Heres my mission! (upgrade...)

[Schmutz]

My current system spec:

Processor: AMD64 3500+ 2.2ghz
RAM: 1gb RAM pc3200
Board: Abit AV8-3rd Eye (Socket 939)
GFX card: NVIDIA 6800GT 256mb

After much research I want to upgrade to:

Processor: Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz
RAM: Patriot 2GB PC-6400 C4 Extreme Performance
Board: ASUS P5K-E
GFX: PowerColour 2900Pro 512MB GDDR3
PSU: Corsair VX 550W PSU
Additional HDD: Western Digital WD5000AAKS 500GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Cache
My budget is around 500 - 600 £ (1000-1200$)

Primary reasons for upgrading are because I wish to do a LOT of Video editing in AE and 3d work (mostly in 3dsmax). I also want to be able to run the latest games ie. crysis/gears of war pc without problems

Here are the questions I'd like to ask before I do this:

1) How much of a performance increase will I see in After effects rendering times? From my understanding the quad core CPU will be capable of rendering 4 frames at once. Is it worth investing in 4gbs of RAM or will 2gbs be enough. I see 32bit OS can only use up to 3gbs effectively anyway

2) Could you suggest any other motherboards or is the one I have selected fine? I am not clear about the benefits I'd see in (for example) Asus Striker Extreme board i have been looking at

3) 8800GTS or 2900PRO 512mb? I'd like to be more confident in making a decision here. I believe the 2900PRO appears to be the best value for money card available right now. Will be able to run games like Bioshock/Crysis reasonably well with 2900PRO?

4) Is this the best value for money PSU or can I cut down on the price here?

Thanks a lot for any help I hope you can provide as much details possible

Schmutz

 

[Maziar]

1_Q6600 is far better than AMD 3500 , about 4GB vs 2GB , well 2GB is enough for todays games and apps (Crysis recommended RAM is 2GB), but if u have the money go for 4GB, but as u said 32bit OS is limited to 3.5/3.2GB RAM

2_That motherboard is very good , i love mine (although many may say u had problems but hopefully they are solved ) but if u want to play @ 1920x1200 i suggest SLI.
If u want SLI , then dont go with ASUS STRIKER EXTREME , its overpriced because it has some features which arent needed like ASUS LED POSTER , the bets alternative board FOR SLI is P5N32-E SLI PLUS

3_2900Pro is actually a 2900XT with lower clocks, 8800gts 320 is good
too , and they will both play crysis well

4_For PSU , go for OCZ STEALTHXSTREAM 600WAT , its cheaper and better

 

[Schmutz]

thanks a lot Maziar! Its really useful how you've related a lot of the answers to Crysis in particular, because I see that as a target I should aim for upgrading my PC at this time.

This PSU yes? http://www.ebuyer.com/product/127861 What are the key differences between this one and the one I was going to buy? I see +50W. Why is the 550W one I listed the same price? Is it quieter and more reliable or simply a worse deal?

I'll be playing Games at 1280x1024 because thats the maximum resolution my monitor supports so I guess I'll see pretty good framerates if you're talking about running games at 1920x1200 I currently play games like bioshock/PES2008 with 800x600 and high quality so I expect to be blown away

In another discussion I came to the conclusion that 2900PRO is much better value for money than 8800GTS. I have always used Nvidia in the past but I'm fine to jump ship

 

[Maziar]

As u said OCZ one has more watts and also the corsair one provides 41A on 12V :

http://corsairmemory.com/products/vx.aspx

But the OCZ one provides 72A on 12V:
http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/power_management/ocz_stealthxstream_power_supply

2900PRO is not much better value than 8800GTS 320, they perform closely to each other

 

[Schmutz]

thanks for explaining that one

About the video cards again, upon comparing 8800GTS 640mb with 2900PRO in a discussion earlier this week I recieved this response and it influenced my decision to buy 2900PRO, what do you think?

"The NVIDIA card comes with more memory and higher clock speeds and is overall the better card. But the HD2900PRO is basically a stepped-down XT and since the XT wins over the 8800GTS 640MB, you'd expect the PRO to be at least on par with it, at a much lesser price. "

 

[Maziar]

8800GTS 640 performs closey to 2900XT and 2900PRO is lower clocked 2900XT as i said , but 8800GTS 640 will be quieter and consumes less power , but u wont be disappointed with either

 

[Schmutz]

I've just Placed my order I went for HD2900PRO 512mb in the end and on this note from a guy in another discussion:

The StealthXStream, while no doubt a good PSU, is not as good as the Corsair when it comes to quality. It's one of OCZ's PSUs that has a lot of ripple on the +12V rail when it's loaded a lot. Too much ripple can destroy components over time and since you'd be fully-loading the system a lot, I'd still suggest going with the Corsair PSU. It's of much better quality and won't give you any problems down the road. "

...I decided to go for the Corsair one after all, because I am prioritizing stability over small performance benefits Thanks a lot for the suggestion anyway

 

[nukemaster]

As u said OCZ one has more watts and also the corsair one provides 41A on 12V :

http://corsairmemory.com/products/vx.aspx

But the OCZ one provides 72A on 12V:
http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/power_management/ocz_stealthxstream_power_supply

You can NOT just add all the 12 volts rails to get total amperage.
The StealthXtreme 600 is just a GameXtreme 600 with no LED fan some different cables(less to be exact) and slightly lower end voltage regulators(do not let this worry you. they are still more then enough for a 600 watt PSU as most companies use overkill here anyway)

Is it a bad PSU? no.
can it deliver 72amps of 12 volts power? maybe if its in the freezer. why?

amps x volts = watts
so
72 x 12 = 864 watts

864 watts seems a little high for a 600 watt psu and this does not take into consideration the fact that there is also 3.3 and 5 to add to this.

