So the affinity between the two means that Intel have released a range of CPUs which are designed specifically for the overclocker. QED.

Either I didn't understand a word you just wrote or you supported what Mike said: It's the same CPU sans the lock. The only difference is that the overclockable CPUs have passed more quality tests in the factory. 

...that's the point. Were they designed FOR overclockers or were they designed to allow overclocking? I would suggest that in use, far more will not be user-overclocked than will be. Of course, system-overclocking is another matter.

By the way; God Save the Queen - it's pissing down. 

Lots of people will buy K series CPUs and not overclock them. Which IMO is dumb. And the customers that do that are silly. Because they would be just as well buying a non-K CPU. FFS.

I mean who the F would buy a higher performing CPU just to under-use it? Get real. By the time a non-K CPU has burned out, it will be totally obsolete. People just don't think like that.

They don't. 

When buying a greenhouse, buy the biggest you can afford because once you start using it, you are going to fill it no matter how big it is.

But if you are only growing tomatoes for your summer salads, just put a couple of grow-bags on the patio. After all, you can only eat so many tomatoes.

Besides which, you can buy tomatoes at your local supermarket, and you don't have to water them everyday, or hoe the weeds, or squish the bugs, or watch out for bottom-end rot. Kind o'like sorta thing...

It's still pissing down and she's still smiling and waving. Go girl. 

i got a non-k 2500 specifically because i did not plan to overclock. :P

as for drive cloning, i used the one that WD gives for free, Acronis True Image WD Edition...

It seems like it is only usable if you have a WD hdd so I don't know if it will work otherwise.

there are other free alternatives though that i remember seeing on google while searching.

Something to keep in mind is that the cloning process takes the machine out of commission for the duration of the clone. it can't seem to do it in the normal windows environment and has to reboot to run it's own software.
This makes sense though, because you wouldn't want someone adding or removing files on the disk while you're trying to make a complete copy of it. 

ricky: clonezilla 

will work too. 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
I was looking at that site. Was wondering what cpu benchmark would best describe what to expect from vis.exe performance? 

is an i7-3770k with 16 GB ram and a gtx 680 enough for the next 2 yrs or so? 

I do all of my map compiling on a Pentium 4 2G. I also use it for music, photography archiving, surfing, and spreadsheets. I did not believe that would be the case when I bought it all those years ago.

I also have an i7 laptop running Windows7 @ 64bit, which I use for 'proper' work such as spreadsheets (2M+ cells) and photomanipulation.

No point in buying the i7 K version unless you are definitely going to overclock - last time I looked the plain version was cheaper.

Apart from that, yes it will easily last for two years provided that you do not look at all the releases in the meantime and convince yourself that you must have the latest otherwise the sky will fall in. 

If you get a good PSU and Mobo you can do a SLI after that lol.

Mike is right about the overclocking - unless you are going to overclock there is no need to get a 'K' series CPU. Haswell is half a year away too. Not sure if that will use the same RAM and socket as the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge 1155 stuff.

680 is a beast, but if it's value for money you are looking for then look at the 660Ti or 670.
The performance goes down, but the VFM goes up. 

yeah looking to get a system that will be overclocked to 4.3 Ghz.

Mike, dont need the latest etc was just trying to make sure I can play some of the newer games at decent settings over the next 2 yrs. Doesnt have to be at max settings or be every game, but would be nice not to worry about it if I want to get some titles.

Ricky, yeah might go with 670, it is about $150 cheaper in otherwise the same system. 

16gm ram? Shit a brick. I think you'll be able to continue playing games for a lot longer than 2 years with that spec. I usually upgrade once every 4-5yrs. 

I have read a few articles on old systems with new video cards. They play games well. Seems the video card slot is what will obsolete a system build. If a new slot spec comes out. 2-3 years out a video card update is all that you should need. Get a 4 memory slot board so if later you want to do 32 gigs memory you can.

BTW anyone use a SSD drive?

Another thing get THE BEST power supply you can. Every computer failure I've had was a failed power supply. Either random shutdown or out right shorts and blown capacitors. 

Excellent things! I have two at work. Both machines boot to the desktop in <30secs. Having the OS and core applications installed on the SSD makes for a much smoother experience. Everything loads almost instantly.

For my home rig I am waiting for the 480-512GB ones to drop a little more, so I can happilyu instal all my steam games on it, and not worry too much about the downloads file getting full.

And yes - a good PSU is worth the money. Corsair, Antec or OCZ, Cooler Master or XFX. 

blown capacitors
had this happen once... scared the shit out of me. 

I've been using an SSD for over a year, got all my programs and win installed on it. Indeed sub-30sec startup is great. I don't install games on it though, I'd need way bigger than 120gb for that. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7PJ1oeEyGg 

Single best upgrade you can do. If you are upgrading or building a new system, I would prioritise this over everything else (even if it means making sacrifices in other areas).

Even a 120gb drive is enough to have OS + apps + a few games on it. Programs like SteamMover make it easy to manage (so you can move games back and forth between the SSD and your mechanical dinosaur). 

I love my SSD. My old Core2Duo conked out last fall and I had to build a new machine. I decided to go with an SSD and I'm very happy I did. That sucker boots to the Windows 7 desktop in less than 16 seconds, and most of that is the BIOS starting up. From BIOS beep to the desktop is only about 3 seconds.

I also have an HP Microserver with over 4 TB of storage and I run gigabit ethernet, so the small size of the SSD in the new computer is no problem (it's a Crucial M4 120GB). It also has a 1 TB WD Black that was the data drive in the Core2Duo. 

I bought a new laptop with a SSD and it is awesome, boot up times are crazy fast, it is silent and creates less heat. Downside is the size, I have 120Gb and it is tiny for storing games and apps. 

I think they are even more important for laptops because otherwise you get slow 5400 rpm hdds. :( 

so boot times are one of the most unimportant things ever :-) (at least in the desktop pc) 

Well, I think boot times are something people use just as an example because almost everybody can relate to waiting for Windows to load. Pretty much anything that uses the disk is going to run a lot faster. When I double-click on Firefox, my homepage pops up in one second. Save games load very, very fast if the game is on the SSD.