Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Well I splurged today, what do you think?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 27, 2008 4:41:44 AM

I ended up grabbing the BFG 9800 GX2 which should be about 475 for the card which is not bad.

I also picked up the new Antec Twelve Hundred case and the ABS Tagan 700 Watt power supply.

I then finished it off with a Intel 2.4 quad core q6600 processor.

With my already nice Abit board and 4 gigs of Corsair dd2 and Dell 2707 monitor running at 1920 X 1200, I am hoping this should be a pretty peppy system for gaming.



More about : splurged today

May 27, 2008 4:53:23 AM

The 9800GX2 is really overpriced but it should be a really nice system, enjoy.
May 27, 2008 4:58:05 AM

Well considering Frys and some other retail stores had it for 529 - 599, i thought 475 was the best price to go with heh.
Related resources
May 27, 2008 5:13:52 AM

I'm not saying you paid a lot and I do wish I had one but I think it should be in the $375-$400 range and not where it is.
May 27, 2008 9:27:09 AM

Fionn2003 said:
I ended up grabbing the BFG 9800 GX2 which should be about 475 for the card which is not bad.

I also picked up the new Antec Twelve Hundred case and the ABS Tagan 700 Watt power supply.

I then finished it off with a Intel 2.4 quad core q6600 processor.

With my already nice Abit board and 4 gigs of Corsair dd2 and Dell 2707 monitor running at 1920 X 1200, I am hoping this should be a pretty peppy system for gaming.


i think you should have waited a month
May 27, 2008 9:43:38 AM

spoonboy said:
i think you should have waited a month


I agree.

But still, he'll definitely enjoy what he got, and it should serve him well for quite a while.
May 27, 2008 10:09:32 AM

why wait a month? what's coming out?
a c 89 U Graphics card
May 27, 2008 10:15:07 AM

GTX280 and 260 from nVidia and 4800 series from ati, June 16th and 18th...
a b U Graphics card
May 27, 2008 11:39:04 AM

Nice setup. Perfect for 19x12 gaming. Enjoy it.

To best match up with that 9800GX2, you could OC the Q6600. 3.0GHz should be possible even with the stock Intel fan. With proper cooling way beyond that.
a c 148 U Graphics card
May 27, 2008 2:54:48 PM

$475 isn't bad for the GX2. Depending what your MOBO is I would have gone SLI but if you don't have that option the GX2 is your best bet. Enjoy, that thing should scream.
May 27, 2008 4:53:20 PM

Well I could wait, but then after those cards out, another card is going to come out better... ext ext lol:p  Why not just get this one card, and when prices come down maybe for christmas, SLI 2 9800 GX2s:p 
May 27, 2008 4:55:17 PM

yea never OCed a processor before, I saw a lot of people now using the q6600 or higher in their gaming rigs, and im just using a 1.8 duel core i bought a year ago, so I figure a good cpu upgrade with a better fan could do better as well heh:)  Im also excited about that new Antec Twelve Hundred Case that just came out, it is going to be sick looking with that ABS power supply.
a c 148 U Graphics card
May 27, 2008 6:40:57 PM

Fionn2003 said:
yea never OCed a processor before, I saw a lot of people now using the q6600 or higher in their gaming rigs, and im just using a 1.8 duel core i bought a year ago, so I figure a good cpu upgrade with a better fan could do better as well heh:)  Im also excited about that new Antec Twelve Hundred Case that just came out, it is going to be sick looking with that ABS power supply.

Quad cores are overrated for gaming rigs. They are number crunchers and really video encoding and apps that are made to take advantage of multiple cores only benefit. 95% of the time a faster dual core will outperform a quadcore for games. What 1.8MHz CPU do you have? just curious.

