Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

phytoplankton's just ordered parts

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 24, 2008 3:27:06 PM

CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 $325
MoBo ASUS Rampage Formula $206
RAM 2 x 2 GB Mushkin XP2-6400 DDR2 $117
GPU Sapphire Radeon 4870X2 $560
GPU WB EK-FC4870 X2 - Acetal CF $170
HDD 1+2 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 (Had one allready) 2 x $80
Case Gigabyte 3D Mercury Pro GZ-FW1CA-AJB $400
PSU FSP Group Everest 1010 1000W $280
Monitor ASUS MK241H Black 24" 2ms HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor $460
OS Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit English OEM $110

Total $ 2788

The last rig was a homebuild Pentium 3 700 MHz so it took quite a lot of reading to get updated to build a new rig again. I have probably overlooked a couple of things in putting this one together from lack of knowlegde or simply information fatigue.

I chose the quadcore in hopes that more application and hopefully games will support it in the future because it's gonna be a long time before I buy a new PC again. It's a gamble, I know. All parts are from a Midtdata here in Denmark. They have reasonable prices but more important, they have just opened a store near my home. So no delivery service is needed and any RMA can be solved personally.
August 24, 2008 6:53:21 PM

why are you wasting so much money?

take your cash and spead it out a little more instead of blowing a buldle on top if the line and then sitting on it for 5 or more years.

you would be way beter off spending about $1000us now and and upgrading $500 every year or 2 vs. dumping $4k now, and sitting on it till its a joke
August 24, 2008 7:20:37 PM

I really don't have the enconomic discipline to do that. I just worked 300 hours in my summer vacation from university so I have the cash right now.
Related resources
August 24, 2008 7:38:31 PM

If you're willing to spend that kind of money, you should wait until nelhalem arrives, after all it's only a couple of months and you'll get a more future-proff system that way.
August 24, 2008 7:54:49 PM

I thought about it but there isn't really good game support for quads yet, how many years should I wait before the nelhalem has it? I'm gambling the the Quads will be supported in the comming years.

Also thought about just getting a wii and paying off my some of my student loan with the rest. Probably the most sensible thing to do - but screw that. I want a seriously game machine to play with during the comming fall and winter.
August 24, 2008 8:05:14 PM

If you gots the money and wants to spends it then do it.
August 24, 2008 8:14:00 PM

he cant waite till nelhalem. it will be nothing but empty pizza boxes and beer cans by then.

August 24, 2008 8:18:35 PM

groo said:
he cant waite till nelhalem. it will be nothing but empty pizza boxes and beer cans by then.


So true it's scary :lol: 
August 24, 2008 8:28:53 PM

that case is way to expensive wtf......I would never buy a case that is over $250 also don't go for the top of the line products as "around the corner" there will be something new and the prices will drop and it will make your head hurt. Good example is when q9550 was $500 and now it's $340....4870 at launch was $300 and now cheapest one on newegg is $270.... Lol get items that have good bang for the buck meaning good performance vs price and they will not cost you an arm and leg and update more often that buying bleeding-edge top of the line parts and in two years mid range systems will be faster than your "monster" as for today.
August 24, 2008 8:32:07 PM

The case has an complete water cooling system build-in. As for the rest of the system. It's only the GPU that the top of the line IMO
August 24, 2008 8:39:09 PM

Water cooling prices does not justify the small differences in cooling vs air cooling (2-5c) It just looks nice and it much quieter.......also water cooling is better for ocing since the differences between idle and load temps are not that dramatic giving you better stability for the cpu.........Well its your money I know I will not go for water cooling giving the price does not justify the cooling efficiency
August 24, 2008 8:47:10 PM

Good points. I was thinking about it a lot and decided on it for the noise reduction and also to try working with a liquid cooling system. It is a much a building project as an actual gaming machine for me.
August 24, 2008 9:08:24 PM

yeah watercooling and air cooling try and achieve the same thing, which is ambient temperature, only water cooling does it way better

isnt that the point of watercooling in the first place? to bring that load temp way down?

if you have the money and you wanna spend it, known yourself out

but do your reasearch first, make sure there isnt something 150,000,000 times better around the corner, and especially read reviews for that case... built in watercooling or even free psu's are always questionable.... and 8gigs of ram? i doubt you'll even need that for 5 years, but hey... if all 4 slots being filled makes you happy, than i guess its ok

and a 4870x2 waterblock is gonna run you up $150 im sure, thats a freaking 4850 >=[
i udn't waste money on a second 4870x2...insane power consumption with iffy scaling
August 24, 2008 9:51:21 PM

Thanks, I'm pretty sure about the case. For a newbie in watercooling planning to moderately overclock this case seems perfect aside from the price tag, but I think it will spare me a lot of trouble in the long run so I'm willing to pay. I'll cut back RAM to 4 GB. The price for the waterblocks is jaw dropping indeed. Still havn't ordered any but I must have one. I would like to receive my case before choosing a waterblock.
August 28, 2008 12:47:46 PM

Edited my system in the first post. Reduced RAM to 4 GB, changed the motherboard from Gigabyte to ASUS because of better reviews and because the ASUS design and extras are better for watercooling.

