Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Another rate my rig post!

Last response: in Systems
Share
June 24, 2007 4:42:27 PM

Ok, i've been trolling this forum for a while now trying to gather as much information as possible before posting and i think i may have a decent understanding finally. Here is what i have so far:

Case: Antec 900
http://www.newegg.com/product/Product.asp?item=N82E1681...

PSU: OCZ 600W
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1681...

CPU: E6600 (yea i know about the quad price drop, but for my needs i don't need it quite yet, so i can upgrade to one later)
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1681...

CPU cooler: Arctic Cooler freezer 7 pro
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1683...

Vid Card: Evga 8800 gts 320mb version (should i get the 640 if i intend to get Starcraft 2 and unreal 2007?)
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1681...

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-N650SLI-DS4 or Msi p35 neo2-fr (havent decided, could use more info on these if possible)
gigbyte--http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1681...
MSI--http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

RAM: G. Skill (2x1gb) DDr2 800
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1682...

HDD1: Western Digital 150gb raptor drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

HDD2: Seagate Barracuda 320gb storage drive
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E1682...

Dvd burner: Lite on sata dvd burner (to be honest i just found the first sata one i clicked on and picked it)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


My requirements are to stay around the 1500$ mark sans monitor/keyboard/mouse/speakers. I plan to reuse the ones i have. I have vista business 32 bit edition from my school, so i dont need to buy an OS either. My needs for this machine include WoW, but i know that a lesser machine could still eat that game for breakfast, and the upcoming unreal 2007 and starcraft 2. For my monitor i have a 22" widescreen running at 1680x1050. I could learn to OC but as it stands now i have almost no real working knowledge of how to do it. I know the basis and the requirements and all, but for now i don't think i need to OC for what i plan to do.

I would like to pre thank everyone who posts tips and suggestions.

More about : rate rig post

a b B Homebuilt system
June 24, 2007 5:33:36 PM

Sounds good. A few quick ideas:

Ditch the Raptor, use the $199 to upgrade the 8800 GTS to 8800 GTX. Starcraft won't need it but I think UT2007 will like it. Crysis will need it, and who knows what other games you'll want to play next year.

If you can wait until July 22 get the Q6600 even if you don't need it now. The price difference will be really small and games like Supreme Commander or UT2007 will benefit.

Mobo: I'd go with Gigabyte. First because they have great customer support, second because 650i is a mature technology.

Good luck :D  :D 
June 24, 2007 6:02:39 PM

Awesome, thanks for the quick reply! :D 

I like the fact that a raptor loads things quicker, but if a gtx is much better for the games than a raptor, i can definetly get behind that idea. And do quad cores have issues with games atm? I've heard rumors, only rumors mind you no official articles or anything, that they can give issues with framerate and whatnot.

Other than that thanks very much for the input. :D 
Related resources
a b B Homebuilt system
June 24, 2007 6:15:11 PM

Well, a Raptor would help when the game loads, or between levels. It's not helping that much with the fps. Anyway, you can add a Raptor later if you feel like it. Heck, you can add two or three Raptors in RAID if you want to go wild, they're designed for that sort of thing :p 

Quads have only one issue with games, as far as I know, but it's big: most of today's games only use one or at most two cores. That will improve. Supreme Commander already uses 4 cores. Several games and game engines under development these days will do the same.
June 24, 2007 7:19:17 PM

I have to second going to the 640MB GTS at the very least, especially if you have a 22inch monitor, who knows what resolution you may want to run at later on down the line, not to mention with some many un-explored aspects of D10 still looking having the extra ram can only help.

That being said, looking at your rig I would also agree on ditching the Raptor if you have to cut costs to get the 640MB GTS. Don't get me wrong, I would keep it if you could, but if it is price, than ditch it and get the card. Now, in my opinion, if it was between the GTX and the Raptor I may have to think twice again, but anyway... the choice is yours.
June 24, 2007 7:27:16 PM

I would have to say that I would recommend going with the Gigabyte P35C DS3R, or just the normal P35 DS3R. These are great boards and both have some of the best overclocking out there! Also if you are worried about future upgrades, then this is the motherboard for you, the P35C has slots for DDR2 and DDR3 for when you decide to switch, and it supports all of the new Intel CPUs coming out, including the new quad cores.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
June 24, 2007 8:00:11 PM

Woohoo more suggestions keep em coming!

I like that board. It's got twice as many sata ports and while it's not sli, i dont really ever intend to do an sli setup. So it's win win!

