Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

is this worth the 2000? Please tell me!!!

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 26, 2008 4:45:45 AM

I'm building my first computer and i will be buying all these parts next friday. Can you guys tell me if this is worth the 2000 dollars? if not HELP ME!!!

Q6600 (might overclock it to 3.2/3.3 or even more depending on temp)
Evga 780i mobo
evga 9800Gx2(i might sli in the futer when the prices go lower, overclocking too
8gb of OCZ sli edition(overclocking)
ThermalTake Kandalf LCS Case
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3500320AS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache
LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit

I will be planing to keep this pc for about 2++ years. Do you guys think it will last and is it good for the 2k?

More about : worth 2000

a b K Overclocking
April 26, 2008 5:24:36 AM

I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I will give you my opinion. I'm sure people will disagree with me.

1. If you intend on replacing the CPU in 2 - 3 year and you only play games, then skip the Quad go for a E8400 or E8500 (when it's out) and OC it. Most games do not even take full advantage of Dual Cores yet. By the time you wanna upgrade games will probably start to take advantage of a Quad. You should be able to OC a Dual Core better than a Quad 'cause Duals does not produce as much heat as a Quad would when you start bumping up the FSB.

2. Having the option of going SLI is great for the hardcore gamer, and since you are starting off with a top of the line card anyway it's a good way to increase performance in the future. Me, I can live without SLI and XFire.

3. I'm not sure if 8GB of RAM is really worth it. Yeah, Vista is a memory hog, but 8GB seems way overkill to me especially if it's just for games. See next comment too.

4a. I'm not a fan of Vista. MS removed two things I wanted: A) a new filing system, and B) better security. These features have been pushed off to Windows 7 which is expected to come out in late 2009 or early 2010 (assuming there are no more delays). If you have a copy of Win XP that's the OS I would go with. Having said that I would go with 4GB of RAM (2GB x 2), yeah you'll only get 3GB in Win XP, but that should be more than enough for gaming.

4b. I dunno if DX10 is really worth it yet. Most games are still DX9c games with some DX10 features mixed in. Then again this is coming from a non-hardcore gamer.

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

I have just upgraded from my C2D E6600 to the Q9450. Yeah I know, I got a Quad, yet I'm recommending a Dual. The main purpose of my rig is to convert my DVDs to H.264 which uses a lot of processing power.

So how's gaming you ask? I dunno, I haven't installed any games yet in my new PC. I'm still waiting for my 9600GT which will be replacing my X1900XT.
April 26, 2008 5:34:48 AM

jaguarskx said:
I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I will give you my opinion. I'm sure people will disagree with me.

1. If you intend on replacing the CPU in 2 - 3 year and you only play games, then skip the Quad go for a E8400 or E8500 (when it's out) and OC it. Most games do not even take full advantage of Dual Cores yet. By the time you wanna upgrade games will probably start to take advantage of a Quad. You should be able to OC a Dual Core better than a Quad 'cause Duals does not produce as much heat as a Quad would when you start bumping up the FSB.

2. Having the option of going SLI is great for the hardcore gamer, and since you are starting off with a top of the line card anyway it's a good way to increase performance in the future. Me, I can live without SLI and XFire.

3. I'm not sure if 8GB of RAM is really worth it. Yeah, Vista is a memory hog, but 8GB seems way overkill to me especially if it's just for games. See next comment too.

4a. I'm not a fan of Vista. MS removed two things I wanted: A) a new filing system, and B) better security. These features have been pushed off to Windows 7 which is expected to come out in late 2009 or early 2010 (assuming there are no more delays). If you have a copy of Win XP that's the OS I would go with. Having said that I would go with 4GB of RAM (2GB x 2), yeah you'll only get 3GB in Win XP, but that should be more than enough for gaming.

4b. I dunno if DX10 is really worth it yet. Most games are still DX9c games with some DX10 features mixed in. Then again this is coming from a non-hardcore gamer.

