I'm looking into building a new computer for myself to replace the one I have. Can you guys give me some feedback on the parts I have now? I wouldn't mine cutting cost a bit I also have not done this before, so any other tips on the whole process will be greatly appreciated.
Looks good, if you don't overclock then you won't need a CPU cooler other then the one that comes included with the Q6600. Although I personally would say don't bother with SLI and save some money on the motherboard and just get a more powerful single card now, you may find SLI to be something you want even though it is not the most economical solution. If you do decide not to go SLI, get a good P35 board like the GigaByte P35 DS3 series board, they cost half as much and the only draw back is no SLI when compared to 780i SLI boards. Other then that, it looks like a great system.
ummi would get a q9300 over the q6600. clock for clock its faster has more cache...both overclock to 3ghz with a 1600fsb and no voltage change. you can push a q9300 a bit further on a heavy overclock too. i have one and love it....though nothing is as good as my qx9650....i run it at 4ghz.
780i is a solid mother board i ran it for two months before stepping up to a 790i...so far little perforamce gain in doing so. maybe a few more bios releases.
Message edited by atomicWAR on 05-05-2008 at 05:53:45 AM
Q9300 has LESS cache then the Q6600, 2x3MB vs. 2x4MB. The Q6600 will overclock easier due to its higher multiplier, but if you don't overclock then that doesn't matter anyway, but if you do you may want to take it into consideration. The Q9300 will be slightly faster at stock, but will cost you $80 more for one, so if you think it is worth $80 for what is on average about a 10% speed increase at stock, then buy the Q9300, if not, then get the Q6600.
Q9300 has LESS cache then the Q6600, 2x3MB vs. 2x4MB. The Q6600 will overclock easier due to its higher multiplier, but if you don't overclock then that doesn't matter anyway, but if you do you may want to take it into consideration. The Q9300 will be slightly faster at stock, but will cost you $80 more for one, so if you think it is worth $80 for what is on average about a 10% speed increase at stock, then buy the Q9300, if not, then get the Q6600.
Yes, for q9300 to not run into fsb bottleneck, you need x38/48 motherboard and forego sli. Q9300=7.5x multiplier, q6600=9x. Q9300 and Q6600 perform the same per ghz, q9300 average 7% faster than q6600 with both at stock on non-gaming benchmarks, and 2% on gaming benchmarks.
Okay, I think im going with the DS3L. They have it at frys with the Q6600 for 300. At newegg its 310 not counting shipping. I'm still looking at cutting cost with the graphics card. Any suggestions? I may want to OC, but not now.
Okay, I think im going with the DS3L. They have it at frys with the Q6600 for 300. At newegg its 310 not counting shipping. I'm still looking at cutting cost with the graphics card. Any suggestions? I may want to OC, but not now.
sorry i misled in my post...i meant to say the q9300 has faster cache but less of it. its kinda of a toss up which is better as the q9300. The new cache is supposed to be more effient but there is some doubt with the slight lack of it in the q9300. personally the one i overclocked scored very well and out paced the q6600 by about 7% at same speeds (not the 15 intel claims). its hard digging through the hipe and the real world performance. sorry if i tossed in a monkey wrench and thank you gravemind for pointing it out.
I also have not done this before, so any other tips on the whole process will be greatly appreciated. 
