Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RFC - Let me know what you think!

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 21, 2007 11:58:29 PM

Ok,

Thanks to everyone for offering their input on my previous post. As a refresher, I'm looking for a good/solid mid-range system and have a budget of around $1000. That being said, here's what I've spec'd out. Let me know what you think. I hope to place the order within a week:

Case: COOLER MASTER Centurion 5 CAC-T05-WW (~$50)
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Conroe 2.66GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6750 (~$195)
Mobo: ASUS P5W DH DELUXE/WIFI-AP LGA 775 Intel 975X ATX Intel Motherboard (~$190)
RAM: Patriot Extreme Performance 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (~$50 x 2)
HD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive (~$80)
Video: PNY VCG88GTS32XPB GeForce 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP (~$280)
Power: CORSAIR CMPSU-520HX ATX12V v2.2 and EPS12V 2.91 520W Power Supply (~$130)

Total Damage: ~$1,035

Let me know if anyone has any major concerns (or if something isn't going to work together!)

Thanks in advance for your help.
Ronman



More about : rfc

September 22, 2007 12:34:12 AM

Look into the Asus P5K board as an alternative. It can take up to DDR2 1066 memory and it supports chips with a FSB of 1333. It's also like $50 bucks cheaper than that P5W DH Deluxe.
September 22, 2007 12:54:02 AM

Go with a Pentium E2160 dual core for $90 (an incredible overclocker - do a google). Slap in 2 gigs of Patriot Extreme Performance DDR2-800 RAM (CL4-4-4-12) for another $90.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 22, 2007 1:00:12 AM


If price is not a problem then go with the Q6600. The extra 2 cores will be beneficial in the long run.
September 22, 2007 1:58:18 AM

Anonymous said:
If price is not a problem then go with the Q6600. The extra 2 cores will be beneficial in the long run.

maybe in 2-3 years and only if he's running SLI, dual-cores are fine unless your building a server or high-end workstation.
It really sickens me to think that people actually believe that Intel even makes a quad-core, it's nothing but 2 C2D's on the same die, it has no integrated memory controller and the 2 chips cannot even communicate with other on the die, it has to be done thru the PCI-E bus.
The Barcelona made by AMD is 1st true quad-core chip..................period
September 22, 2007 3:06:25 AM

I hear Barcelona isn't that good after all. Maybe it's more elegant inside, but I prefer a faster CPU.

Crysis will be released sooner than 2-3 years, I think it's about 2 months in fact. It will use 4 cores.

Sorry to hear that Intel's strategy sickens you. See the bright side, they made billions for their shareholders with it :kaola: 
September 22, 2007 3:51:25 AM

I have no manufacturer preference in general, but I do admire elegance in design. Barcelona has this elegance, but it is a brand new chip, and all performance figures are only preliminary. The architecture has not been fleshed out and software has not been optimized for it. AMD has been remarkably efficient in competition with "big brother" Intel, and I have a feeling that its latest offerings will be competitive with Intel's offerings once we see the new architecture come into maturity and clock speeds increase.

That said, at this point in time, Intel is the faster choice (this may well change by Christmas time). The system that I am currently working on will use a Quad.

On the subject of Duo vs Quad, it really boils down to application support. If you are primarily looking at currently available software, many categories do not get the large performance bump from the quad. Today's games often don't, but newly released games, like Crysis, will. Ultimately, the choice between the two processors comes down to intended use, if you are thinking about high end WS use (particularly in the realm of 3d rendering/video encoding) the quad is the better choice.
September 22, 2007 5:59:30 PM

The thing about AMD is that it keeps competition going and it manages to make great products despite a much lower R&D budget than Intel's. I won't go as far as saying their products are the best these days, but they do have my respect and I'm very happy they're around.

Quad: it depends on what you're doing. I find my Q6600 very useful when compressing audio or video. I get about 80% usage on all 4 cores (I'd get 100% with RAID or a Raptor, I suppose). That's equivalent to an E6850 overclocked to 3.84 GHz working at 100%, if I got my math right. The Q6600 is supposed to be better than a dual core in Crysis and Hellgate too, we'll see soon. In the short term an E6750 is probably a better choice for most people, especially at $100 less.
Anonymous
September 22, 2007 6:07:52 PM

I'm getting sick and tired of AMD people that do not understand English or can't count. Quad means 4. 2 Core 2 Duos in the same package gives you 4 cores. Now please get over the fact that AMD can't touch that and move on!!

I think some people too many times argue the wrong items. Saying the Q6600 is not a true 4 core in my opinion is wrong and I will not agree with you. Now, if you want to say that the architecture of the Q6600 is not the best possibility for 4 cores then I may agree with you, but that discussion belongs somewhere else.
!