$4,000 To Spend

Well, to start, you absolutely should get a cooling system if you want to overclock. The above post's recommendation of a Tuniq Tower is an excellent one. They are one of the best, if not the best.

Also include $5 Artic Silver 5 thermal grease in your purchase. By applying a small amount of this grease to the processor heat spreader, you'll improve the contact between the processor and the cooler.

When I have time later today I'll go back and critique the rest of your purchase plan.

Thanks,

Mark.
 
This is what I added. Looks okay?

Tuniq Tower 120 P4 & K8 CPU Cooler

Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound - OEM
 
Shivang,

For the most part your rig looks great. Before you buy, there is one issue I would like to persuade you on--upgradability.

As you know, building is often cheaper than buying a Dell, Gateway, Alienware, etc... especially at the high-end. It's also more work, but for many, that's a good thing. Another huge advantage over buying is upgradability, because when you build your own rig with standard components, upgrading is very easy. Choosing components with an upgrade plan in mind allows you to save money now, and more importantly, stay ahead of the curve later.

The one component I would seriously reconsider buying is the processor. Instead of the QX6700, I would buy a cheaper dual-core processor today, and put the remaining money away for an upgrade later. It's not just a matter of trying to be frugal. There is a real performance advantage to doing this.

Our rigs are very similar, apart from my additional hard drive space and your planned QX6700. However, I paid under $3000 for my PC, and yet if we were to compare performance in most programs and games, my rig would be faster. (Note that the sound card and the second RAID array were taken from my old computer, accounting for some of the cost difference. Most of the cost difference is due to the processor however.)

There are two reasons for this. First, with my E6600, I was able to get a stable overclock of 3.6Ghz. Even if you overclock your QX6700 from 2.6Ghz, getting it to 3.6Ghz on air is very difficult. This is due to several reasons, the first being that higher-stock-performance chips tend to have less overclock room, and second, a quad core processor generates more heat due to having double the transistors. More heat == less overclock.

The second reason is that most programs and games aren't written to take advantage of more than one core. Granted, this is changing, but we're not there yet. Multithreaded programming is currently difficult because most developers aren't used to the major shifts in thinking that are required to implement it, and because until recently, many APIs had weak support for multithreading. This means that most of your current games and software, and whatever you plan to buy over the next, say six months, won't use more than one core. Some games now use two cores, but I don't know of any that uses four. Maybe Supreme Commander, but that's it. Think about this: 75% of your processor would sit idle, twiddling its thumbs for a good long time.

Note that when multitasking, four cores will be utilized, but we're talking about individual application performance here. You did say you want your games to run as fast as possible with all options maxed.

Now, let's say you got the E6600 or E6700 instead. You'd basically be getting a processor just as good as the Core 2 Extreme X6800 (which is also $1000,) but at a lower stock clock speed. Since the stock clock is lower, you'll probably be able overclock higher. Take a look at the C2D Overclock Database post in the Intel Processor forum. The best overclocks are with the E6600 and lower. Now, since the E6600 is only $314 (with a planned price drop in a few weeks,) you'll save about $600 for an upgrade.

I plan to spend my saved $600 early next year when the Yorkfield Core 2 Quads (based on the Peryn core) come out. These processors will slam a Kentsfield quad, as they are built on a 45NM process and use a new transistor gate technology to keep things cool. This means that their stock speeds should be well over 3Ghz. While this is all still speculation, it's expected that taking a Yorkfield Core 2 Quad over 4Ghz will be as easy as pie. A 4Ghz QX6700 is impossible w/o some exotic cooling setup taken from a car's air conditioner.

So, by buying the cheaper processor now, I get better performance now due to the higher overclock (and the lack of multi-core programs,) and I save money to get the Yorkfield/Penryn later. By the time Yorkfield comes out, there will be many more programs and games that use four cores, so having half the processor sit idle won't be an issue.

In going the CPU upgrade route, there is a risk that when the processors come out, we'll find that they're not compatible with out motherboards. However, most don't expect this to be the case, especially since the nForce 680i natively supports a 1333Mhz bus w/o overclocking. However, the motherboard is not the most expensive component, and if it needs to be replaced, then it needs to be replaced.

I hope I've given you a persuasive argument. Aside from the processor, which you should think about, you're good to go. Best of luck with your build!

Mark.
 
Markyip1 said:
Shivang,

For the most part your rig looks great. Before you buy, there is one issue I would like to persuade you on--upgradability.

