Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

My first super build(4000 - 5000 budget)

Last response: in Systems
February 12, 2007 8:37:44 PM

OK 8) , I am actually building a pc for a friend of mine for multitasking and gaming, and this is the best I came up with(for a :twisted: 4000 - 5000 grand budget) and yeah everything is on newegg prices.


Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz $1000


Striker Extreme $420


OCZ FlexXLC Edition 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800(PC2 64000) $290
OCZ FlexXLC Edition 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800(PC2 64000) $290


COOLER MASTER CM Stacker 832(RC-832) $260


OCZ 1000W ProXStream ATX12V $350


Seagate Barracuda 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s $400
Western Digital Raptor 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache $220


ZALMAN 9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler $60


EVGA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB 384-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 SUPERCLOCKED $610


Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Professional Series $150



This is my first option :? , my second option would be waiting until march and getting the same but with an ati r600 and a ati r600 compatible motherboard. :roll:

Is it good? :oops:  I actually learned everything from Toms hardware and the forumz so you be the judge. :wink:
February 12, 2007 8:45:37 PM

Drool :p 

I think it'll be fine. :wink:
February 12, 2007 9:03:12 PM

Nice! Can you go Dual Video Cards, or is that just getting silly?
Related resources
February 12, 2007 9:17:18 PM

If I had 4-5000, (my build is like half of that) I would opt for the silverstone temjin case - the ultimate game build!
February 12, 2007 10:02:36 PM

yeah i agree a tuniq tower would be better. and you might wanna just look into 2 2gb sticks instead of using 4 1gb sticks. oo yeah you should look for a sata dvd burner (much easier as you don't need to worry about master and slave compatibilities if you decide you want to add a second drive).
February 12, 2007 11:02:44 PM

Katamarino my friend says he only wants one card, and I think its the best choice coz hes only getting a 19 inch screen :? .

DeusEx my 3 choices are:

SILVERSTONE TJ09-BW Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
COOLER MASTER CM Stacker 832 Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower
Thermaltake Armor Series Black Aluminum / Steel ATX Full Tower

yeah I think the TJ09 is the better choice....I think I let my personal feelings :oops:  about the CM Stacker 832 get in the way.(I personally want the nvidia version , it looks too cool 8O )

psychomunkey my 3 choices are (again with 3 choices :roll: ):

zalman 9700
tuniq tower
Scythe Infinity

I think I am going with tuniq tower , it seems that its the best choice too, right 8O :?: .

And brick88 I am gonna have to agree with psychomunkey on the ram , coz the timings on the 2x2GB sticks right now kind of suck :( 
February 12, 2007 11:19:14 PM

I think it looks good. Agree with the Tuniq tower.
I like the Thermaltake Armor series because it's big and has good air flow.

What OS are you planning on running?
As mentioned before, do you need 4 GB of RAM?
If you use a 32 bit OS then it will not use more than 3.2 GB at one time. Therefore you're not really getting your money out of paying for 4 GB. If you use a 64 bit OS then 4 GB is would be more worht it.
As suggested before, it's not wise to fill all 4 DIMMs (4x1GB) because the MB will likely clock the RAM down to 667MHz.
So really if you're using a 32 bit OS, at this time, it's probably better to go with the best 2GB of RAM you can buy rather than running 4GB at a slower clock speed and rate command drop. I've looked into it and believe me if it was worth it, I would have gone 4GB too.
I like the Corsair PC2 8888 - expensive but best combo of clock speed and latency timings I could find.
Just my two cents....
February 12, 2007 11:30:31 PM

I would be getting windows vista, I guess the 64 bit version now( and thanks I didn't know that :wink: )
February 12, 2007 11:40:25 PM

A 19'' ???!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahhope that that 19'' runs at a res of 1920x1200
February 13, 2007 12:17:14 AM

No problem.
Going to vista 64 isn't going to speed up the clock speed of the RAM when using 4 DIMMs ( 4 sticks of RAM). It will utilize the full 4 GB of RAM unlike the 32 bit OS, but it will still clock down the RAM.
It's not about the amount of RAM you use, but it's about filling all 4 DIMMs. It has something to do with channeling and how much the MB front bus can handle. DDR2 in 4 DIMMs is too much data to for the MB to handle all at once and therefore clocks it down the speed. I'm not an expert by any means, so that is a "basic" understanding of why it happens. As suggested previously, if you used 4 GB of (2 x 2GB) you would only fill two DIMMs and it wouldn't clock down. Unfortunately 2 GB RAM is super expensive, hard to get, and has slow latency timings. Not worth the money at this point. I just didn't want you to get the impression that Vista 64 is gonna make your RAM run better than Vista 32, it would just allow you to see more than 3.2 GB at one time.
Make sure you do your research about Vista 64. It depends on what you want to use your computer for. Lots of games are not Vista 64 compatible and many programs and antivirus software do not have Vista 64 drivers yet. Don't just dive into 64 unless you know what you are getting into.

