Ordering parts for new system, still a bit unsure

[psilocybn]

I’m ordering parts this weekend and still torn on which route to go.

1. This system will only be used for gaming.
2. I’ll be using a 24” LCD at 1920x
3. At the moment mainly interested in Crysis, Hellgate, and Bioshock
4. Going to give Vista x64 a shot
5. I’d be happy with getting a rig together for $1200, but I don’t want to cut to many corners…willing to go up to $1600 (trying to save some cash for a high quality 24” LCD to replace my 21” CRT)


Here are the two systems I’m looking at:


$1100 Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L based system: Over the next 18 months or so, I could always slap in a 9800 series or 10800 or whatever series in when they come out and/or a 10k rpm drive or two

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=5559405&WishListTitle=GIGABYTE+GA%2DP35++++%241100


$1400 780i based system: Over the next 18 months or so, on this build I could add another GPU in SLI if I feel the need.

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=8395648&WishListTitle=EVGA+780i+%241400

 

[antas]

The $1400 system looks really good The only problem is the lack information on 780i capabilities (yet). Maybe somebody have a good insight on this.

But yeah, if I were you, I will go for this one since you're planning to use it for gaming only (with such spec demanding game) on high res (1920). In the future you might need SLI, which is P35 lacking. I will give it a shot for this one ..

 

[hughyhunter]

First off... if you want to play only games SLI is crucial here.

So build you system around two or more GPUs like the X38 or 780i.

I like the 780i build. You would be wise to get two 8800GTS' though. You would be unwise on planning to upgrade to a 9800 with only slight performance increase (later i'm talking... but if you are willing to wait than cool)

I have the same PSU, motherboard and love them both. The EVGA overclocks nice... up to 525FSB i've read and got mine at 450 right now on air.

I think you would be better off with the E8400 right now. Articles i've read reviel that all the games that you play will play better on an E8400 vs Q6600 or even a Q9300. Costs less too!

Get the Thermalright ultra-120 extreme. It mounts so solid you can tell the high quality just by handling it.

Your missing a hard drive!

If you get 2X2GB of memory now you have room for two more later. Make sure they are EPP or sli certified so that your SLI motherboard can take advantage. I have the OCZ reaper 2X2 pc6400 but have seen them in 8500 recently.

 

[resonance451]

Don't go for Vista 64.

 

[hughyhunter]

Don't go for Vista 64.

It would be more helpful for you to have some sort of justification for your statement "dont go for Vista 64". This is like saying "dont eat ice cream for breakfast". Well why should I not eat ice-cream for breakfast? Well I will tell you why! Because it's not a balanced source of both protein, fats, carbohydrates and vitamins and minerals. Therefore you should opt for something along the lines of maybe some eggs, turkey bacon and some whole wheat bread with maybe some butter and a little jelly. Dont forget the orange juice for vitamins.

I use Vista 64 and believe that the pros of supporting up to 16GB of memory for home premium far out weigh the cons. I like having 4 Gigs of memory seen by my OS and wouldnt have it any other way... but if you can justify your statement and show some data or proof of why not to go for 64bit Vista than good... give it to us!

 

[psilocybn]

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=5559405&WishListTitle=GIGABYTE+GA%2DP35++++%241100

I decided to go with $1100 Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L system, but I made some of the suggested changes:

1. Traded the Q6600 for an E8400
a. though it’s out of stock at Newegg and not seeing it on Clubit.com
b. Would this work? http://www.directron.com/bx80570e8400a.html

2. Traded the PC Power & cooling 750W for a 610W
3. Traded the 250gb 7200.10 for a 500gb 7200.11 32mb cache

 

[Zorg]

I use Vista 64 and believe that the pros of supporting up to 16GB of memory for home premium far out weigh the cons. I like having 4 Gigs of memory seen by my OS and wouldnt have it any other way... but if you can justify your statement and show some data or proof of why not to go for 64bit Vista than good... give it to us!

I'll justify why you are worse off with 4GB and your Vista 64bit then you would be with Vista 32bit. You might want to upgrade to 8GB.

Pulled from another post.

Vista Workshop: More RAM, More Speed | Tom's Hardware

We can also see that the 64-bit versions take up quite a bit more memory as well. Again, the explanation is very simple: all of the variables are no longer only 32 bits long, but 64 bits instead. Typically, this makes applications between 20% and 40% larger, which consequently results in a higher memory footprint as well. File formats such as music files or videos are not affected by this.