You are absolutely righth with the cards coming out. There will always be a new card coming out, and they will always have a premium price when they come out and people will pay it then be angry in a few months when its $100+ cheaper. But by the time they wait it out a new card comes out with the same premium. It's a neverending cycle. I bought an 8800GTS/512 for $300 W/ $20 rebate, so $280. I can get the same card for $220. Oh well I've had it several months and am happy. I didn't buy it for $399 when it first came out or whatever it was, I never do that. I'll be happy for a year then sell it for $100-$150 and get another $300 card. That way I only ever pay about half the price of the card and reclaim the rest from the old. I did that with my x1900xtx.
May 27, 2008 6:44:02 PM

lets just say you wont be needing to upgrade any time soon :p 

though...would have been nice to wait for a few more weeks to see how the 4000 cards from ati stack up.
May 27, 2008 7:25:01 PM

Eh, if you have the Q6600 then just keep it, if not, get the E7200 or E8400 and save some money and gain performance!
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2008 3:45:21 AM

jay2tall said:
Quad cores are overrated for gaming rigs. They are number crunchers and really video encoding and apps that are made to take advantage of multiple cores only benefit. 95% of the time a faster dual core will outperform a quadcore for games. What 1.8MHz CPU do you have? just curious.

Not to nitpick, but I don't agree. People are all too often saying that, but it's not entirely true. Especially that 95% number IMO is way off. I think quads get overhyped by some people and underhyped by others. IMO there is no gaming advantage whatsoever to a 4.0GHz or higher Dual vs a 3.6GHz Quad. Priced the same I'd take the quad every time.

Quads do not need the same clocks to match a dual core even in single and dual threaded games. If we talk stock and fairly low clocks, then that is probably typically / somewhat true depending on actual gaming or low res scaling. (say 2.4Ghz Quad vs 3.0GHz Dual at stock clocks).

But Really, Look how a 3.6GHz Q6600 beats a 3.85GHz e6850 even in single threaded Fear, and the e8400 at 4.2GHz can't hang with a slower clocked 3.6GHz Quad. (edit: Look at all games in second link, not just crysis)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=737&p=2

Look at Q6600 vs e8400 here at stock clocks.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=735&p=5

IMO people often get misled by low res no eye candy scaling tests vs real gameplay. Firingsquad has a great example in these games as the high clocked e8500 kicks butt at 800x600 no fsaa. But who plays at those settings, and what happens at more typical gaming settings? At typical more GPU demanding settings, the 2.4GHz Q6600 is often a tad above a 4.17GHz e8500 in the games they test.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8...

Legion shows at puny medium details, how little the e8400 really scales at those high clocks:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=717&p=7

Honestly I've said it over an over, but I don't see a big advantage to a quad for pure gaming, far from it and IMO either is great and pretty equal for gaming. But I don't agree with the sentiment that Duals are better. Yet repeatedly it comes up over and over like there is a flaw to gaming on a quad unless it's quad threaded they will be slower. That's just not true. Max clock them both and the quad will easily stay with a higher clocked dual. The first two links above show they can pull ahead from duals with higher clocks. And even at stock CPU clocks most games are GPU limited at gaming settings. Only with beastly graphics power like a GX2 or SLI do I really push people to OC the Q6600 for gaming as certain games it does help.
May 28, 2008 3:59:22 AM

With the setup I am running, what do you think I could OC my processor to without it going to hot or damaging the processor?
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2008 4:08:51 AM

Fionn2003 said:
I decided to make sure that cooling was not a problem atleast with my processor in this new case. I bought the ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro 92mm CPU Cooler and also some Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound for my new processor. Hopefully that should give me adequate cooling for my q6600 and maybe for overclocking.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

here is the case

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My Q6600 runs 3.1GHz and doesn't go over 60 degrees load with the stock Intel cooler. I usually just run 3.0GHz for temp reasons. SO depending on your room temps and airflow, 3.0GHz on the stock cooler and quite a bit higher on the freezer.

I too have that Freezer and will eventually put it on as I decide not to strip the system out and mount a bolt through (the mobo) cooler. I've used the freezer before on another rig and it's very nice. Some people hate the push down mount, but at least it's easier than pulling the mobo. With the warm weather coming and increasing room temps, I'm thinking eventually I'll have temp issues on the stock cooler. I'm eager to see what this Q6600 can do as 3.1GHz is a rock at stock voltage and I have not tried higher yet because of temps.
May 28, 2008 5:46:48 AM

While I think it's nice, I think it's a few weeks too early. Of course, if you think that G280 will be unavailable for the whole summer and fall, then it's a reasonable choice for an Nvidia fan to pick up a 9800gx2 today.

IMHO, when new parts are within a few weeks of release, it doesn't make much sense to buy the old parts (except for low end as a stop gap for a new system, i.e. a 3650 while waiting for the 4870, or an 8800gs while waiting for the GTX260).

