then 4 multiplayer, Also for IL-Sturmovik).

Than I have moved onto Saitek Cyborg 3D.
I have to say it was the best value for money stick I have ever owned. Worked for 2.5 years without any hitches. Than i broke it in half when I stepped on it accidentaly.

After these I have invested into a TM Cougar. Also bought a Simped Vario Pro rudder the serial port version as that was communicating directly with the Cougars macro programming language. It was not the hardware. It was the software and its flexibility once you went deep into it which made it absolutely the best sticks to buy. Gimbals went smack after a year. I have invested into the pressure sensitive mod where you do not move the stick just apply pressure to it (cost as much as the stick and rudder together). Used it for several years. It is now in the corner of my old room in my parents house as I do not have space to use it now. The paint peeled off at the stick from usage.

Now I am eyeing with the Warthog, but I would need to find out about a decent rudder.what I can use with it as the Simpeds are gone.

Thrustmaster cheap stuff would not bother getting but the Warthog looks promising. And to be honest the X65F looks to be a great substitute. God if I could forget those sci-fi looking rudders from Saitek. They should make some more conservative ones than those space shooters...

Edited by Bucser, 10 December 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[Tetsuo Kurita]

Battlecruiser, on 18 June 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

the two most important things on any case's functionality are psu location and air flow

putting the psu at the bottom of the case results in it being able to draw in cooler air.

and with the psu at the bottom leaves room for an exhaust fan on the top,

And the PSU on the bottom also leaves a direct intake for pet hair on the bottom of your computer that goes straight into the power supply.

[Egomane]

Tetsuo Kurita, on 11 December 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

And the PSU on the bottom also leaves a direct intake for pet hair on the bottom of your computer that goes straight into the power supply.

That's what filters and regular cleaning are for.

But what are your pets doing below the case anyway?

[Youngblood]

Tetsuo Kurita, on 11 December 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

And the PSU on the bottom also leaves a direct intake for pet hair on the bottom of your computer that goes straight into the power supply.

Why do you have pets? Is MWO not fulfilling enough in the leisure time of your life? IS IT NOT?

No opinions on the Silverstone 90-degree-turn cases, then? Googling returns mixed reactions for me.