Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

new system for upcoming MMO's

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 4, 2008 5:17:40 PM

i think i've gotten a decent start but sure could use this board's wisdom, you guys are saints btw. well anyways i started out with a budget of about 1500 bucks, less is always better and a little more is ok as well, and im trying to build something that will last me a few years. its uses will be for surfing, storing music/videos, torrenting, and for gaming, mainly interested in some of the MMO's coming out this year AoC or WAR, etc. any help would be greatly appreciated.

here are some items i found an were thinking about using:

Antec Nine Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250410AS 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

OCZ GameXStream OCZ700GXSSLI ATX12V 700W Power Supply 100 - 240 V - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

CORSAIR 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer 7.1 Channels 24-bit 96KHz PCI Interface Sound Card - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

what would u guys suggest for the OS? 32 bit or 64 bit windows vista ultimate?

what should i do for a processor? a duo or a quad? i heard the duo is the way to go. thoughts?

how much should i spend on a mobo? was thinking about doing a raid 0, 1, 1+0, or 0+1 (thus only the 250gb hd)once i know more about it. so it would be nice if someone could recomend a mobo that would work with what i got and allow the raid for the future.

finally graphics card any suggestions?

thanks in advance any and all help would be appreciated even if its just a link to something useful.

More about : system upcoming mmo

February 4, 2008 5:58:21 PM

Quote:
what would u guys suggest for the OS? 32 bit or 64 bit windows vista ultimate?

The 64bit version will get you a little more out of your RAM. You'll probably have to deal with a some bumpy software issues along the way though. 64bit support isn't where it should be atm.

CPU: If you're going to focus more on gaming, then go with a dual-core processor. Namely, the E8400. It's a fantastic chip that will OC to 4.0Ghz.

Maybe you like to have 52 Tabs open in your browser while simultaneously downloading a 600MB files, instant messaging, voice chat, and playing some CS. Then you'll want a Quad-core CPU. If you need something now - get the Q6600 and overclock it a bit. If you can wait, I recommend you wait for the Q9450. It's projected to be in the same price range, but it improves a lot upon the Q6600.

Motherboard: Do you need SLI or Crossfire capabilities? If you just need something simple, try the GA-P35-DS3 series of boards. (They've all got 45nm Dual-core support - ie. The E8400 Wolfdale will work)

GPU: The G92 8800GTS 512MB will work well with just about anything you throw at it. It performs well even into the 1920x1200 resolutions.
Btw, what is the size of your monitor / resolution you play at?
February 4, 2008 11:00:48 PM

Agree with rgeist554 but the ASUS P5K and P5K E mobo are worth looking at, more features. As far as the OS, I'd stick with XP, still issues with Vista and they'll be releasing SP1 soon, meaning a major pain with reinstalling it. Unless you want to run 4GB of RAM I'd probably stick with 32Bit because some of issues rgeist554 pointed out. Unless you have pretty high quality speakers or running the card through a receiver, you may just want to go with the onboard audio, which is now good. Can always get the sound card later if yo don't like the onboard.
Related resources
February 4, 2008 11:30:58 PM

Here are some great items and I would go with the 250g hd for the OS and the 500gb hd for Storage\data\games you will definately get better performance than putting everything on 1 drive. The heatsink w/fan listed is very good unless you plan to do some major OC.

The 8800GTS (G92) graphics card is probably one of the "best" out there but also will you have dual displays and what size will they be.

2 awesome mother-boards are:

GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS4 LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard

ABIT IP35 Pro LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

EVGA GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB

CORSAIR CMPSU-620HX 620W Power Supply

Seagate Barracuda ST3250410AS 250GB 7200.10 RPM 16MB Cache
Seagate Barracuda ST3500320AS 500GB 7200.11 RPM 32MB Cache

ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro

Samsung SH-S203B SATA

Arctic silver 5 compound
February 5, 2008 6:21:38 PM

Quote:
GPU: The G92 8800GTS 512MB will work well with just about anything you throw at it. It performs well even into the 1920x1200 resolutions.
Btw, what is the size of your monitor / resolution you play at?


monitor im getting should be either 1440 X 900 or 1680 x 1050, so i guess there is nothing to worry about there.

Quote:
Motherboard: Do you need SLI or Crossfire capabilities? If you just need something simple, try the GA-P35-DS3 series of boards. (They've all got 45nm Dual-core support - ie. The E8400 Wolfdale will work)


to tell the truth i don't know for sure what SLI or Crossfire capabilities are, is that multiple graphics cards to one mobo? and i checked out that series of mobos i believe the cheapest one is 90 bucks, are the more expensive ones worthwhile and why?

