First Time Build: Wrestling with OS Question

[phantan]

I am building my first PC - nervous but quite excited. I have bought the following components (and will use some others from my old PC):

1. Antec 900 case

2. Antec True Power Trio TP3-650 ATX12V 650W Power Supply

3. Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM

4. ASUS P5B Deluxe LGA 775 Intel P965 Express mobo

5. EVGA 320-P2-N811-AR GeForce 8800GTS 320MB

6. Patriot eXtreme Performance 2GB DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) - PDC22G6400LLK (great price after rebate)

7. Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro

8. Windows Vista Ultimate OEM

9. CPU: Waiting to buy E4400 when it comes out next month... or should I buy the E4300 or even the E6300 now? Any thoughts on this decision?

Other components (DVD/CD, monitor, soundcard, etc.) I will salvage from my current/old PC.

Coming to my MAIN QUESTION: Even though I have already bought Vista Ultimate, and was intending to install it in this new build... I have been having second thoughts after reading all the posts about lack of drivers and related problems, and also am just beginning to find out that many of my current programs are not Vista compatible, and I have to spend more money to upgrade to a Vista comatible version.

I was wondering whether (since I am a newbie with regard to building a PC from scratch and for the other reasons given above) I should build this new PC installing Windows XP Pro from my old computer (which is going to be disassembled), and wait 6-12 months until more drivers for Vista are produced, before doing a clean install of Vista Ultimate on my new build. What do you think of that plan of action? Does it make sense? I value opinions from more experienced folk.

Again, since this is my first time building a PC, I don't want to run into problems or aggravations (due to my lack of experience) because of driver issues. That (and also the need to have to upgrade some of my software) is the primary reason I was thinking of installing Windows XP Pro for now, and hold off until later to do Vista Ultimate.

Your thoughts and feedback are most welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[Grimmy]

Vista Ultimate, isn't that the 32-bit version? Shouldn't have to worry much about drivers. They should be pretty much be somewhat the same as XP?

Vista 64 bit on the other hand would have lack of more driver support.

 

[skyguy]

I'm running 32-bit Ultimate. There are some driver issues that are a pain, that is true. But that's more of a nuisance than a deal-breaker. However, there are some programs that don't currently work with Vista at all. And to be honest, if you absolutely need those programs to run then you'd be screwed if you install Vista. However, if you don't need those programs or can find an alternate, then you could still go with Vista. I had problems getting Nero to work, tried everything and finally gave up on it and went with Roxio. My Norton Ghost 10 won't work at all in Vista either, so I had to go with Acronis. Etc......

However, you COULD go with XP for now, just sit on Vista and install it later.

OR, your last option is just partition your hard drive and do a dual boot. Install XP on one partition, and Vista on the other. CANNOT go wrong there.....just boot to whichever OS you want. So, this will let you try out Vista and see how it goes, and get updates and drivers as time goes by. But if you run into a problem with a program, just reboot into XP and run it from there.

I see that as a win-win situation. You get both OS's, you get a chance to use/learn Vista, but still have XP in case of problems.

I highly recommend a dual boot. No sense in letting Vista sit in the box when you can actually be using it, BUT ALSO have XP as well. The ONLY negative here is it chews up hard drive space for the 2nd partition, and you have to install all your programs twice (on XP and Vista), which will take more time. But I consider that a small price to pay for stability. And then when you're ready to move totally to Vista, just format the 1st partition and use it for data

 

[phantan]

That's right... some of the programs you mentioned (Nero, etc.) will not work unless I upgrade.

Your suggestion of a dual boot is an excellent suggestion! I have never done a dual boot system, do you have any suggestions where I can get help (guidelines, how tos, web links, etc.) to walk me through setting this up? Is this something an inexperienced person can do easily without messing things up? I assume you would set up XP first after partitioning the HD, and then set up Vista later...?

Any other thoughts on the processor question? - Go with E4300 or E6300 now (which one?), OR wait for E4400?

Thanks again.

 

[Grimmy]

Well, that's interesting to know about 32bit Vista. Hmmp.. thought it was more of a heavy patched up OS of XP. :lol:

 

[loner47]

The dual boot is a very good option and not that hard to do.
Google "dual boot vista and xp" you'll get more than enough help to make it an easy setup.

 

[phantan]

Good suggestion.

Any thoughts on the processor question? - Go with E4300 or E6300 now (which one?), OR wait for E4400?

Thanks again.

 

[skyguy]

4300 and 6300 are both good choices. 4300 will let you OC with cheaper 667 RAM, but I see you have good 800 RAM. So a 4300 will probably have your 800 RAM underclocked, whereas a 6300 will OC your RAM too.

