Hello all,
I have not been here in a while,but i always return when I have a question or I am thinking of upgrading.I'm doing a whole pc this time,which will be used mostly for gaming, watching anima and backing up dvds.I have a decent dvd burner and an extra copy of windows xp laying around so I dont need those two things.here is what i am considering.I am not set nor certain about any of them.
I want to keep the price to 1200.00 at most.it has been 2 years since i upgraded anything and have not kept up on new technologies so i am not sure about any of my selections. i am trying to have this figured out by Sunday night.Any and all help is appreciated,thanks in advance.
Copy of a post I made elsewhere but it is still appropriate. You could think about a quad core processor rather than a dual core for this system. A Q6600 (extra +$15, 65nm, 2.4GHz, 1066MHz bus) would be compatable with the motherboard you spec'ed.
Obviously the clock speed is lower (2.4GHz vs 3GHZ) but there are distinct advantages with quad core tech rather than dual core. The Q6600 processor is also renound for being very stable when overclocked so you could, if you so wished take it to the same clock speed as the E8400.
A note I read recently today suggested this: Maybe a dual core will beat a quad in the gaming benchmarks. But the benchmarks don't include the antivirus program, torrent downloads and other background tasks that your home computer will be running.
This is when the quad core will come into it's own. Letting you play whilst the other cores take care of everything else.
If you don't want to invest in quad core now you could wait and keep an eye on Intel's prices as they are releasing a new model of processor at the end of the year. The current models will fall in price after that, you could pick up a qaud more cheaply then. Hopefully by that point developers will have started utilising all the cores for gaming too. It depends on whether you want to spend extra in 12 months time replacing the processor or not.
I hope that is helpful. Jeremy
Edit: Try not to rush a build. It would be great to have it sorted by Sunday night but it is better to wait (if possible) and get the design right - then you can spend your hard earnt cash with confidence that you aren't going to want to upgrade something in 2 months time.
Message edited by jpdykes on 05-10-2008 at 08:16:50 PM
Thanks jpdykes,The quad core does sound like the better deal,i will look further into it.I am also reconsidering the XP,i might go with vista64 instead any opinions?
You will need a 64bit OS to utilise the 4Gb of ram you have spec'ed. It will also give you access to DX10 for better quality game play. Vista64 looks like a better bet than XP.
Any reason why you chose the 9600GT? You could get a 8800GTS (G92) for about the same price or even less like MSI's (it even comes with "The Witcher" ) and it performs better (see Tom's review).
About that case and PSU, on newegg, you can get an Antec 900 + a Corsair 620HX for less (because of MIR -> 225$), might be interesting.
---------------
The capacity to learn is a gift; The ability to learn is a skill; The willingness to learn is a choice. - Rebec of Ginaz
Just trying to see all the angles here,so for argument sake if i were to just get one expensive fast card what would be the best non sli motherboard to put it in.Again thanks for all the help so far keep the ideas coming.
I am having the darnedest time figuring this out.here Is another build I am thinking about now.this is based off of mihirkula motherboard recommendation among others I got right here, thanks guys.what do you guys think of this build?Any conflicts? What would you add and remove?
If you want to save a bit more money (~20$), the CORSAIR CMPSU-550VX would be more than enough for single GPU setup. Moreover, if you want to go with a Yorkfield CPU (Q9300, Q9450, ...), you might want to go for an EP35-DS3L so you won't need another socket 775 CPU to flash the BIOS for initial support.
---------------
The capacity to learn is a gift; The ability to learn is a skill; The willingness to learn is a choice. - Rebec of Ginaz
So maby the Yorkfield is not the best option?Would the Q6600 be a better choice?I think I am the most confused about which motherboard I'll chose. Thanks guys.
So maby the Yorkfield is not the best option?Would the Q6600 be a better choice?I think I am the most confused about which motherboard I'll chose. Thanks guys.
Q6600 use 9x multiplier, which runs at 3.6ghz on 1600mhz fsb. And Yorkfield is just fine. You just need a motherboard chipset with higher fsb ceiling, like x38/48 or p45.
Save your money, invest in a regular clocked 8800GT G92 512, or two, and OC it yourself. Pretty easy to do. $160 off Newegg after MIR. You can clock it higher than a standard GTS for $60-70 cheaper, only thing you're missing is 16 Steam Processors.
Quad core gaming on a budget: P35 mobo w/ Q6600, or Q6700 (10x multi). Both are cheaper than the Q9300, and will yield better performance.
Q6600 use 9x multiplier, which runs at 3.6ghz on 1600mhz fsb. And Yorkfield is just fine. You just need a motherboard chipset with higher fsb ceiling, like x38/48 or p45.
The multiplier issue is an issue only if the OP wants to OC. And for gaming, I think investing 100-150$ in a better GPU beats putting that money in a better MB+HSF just to overclock.
The multiplier issue is an issue only if the OP wants to OC. And for gaming, I think investing 100-150$ in a better GPU beats putting that money in a better MB+HSF just to overclock.
Due to recent Intel cpu's high oc ability, the performance difference is very large. If you don't oc, you will have to upgrade more often, due to this large difference. There is a difference between choosing not to oc right now because there's no need yet, and not being able to oc eventually, when you do need it, because it's bottlenecked. Always choose the most balanced setup. An inbalance means you're paying more than you need to.