Quote:
CPU: If you're going to focus more on gaming, then go with a dual-core processor. Namely, the E8400. It's a fantastic chip that will OC to 4.0Ghz.


this was actually the one i had in my newegg shopping cart just wasn't 100% if i was going with the duo, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Quote:
Agree with rgeist554 but the ASUS P5K and P5K E mobo are worth looking at, more features. As far as the OS, I'd stick with XP, still issues with Vista and they'll be releasing SP1 soon, meaning a major pain with reinstalling it. Unless you want to run 4GB of RAM I'd probably stick with 32Bit because some of issues rgeist554 pointed out. Unless you have pretty high quality speakers or running the card through a receiver, you may just want to go with the onboard audio, which is now good. Can always get the sound card later if yo don't like the onboard.


i think i will just go with the onboard sound for now since i can always upgrade, good advice. going to have to check out and compare those mobos later today too. from what all three of you have suggested its looking like im going to spend between 90 and 200 bucks on one which shouldn't be a problem.

Quote:
Here are some great items and I would go with the 250g hd for the OS and the 500gb hd for Storage\data\games you will definately get better performance than putting everything on 1 drive. The heatsink w/fan listed is very good unless you plan to do some major OC.


i'm glad you brought this up, what you suggest isn't any form of RAID, correct? i've hear of the concept of RAID 0 which uses multiply drives but i remember hearing that they needed to be the same size, how is this different? i'd definately like to have around 500 gb of space for storage sooner or later for music/video, but i'd also like to be able to back it up at some point (if i actually fill up a hd that big i might cry if i lost it all), how would you go about doing this?

thanks again for the replies and i apologize if i'm asking stupid questions, you guys are great.
February 5, 2008 6:58:38 PM

Quote:
monitor im getting should be either 1440 X 900 or 1680 x 1050, so i guess there is nothing to worry about there.
Yep, you're good there.

Quote:
to tell the truth i don't know for sure what SLI or Crossfire capabilities are, is that multiple graphics cards to one mobo? and i checked out that series of mobos i believe the cheapest one is 90 bucks, are the more expensive ones worthwhile and why?
Yes. SLI / Crossfire is multiple graphics cards working together. The 1440x900 or 1680x1050 is a medium res (imho) that only requires a single card. 1920x1200+ really starts to push single-cards to their limit. This is where you'll want to consider SLI / Crossfire.

As for motherboards. You don't want to buy a motherboard with a cheap chipset. It will definitely impact performance and probably create a lot of unnecessary trouble for you. The GA-P35-DS3L uses the P35 chipset. This is a great chipset from Intel on a fantastic board. Avoid anything with a VIA chipset!!!


...


Quote:
i'm glad you brought this up, what you suggest isn't any form of RAID, correct? i've hear of the concept of RAID 0 which uses multiply drives but i remember hearing that they needed to be the same size, how is this different? i'd definately like to have around 500 gb of space for storage sooner or later for music/video, but i'd also like to be able to back it up at some point (if i actually fill up a hd that big i might cry if i lost it all), how would you go about doing this?
What he suggested isn't raid, merely he suggested organizing all of your apps to be on a smaller, faster drive, while all the data / storage go on another larger drive. This will generally improve load & seek times.

For raid: You don't want to go with RAID 0 if you want to back any data up. RAID 0 improves read/write speed (a little), but makes it so if one hard disk fails, you lose all information on both drives.

RAID 1 will do what's called "Mirroring". Anything that goes on one disk is simultaneously copied to the other. If one drive ever fails, the other takes over as the primary drive until another drive is inserted.

To do RAID, you need to make sure your motherboard supports it or that you have a RAID controller. (It's basically a PCI or other card that goes into the MB)
February 5, 2008 7:05:29 PM

Hard drives:
1. 250GB SATA primary for O/S and applications
2. 500GB SATA for Data (or bigger if budget allows; can add later)
3. 500GB SATA identical to #2 to either put in RAID-1 with #2 OR do one full backup then regular incremental backups (copies only files added or modified since last full backup) from #2 to #3. If you do the backups instead of RAID, this will let you replace #2 with a 1TB+ drive when it fills up and/or bigger drives get cheaper.
February 5, 2008 7:11:12 PM

rgeist554 said:
...Avoid anything with a VIA chipset!!!





VIA sucks like a Hoover. Only SIS chipsets might suck worse; not sure.



(for those not from the USA, Hoover is a well-known manufacturer of vacuum cleaners, or vacuum sweepers as they'd say in the UK).
February 5, 2008 7:18:59 PM

Quote:
VIA sucks like a Hoover. Only SIS chipsets might suck worse; not sure.



(for those not from the USA, Hoover is a well-known manufacturer of vacuum cleaners, or vacuum sweepers as they'd say in the UK).
I'm going to walk around calling them vacuum sweepers for like a month. I want to see how many people I can get to use the word. :p 

Good point about SIS as well.
February 5, 2008 7:39:43 PM

Quote:
What he suggested isn't raid, merely he suggested organizing all of your apps to be on a smaller, faster drive, while all the data / storage go on another larger drive. This will generally improve load & seek times.

For raid: You don't want to go with RAID 0 if you want to back any data up. RAID 0 improves read/write speed (a little), but makes it so if one hard disk fails, you lose all information on both drives.

RAID 1 will do what's called "Mirroring". Anything that goes on one disk is simultaneously copied to the other. If one drive ever fails, the other takes over as the primary drive until another drive is inserted.

