Building a new computer

[Blitzkommando]

Considering the sizes of modern games that's becoming even more of an issue as well. Game like Metro 2033, GTA4, and Mass Effect all are at minimum 5GB and even some older games like Doom 3 are over 2GB. Even with a 60GB drive, split between two operating systems that would leave something like 10-15GB for applications on each partition which is absolutely tiny. Games tend to be doing a lot of reading anyway, not writing. When it comes to sequential reads, something that happens a lot in loading games, a conventional high-capacity 7200 RPM drive with decent cache (16 or more MB) tends to have quite good read speeds at least in comparison to budget-tier SSDs. I simply think that for your budget that the addition of a SSD is superflurous in comparison to other components which would be far easier to work with and provide more usage. This would also allow you to save up for a higher capacity SSD in say two years, to allow for the smaller build processes to get worked into the market allowing for faster and higher capacity drives at lower price points which would fit closer to your budget constraints. I personally use a 1TB WD Caviar Black, excellent drives by the way, for my Steam folder which has roughly 340GB of games and mods last I checked. Even though it's not a SSD I find I load faster than most others in games online and even for games like Garry's Mod which loads data frequently it's not nearly as slow as my old 150GB Raptor (not the 150GB Velociraptor mind). Speaking of which, a possible solution (though I probably wouldn't do it) is one of the newer Raptor drives such as the new 450 or 600GB drive. They will definitely be faster than any 7200RPM drive in regards to random activities but in sequential activities they are occasionally slower though generally are tied with high capacity and density 7200RPM drives.

[Ketchup345]

Ok, I'll skip the SSD. 1TB should probably be fine, right?
Is this what you use Blitz?

Since the discussion seems to be all about an SSD, is it safe to assume that either of Ezodagram's builds would be my best bet (minus of course the SSD and I'd probably see about using the stock cooling if I go AMD). If I follow that, for $60 will the Intel be noticeably faster?

Wiki says the Sandy Bridge line will be Jan 5, so early enough I think I may hold off for that. Guess I'll post a new topic then (unless this laptop dies before then).

[Blitzkommando]

I use two of those, yes. My slower storage drive is a 1.5TB Samsung 5400 RPM drive which runs well enough as a storage device, though I wouldn't put my games on it. As for capacity, that's purely how you feel you would use it. If you plan on getting into HD movies plan for a ton of storage to disappear very quickly. 720p 22 minute shows for instance are roughly 300MB if encoded well. 1080p 22 minute shows on the other hand can be double or more. A 2 hour 1080p movie will run roughly 8-10GB. Aside from HD content 1TB should hold well for most people for a while. And, hey, getting another drive in 12 months or whatever won't break the bank should you need it.

Another option is to go with a different AMD processor. I have the 965 myself, but I'd love to have the 1090T, though there are other models as well at lower price points. The 1090T (and 1000 series Phenom II) is a hexacore. Then, I do some encoding so the two extra cores would be quite welcome. If you're interested, as you could go the middle ground between the 965 and the Intel chip, here's the three currently out. If you live near a Microcenter though they tend to have excellent deals on processors, Intel and AMD, though not at the moment. Ordering via their website or Newegg on Black Friday might also save you a good amount of money or potentially pick up something you otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford.

A note, something I forgot to mention earlier, is if you opt for a GTX 460 go for the 1GB variant. It's got a nice bit more horsepower worth the extra little bit over the 768MB models.

As for Sandy Bridge, it's a bit of an unknown quantity at this point. Personally, I wouldn't go for it but that's because it's Intel's new mainstream socket. At the moment I am far more interested in AMD's Bulldozer chips as they have a completely new architecture. The server variants have been blazing fast so far and AMD claims Bulldozer will be faster than them clock for clock as well. Bulldozer though is further off, likely closer to when Intel releases socket 2011. In fact, they'll probably release only a couple months apart and probably later than you want (Q2-Q3 CY 2011). It just depends really on when you want or need this machine. Like I said, this Black Friday should be rather good for online deals and could save you a couple hundred dollars potentially.

[Ezodagrom]

Well, for his price range, Sandy Bridge would be a good option, especially since an early preview test of the Sandy Bridge that will replace the Core i5 700 series, the Core i5 2400, matches the top of the Core i7 800 series. The mainstream Sandy Bridge matches the top LGA1156.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/t...ins-in-a-row/8
(Note: In this preview, the tests that matter are those with HT off, since the i5 2000 processors won't have HT, only the i3 and i7 will have it enabled).

About AMD "Bulldozer", there's a leaked slide showing that the first models will be released in Q2 2011.

Spoiler!

[Ketchup345]

I don't plan on keeping any shows/movies on the computer, especially for any extended length of time.

Quarter 2 2011 is a bit too far out. I think I can manage January for the new Intels. I'll repost in January with some of the parts listed here and probably asking about motherboard and which Sandy Bridge i5 to go for (though by Ezodagrom's post I'll assume the normal 2400?).

Thanks.