New rig: your advice sought

Personally, I'd use the HDD for storage, and get an SSD for the OS.

You mean, such as:

64GB ADATA SP900 SATA-III 6.0Gb/s - 550 MB/s Read & 505 MB/s Write (Single Drive)

...with the OS on that, and everything else on the 2TB HDD? How much speed would that add to its operations? And are there any special considerations to keep in mind, assuming we went this way, with access between the two, so it doesn't slow down?

And if Win7 can use Superfetch and ReadyBoost to speed operations on an HDD, but disables those on an SSD, wouldn't I lose the speed I gain from accessing a buttload of RAM through these? I'm wondering if it might be more valuable to raise the RAM, if you follow me.

You'll see far more performance gain going to an SSD than going for more than 8gb ram (which is practically never used by Win7).

I believe there is a GDDR5 version of the R7 250 that you can get for the same price as the GDDR3 one. You probably won't notice the difference there, but if it's the same price you might as well...

I advise getting no smaller than a 128GB SSD. You need a certain amount of headroom on them, so buy a bit bigger than you think you'll need. Prices have come down a lot, give yourself some room to grow.

 It disables those because the SSD is already faster without them, so there is no no need.

Go with the more ram...and the 128+ SSD...;)

And if it's either/or?

I also suggest going for a ssd windows drive, but have found that  240GB capacity to be a very good size as I have had to swap UP to 240gb on the systems that I had started with both 64GB AND 128gb as I kept running out of space on the windows drive with the smaller ssd's.

regarding the amount of ram on a ssd win7 system, with more than 8gb you will end up with an unused swap file unless doing things like editing movies or HUGE high res photos.

and you will NOT believe the boot speed difference between a hdd (slow(typically approx 2 minutes)) and a ssd(supersonic(typically 15 seconds)) on the mobo/cpu combo, BUT there is a even faster ssd type that uses a pci-x 4 slot that might even get sub 10secons for a boot to desktop WITH all programs operating.

hope this helps

harpo

If either/or...then the SSD.

Ram you can always upgrade later if you get the urge....eg. I started with 6....and about 12 months later went to 12 [a second 6 the same about half the price] and if I dump all 6 sticks I may yet go to 24 which is the max for this board....but means all-new 24...;)

The best I could manage would be the 64GB SSD, plus the 2 TB HDD. Couldn't spend more than that. If we went that route.

I'm also wondering whether Win7 would use Superfetch and ReadyBoost on the HDD, if it was placed on the SSD.

This is the system I would build based on your stated needs, it about the same price for components and you save the cost of a graphics card

APU: AMD A106800K Richland 4.1GHZ.....4.4GHz Turbo FM2 100W Quad-Core - Black Edition Radeon HG 8670D

MB: pick a board W/ FM2+/FM2 socket and supports ram @ 2133MHz without over clocking.......although the processor

above is FM2, a board with FM2+FM2 socket will support upgrading to the newer FM2+ clips at a later date........2133MHz ram

will give a huge boost to GPU for graphics and its doesn't cost much more than 1600MHz

RAM: 8GB@2133MHz

Graphic Card: NONE

PS: 600W and if you build it yourself a full modular would be nice, although a very good 500W would be sufficient for this build 

HD: SSD large enough for the OS and any software you might run.....HDD for storage

Cooling: In the right case a air cooler(after market)  would work just as well as liquid cooling, cost would be about the same

Good luck

As an old memory management tinkerer, who worshiped QEMM in years gone by, this kind of comment about so much RAM starts me salivating.

I'll also say grab that SSD for your OS and up the ram later. 10-20s boot time... I'm jealous of it. Some of my friends new rigs/laptops are SSDs...  

I like Ernie Leo's suggestion with the exception, I am not a big fan of just onboard graphics. A little reading leads me to believe you will be playing games on reduced settings.

I would add though, with his suggestion, you can add some better graphics support later. IMO.

Happy building, always an awesome time for me, hope you enjoy it.

Last input. Radeon, really, gddr3, really?

Think Nvidia, think gddr5!

Remember, I'm not into twitch games and pulse-pounding action. From what I've read, the GDDR5 gives you a helluva lot more bandwidth for high-end graphics games, but at the cost of latency issues outside them.

Boot times are one thing...but if you're like me...running 24/7 you don't see too many of them....but loading proggies....that's where you see it...and frequently too ...especially the 'bigger' ones like MS Office....Photoshop, etc...;)

Go for the 120 or larger SSD, 70/80 bucks.

ReadyBoost is a joke, don't even concern yourself with it.

I'm really seeing a consensus on the SSD for the OS, and I'm reading that in articles, too. Thanks for the suggestion. Think I'll make that the primary, and the HDD a secondary drive.

Decent enough graphics card, given that I don't need the latest, greatest for anything? Extra fans needed?

Imho:

if it's a business machine, then go for something that produces little heat. The less heat, the less the fan has to turn, the less noise it will make. When you have to work on your computer all day, then imo it's very important that the computer is as silent as possible.

That means: an Intel CPU. And don't go for the fastest one, but one that doesn't produce much heat.

And do not buy a super-duper-fast graphics card. Those produce a lot of heat too. Or maybe you could buy one, but switch it off in BIOS when you're working, and use onboard graphics. And switch it on when you want to play a game.

The 120mm fan you want to buy is a good choice. Liquid cooling looks like overkill to me. You only need liquid cooling if you want to overclock your machine and push it to its limits.

A 250 GB SSD is a must. It'll make your computer so much more responsive.

Absolutely a SSD drive with a minimum of 250 Gigs. And at this moment in time I wouldn't touch AMD anything(that's just a personal preference)

Or if you are obsessed with 'silent'.....producing little heat.....;p

If noise is an issue....think laterally.....earplugs cost four fifths of eff-all...;)

If you are obsessed with "silent" then you go for a cpu that can handle passive cooling. There's a R7 250 with passive cooling as well, if that kind of stuff floats your boat. But liquid is total overkill for this system (if the intent is overclock). You'll gain far more by buying a stronger cpu with stock cooler instead.

What stronger CPU would you or others recommend?

Oh, and the liquid cooling: part of all the midtowers and fulltowers they offer. It's not optional. If it were, I'd drop it.

The 'liquid cooler' for this build is a 120mm x 27mm unit, and costs about $50, an air cooler with the same performance will cost between $30 to $80. This is not a unit for a high performance overclocked CPU. Its self contained and the installation should be no harder than an air cooler.

 My only concern would be there's not much info out there on this unit and you can get a Corsair or Cooler Master for about the same price.