Case w/ PSU: RAIDMAX Smilodon Extreme ATX-612WEBP Black SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 500W Power Supply - Retail: 92.99
PSU with this case might be flaky, can't say for sure, but its gotten alot (300+) good reviews on Newegg.
Total (with cheaper mobo and before shipping): 413.95
A little over budget, but will handle CS:S just fine, assuming you're not playing in some crazy extreme resolution.
mihirkula and Pous,
why the 2160 ?
I haven't built a pc yet, but I doing research.
I see that the 2160 is great for overclocking. It seems its even possible to get up to 3.0 GHz with the stock fan. But what if you're not interested in overclocking for your first build?
For the same price as the 2160, you could get any of these
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor 2.4GHz = $72.
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Brisbane 2.2GHz = $65
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Windsor 2.0GHz = $48
They're all faster than the e2160 out of the box.
So, if you're not going to venture into overclocking during your first build, why not go the AMD route? Its cheaper and the chips is faster.
Not trying to start another AMD vs Intel war. I've read enough of those during my research here. It just seems that everyone recommends the 2160 but never asks if the person is overclocking? So is the 2160 better than the above AMD chips even if you're not overclocking?
And as for the e2160 vs an e4x00, from what I've read, they both overclock well, but the e4x00 doesn't OC that much faster than the 2160, at least not fast enough to justify the $50 price difference. Is that correct?
And even if you're not OC, the difference between the two intel chips is small enough that its not worth paying the extra $50 for the 4x00, correct?
So the 2160 is "always" preferred over a e4x00, whether you're OC or not?
And lastly, why the 2160 and not the 2180?
E2160 because it is inexpensive and has great potential.
If not interested in OC'ing that's fine... but with the DS3L motherboard you'd be all set if you wanted to upgrade to a quad in the future, or if you changed your mind about OC.
The other reason people recommend it without asking is because OC has become so easy that it's kind of silly not to. (No offense meant) It's just becoming more and more 'the norm'. Most people won't buy PC parts without thinking of OC potential... at least I won't, and neither do any of my LAN buddies.
Agreed also that the E2X chips are better option than the E4X chips... basically because of price, like you say.
People say E2160 because it uses less power than the 2180, allowing for higher scale of OC. People say E2180 because it has a multiplier of 10, which makes it even easier. (2160 has a multiplier of 9 I believe.)
It comes down to personal preference in the low price ranges... I just recommend the intel ones because it's what I like, and because it offers an easy boost in CPU power if you ever change your mind about OC.
OverClocking is how you get value for you money on home builds.
With today's systems, Overclocking is not like it was in the past.
It's far simpler than inserting parts into the System.
Drop a E2160 into your comppuer, set the FSB to 333 and Presto you are at 3.0Ghz. Nothing to know. No Special Coolers. Every Mobo around can handle that FSB. This sysetm will easily handle any performance you need. At these speeds, you can even go in and reduce voltage below stock voltage to keep it real cool.
At Stock Speeds the Intel and AMD chips are very very close in performance for the same price. The Intel Chips OC far beyond what the AMD chips can do.
The E4xxx chips are not usually worth the extra money.
They are maybe 5% faster clock for clock due to the xtra cache.
However, the extra funds are likely better put into a GPU.
Now, the E4500 is a good chip and could be worth the money, but most folks just save the money and go for the E2160.
The E2180 will likely not clock any higher, so folks just save the couple dollars and get the E2160.
Hmm. Thanks guys. This is what I wanted to see =). Ive heard that nvidia stuff has more support for linux so I might be leaning that way because Im going to be in linux a lot and only switching over for the few programs I do need ...basically the ones that are too resource heavy to emulate.
A lot better. But then your windows access time and file transfer time depends on the HD u have...ditto the dvd burning time depends on the dvd burner. Photoshop or softwares like Matlab or Ansys run the best on Quad Core or fast Dual core processors. Though you wont be disappointed with the above recommended setup. Its good enough.
About the Intel vs AMD...since you already have AMD, get an Intel rig this time...should be a nice change..lol...
Hmm well the onlly game I play everyday is CS:S. Other than that I use autocad, photoshop, and starting to get into some 3d max stuff / premiere. Right now my computer handles what I do okay but I want better and its funny how old Socket A is now haha.