Read this with a shaker of salt handy:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/24/...

If I sound so cynical, it's only because I got a 3870x2 last February, but if I'd known the next gen single GPU as fast as this dual GPU would be out in June, I'd have waited. That's because 5 months isn't a long time for me and I could have survived with a 7600gs just a little longer before switching back to ATI.

How often do you guys upgrade GPU's? I generally do so every 2-3 years about six months before CPU upgrades. Some enthusiasts I've talked to want to do it every 6-12 months.

Fionn2003 said:
Well I could wait, but then after those cards out, another card is going to come out better... ext ext lol:p  Why not just get this one card, and when prices come down maybe for christmas, SLI 2 9800 GX2s:p 


New parts don't come out that quickly. I don't think GTX320 will be out soon after GTX280, or 5780 will be out soon after 4870. I do think that SLI'ing two of those might make sense in the future to make good use of what you've got, but it could be that a simple SLI of 2 GTX280's will beat 2 9800gx2's by a mile while being less power hungry.

I'd thought of CrossfireX with a similarly clocked DDR3 4850 and my 3870x2, with a new motherboard of course, and I might still do it, but a single 4870x2 will be much nicer.
May 28, 2008 6:16:27 AM

you mean early or late heh? Early for the price or Late for the gpu? To me its not a huge problem, The 9800gx2 ive seen placed against multiple cards on multiple comparisons, and ive seen it do everything I need it to do to keep up with my high screen monitor. I dont want to SLI, I would rather have a single card and the GX2 does it great not to mention the new drivers came out increasing its performance.

The new chips are not even out yet, they will be at a premium for multiple months and either be near the same performance, or just barely over so its not really that big of a deal breaker for me.
May 28, 2008 6:44:58 AM

Fionn2003 said:


The new chips are not even out yet, they will be at a premium for multiple months and either be near the same performance, or just barely over so its not really that big of a deal breaker for me.


I don't have any complaints about the capability of card you got, only that it will be surpassed by the GTX280 (definitely) and equaled by the GTX260 (probably) without SLI scaling issues in a few weeks.

My only criticisms of Nvidia regarding the 9800gx2 is that they should have done dual GPU on one PCB like ATI's 3870x2. Sometimes, they react to ATI and aren't as forward thinking as they should be.

Regarding launches, ATI actually had the 3850 and 3870 available at a reasonable price within a few weeks of the launch and Nvidia's done well with availability too; though it's hard to get the new card at exactly the MSRP right away.

I've never done true Crossfire or SLI. When I got that 7600gs, it was as a stopgap for an Nvidia 405 chipset barebones (replaced the PSU though) while I was waiting to see how the 8800 and 2900 cards would do. Turns out neither the X2900XT or the 8800gtx 320 were that great in DX10, so I just waited, but switched out for a PCIe x16 budget ATI board when I got the 3870x2.

With that card, I really liked the idea of internal hassle free Crossfire. Either card should be viable for another year or two, especially since AMD and Nvidia are improving their drivers to support internal Crossfire and SLI.

A single 4870 won't be any faster than my card, so I wouldn't think of upgrading right away now; it's just that any single GPU that equals a dual card or dual GPU card is a better solution with no scaling issues. The difference in our situations is that a single GTX280 will be faster than your card.

When to upgrade is subjective, but if you had to make that choice, the card's a good one. IMHO, dual GPU cards are one step towards dual core GPU's.
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2008 11:02:44 AM

yipsl said:
I don't have any complaints about the capability of card you got, only that it will be surpassed by the GTX280 (definitely) and equaled by the GTX260 (probably) without SLI scaling issues in a few weeks.


I don't recommend buying a GX2 right now by any means mostly for the price and also for the upcoming cards. But it's a beast of a solution for anyone who owns one. To me your expectations for the GTX280 and 260 are very high. I hope you are right. I'd honestly be quite amazed if the GTX280 can do a clean sweep against the GX2, never mind the GTX260. Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't think NV has enough this round to pull that kind of performance leap like G80 did to GF7950 GX2.
May 28, 2008 11:08:15 AM

$475 for a x2 card is never a good idea.