And i think i will indeed get the gtx and just save up some money for a raptor or two later on.

Just one last question, more of a reassurance for me, but is the case i have listed enough room for everything and an internal fan that the case supports, while all the while staying cool and slightly cluster free?
June 24, 2007 8:05:50 PM

That case will do just great. I've heard that 8800GTXs are tight fits, especially if you're doing SLI, but you're not, so I don't think you have anything to worry about, and it has great cooling.
June 24, 2007 8:06:12 PM

Given that you are not going to be doing and OCing, and looking at your parts list currently, YES! But I haven't factored in the GTX card as that baby is a beast! Good thing you are not going with the Q6600, if you were, and you went with the GTX card, and you even considered OCing I would say you need to change PSUs. As it stands the build looks good, but check out the fit for the GTX in that case.
June 24, 2007 8:12:02 PM

Well i actually just found out that

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
(Coolmax 700w) comes bundled with the case i want for the same price as that 600W one. After reading the reviews on it, it seems like it will do just fine, so factoring in that, would you say i would have enough power for the gtx, Q6600 AND to OC when i get around to reading up on it should i decide i need more power?
June 24, 2007 8:18:19 PM

I can't say for sure as I don't know anything on that PSU.

Selecting the right PSU for the job is important, it is the one part that can really do damage and cause some of those problems we never can predict.

Just make sure it has the right amount of amps per 12v rail to support the GTX. I can't see why it wouldn't, but hey, better to be safe than sorry.
a b B Homebuilt system
June 24, 2007 8:42:21 PM

Try this, I found it very useful in the past:

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

I got 636 W with Q6600, 8800 GTX, 2 DDR2 sticks, 20% aging, 3 SATA disks, overclock to 3GHz, several PCI/USB/fans.

There's a sticky thread under PSUs, here:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/PSU-101-102-ftopict198276.html

I don't like the reviews of the Coolmax at that newegg page you listed. I think there are better choices in that price range. I like Antec TruePower 650W, Corsair 620W, Seasonic 700W for example.
June 24, 2007 9:03:36 PM

Quote:
Try this, I found it very useful in the past:

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

I got 636 W with Q6600, 8800 GTX, 2 DDR2 sticks, 20% aging, 3 SATA disks, overclock to 3GHz, several PCI/USB/fans.

There's a sticky thread under PSUs, here:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/PSU-101-102-ftopict198276.html

I don't like the reviews of the Coolmax at that newegg page you listed. I think there are better choices in that price range. I like Antec TruePower 650W, Corsair 620W, Seasonic 700W for example.


I was wondering, with the 636V rating, what was the CPU voltage you used for OCing to 3Ghz, and what system type processor did you select. Given the nature of the quads actually being two Core Dual cores I wasn't sure which way to go as I have been told it should be a dual processor setting... I understand with the Duo it is one processor but it is also one core, with the quads it is one chip overall but basically two Duos overall in one chip.
a b B Homebuilt system
June 24, 2007 10:30:16 PM

I picked 1.4V. No idea if it's actually possible to reach 3.0 GHz with a Q6600 at that voltage. You'll have to ask the overclocking experts on that one. :oops: 

I selected "single processor". That Web app counts sockets there, not cores.

We've had some debates here in the past about whether Intel's "quad-core" is a real quad or not. Amazing what people can find to talk about when they're bored :lol: 

Yeah, an Intel quad is made by selecting two duos that work at similar frequencies and then sticking them together with common cache. It is actually a very smart idea IMO: lower cost, better yield (if a core fails it compromises only one other good core, not 3), ready in 2006 instead of 2008, etc.
June 25, 2007 12:54:30 AM

Quote:
I've heard rumors, only rumors mind you no official articles or anything, that they can give issues with framerate and whatnot.


The only thing I can think of to lead credence to that would be this: If a dual core running at 2.6Ghz is compared to a quad core running at 2.4Ghz, with an application that only uses two cores, the 2.6Ghz processor is going to do better.

From what I heard from an expert in the field (field, as in, studies and does work with CPUs on a highly technical level), the current Intel quadcore CPUs do not suffer bandwidth problems. Which means that the Ghz rating between an equal speed dualcore and quadcore, should, give the same result in applications that only use one or two cores.
June 25, 2007 12:19:07 PM

Hey GOOD Guess! :D  I think 1.4V sounds pretty reasonable, just from my reading...

