Update SAMSUNG SpinPoint T Series HD403LJ 400GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
Model #: HD403LJ
Item #: N82E16822152085
Update LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner included extra White bezel, with 12X DVD-RAM Write Black IDE Model LH-20A1P-186 - Retail
Model #: LH-20A1P-186
Item #: N82E16827106050
SAMSUNG 906BW Black 19" 2 ms (GTG) DVI 2000:1 Contrast Ratio Widescreen LCD Monitor - Retail
Model #: 906BW
Item #: N82E16824001094
Moderator Note: Please don't post thread titles in all caps.
Maybe a 8800 GTS 320 MB, since the monitor is only 19". Use the savings to upgrade to Q6600.
Absolutely agreed with the PSU changes, I like all 4 suggestions.
A CPU cooler, maybe? If you intend to overclock you need one.
Message edited by aevm on 08-31-2007 at 04:39:45 AM
Sorry, had the QTY 2 on the wrong part! LOL Revised it to the DDR Ram which i am getting two of.
Curious, I have heard a couple people say that with that monitor I do not need the 640 MB card, the 320 will do. Can someone explain to me why that is?
Also, the Q6600 is only a 2.4 GHZ processor. Why would i go down to that rather then the 2.66 ghz in the e6750?
Just trying to get an explanation for your reasoning
Message edited by hendersondayton on 08-31-2007 at 03:17:46 PM
The 8800 GTS 640 MB can store twice as many pixels than the 320 MB version. If your monitor has a lot of pixels you need that, if it doesn't you don't. OK, it's not that simple, but that's the idea. You can look at benchmarks, for example here, to get a better idea:
Q6600 has 4 cores at 2.4 GHz each. E6750 has 2 cores at 2.66 GHz each. If you really have enough work to give them to do, the 4 cores in the Q6600 do a lot more work per second than the two cores in the E6750. It depends on what you're doing. Things like compressing a DVD typically work faster on a Q6600. Games are still working a bit better on the E6750, with a few exceptions, but most future games will be smarter and they will work better on Q6600.
Yes. That explains why in some charts you see the 320 MB doing better than the 640 MB. That's illogical, until you realize the 320 MB version they used in the benchmark was running a bit faster than the 640 MB version. Not exactly fair, but they have to use whatever cards they can get.
I'd say the $280 and $300 cards are the best choices here. If you think you will want to replace this card with a smarter one within 3 months and pay the difference, then go with eVGA, they have a step-up program.
I'd shop around a bit if I were you. You might find the eVGA cheaper at other retailers, for example.
Some people here will probably tell you to save your money and get the $270 card and overclock it yourself. That's also an option. You won't get it to match the XFX factory overclocked card, but it could come close. TBH I wouldn't bother for $10 but others would do it just for fun.
They all have a reference standard and design set by Nvidia so they all should be fairly similar (with the exception of overclock). The biggest reasons for the difference in cost is company name, warranty, and bundle.
Message edited by ausch30 on 08-31-2007 at 06:25:14 PM
------------------------------ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-Aristotle
Reply to ausch30
Apart from the clocks they're all similar. BFG comes with a T-Shirt, that's about it as far as bundles. I would pick the XFX.
My own card is a BFG 8800 GTX OC2 and it's great, but I can't recommend the BFG product in this case. It costs $30 more, it's a bit slower, and frankly the T-Shirt is not that great on hot days with the big rubber thingy on the back
The 8800 GTS 640 MB can store twice as many pixels than the 320 MB version. If your monitor has a lot of pixels you need that, if it doesn't you don't. OK, it's not that simple, but that's the idea. You can look at benchmarks, for example here, to get a better idea:
that's not exactly quite how it works... Graphics memory also has to contain all the textures for a scene/level in a game, frame buffer is usually a relatively small chunk of graphics memory
there are games already out that require more than 320mb to allow the use of the highest texture setting... it's the same as the old 256mb vs 512mb argument
you might get lucky and have all the games you want to play only use a small amount of texture memory, but as I already knew that some games I wanted to play (e.g. GRAW2) require more than 320mb for High, I went with the 640mb
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.