Here is a forum post that does a pretty good job of talking about 4 DIMMs and RAM, ect..
February 13, 2007 1:09:34 AM

yup, the 4 DIMMs things sucks! I'm hoping that at some point in the future as more and more mainstream computers up their RAM, they will eventually do a BIOS update to the top of the line MBs to better handle the 4 GB properly. Also the Front bus of MBs will eventually become fast enough to handle it. Anyway, I just wanted to at least make you aware before you spend the extra $$ on RAM that may not be needed.
I personally haven't used G. Skill, but a lot of other really like it.
I would recommend Corsair, OCZ, crucial, g skill.
Honestly, I have no experience with 2GB memory cards.
The specs are reasonable, DDR2 800. The timings are also reasonable at 5-5-5-15, not the best, but not bad at all.
It's worth considering. The cost is similar to the highest performing 2x1GB RAM, which I consider to be the Corsair that you linked. I personally would go with the Corsair (I did) and hope that at some point in the future 4 GB will be mainstream and the upgrade will be better and likely cheaper as the price of RAM drops.
What are you planning on using the computer for, even the most extreme games rarely utilize more than 2GB. I know I really would like 4 GB or RAM, but at this point, I'm not sure how much additional performance it would offer over 2 GB, especially if you use a 32 bit OS.

This benchmark using a few different games only showed an increase of 2% to 19% when using 2GB vs. 4 GB with Windows Vista. Don't forget that in this comparison they used similarly clocked RAM with similar timings. Our comparison would be 4 GB of "slower" RAM vs. 2 GB of "fast as #$%#" RAM. Likely the difference that they saw between the 2GB and 4 GB would then be even less.

Unless you are planning on doing some serious photo or video editing that hogs RAM, the difference should be negligible.
February 13, 2007 1:42:14 AM

yeah I guess the world is not ready for 4 gyg of ram just yet :cry: 
I am going with the kick ass 2 gyg :twisted:

right :? :lol: 
February 13, 2007 1:54:17 AM

Basically, I was in your exact situation and came to the exact same conclusion with guidance from others.
I tried to build the "most extreme" top of the line computer and I ended up with 2 GB of PC2 8888 Corsair. Some may have personal preferences to other RAM products, but nobody will tell you that this RAM is not considered at least one of the most competative high end RAM products. Anything more than 2GB would simply be $$ without a real performance boost... at least thats what I've found so far. If you find different or someone else has another suggestion... I'd be happy to hear it and use it!
February 13, 2007 2:22:46 AM

If you read the link on gaming in Vista above, the extra 2 gigs of RAM actually seems to make a difference, even if it does get downclocked in the process.

Given that, why wouldn't you just go with 4GB in Vista?
February 13, 2007 2:36:18 AM

Basically, the performance increase for the cost was not very good. The performance increase was only 10% and with the cost of the RAM, it's probably not worth it unless you're trying to squeeze every once out of the game.
"The test system used was not a top-end system, but it's comprised of some decent hardware that should make it a viable candidate for our tests.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 CPU - MemoryExpress
MSI P965 Neo-F Motherboard - MemoryExpress
4GB 4x1GB Crucial Ballistix PC8000 (DDR2-1000) - Crucial
Plextor PX-750A DVDRW - Plextor
Seagate 250GB 7200.10 SATA HDD
ATi X1900GT 256MB
Windows Vista RC2 Build 5744 Ultimate 64-bit****
ATi Catalyst Beta Drivers For Vista

The first thing to note here about the system is that it has 4GB of PC2-8000. This memory is rated to run at 5-5-5-15 at 1000MHz, but we ran it at a more conservative 4-4-4-12 at 800MHz. In order to run it at 1000MHz in this system we would have to overclock the CPU and our interest in this article lies in the performance between 2GB and 4GB when gaming."

In this comparison, it's hard to say, but I think it was made with 2 GB of RAM with similar clock speed and timings to the 4 GB version... apples to apples. Now if the 2GB was at a faster clock, then it's closer to what we would be considering in our comparison.
In the above choices for the PC he's building it would be comparing 2 GB of mcuh faster RAM to 4 GB of the slower RAM. Therefore it would like be even a smaller difference.
4 GB is not likely going to hurt you, but based on this, it isn't likely going to help mcuh either. From my understanding, it's basically a wash between the two, so why just use money like toilet paper? :D 
just my opinion based on the research I've done.

EDIT: Also they were using Vista 64 which was able to utilize all 4 GB. Vista 32 would only use 3.2 GB at one time. I'd pretty much say 2 GB of fast RAM would beat 3.2 GB of slow RAM anyday. I'd love to see a good comparison like this... many people have this exact question, and I would love to see what the actual performance difference would be.
February 13, 2007 2:38:04 AM

Microsoft Vista=More RAM THE BETTER

Microsoft XP=Screw four Gigs!!!
February 13, 2007 3:25:07 AM

That was with Vista 32, not Vista 64.