To do RAID, you need to make sure your motherboard supports it or that you have a RAID controller. (It's basically a PCI or other card that goes into the MB)


so RAID 1 is mirroring which writes idential data on each drive as a form of back-up, RAID 0 is data is divided between 2 drives to take advantage of 2 drives writing at once compared to 1 w/out RAIDing. Then RAID 1+0 and RAID 0+1 are combinations of the two for increased speeds and back-ups.

Quote:
Hard drives:
1. 250GB SATA primary for O/S and applications
2. 500GB SATA for Data (or bigger if budget allows; can add later)
3. 500GB SATA identical to #2 to either put in RAID-1 with #2 OR do one full backup then regular incremental backups (copies only files added or modified since last full backup) from #2 to #3. If you do the backups instead of RAID, this will let you replace #2 with a 1TB+ drive when it fills up and/or bigger drives get cheaper.


great advice, i think i will get 2 or 3 250gb hds and just upgrade once prices drop since most of the files i have will be mp3s. so if i have a 250 gb for OS and apps then 2 for storage and storage backup and i just did the incremental back-ups until i figured out how to setup a RAID 1 would i be able to setup a RAID 1 at any point or do the drives have to be blank? like could i have 100 gb on each from manual back-ups and then just set up a RAID 1 and go from there or would i have to wipe both first?

one last question about RAID 0 is there any reason why i'd need the extra speed this allows or is it just for the min/maxers who prefer to have the best?

can't thank you guys enough :wahoo: 
February 5, 2008 8:00:03 PM

While I've heard good things about the E8400 I'd still go with the Q6600 until the other quad core comes out, the reason being is that in the future more things will begin to embrace multi threading and while the E8400 can overclock to 4ghz, you can get the Q6600 to 3.6 very easy on air as long as you have some good ram and a good motherboard. I don't think 2 4ghz cores is gonna be better than 4 3.6ghz cores. You may see a tiny increase in FPS but you get ALOT more value for your money. Let's compare here:

Newegg lists

E8400 229.99, divide that by 2 cores 114.99 per core.
Q6600 277.99, divide that by 4 cores and thats 69.49 per core.

I think you get better value.

Even if you don't do more than gaming, I would still go for the Q6600 because of the multi-threading possibilities in the future :) .

Unless you're gonna upgrade once a better Quad comes out.. then go for the E8400 and save a little money.

By the way this is my setup and I can score over 15,300 in 3dMark06

Antec 900 Case
Intel Q6600 @ 3.6ghz 1.44vcore
Zalman 9700LED CPU Cooler
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4 Motherboard
2GB G.SKILL DDR2 800 Ram @ 5-5-5-15
nVidia eVGA 8800GT 512MB SC
2x 320GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10
SoundBlaster Audigy SE

The case rules but one of my LED's on the front fan is already slowly fading. Who cares though its just an LED.
February 5, 2008 8:05:46 PM

It would be silly to buy the Q6600 right now though. Especially since the new Q9450 will be out soon and priced only a few $ more than the Q6600. It's supposedly going to improve on the Q6600 in every way imaginable, so why not wait? Also, it's likely going to require a new motherboard / socket. So it's going to cost you a decent amount more to swap over when you want.

Not knocking quads, just saying that buying a Q6600 now is sorta like buying the 8800GTS 640MB a month before the 8800GT was due. If you get what I'm saying here. >_>
February 5, 2008 10:24:28 PM

Well you answered your own question. Because it's possible to require a new motherboard/socket (which I don't think new socket, maybe new chipset). Those parts will come at a premium and you can have good performance for cheaper.
February 5, 2008 11:39:55 PM

Talking to a guy i know that works for microsoft, He tells me that a NEW version of vista 64 bit ultimate is the best one out there now. less problems! He says the people who are having issues are the ones who buy the Upgrade from xp to vista. dosnt know why just dose! it should work great for new systems!

Add: the only down side is 400.00 for the new OS :( 
February 6, 2008 12:00:21 AM

doesnt matter if it doesnt have performance to go with it.
February 6, 2008 12:38:41 AM

well good news is i can get just about any OS from my college for free so i can just test them all out, anyone have experience with red hat linux?
February 6, 2008 1:41:00 AM

Go with Vista 64 business is the best version hands-down, Ultimate just has a bunch of useless features. AoC will support DX10 but I think that it will be short lived in the PC circles, console version may last a while though. Playing only humans and arcade combat will be a turnoff for many.

SP1 doesn't improve very much running build 6001 for awhile and nothing has really changed. Then again it worked fine before only improvement I have noticed is with large file transfers. So Dan_P tell your buddy he's full of BS.

Everything else looks fine.
February 6, 2008 11:36:17 AM

cpu e8400
and for a video card id go with any nvidia card mmo's don't really take that much i play Hellgate London, Sword Of the new world with my rig and i never lag i play all my games at max so id go with the 8800gt its not too expensive and its pretty good!
February 6, 2008 11:57:09 AM

Also you may think of just getting a mobo that will support both the E8400 now (which I recommend you get too) and the Q9450 when it comes out later (if you ever decide to go with quad based on your usage) two rock-solid mobo's capable of this are:

GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS4 LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard


ABIT IP35 Pro LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX Intel Motherboard


!