I would have bought something to tie me over until GT200 and 4870 release. It would easily outperform these x2 without the negative effects of running dual GPU slapped together.
May 28, 2008 1:27:22 PM

everyone always says easily, and from what I heard about these new Nvidia cards coming out they are still bottlenecked and can only stay around 1 gigahertz anyways, so the expectatios that the new cards will totally blow away the higher end cards right now just seems silly when the 8800 hundreds are not marginally better than than the 9800gx2 but on the higher end graphics games I can run a higher AA on the higher resolution monitor without sacrificing to much gaming performance while some of the 8800s cannot run them.

From what I have heard, its not going to be that huge of a difference, and if it is a little faster.. does not matter.. i honestly need something now that is playable for a few years heh. I can't wait months.. I cannot play a lot of my games right now and that is frustrating me lol.
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2008 1:43:17 PM

Understand that the G280 is going to have 240 SPs, and have a band width that most nVidia cards starve for. Also the MUL is corrected this time around. That being said, I believe youve got killer graphics potential, and will benefit for it. One word of advise, next upgrade, check around alot to make your dollar go the longest in time, and like has been said before, timing is everything. Enjoy your new system, itll be a monster
a c 148 U Graphics card
May 28, 2008 3:24:45 PM

pauldh said:
Not to nitpick, but I don't agree. People are all too often saying that, but it's not entirely true. Especially that 95% number IMO is way off. I think quads get overhyped by some people and underhyped by others. IMO there is no gaming advantage whatsoever to a 4.0GHz or higher Dual vs a 3.6GHz Quad. Priced the same I'd take the quad every time.

Quads do not need the same clocks to match a dual core even in single and dual threaded games. If we talk stock and fairly low clocks, then that is probably typically / somewhat true depending on actual gaming or low res scaling. (say 2.4Ghz Quad vs 3.0GHz Dual at stock clocks).

But Really, Look how a 3.6GHz Q6600 beats a 3.85GHz e6850 even in single threaded Fear, and the e8400 at 4.2GHz can't hang with a slower clocked 3.6GHz Quad. (edit: Look at all games in second link, not just crysis)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=737&p=2

Look at Q6600 vs e8400 here at stock clocks.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=735&p=5

IMO people often get misled by low res no eye candy scaling tests vs real gameplay. Firingsquad has a great example in these games as the high clocked e8500 kicks butt at 800x600 no fsaa. But who plays at those settings, and what happens at more typical gaming settings? At typical more GPU demanding settings, the 2.4GHz Q6600 is often a tad above a 4.17GHz e8500 in the games they test.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_duo_e8...

Legion shows at puny medium details, how little the e8400 really scales at those high clocks:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=717&p=7

Honestly I've said it over an over, but I don't see a big advantage to a quad for pure gaming, far from it and IMO either is great and pretty equal for gaming. But I don't agree with the sentiment that Duals are better. Yet repeatedly it comes up over and over like there is a flaw to gaming on a quad unless it's quad threaded they will be slower. That's just not true. Max clock them both and the quad will easily stay with a higher clocked dual. The first two links above show they can pull ahead from duals with higher clocks. And even at stock CPU clocks most games are GPU limited at gaming settings. Only with beastly graphics power like a GX2 or SLI do I really push people to OC the Q6600 for gaming as certain games it does help.


I concede. You are correct. Maybe I should rephrase things. I still think they are overhyped by some people and they do not have much if any advantage compared to a comparable dual core in gaming. I personaly would go with a high clocked dual core over a quad. It's cheaper and consumes less power for minimal benefit in games.

Is that better?
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2008 7:44:21 PM

jay2tall said:
I concede. You are correct. Maybe I should rephrase things. I still think they are overhyped by some people and they do not have much if any advantage compared to a comparable dual core in gaming. I personaly would go with a high clocked dual core over a quad. It's cheaper and consumes less power for minimal benefit in games.

Is that better?

Yes, much better. :) 

I think like you. If a dual saves money I am all for it.

I am against the dual is BETTER for gaming talks though, or back when Q6600 was as cheaper or cheaper yet e8400 was pushed as better.
May 29, 2008 6:02:19 AM

Fionn2003 said:

From what I have heard, its not going to be that huge of a difference, and if it is a little faster.. does not matter.. i honestly need something now that is playable for a few years heh. I can't wait months.. I cannot play a lot of my games right now and that is frustrating me lol.