I do not know why they need to lie on there own website just to sell it...

Either way when you do all the math and compare to the 700 watt GameXtreme Known to have a MAX of 50 amps leaves the StealthXtreme at about 41amps just like corsairs offering.

the 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 are just to keep it in the atx spec(thay state that no more then 20 amps on any "rail" so they go 18 to claim it meets atx specs....and it does for the most part, but its a kind of shady way to do things) but for real in this case it's a big ass 41 amp rail that ties to the 4 virtual rails. each can take 18 amps but not all at the same time because there is NOT 72 amps there to take.
----------------------------

PSU wattage is not always what it seems

You can have a 600 watt psu with as much power on the 12 volt rail as a 700 watt if the 700 uses more of its total on 5 and 3.3.

Just a few years back there was a pile of 500(Turbo gamer[i know], apex[i think], and ultra) watt psu's that would not even run what a good 300 could run. all they did was put lots of 5 and 3.3(computers use this but not as much as they use 12 now days) and little 12[we are talking about a psu with 350 watts of combined 5 and 3.3 and only 150 of 12(12.5 amps)]. this allows you to have a high rating (500 watts) without actually being being able to do much.

In this case both are good, but almost equal power supplies. but 72 amps is just not gonna happen...if you keep it cool you may suck 50 out of it....but you can do the same on the corsair...

The GameXtreme700(same specs and the StealthXteme 700)

read the fine print 50amps of 12....so the 600 does not get 72

as you can see the wattage is actually shared across all the power(3.3, 5 and 12) so if you use allot of 5 and 3.3 you start to cut down the 12 volt rail as well(at least on this PSU).... thats why they call it combined. The 3.3 and 5 can not exceed 150 watts total. Once you use all the 3.3 and 5(never gonna happen....but if it does) you only have 43.75(680 - 150 = 530watts) amps left on the 12 volts lines

 

[Maziar]

thanx for clearing that up nuke , so if a PSU has 72A , it doesnt mean it uses all 72A ?

 

[nukemaster]

This depends on how you define uses

On the DC side

Some high end psu do in fact have 72 amps(PC Power and cooling's Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR has 72amps)
http://www.pcpower.com/products/viewproduct.php?show=T1KWSR&view=techspecs

Just because it has it does not in fact mean it uses it. If your computer does not use it(the extra power) the power supply will not deliver it(it has the power but will only deliver what the computer wants/takes)

On the AC(plug side)

Does it draw 72 amps here? NO, a plug in most cases is only rated at 15 amps(on 120 volts for me)
That same math applies here

120v x 15a = 1800watts(sounds odd but lower voltages needs a higher number of amps to get the same wattage...its kind of the laws of electronics )

So the common thought that a 700 watt psu sucks 700 watts is not true....in fact it can suck about 20-30 percent more then that if its loaded. A power supply wastes up to 30 percent of the power it takes in the form of heat lost to the conversion process. When it takes in the AC and converts it to DC and then steps it down to the various voltages used in a PC heat is produced(i may have got this backwards....may step then convert....i dont make psu's). This heat is a loss of energy. Old power supplies used to loose about 30% of there incoming power as heat....

So a 500 watt PSU that is 70% efficient
VS
a 700 watt psu that is 82% efficient

Lets say your computer draws 350(DC) watts of either psu lets see whats better on your electrical bill

350 watts + 30%(thats the difference from 70 to 100) = 455 watts at the wall

Now the 700 watt psu

350 + 18% = 413watts at the wall

So in this case the new 700 watt 80+ PSU will save you power over the old 500 watt

455
-413
-----
42 watts saved with the bigger yet more efficient power supply....

Now if your computer is taking 700 watts of DC the same applies you save power with the most efficient power supply....

_____________________________

Useless fact of the day!!!

Power supply efficiency is not the same at all loads...

So a psu thats rated at 80% efficient is not efficient at all loads

So at 100 watts it may only be 72 and at FULL load it may only be 75. But at about 50-60 it will get to its max efficiency.

This is due to the fact that transformer(the unit that steps the voltage down from 120/240 to 12,5,3.3 ect) is rated with no active cooling. By simply adding a fan you can effectively double its current(number of amps) output ability.

A transformer will hit its peak efficiency when loaded to about 110%(who says you can't to that). So with the fan you power supply can get about 190-200% out of it, but at about 110%(around the 50-60 max of the power supply) you hit you MAX efficiency.

The exception to this rule are fanless power supplies. they hit there max when maxed or even overloaded, but they quickly can overheat(unless a good heatsink is attached to the transformers as well, then 110% can happen....sometimes more).

There are other losses but in general getting a psu about 2x what you need will give you the best power savings.

Corsairs image shows it nice

Also note that power systems running on 240 volts are more efficient in this case too

 

[Maziar]

thanx mate , u always give good and complete answers

 

[Schmutz]

Wow nukemaster he's right. I got caught reading through what you've had to say there, interesting stuff!

I'm going to get my components tomorrow, and I was wondering what all the stuff about "using 2x 6pin or 1x 8pin" meant, regarding connecting the PSU to the HD2900PRO. It seems to be advisable to use an 8 pin connector instead of two 6pin connectors. Haha I am not very fluent at all in this department, so if you manage to decypher what I'm saying could someone give me their opinion here Thanks

 

[nukemaster]

for the 2900xt you need to use either 2 x 6 pins or 1 x 6 and 1 x 8 i think?

Was the extra 2 pins not just to give a little extra power to allow the card to overclock without taking too much power for the 2 x 6 pins

I assume the pro is the same(looking into it).