Both chips are similar in price, both OC well, pros and cons to each. I'd go with the 6300, but I'm biased since I have one and built 2 other systems with the 6300 as well.

 

[loner47]

Sorry can't help with intel processors, have not had dealings with c2d's.

I know there are many here that can though.

Anyone?

 

[phantan]

Forgive my ignorance - but are you saying that the 4300 will not be able to OC my 800 RAM? Not having OCed anything before (newbie just starting out), I was under the impression that the 4300 and the 4400 could OC the RAM as well.

Thanks for any info

 

[skyguy]

Yes, the 4300/4400 will OC. But since you're an OC virgin, here's the math:

4300
Has a 9 multipler and a stock FSB of 200. So, 200x9 = 1800 mhz, which is 1.8 ghz.

6300
Has a 7 multipler and a stock FSB of 266 So, 266x9 = 1862 mhz, which is 1.86 ghz.

Now, when you OC, you want your FSB:RAM ratio to be 1:1....which means that as you raise your FSB, your RAM is moving synchronous, which is a good thing. So, the higher your FSB, the higher your RAM speed. So now let's look at that when we OC:

6300 - let's say FSB is 400. 400x7 = 2.8 ghz and RAM is 400x2 = 800. So 800 RAM is running at rated speeds at 2.8ghz CPU speed. Great OC, no big voltage tweaks, everyone's happy.

4300 - let's hit same CPU speed for argument's sake. 311x9 = 2.8ghz and RAM is only running at 622. So 800 RAM is now underclocked. But to get 800 RAM back up to rated speeds, you need to go to 400 FSB (same as 6300 example). So, 400x9 = 3.6ghz and RAM is now 800. But 3.6 ghz is insane high, and likely unachievable with a 4300, even with liquid cooling.

So, this means in a nutshell that if you get 800 RAM and a 4300, your RAM will be underclocked. You don't need 800 RAM with a 4300.....667 RAM will do just fine. So you can save money there.

A 6300 will need 800 RAM, however, to hit high OC clocks because of lower multiplier. But your RAM won't be underclocked.


So, the 4300 is a budget overclocker. I'd rather go with the 6xxx series chips, but that's just me. If you want OC'ing on the cheap, get the 4xxx series and 667 RAM.

 

[phantan]

Thanks... I am trying to digest the math...

I have already bought my memorysticks - they are 800 RAM... so the issue of saving money by going to cheaper RAM is a non-issue. I had been reading the reviews (see examples below):

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=8
http://www.techspot.com/review/40-core2-e4300-vs-e6300-overclocking/

While I can't say that I fully understand the "math" in these articles, they seem to be saying that even with air-cooled (I have purchased a Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro), and not with liquid cooling, the 4300 can be OC significantly (matching the E6700??).

I guess my question is: would it be a waste of the 800 RAM if I went with the 4300 instead of the 6300? Also would you wait for the E6320 or 6420 when it comes out next quarter?

 

[skyguy]

Both the 4300 and 6300 can be OC'd to 6700 speeds. I have my 6300 OC'd beyond a 6800 Extreme

Tough call whether to wait. Extra L2 cache doesn't make alot of real-world difference. If you need a CPU now, then might as well get it now though.

Both are good chips. But since you have 800 RAM it really doesn't matter now which you get.

The only big difference that I've heard is that the 4300 needs some serious voltage increases once you start to get close to 3.0 ghz......whereas the 6300 can run at stock volts (or even less than stock). To me, that's a good reason to go with the 6300. It seems that the 6300 has more headroom at lower volts, which is good news for cooling.

But if you want a very moderate OC, then the 4300 will get you there easily.

Pros and cons to each...... :?

 

[phantan]

Thanks... I am trying to digest the math...

I have already bought my memorysticks - they are 800 RAM... so the issue of saving money by going to cheaper RAM is a non-issue. I had been reading the reviews (see examples below):

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=8
http://www.techspot.com/review/40-core2-e4300-vs-e6300-overclocking/

While I can't say that I fully understand the "math" in these articles, they seem to be saying that even with air-cooled (I have purchased a Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro), and not with liquid cooling, the 4300 can be OC significantly (matching the E6700??).

I guess my question is: would it be a waste of the 800 RAM if I went with the 4300 instead of the 6300? Also would you wait for the E6320 or 6420 when it comes out next quarter?

 

[phantan]

Thanks for the info... will think about it.

 

[Newf]

To make things simple:
Since you already have the ram:
Buy an E6300.
Reread the previous posts as necessary to confirm why.
Hint: It's the math...

 

[phantan]

Thanks for the info... will think about it.