I'll make this fast. I want to buy/upgrade my PC in late May (for Age of Conan). I want to get the "best bang for buck" hardware - price is not an issue, price : performance ratio is. So if you all could give me your opinions that would be awesome. Also it would be nice if you could include prices and/or links. All hardware that is has been released or will be released by late May/early June is fair game.

Things You Need To Know:

- I upgrade every 3+ years...so this is LONGTERM.
- I already have the HDs (10k Raptor 75gb, 500gb Seagate)
- I already have the graphics card (8800GT)
- I really don't like to OC, but am willing. However, I need to see significant benefits running on air and not overheat.
- Yes, I am a gamer.

What I Might Need: This isn't as important for me right now - my old parts can still work here.

- I already CD Drive, keyboard/Mouse, Speakers, PSU, Monitor, Sound Card - though I won't mind getting new ones.

What I Definitely Need: Any good monitors or sound cards at a good value can be add here.

- Case:
- RAM:
- CPU:
- MOBO:

What I Am Thinking of Getting:

- Case: Antec 900, Antec P180, Antec P182, Thermaltake Armor, Cooler Master Cosmos, Cooler Master RC-690, so many more.
- RAM: So many to choose from...2x2gb ($100) or 2x1gb ($50) for now, and upgrade later if need be.
- CPU: e2180, e8400, Q6600, Q9300, Q9450
- MOBO: Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L/R...not sure....SLI or no SLI...?

Questions I Have:

- Do you still think the 8800GT/GTS is "best bang for buck" and will it be by late May?
- Is SLI worth it, if I plan on longterm use? It seems like every year a new single-card solution can perform better than most SLI from a year ago. If that is the case than I'll stick with single-slot solution.
- How is 2x2gb vs 4x1gb ram? performance-wise. Also, I am looking for DDR2 1066 FSB - correct? (for optimal performance) or is 1333 FSB better for me?

Remember: Price is not an issue, I just want "best bang for buck" and hardware that will last me longterm.

can't go wrong with either Antec case.
If money is no issue I would go for the Q9450

The newer Antec Nine Hundred have good cable managment

I like the Antec P182, better looks IMO. For price-performance, I'd go for an E8400 for a CPU, just make sure you get RAM at 1066 for easy OCing. And if you want to go for price-performance then you have to get 2 8800GT/GTS instead of a single great card. Good luck.

You should get 2x2=4gb of ram, and leave the extra 2 slots for future upgrade. Or just get the 8gb now, as it's dirt cheap. 8gb may be excessive now, but in 3 years it probably wouldn't. 3 years ago, 2gb was considered more than enough, remember?

You should get a quad core cpu, as programs are going quad optimized. There are people who say it'll never happen, those are the same ones who predicted dual optimization will never happen. Nowdays, the early duals are still powerful enough to be useful for gaming, and single core cpus of the same period are not. Q9450 isn't the best bang for the buck right now, compared to Q6600. But for the long term, it might be worth it.

You should get a motherboard with x38/48 chipset, if you want to do high overclocking, or overclocking a Q9450. Its higher FSB is enough so that your cpu itself is the oc bottleneck, not motherboard. This is important with the new 45nm quads' lower multipliers. It supports crossfire, but not sli. Nvidia offers significantly better performance and bang for the buck right now, but keep in mind that Nvidia and ATI switches as top dog once in a while, so in 3 years, who knows who will have better hardware.

Case should be airy. It's better to get a midtower with good airflow than full tower with poor airflow.
This is the one I use. It's the best bang for the buck. There are better ones though, with airflow almost as good, but full tower.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6811119077

How much more performance would I see with Q9450 over Q6600? Doesn't it cost around $350? $150 more than Q6600

If I buy another 8800GT, my worry is that by the end of this year they will have a new video card that is $200 and can outperform 2x8800GT...which in that case, I should of saved my $175, and just upgraded from single-slot to new single-slot. Unless, games (not including Crysis) really need SLI these days - to run at good FPS.

yeah I am leaning toward 2x2gb now. I am still wondering on this Q9450 vs Q6600...need to see some price : performance charts... /google. Also, I don't like to OC. I know how to and have done so before, but I am not a huge fan of it, unless I am running something that can OC on air and have significant benefits and not overheat.

Q9450 and Q6600 benchmarks:
http://www.hardware.info/en-US/pro [...] uad_Q9450/
http://www.hardware.info/en-US/pro [...] uad_Q6600/

So, no, it's probably not worth the money right now, with Yorkfield's inflated price. But if you're going to eventually upgrade to 45nm anyway, might as well get it now and save a Q6600. Intel's new socket is comming up, so with current motherboard, the 45nm Yorkfield quad is as far as you can upgrade.

As for graphics card, gpus development are moving way too fast for sli/crossfire setup to be good bang for the buck.

I'm running Q6600@3.6ghz on air and x38 chipset, 64 degrees C on full load prime95 large fft test. 3.6ghz oc is typical for air cooled Q6600. You can go further for Q9450.

I've been trying to decide between the Q6600 & the Q9300. I've decided on going with the Q9300. I would go with the Q9450 but I can't justify paying the price difference.

Here's A good article on Q9300 vs Q6600
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/d [...] html#sect0

The Q9450 has a faster clock speed, and more cache, & higher multiplier than the Q9300. Both run cooler then the Q6600

That might not be the best choice. Q9300 has only 2x3mb of L2 cache, runs at 7.5x multiplier, and the benchmarking is at stock, with Q9300 running at a faster clock. It's more expensive for lower overclocking headroom and smaller L2 cache, which matters in realistic conditions.

Q6600 = 2x4mb L2 cache, 9x multiplier
Q9450 = 2x6mb L2 cache, 8x multiplier

X-Bit labs Q9300 review on Q9300 vs Q6600

"The benchmark results indicate clearly that all our concerns were absolutely unfounded. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is faster than Core 2 Quad Q6600 even without a larger L2 cache, only thanks to architectural improvements introduced in Penryn processors, higher bus frequency and 100MHz higher clock speed. Moreover, there isn’t a single application where the old CPU would demonstrate higher results, and the overall performance advantage is about 7%, which is quite a lot."



http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/d [...] html#sect0

Q9300 overclocked to 3.5GHz with the ASUS P5E3 Deluxe mainboard on Intel X38 chipset.

yeah thats how i feel about SLI right now as well.

I looked into the Q9300, seems pretty good. However its $100 more for 7% more performance - right? If so, I think im still between the Q6600 and Q9450.

The sense I am getting is that the 9300 is better than the Q6600, but I don't think it justifies the $100 I would have to spend on it - compared to Q6600.

Q6600 OEM $235
Q9300 OEM $285
Q9450 OEM $380

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 39&bop=And

Retail versions are about $15 (comes with CPU cooler)

Q9300 $50 more
Q9450 $145 more

I like the e8400 a lot however, I am worried it would be future proof, and in the long run the Q6600/Q9450 might actually outperform it. Both e8400 and Q6600 can be found for $199 I believe.