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

I have just upgraded from my C2D E6600 to the Q9450. Yeah I know, I got a Quad, yet I'm recommending a Dual. The main purpose of my rig is to convert my DVDs to H.264 which uses a lot of processing power.

So how's gaming you ask? I dunno, I haven't installed any games yet in my new PC. I'm still waiting for my 9600GT which will be replacing my X1900XT.



The 8gb is gonna cost me about 184 dollars, do u know when the E8400 or E8500 comes out?
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
April 26, 2008 6:12:31 AM

Both E8400 and E8500 are currently being sold at e-tailers like Newegg and ZipZoomFly.
a b K Overclocking
April 26, 2008 6:17:53 AM

The E8500 is only about 166MHz faster than the E8400, but it costs about $100 more.
April 26, 2008 4:26:22 PM

jaguarskx said:
The E8500 is only about 166MHz faster than the E8400, but it costs about $100 more.


Ehhs ill stick with the q6600 :p 
April 26, 2008 4:49:19 PM

I agree with Jaguarskx, if you are going to be upgrading in about 2 years, You should go with a dual core on OC it to around 4 ghz on water.
I would buy another case, and build a loop peice by piece if i were you, its cheaper and will provide better performace.
April 26, 2008 5:17:40 PM

SuicideSilence said:
I agree with Jaguarskx, if you are going to be upgrading in about 2 years, You should go with a dual core on OC it to around 4 ghz on water.
I would buy another case, and build a loop peice by piece if i were you, its cheaper and will provide better performace.


Do you have something in mind, and i am taking your advice on the e8500.
April 26, 2008 5:37:32 PM

I'm going to repeat at what you may already know. If you're going to get a quad consider that they run notably warmer than the duals for very little gain in performance in most tasks. Not dangerously so or anything but there is thermal consideration.

I'd get the E8400 if I were you...and if you must go quad get a 45nm chip...a Q9300 or Q9400...but unless you're life is video encoding you'd see more gain, I think, from an OC'd dual. ...and be left with a cooler and quieter machine.

8GB of RAM? If you want to disable your pagefile in Vista64 get 8GB of RAM. If you're going to run multiple virtual machines, simultaneously...get 8GB of RAM. Otherwise, its not likely to give you much. I'd spend the $$ on 4GB of better RAM than 8GB of so-so.

...another opinion.
April 26, 2008 5:56:25 PM

Just as a side note, I use a quad Q6600 for gaming, and i love it, runs fine, and i havent ran into a game yet that slows it down, or even justifies overclocking to 4 gigs as most like to do. Vista 64 bit is still not gaming friendly yet, and right now i think you would be better off either a. going with vista 32 bit, or b. Getting a 64 bit cd and installing the 32 bit option, when i researched i found that if you get the Ultimate, it gives you a 32 bit option and a 64 bit option. I use Vista 32 right now as my daily gaming machine, and since SP1 i have had no complaints. Everyone is going to say it benchmarks slower, but lets be honest here, you will more then likely not see the diffrence the 300 point score xp has over vista if you choose to go that way. But if you have some older games that you love playing, then you would be best served with a dual boot operating system. If you go 64 bit though, i have heard it is best served with 8 gigs, and have read numerous threads and opinions that going from 4 to 8 gigs was a noticable diffrence in performance, which makes sense since the strings are longer, and take up more ram. Also if your set on going 64 bit, Quad would be the way to go, since it will actually take advantage of your extra processing power. But it is true dual cores overclock more, although ive yet to run into anything that requires a ridiculous overclock that high.
April 26, 2008 8:24:22 PM

Hmmm...I upgraded (if you can call it that) from an E6850 to a Q9450. The E6850 was a beast @ 3.5Ghz, no upgrade was necessary. Nasty fast is the adjective I'd use. The Q9450 @ 3.4Ghz is just under used, even when multiple virtual machines are running. Given what I've seen I have to recommend a good dual over a quad unless you really can't upgrade for 5 years and you have to get the most power you can today. I never thought there'd be a day when there was more processing power than needed....