At the time they ran those benches at Inq, the BIOS only recognized 2.8 of the 4 gigs of memory. As mentioned in the earlier article, a BIOS update fixed it so all 4 gigs were utilized, which is likely why 4 gigs gave such a good boost in that article.
February 13, 2007 3:29:11 AM

So xerin7 what would you choose :? ?

OCZ FlexXLC Edition 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 64000) $290
OCZ FlexXLC Edition 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 64000) $290

CORSAIR Dominator 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1111 (PC2 8888) $610

G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) $440
a c 84 B Homebuilt system
February 13, 2007 4:15:59 AM

My 2 cents:
With your budget, get the best monitor you can afford. A 19 incher seems too cheap to me. I suggest something like the Samsung 244T for about $800. This is what he will be looking at for a long time. It has enough real estate to keep many tasks displayed at the same time. (even better, get two!)
As to memory, I would vote for more but slower. Vista does a better job than XP of using all the available memory to improve performance. More is better. The C2D processors get only modest benefits from higher performing memory.
February 13, 2007 1:29:56 PM

Based on what I've read so far, I'm with geofelt. I think 4MB is the way to go with Vista (32 or 64 bit). I would have to see the CAS timings on the G.Skill memory you referenced, but $440 for 2GBx2 is about what you would pay for 4GBx1 ram anyway.

Is it worth it to you to pay an extra couple hundred dollars for a 10% increase in performance? Only you can answer that.
February 13, 2007 2:43:36 PM

That was with Vista 32, not Vista 64.

From the article:
"We used 32-bit Vista and ran into the memory allocation problem. Once you move to 4GB, this board only sees 2814MB of memory. The graphic card and some other devices ate more than a gigabyte of system memory. We are currently testing the 2GB and 4GB setup under Vista 64 but the Vole is not being cooperative on this subject."

They used Vista 64 for the 4 GB setup not Vista 32, so it actually used all 4 GB. Here is my take... In Vista 32 there is a difference between recognizing and utilizing RAM. They do a flash BIOS update which actually allows the OS to recognize that their is 4 GB of memory. It doesn't necessarily mean that it will use all 4GB.

If you look at the previous article, what is the "hands on" difference between 2GB and 4 GB. What does it actually do for game performance. If you look at FEAR, even at the most aggressive resolution 2048x1536 it only increased the frame rate 1 with extra 2 GB of RAM. And the loading times were the same between the two. Where is the difference everyone is talking about?
The initial article showed a possible 10% improvement, but as stated earlier, that was with Vista 64 and with close clock speeds and timings. I have not seen any articles using 2 x 2GB vs 2 x 1 GB comparison. That would easily solve the problem.
Everyone is suggesting more RAM, but I'm just not seeing anything that is very convincing, especially if you use a setup with 4 DIMMs. There is little to no benefit using 4 DIMMs of 4 GB RAM vs. 2 GB of fast RAM. I guess if you consider 10% theoretical improvement for a few hundred bucks than consider it. If you look at game performance the visual response difference really is negigble.


" Yesterday, 09:27 PM
schoenda [H]Lite
For what it's worth, whatever Vista "sees", when I had 2gigs I usually showed around 50% memory used during normal use, now with 4gig I show about 25% this mean vista sees it but isn't using it? Not sure about this prefetch thing...let me get my stopwatch out and open some programs.

In any case I see NO performance benefit in FPS's or "feel" in Vegas or Oblivion, not that I had real issues to begin with. I guess I was irrationally hoping that Oblivion would feel smoother at times, I do suffer from the occasional stutter. No dice. "
February 13, 2007 5:30:15 PM

The Asus Striker is overpriced.. and for that budget, there's no way I'm going without RAID arrays.. preferably 0+1 or 5.. but at least RAID 0. Watercooling for performance and silence.. X-Fi Elite sound.. and at least one 24/27/30" Dell display.
February 13, 2007 6:48:22 PM

Everything look awsome...just don't forget to add the "DELL UltraSharp 3007WFP LCD" to go with it. Gaming will never be the same. :wink:

* Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (No OC)
* Tt Orb II Blue Cooler
* ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512MB DDR3
* ASUS P5B-VM with Tt LANBox microATX case
* 2x1GB, PC2-4300, CL=3-3-3-8, Geil Ultra Low Latency
* Ultra 550W ATX (Ultra X2 550-Watt with UV & SLI ready
* Lite-On 20x DVD/CD Writer with LightScribe
* TrackIR 4 Pro
* Cougar HOTAS
* Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP LCD
"One Can Never Have Enough"

Cheers! 8)
February 13, 2007 7:00:20 PM

You nailed it silencer. RAID 0 or RAID 0+1 all the way. Dual Raptors will help feed that beast of a system. I also agree about the overpriced mobo.

Get a RAID array in there, go with the 2 sticks of good ram as suggested and get a HUGE LCD monitor. 30 inches are a requirement for a $5000 dollar system.
February 13, 2007 7:42:54 PM

Yeah I know what you mean 8) the DELL UltraSharp 3007WFP LCD is a must!..but I told my friend and he sayd he didnt have anywere to put it 8O ...I know....I knoww :x