Thanks for the incredibly thorough and detailed analysis of my system quote, Benny Boy ... you guys never cease to amaze me.
"The mb is on the cheap/lower quality side compared to your total investment/budget. ATX size is better and will fit the 300. For build quality it needs to be in the $120 retail range. Instead of B75, try for Z68 or Z77. Z68/Z77 is better/newer tech of the 3 and altho some features(not to be confused with build quality) are not a requirement for you at this time, motherboard longevity can be worth having. If down the road you want some features Z68/Z77 have, whether its with the other latest quoted components as they are, or with certain upgrades including processor, you'd be not only ready but you won't have to buy a diff mb
and Windows, nor have to reinstall Windows and disrupt your programs, data, and os setup."
"The current B75 mb doesn't have the features required to take advantage of K and other features."
Do I, or will I ever, need K for a non-gaming business machine?
I think I follow your logic, I think ("have to buy a diff Windows"?) ...
cheapest gigabyte Z68 ... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128538
cheapest gigabyte Z77 ... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128547
cheapest gigabyte Z68/Z77 ... not one at newegg
Do I really need to be worried about this motherboard for a non-gaming business machine for the next 4-5 years. If so, which lowest price gigabyte board will protect me for the future?
"Judging from the price of the latest quote, they put a pretty high premium on naming/upgrading your parts. No way no how are the changes worth the extra $500."
Yeah, it seems like the price has increased disproportionately to the upgrades, but it's for my business and it's a business expense and they will be taking care of any issues and I won't be stuck with downtime, so I'm willing to overlook it ... don't get me wrong, I'm not a spendthrift, but I'm already into this build time-wise much more than I can afford to be ... time is money.
"It now has RAM for dual channel operation. Whoopee loll. > With 10600, 10660, and 10666 all being 1333Mhz you've got 10600. Honestly tho, it will perforn well. Some programs respond better to faster memory and I believe that includes yours. If all was fair in love and war, the better 1600Mhz would only be a few bucks more. Also it has 2x as many GB's as are realistic. Beyond 2x4GB won't make it faster or future proof it. Dead money. 2x4gb 1600 @1.5volt(or lower v) will increase performance from said 4x4gb and save some $. Use less power too."
You really lost me here. So, do I have the right kind of RAM? Will I not receive any benefit from 16GB or RAM? I'm confused.
"Added the SSD :good: Best move yet. Congradulations"
The plan is to run the OS on the SSD, leaving the WD hard drive for everything else.
"Do you need/use 2 cd/dvd drives or are they part of some kind of fluff?"
Not really, but I occasionally burn a CD from another ... the drives are cheap.
"PNY? Meh, not the better but ok at that level. A step down from the 520. Do you think you'll ever want more than 2 monitors? 2 max with either GPU. Intel's HD grapsics will run 2 monitors but if you run across a time when you need a bit more graphical oomph you'll have a tad."
There is a possibility that I will want to add a 3rd monitor ... I'm told this video card can handle a 3rd, though it's pushing it. Is there a better card? Any considerations other than the video card when adding monitors?