If you upgrade often and the machine is a gaming box...get a dual. I think that's the consensus. If you upgrade once a millenia, get a quad.
April 26, 2008 8:35:48 PM

halcyon said:
Hmmm...I upgraded (if you can call it that) from an E6850 to a Q9450. The E6850 was a beast @ 3.5Ghz, no upgrade was necessary. Nasty fast is the adjective I'd use. The Q9450 @ 3.4Ghz is just under used, even when multiple virtual machines are running. Given what I've seen I have to recommend a good dual over a quad unless you really can't upgrade for 5 years and you have to get the most power you can today. I never thought there'd be a day when there was more processing power than needed....

If you upgrade often and the machine is a gaming box...get a dual. I think that's the consensus. If you upgrade once a millenia, get a quad.



Nothing will last more than 5 years, dual or quad. The conventional wisdom is up to 2 years for duo, 2+ years for quad. The problem is, for the first 2 years, I don't see how it's possible for any game to truely bottleneck the cpu, dual or quad. Game performance are mostly graphics card, and as long as the cpu don't bottleneck, it's fine.

You're fine with either.
April 26, 2008 8:57:58 PM

Exactly so dagger. There isnt a game out there that pushes my Quad to its fullest, even at my meager 3.2 gigs, so there isnt a game out there that is going to push a Dual either. Ok one game will microsoft flightsimulator X is a game that actually requires a Quad to play well, and to boot, if you go from a dual to a Quad with that game, you get a increase in FPS as a bonus. But keep in mind, the day of the dual core is fast approaching its end, and i wouldnt be suprised if by this time next year, were going to see the dual core crowd more and more becoming the quad core crowd.
April 26, 2008 9:12:18 PM

jaguarskx said:
3. I'm not sure if 8GB of RAM is really worth it. Yeah, Vista is a memory hog, but 8GB seems way overkill to me especially if it's just for games. See next comment too.


It's still true that the 32-bit version of Vista can't even address more than about 3.5GB of RAM right?

I asked this on some other forum and people were unclear on their answers. But the 'ol 32-bit legend says that a 32-bit OS can't use more than 4GB of ram no matter what you put in it.

Or is this just BS and 8gb of RAM can be addressed and used by Vista 32?



April 26, 2008 9:26:14 PM

ghostmeat said:
It's still true that the 32-bit version of Vista can't even address more than about 3.5GB of RAM right?

I asked this on some other forum and people were unclear on their answers. But the 'ol 32-bit legend says that a 32-bit OS can't use more than 4GB of ram no matter what you put in it.

Or is this just BS and 8gb of RAM can be addressed and used by Vista 32?



You do indeed need a 64Bit OS to use more than 4GB of RAM...it is not "BS"
April 27, 2008 1:43:37 AM

Limit for 32bit os is 4gb. If you have 512mb on the video card, and other components takes up some of remaining addresses, it comes down to 3.2-3.4gb.

And yeah, 8gb is useless, at least right now. 4gb will be enough for any typical task.
April 27, 2008 2:35:28 AM

iKuno I would have yo warn you about that 9800GX2, i advise against it. It seems so bulky, runs hot, very expensive, will be EOL in a few months, Nvidia themselves dont even like multi GPus.
April 27, 2008 2:35:53 AM

And its two G92s slapped together to boot.
April 27, 2008 2:38:55 AM

Meh, it's 2 underclocked g92, still better than any single gpu card though. If you have the cash and don't want to wait, go for it. Stimulates the economy. :p 
April 27, 2008 2:45:22 AM

Well technically its not single GPU card
April 27, 2008 2:46:13 AM

DarthPiggie said:
Well technically its not single GPU card



Nope, I didn't say it is. :p 
April 27, 2008 2:52:21 AM

dagger said:
Meh, it's 2 underclocked g92, still better than any single gpu card though. If you have the cash and don't want to wait, go for it. Stimulates the economy. :p 

please, not this again, we're all short on doe here, except for the business giants. Even when they are they get bailed out by this plutocracy anyway.
April 27, 2008 3:48:27 AM

DarthPiggie said:
iKuno I would have yo warn you about that 9800GX2, i advise against it. It seems so bulky, runs hot, very expensive, will be EOL in a few months, Nvidia themselves dont even like multi GPus.