Though I expect much from the next refresh out of both Nvidia and ATI, my whole argument is that it's less than a month away; as long as the card's are available upon release at prices about the same as today's high end.

Timing is very subjective. You need it now and you chose a good card. My point was that anyone who could wait should. Those who can't wait should get what they can afford now.

An 8800gtx 512, a 9800gtx, a 9800gx2 and a 3870x2 will be viable for at least two years, and a 9600gt, an 8800gt or 3870 viable for a year. Viable is subjective too. My definition is that the highest definition in games you play today with one of those cards does not degrade more than two steps down.

For example, if a card gets ultrahigh settings today, it should get no less than medium settings in new games two years from now. If a card gets high settings today, it should still get low settings 2 years from now, all with playable framerates (which is also subjective).

Now, if you don't play each generation's version of Crysis or Oblivion, but play WoW or LOTR Online, then today's cards will last a bit longer as viable solutions. Framerates won't change all that much and neither will graphics. It's the single player FPS and eye candy CRPGs that stress out older cards.


a c 148 U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 12:48:33 PM

pauldh said:
Yes, much better. :) 

I think like you. If a dual saves money I am all for it.

I am against the dual is BETTER for gaming talks though, or back when Q6600 was as cheaper or cheaper yet e8400 was pushed as better.


I don't like wasted computing power either. I think that is one of the ticks I recieved from working where I do. We are replacing all of our Standard rack servers with HP Blade Chassis and running alot of VMware servers. They all have AMD Opteron's which do not consume a ton of power. You figure a Chassis holds 16 servers all sharing PSU's and cooling solutions. VMware on certain servers lets a single server be chopped up into several. If we have a full blade with each server running 4 VMware servers, thats 16*4=64. With each blade running dual dualcore opteron's, and 8GB of memory, that gives each VMware server 1 core and 2GB of RAM. Each blade has mirrored SAS drives for the OS, but data is on a large NETAPP storage unit. Do you know how much room 64 standard servers takes and how much power it consumes? ALOT. When you have 64 virtual servers running on a box the size of a larege mini frige it blows your mind. Our Property Management Department reported a savings of 25% for our computer room after we install 3 full blade chassis and removed the unused standard servers.....

So that is why I am all about power conservations and wasted computing power. Heck it bugs me that my PC is OCed and sits at home all day burning power when it could be underclocked to do the same items it does all day. I dont' feel like rebooting every time I want to play a game just to get the OC on though. If I could modify my BIOs on the fly from windows in a stable way I would be so FREAKING HAPPY.
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 1:18:10 PM

I can see your point there. Probably few people would take it to the extreme to game on a super low consuming ( & super slow) system just to be green, but with the e8400 You aren't sacrificing gaming power but are lowering power usage. Still hard for me to consider being "green" in the world of overclockers. It's like drag racers caring about gas mileage. :)  if wanting to save energy, don't do it.

I'm not careless with energy use, but do like having power available on demand. I always lean toward the bigger motor options in cars even if it is 1-2 MPG less because that's my joy in driving. The feel is different, the sound is different, the enjoyment different, etc. Back to computers... My gaming system with an OC'ed Q6600 and SLI 8800GT is turned off 80% of the time so I really don't think about power consumption. My daily use machine is a lower consuming near silent box.
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 1:19:25 PM

Sounds to me your employer has the right man for the job. Someone mention Mike Rowe?
a c 148 U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 3:50:04 PM

pauldh said:

I'm not careless with energy use, but do like having power available on demand. I always lean toward the bigger motor options in cars even if it is 1-2 MPG less because that's my joy in driving. The feel is different, the sound is different, the enjoyment different, etc. Back to computers... My gaming system with an OC'ed Q6600 and SLI 8800GT is turned off 80% of the time so I really don't think about power consumption. My daily use machine is a lower consuming near silent box.


I know what you mean. My PC is off at night but on all day, and the fact that I stay up till midnight means my PC is on from 14-15 hours a day. I have a laptop but all my apps are installed on the PC, the laptop is for me to sit in front of the TV and do some items. The laptop doesnt have the storage I need to download certain things and keep a billion apps on.