Also added a PSU. I contacted the sales department of the place I'm ordering it from and asked them to look at my rig and suggest a PSU suitable for me. Since they also deliver custom build machines, I assumed they knew more about power needs than me. They suggested the FSP Group Everest 800 and I went once step higher just in case because I might overclock this rig when I've read all the OC guides
August 28, 2008 4:10:41 PM

don't know much about fsp for psu. but i do know corsair is top of the line and a great psu and the 1000w corsair is $260. so $5 more if you were going to do the mail in rebate on the other.

mushkin is great ram but get the 1.8v. i'm sure you picked that one that you did because the cl was lower but companies just raise the voltage to do that. it isn't actually faster RAM. by getting the standard you can then adjust if you want with your overclock.

your hdd is $150. you could raid0 2 wd 640gb for a total of 1.28tb of space, have it be a little faster, and cost $20 more. $20 for 280gb more is a pretty good deal. won't make a huge difference but just throwing that option out there.
August 28, 2008 4:30:28 PM

bdollar said:
mushkin is great ram but get the 1.8v. i'm sure you picked that one that you did because the cl was lower but companies just raise the voltage to do that. it isn't actually faster RAM. by getting the standard you can then adjust if you want with your overclock.


You're spot on regarding th cl. I'm unseure about what RAM are you referring to.

bdollar said:
your hdd is $150. you could raid0 2 wd 640gb for a total of 1.28tb of space, have it be a little faster, and cost $20 more. $20 for 280gb more is a pretty good deal. won't make a huge difference but just throwing that option out there.


Is RAID acually speeding up harddisk performance because I've read reviews claiming that gains are negiable in all RAID modes. I will change my harddisk to 2 or 3 lesser ones. I've been advised to get the Samsung SpinPoint F1 but not looked more into it. Is WD better?

Thanks for the help

August 28, 2008 4:43:17 PM

here is 1.8v ram:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

hdd: gains are necessarily outstanding but the way i look at it is if you can get the same amount of space for about the same price (so 2 500gb vs 1 1tb or 1 1tb vs 1.28tb for $20more) then even if the gain is just a little bit you haven't lost anything. in raid0 if one drive dies you lose everything just like in a 1 drive set up if it dies so pretty much the same there.

as far as brand. everyone has good and bad stories about all brands. i personally tend to stick with seagate or WD but i don't have hard data supporting that decision.
August 28, 2008 4:52:36 PM

RAID 0 is specifically designed to increase performance. That's it's sole purpose. The other RAID flavors don't really offer any performance difference, but that's because that's not what they're supposed to be used for. They're designed for data security. The downside of RAID 0 is that you're using multiple HDDs without any kind of redundancy (meaning that if one of them goes down you'll lose the data on both disks). But that's not really any different than if you're using a single 1T disc and it gets corrupted.

I can't comment specifically on the actual performance difference between the two setups, but I'd suspect that you'd get faster performance from the RAID'd WD6400AAKS's with the added bonus of getting an additional 280GB of space.
August 28, 2008 5:28:44 PM

Wanker79 said:
RAID 0 is specifically designed to increase performance. That's it's sole purpose...

Does anyone have a any links to reviews actually testing the performance of RAID 0 vs non-RAID on the same HDD's?

As for data security I usually ghost my system disk once every other month and keep it on a seperate disk connect thru a an usb dock.

August 28, 2008 5:39:32 PM

hopefully someone has a link. i think there is some performance gain but i guess my point is. even if it is 1% better or .01% better are you losing anything? i don't typically suggest raid0 on smaller drives because price to move up to the next best single drive is so low. but 1tb drives are still overpriced. so that is the point in which i think raid0 makes sense. if they were cheaper you wouldn't see that recommendation.
August 28, 2008 6:03:01 PM

Changed to 2 750 GB Samsung SpinPoint F1's it's the lowest capacity F1 that still has 32 MB cache. I'm not sure that 32 MB cache is acutally an improvement over 16 MB but it sounds better. Not even sure about the Samsung vs other quality brands but I've seen the Samsung being praised for low noise levels and delivering good results in other benchmarks.

Might change it to another brand after a bit more of reading
August 28, 2008 6:08:40 PM

fyi seagate makes a 32mb cache 500gb and 640gb ($80 and $90). and i haven't seen any great improvement in the cache being 32mb vs 16mb.

but also you just increased your hdd expenditure to $220.
August 28, 2008 6:27:22 PM

Thanks bdollar I'll take a look at the seagates...

I just realized that my backup drive is the Seagate Barracuda 500 GB with 32 MB cache so I'll get another 1 or 3 more of those depending on my RAID setup.

BTW found an article about single SATA vs RAID performance. Havn't read it myself yet.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/9124
August 31, 2008 11:56:11 AM

Good read (if a little over my head) and find phytoplankton. Since I'm building something simular within the same price range I found this thread and the article helpful. Thanks for the heads up on my thread.
!