What other graphic card can last me 2+ years?
April 27, 2008 3:59:48 AM

hmmm, by last what do you mean??run games maxxed at 1280x1024 for 2+ years??That would be a stretch but the 8800GTX managed to pull that off for 2 years, but it is rare. At the moment I think no card will, just look at what happened to the 7950GX2, no good, trust me. I'd say.....no card will last 2+ years at the moment. Just buy nice cheap good performance card. I.E. 9600GT which will give you the chance to upgrade again.
April 27, 2008 4:09:19 AM

DarthPiggie said:
hmmm, by last what do you mean??run games maxxed at 1280x1024 for 2+ years??That would be a stretch but the 8800GTX managed to pull that off for 2 years, but it is rare. At the moment I think no card will, just look at what happened to the 7950GX2, no good, trust me. I'd say.....no card will last 2+ years at the moment. Just buy nice cheap good performance card. I.E. 9600GT which will give you the chance to upgrade again.


But i probably dont have another chance to upgrade so this is why i want the fastest card on the market.
April 27, 2008 4:30:01 AM

can you possibly wait to may 31st???if u can then hop on the 4870X2 which will give you a lot of time in ur investment.
April 27, 2008 4:39:34 AM

DarthPiggie said:
can you possibly wait to may 31st???if u can then hop on the 4870X2 which will give you a lot of time in ur investment.


That's like in 2 F***ing months, i been waiting to build this computer for more then 3 months :/ , will the 4870x2 be better then the 9800Gx2?
April 27, 2008 4:53:40 AM

Who knows, it aint out yet, everyone was raving that the gts was gonna be the big pimp daddy, and it wasnt, hell that goes with the rest of the 9xxx series weve seen so far, so i wouldnt hold my breathe. Also ati is in catch up mode right now. Mebbe it will, i really hope it will, but mebbe it wont. Wont know until the card is actually in someones hands, and not just being speculated on right now, and regardless of what anyone says, its specullation.
April 27, 2008 5:00:43 AM

blacksci said:
Who knows, it aint out yet, everyone was raving that the gts was gonna be the big pimp daddy, and it wasnt, hell that goes with the rest of the 9xxx series weve seen so far, so i wouldnt hold my breathe. Also ati is in catch up mode right now. Mebbe it will, i really hope it will, but mebbe it wont. Wont know until the card is actually in someones hands, and not just being speculated on right now, and regardless of what anyone says, its specullation.






http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/showthread.php?p=28...

Leaked specs about the 4 series, u think its true?


April 27, 2008 5:03:04 AM

fine then. Get the 9800GX2, have fun, best card by far, but useless in Quad mode. For higher resoultions, the 9800GX2 rains supreme.
April 27, 2008 1:11:48 PM

DarthPiggie said:
fine then. Get the 9800GX2, have fun, best card by far, but useless in Quad mode. For higher resoultions, the 9800GX2 rains supreme.


I will, what cpu you think it will run great in?
a b K Overclocking
April 27, 2008 1:38:07 PM

Here is my opinion if you want to build a gaming rig that will last 2 years. Keep in mind though, that 2 years is a far stretch for any gaming rig to remain a top performer. In 2 years anything you build right now, no matter how much money you spend, will be showing it's age.