I don't need the fastest monster but like you said I like the power on demand. And the convenience of not having to reboot every time I want to game. Not saying I need speed step enabled, I mean how much power does that actually save compared to not having an OC?
a c 148 U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 3:52:22 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Sounds to me your employer has the right man for the job. Someone mention Mike Rowe?

I'm just one of many It personnel. I don't really even touch them in a physical sense. We have a guy who builds the units and images the servers. I just TS into them. I thought it was cool how much power they save though. They are expensive upfront though, and unless you are going to put at least 8 blades in them they probably aren't worth it for a smaller company.

Yes Mike Rowe... It's my Gamer Handle I use. Apparently the Lan guys think I look like Mike Rowe every so often.
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 5:27:52 PM

Jay when you mention Laptop, it got me thinking. That is the one time I can see where lower power consumption can equal a better gaming CPU. (longer battery life in a mobile gamer) Otherwise it's a valid reason you or a person would choose a dual core over a Quad core, but doesn't make for a better gaming CPU. Like other people may say better video editing or encoding in a certain application would make them choose the Quad. That's fine too, but doesn't make it a better gamer. Better performance or gaming experience makes for a better gamer.

And not to drag on, but I Just wanted to share my main reason for going quad core when I made the decision (e6850 same price as Q6600 then). I do feel that there is potential for the quad to be way more valuable down the road. Reason being, I keep my hardware in use a long time. I build a new gamer, my former gamer becomes a spare, and so on, until it can no longer perform (the worst LAN gaming systems go). If we look at single core A64 vs Dual X2 when they first came out, there was also little to no reason for the gamer to grab the dual core then. A cheaper higher clocked single core was as good or even better than a dual core. But, how quickly that changed! I still have 6 single core A64 or FX cpu's at home. They now really hurt in many games, includig the once mighty FX-55. What I wouldn't give now to have dual core X2's instead. I saved money and gamed just as well back then, but they didn't last as long as completely useful gaming rigs. Now my thoughts (that may or may not be important to other individuals) are that someday, be it 2, 3, or 4 years from now the same will probably happen with Dual vs Quad core. I don't want to then say, boy I wish I had grabbed Quads instead of duals. Especially in the case of similar prices. I really don't see the e8500 or any +$200 dual core as a good value. As an overclocker I am attracted to the e8400 and e8500 as a 4.0+ GHz CPU can but a smile on this geeks face. Anyway, that's why for me even for a pure gamer, I wanted the quad core even thought the e6850 was the same price and higher clocked and the e6750 was cheaper. I plan on grabbing an e8400 myself (had one on backorder), but it has to be priced right. And it's for the thrill of the OC (and comparison testing), not me feeling it's any better than just buying another Quad.

a c 148 U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 8:21:05 PM

^
Whooo You have way to many CPU's. haha. Yeah I mean I know multi-core CPU will eventually be the wave of the future. Id really like to see the tech I once read where it inteligenly turns off cores as needed to conserve power. I think that is REALLY cool. Sorta like on-demand power. And it also can clock cores individually as needed. Once again saving power. But I guess my machine is not just a gamer its a do-all machine. So leaving it on all day long bothers me to suck so much power. If I were to build a machine today I'd go for the e8400 or e8500. But give it a year or two I am willing to bet my view will change, as they get the tech refined for multi-core processors. I don't like burning electricity and not using the computing power. Plus I see what you are saying with getting single cores when everything is dual now. down the road it will be dual cores and withins you got the quad. But by then BETTER quads will be out and you can just upgrade to the latest and greatest, and wish you would have gotten the 8 core instead. The never ending computer stories.
May 29, 2008 10:02:46 PM

Since you were going for the quad core, I would've gotten the Q9300 instead. Those new 45nm CPU's run soo cool, great for overclockers (I just got myself the E8400).
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2008 10:44:24 PM

Would have to see if he listed his mobo. He may not be able to support 45nm duals or especially quads.

For me, there were no e8400's or Q9300's when I built my system, and I don't think I'd even bother to put one on this 650i SLI mobo. The e8400 is supported, the Q9300 is not supported.
a c 148 U Graphics card
May 30, 2008 12:37:12 PM

^
Heck the e8400 is supported on MY mobo and its an x975 chipset. I wouldnt put one in it either.

I see your point when you got your quad. The option was sort of obvious and at the time the best choice.
!