With regards to the chip setting i figured i would ask as i have engaged in this very discussion many of times. I made a post recently, explaining my view on this issue, not sure if you are interested but here it goes, from my perspective.

While everyone has clearly agreed that you do not select the quad settings, as you do not have four chips present, many have wondered if you are justified in selecting a dual setting.

I myself understand the argument for both and I don't know if I ever found a clear answer. This particular problem/question may be specific to the design of the calculator itself, remember, this isn’t directly provided by intel and may not be exactly accurate. Anyway, that being said, have tested the system under many conditions, one example was by keeping one CPU selected but changing between a quad chip, duo chip, and a single old Pentium chip processors. In each case there was absolutely no change in the power requirements. I wondered why to be honest, especially once you go from single to dual cores. If you read the spec sheet provided by intel on the Q6600 you can see an obvious difference in many of the voltages when compared against that of signal core processor E6600. That being what it is I would think you should at least some change in requirements. I do agree though that since you have only one chip and not two you are not actually drawing the same amount of power from the system just because you have two cores versus one core. Simply put, two independent chips have different requirements over one chip with two cores but two cores will have a different draw requirements over a single core.

Now what the draw is I don’t know, but to be honest, if you want to be safe, I would say set everything up as best you can, go back and select one chip, record the power requirements, then change the single chip settings from one chip to two chips, record the power requirements, finally, take the average of the two values. I would say that if you have a PSU at the average value then you are probably being safe.

Example 1 lets say, using a single chip setting calls for 430Watts, and when you change the settings to reflect two chips the power requirements just to 545Watts, than I would take the average, 488Watts.

Anyway, this is just my opinion on the situation. I figure it is always better to be safe than sorry, and in the end, just being reasonable with some of your assumptions can go along way.
a b B Homebuilt system
June 25, 2007 1:31:40 PM

That's how I see it too. I've seen benchmarks where the E6600 was doing 1% or 3% better than the Q6600, and others where it was doing 40% worse. It's pretty clear which of these tests were multithreaded and which weren't. Maybe that 3% caused the rumours, I wonder... Or maybe it's just that dual cores overclock better.

@Kronos76: I think it's good to leave some room for future upgrades, so yeah, if you add 100W or 200W to the recommendations you can sleep better. What if the video card you will want next year requires 200W more than the one you have now, for example.
June 25, 2007 2:41:43 PM

Quick update,

I was reading a recent issue of PC Gamer, special edition (PC Game Building) and in there they break out Power draw differences from the E6700 to the QX6700 and it is just shy of being double. They list the Power Draw for the QX6700 as 125W and the E6700 as 65W. Now to me that is interesting given that when change the processors on the calculator the wattage draw does not change, yet if you change from one processor to two processors you see about the same jump mentioned in the article.

Anyway, just thought you may find that interesting, I think the calculator may need some updating, either that or the article needs a better QC department….
a b B Homebuilt system
June 25, 2007 3:32:39 PM

OK, I played a bit more with the calculator. If I select nothing at all except the CPU, single processor, TDP at 100%, then I get QX6700->168W and E6700->103W. Subtract 38W (no idea why the calculator starts at 38W), you get 130W and 65W respectively. That (almost) matches the article you've read. I think it's just the GUI that's horrible, but the numbers are OK :lol: 

Sookums, sorry for hijacking the thread. How are you doing? Any questions left unanswered?
June 25, 2007 3:39:54 PM

By all means hijack away, this is very good information to add to my growing knowledge on these topics. And i'm relatively sure that i will be adding and changing the cpu to quad, gts to gtx and dropping the raptor for now as recommended. All of those changes are based on pretty solid bases. I'm still looking at motherboard, but the new one linked keeps drawing my attention. I appreciate everything you guys have posted very much. :D  :D 
June 25, 2007 3:40:39 PM

Quote:
OK, I played a bit more with the calculator. If I select nothing at all except the CPU, single processor, TDP at 100%, then I get QX6700->168W and E6700->103W. Subtract 38W (no idea why the calculator starts at 38W), you get 130W and 65W respectively. That (almost) matches the article you've read. I think it's just the GUI that's horrible, but the numbers are OK :lol: 

Sookums, sorry for hijacking the thread. How are you doing? Any questions left unanswered?


Could be just that simple!! Good work, my apologies as well, sorry to derailing the thread Sookums.

Update
A new PSU tool, doesn't seem to bad....

http://web.aanet.com.au/SnooP/psucalc.php
!