If you just have to spend a ton of money right now on a video card, get the 9800GX2. I don't think that top-end cards are anywhere near worth the money you pay for them. Always stay a notch or 2 below that level and get nearly the same performance for a hell of a lot less money. If you are not playing at uber resolutions, then you will get the SAME performance from a card costing less than half the money.
CPU E8400
4gig of memory, no more-no less.
Vista 32 bit. -Nothing wrong here. DX10, maybe not worth it yet. But let me tell you, if you are going to have all that graphic horsepower, you might as well have it look as pretty as possible too. Lots of people say there is not enough difference. Most of the time, maybe not. But then in some games, DX10 mode does add enough to for you to go "WOW, that looks really cool."

*Sorry for the double post below, this new site takes so stinking long to load I accidently double posted when I refreshed the page.
a b K Overclocking
April 27, 2008 1:38:43 PM

Here is my opinion if you want to build a gaming rig that will last 2 years. Keep in mind though, that 2 years is a far stretch for any gaming rig to remain a top performer. In 2 years anything you build right now, no matter how much money you spend, will be showing it's age.

If you just have to spend a ton of money right now on a video card, get the 9800GX2. I don't think that top-end cards are anywhere near worth the money you pay for them. Always stay a notch or 2 below that level and get nearly the same performance for a hell of a lot less money. If you are not playing at uber resolutions, then you will get the SAME performance from a card costing less than half the money.
CPU E8400
4gig of memory, no more-no less.
Vista 32 bit. -Nothing wrong here. DX10, maybe not worth it yet. But let me tell you, if you are going to have all that graphic horsepower, you might as well have it look as pretty as possible too. Lots of people say there is not enough difference. Most of the time, maybe not. But then in some games, DX10 mode does add enough to for you to go "WOW, that looks really cool."

April 27, 2008 1:47:31 PM

Well, i will be playing at 1680x1050, what do you think i should get? Should i wait till the 4 series comes out? im up to your guys options
April 27, 2008 2:48:18 PM

iKuno said:
Well, i will be playing at 1680x1050, what do you think i should get? Should i wait till the 4 series comes out? im up to your guys options

You can't possibly get 2+ years out of a graphics card, even if you pay the sky rates they charge on top end hardware. The 8800gtx was first launched in 11/06, which is less than one and half years ago. And it will have trouble running at 1680x1050 on some of the newest games. Not to mention the sky rates they charged for it back then.

Instead of getting the best performer today, that won't last so long anyway, just get a card that's best bang for the buck, and upgrade when it's time, like the rest of us. It's easy to change graphics card, just pull the old one out, and put the new one in.
April 27, 2008 4:59:51 PM

dagger said:
You can't possibly get 2+ years out of a graphics card, even if you pay the sky rates they charge on top end hardware. The 8800gtx was first launched in 11/06, which is less than one and half years ago. And it will have trouble running at 1680x1050 on some of the newest games. Not to mention the sky rates they charged for it back then.

Instead of getting the best performer today, that won't last so long anyway, just get a card that's best bang for the buck, and upgrade when it's time, like the rest of us. It's easy to change graphics card, just pull the old one out, and put the new one in.


So the 8800 Gts 512 is the best bang for the buck right now?
April 27, 2008 6:15:59 PM

iKuno said:
So the 8800 Gts 512 is the best bang for the buck right now?



That, and the 8800gt. :p 
April 27, 2008 6:26:49 PM

dagger said:
That, and the 8800gt. :p 


Well i might wait till the nahalem and the 4/9900's comes out :p , will that be like in 1/2 months or longeR?
April 27, 2008 6:28:43 PM

iKuno said:
Well i might wait till the nahalem and the 4/9900's comes out :p  , will that be like in 1/2 months or longeR?



The graphics cards should be out around june/july. Nehalem would be out at end of year, if Intel don't delay like they did with Yorkfield.
April 27, 2008 6:30:05 PM

dagger said:
The graphics cards should be out around june/july. Nehalem would be out at end of year, if Intel don't delay like they did with Yorkfield.



awww so like nov/dec?
April 27, 2008 6:36:18 PM

iKuno said:
awww so like nov/dec?



Dec would be about right.
!