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?

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?

Both E8400 and E8500 are currently being sold at e-tailers like Newegg and ZipZoomFly.

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

Ehhs ill stick with the q6600

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"