The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64-bit version of Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32 bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also immediately lose it to the system due to the 64-bit version's larger memory footprint. Thus, using a 64-bit version really only makes sense with larger memory sizes.

 

[resonance451]

It would be more helpful for you to have some sort of justification for your statement "dont go for Vista 64". This is like saying "dont eat ice cream for breakfast". Well why should I not eat ice-cream for breakfast? Well I will tell you why! Because it's not a balanced source of both protein, fats, carbohydrates and vitamins and minerals. Therefore you should opt for something along the lines of maybe some eggs, turkey bacon and some whole wheat bread with maybe some butter and a little jelly. Dont forget the orange juice for vitamins.

I use Vista 64 and believe that the pros of supporting up to 16GB of memory for home premium far out weigh the cons. I like having 4 Gigs of memory seen by my OS and wouldnt have it any other way... but if you can justify your statement and show some data or proof of why not to go for 64bit Vista than good... give it to us!

Here's some further justification: Vista-64 has serious driver and compatibility issues. As it is, Vista 32-bit already has enough problems of the sort at the moment, and there's no reason to go to 64-bit for the great majority of users, and it drives me nuts when every time I look in a thread somebody is choosing Vista 64 "for teh rams" without thinking about what they're purchasing. And each time I say the same thing, so I figured instead of regurgitating the information for the thousandth time, I'd just give my advice without a thousand page reference.

Oh, and next time, for God's sake, don't be such a twat about it.

 

[Zorg]

... and there's no reason to go to 64-bit for the great majority of users

Not to be a :lol: twat :lol: about this, but there really is no reason to go Vista at all.

 

[resonance451]

Not to be a :lol: twat :lol: about this, but there really is no reason to go Vista at all.

Still using XP to this day.

PS:

Tom's Hardware says:

Vista 64 still faces a few challenges, not the least of which is often a lack of drivers...none of the current generation of applications can come even remotely close to utilizing the maximum amount of memory installable.

LOL INTERNETS

 

[Zorg]

In Vista's defense the 32 bit driver issue has been pretty well worked out. My irritation is the DRM, kernel lockdown, etc., which I believe has contributed to a lot of the driver issues. I don't gain anything and have to suffer bloat and buying into the DRM implementation, so why switch. I hope that MS feels the resistance and adjusts accordingly.

P.S. I don't even keep movies or songs on my computer so I don't have some kind of pirate hard on.

Edited: In order to not look like a twat. Vista 64, got it, I was actually going to use that earlier and completely spaced.

I do have to admit, I didn't use it because it is somewhat of a non issue. MS is loosening up, due to necessity, and the drivers are being written. 64bit has always been the redheaded stepchild, which will change over time.

 

[hughyhunter]

https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=5559405&WishListTitle=GIGABYTE+GA%2DP35++++%241100

I decided to go with $1100 Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L system, but I made some of the suggested changes:

1. Traded the Q6600 for an E8400
a. though it’s out of stock at Newegg and not seeing it on Clubit.com
b. Would this work? http://www.directron.com/bx80570e8400a.html

2. Traded the PC Power & cooling 750W for a 610W
3. Traded the 250gb 7200.10 for a 500gb 7200.11 32mb cache

I think you would be spending too much for that E8400. I bought mine from tigerdirect for 219 two weeks ago.

Here's some further justification: Vista-64 has serious driver and compatibility issues. As it is, Vista 32-bit already has enough problems of the sort at the moment, and there's no reason to go to 64-bit for the great majority of users, and it drives me nuts when every time I look in a thread somebody is choosing Vista 64 "for teh rams" without thinking about what they're purchasing. And each time I say the same thing, so I figured instead of regurgitating the information for the thousandth time, I'd just give my advice without a thousand page reference.

Oh, and next time, for God's sake, don't be such a twat about it.

Well so sorry to disturb your comforts. Vista is still good for those who want uber high amounts of memory... I have had no problem with Vista (well at least no more of the usual MS issues than I did with XP) and recommend it due to the upgradeability to 16GB memory.

 

[chuckm]

Just checked, the E8400 is in stock at Tiger for $229.99, it's OEM, no cooler. Guess it depends on the cooler and longer warranty.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3636566&sku=CP2-DUO-E8400

 

[hughyhunter]

If you go with the P35 chipset you should get this memory http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231128

Probably get the next step up in Gigabyte P35 boards in case you want a RAID controller for later upgrades in hard drives for striped or mirrored arrays.

 

[resonance451]

Well so sorry to disturb your comforts. Vista is still good for those who want uber high amounts of memory... I have had no problem with Vista (well at least no more of the usual MS issues than I did with XP) and recommend it due to the upgradeability to 16GB memory.

You weren't disturbing my "comforts", you were being an ass and still can't admit it so you have to stoop to a half-assed apology combined with an insult.

And I don't suppose you realize that virtually all systems that one would want to run vista on end up having boards with only 4 DIMM slots? That means a maximum of 8gb RAM in a practical setup. And as mentioned before, you'll end up having many of your applications made larger and wasting much of that space anyways. You're only using 4gb yourself, so you're actually backpedaling yourself into the ground.

You also seem to forget what accounts for most of a system's performance and where the bottlenecks lie for common applications.

PS - Oh yes, 64-bit will become hardcoar, just like a high percentage of XP users now use 64-bit XP... like 80% right? Oh wait, almost nobody does and it didn't become popular.

 

[hughyhunter]

It would be more helpful for you to have some sort of justification for your statement "dont go for Vista 64". This is like saying "dont eat ice cream for breakfast". Well why should I not eat ice-cream for breakfast? Well I will tell you why! Because it's not a balanced source of both protein, fats, carbohydrates and vitamins and minerals. Therefore you should opt for something along the lines of maybe some eggs, turkey bacon and some whole wheat bread with maybe some butter and a little jelly. Dont forget the orange juice for vitamins.

I use Vista 64 and believe that the pros of supporting up to 16GB of memory for home premium far out weigh the cons. I like having 4 Gigs of memory seen by my OS and wouldnt have it any other way... but if you can justify your statement and show some data or proof of why not to go for 64bit Vista than good... give it to us!

If this is being an "ass" than you are too sensitive. It's called "have a sense of humor"!

And how do you figure that having 64bit Vista and 4GB of memory is worse than having 2GB memory on 32bit Vista?

I read the same article that you read in Toms and it seemed to me that Vista 64bit was the way to go.

This isn't a debate! All I said was explain your reasoning that Vista sucks! You said that you didnt want to explain it because you have already explained it before... so let me ask you this? Why do you even write on these forums if you dont want to reiterate yourself? That's the whole point here... isn't it? Or am I writing on the wrong forum? Or maybe you are writing on the wrong forum.

This subject is dead... I have 64bit and like it. I feel comforted in knowing that Vista works better with more memory and that with 64bit you can upgrade to 8GB on my board. Have you ever tried photo or video editing? Try doing it with 2GB memory! It runs much smoother with 4 and even better with 8 (according to toms article and that's why people should get 64bit).

 

[resonance451]

I didn't say Vista sucks, as much as I dislike it and am not interested in using it, nor did I say that the OP shouldn't use Vista at all.

Did you really read the article? It states that there can be benefits but there are numerous drawbacks.

Yes, I've tried doing photo and video editing. In fact, I've been working as part of a professional video production company for the past decade. So I'm well aware of the hardware demands, and all my systems run extremely fast using 2, 3, and 4gb of RAM. I've never had a need for a 64-bit operating system, and I can't see how the average user would either.

PS- I'm running with 2gb of ram on this high-end system, and it's running multiple processor intensive applications for audio production just fine. So don't tell me that I need 8gb of RAM if I want to do anything other than use MS Paint or Wordpad.

The reason I write on these forums is to communicate and discover new things, not to endlessly regurgitate the same exact garbage repeatedly.

You want me to have a sense of humor, yet none of what you were saying is remotely humorous or clever.

 

[hughyhunter]

If you didn't find it humorous than obviously it was offensive... and for that I'm sorry.

My build before this one that I am using now entailed 4x512 sticks of DDR400 memory on Windows XP home. Right now I have 2x2 sticks of DDR800 on Vista 64 home premium. I guess the reason why I think that it's so much better to have more memory is the fact that I do see the difference in this system compared to the last system.

It may be due to the fact that the motherboard, cpu and memory is new spec but at the same time the programs that need lot's of memory to respond do respond faster and smoother than they did on my old build.

I re-read that article and seems that I suffer from a condition that when I read an article that pertains to my particular system build I only see the positive things that it has to say that pertain to me. The negative never seems to penetrate. My own ignorance I guess!

So you are right! I said it... for the average user I too would recommend 32 bit... Even for myself... all I can hope is that MS makes 64 even better than I am experiencing now (so far so good) and programs that come out such as games and utilities make use of the memory that I have invested in and will continue to invest in all the way up to 8GB.