As you know, building is often cheaper than buying a Dell, Gateway, Alienware, etc... especially at the high-end. It's also more work, but for many, that's a good thing. Another huge advantage over buying is upgradability, because when you build your own rig with standard components, upgrading is very easy. Choosing components with an upgrade plan in mind allows you to save money now, and more importantly, stay ahead of the curve later.

The one component I would seriously reconsider buying is the processor. Instead of the QX6700, I would buy a cheaper dual-core processor today, and put the remaining money away for an upgrade later. It's not just a matter of trying to be frugal. There is a real performance advantage to doing this.

Our rigs are very similar, apart from my additional hard drive space and your planned QX6700. However, I paid under $3000 for my PC, and yet if we were to compare performance in most programs and games, my rig would be faster. (Note that the sound card and the second RAID array were taken from my old computer, accounting for some of the cost difference. Most of the cost difference is due to the processor however.)

There are two reasons for this. First, with my E6600, I was able to get a stable overclock of 3.6Ghz. Even if you overclock your QX6700 from 2.6Ghz, getting it to 3.6Ghz on air is very difficult. This is due to several reasons, the first being that higher-stock-performance chips tend to have less overclock room, and second, a quad core processor generates more heat due to having double the transistors. More heat == less overclock.

The second reason is that most programs and games aren't written to take advantage of more than one core. Granted, this is changing, but we're not there yet. Multithreaded programming is currently difficult because most developers aren't used to the major shifts in thinking that are required to implement it, and because until recently, many APIs had weak support for multithreading. This means that most of your current games and software, and whatever you plan to buy over the next, say six months, won't use more than one core. Some games now use two cores, but I don't know of any that uses four. Maybe Supreme Commander, but that's it. Think about this: 75% of your processor would sit idle, twiddling its thumbs for a good long time.

Note that when multitasking, four cores will be utilized, but we're talking about individual application performance here. You did say you want your games to run as fast as possible with all options maxed.

Now, let's say you got the E6600 or E6700 instead. You'd basically be getting a processor just as good as the Core 2 Extreme X6800 (which is also $1000,) but at a lower stock clock speed. Since the stock clock is lower, you'll probably be able overclock higher. Take a look at the C2D Overclock Database post in the Intel Processor forum. The best overclocks are with the E6600 and lower. Now, since the E6600 is only $314 (with a planned price drop in a few weeks,) you'll save about $600 for an upgrade.

I plan to spend my saved $600 early next year when the Yorkfield Core 2 Quads (based on the Peryn core) come out. These processors will slam a Kentsfield quad, as they are built on a 45NM process and use a new transistor gate technology to keep things cool. This means that their stock speeds should be well over 3Ghz. While this is all still speculation, it's expected that taking a Yorkfield Core 2 Quad over 4Ghz will be as easy as pie. A 4Ghz QX6700 is impossible w/o some exotic cooling setup taken from a car's air conditioner.

So, by buying the cheaper processor now, I get better performance now due to the higher overclock (and the lack of multi-core programs,) and I save money to get the Yorkfield/Penryn later. By the time Yorkfield comes out, there will be many more programs and games that use four cores, so having half the processor sit idle won't be an issue.

In going the CPU upgrade route, there is a risk that when the processors come out, we'll find that they're not compatible with out motherboards. However, most don't expect this to be the case, especially since the nForce 680i natively supports a 1333Mhz bus w/o overclocking. However, the motherboard is not the most expensive component, and if it needs to be replaced, then it needs to be replaced.

I hope I've given you a persuasive argument. Aside from the processor, which you should think about, you're good to go. Best of luck with your build!

Mark.
Click to expand...

I suggest you listen to this guy. Well written
 
Rob Black said:
I suggest you listen to this guy. Well written
Click to expand...

Agreed. Currently, Intel's Quad 2 Core processors aren't really worth their price tag for what you're using it for. You would be far better off saving the money and getting an E6600 the main difference you'll notice is that your wallet is a hell of a lot fatter.
 
isnt intel dropping their quad core prices or coming out with a new one this year for $300 ?
 
Thanks a lot, Mark. You're the first person that actually made me change my mind on my processor. I will probably do what you said, but I will wait and get the Penryn. As I will not upgrade I would rather wait. Do you think I should take the plunge when the 45NM processors are out?
 
Well, if you really, really, can't upgrade and you absolutely must have a quad core, then yes: I would wait until quad core technology matures and until there are programs out that I would use which make use of all four cores. Keep in mind that if you wait for a Penryn/Yorkfield, you'll be waiting about year.

There is also a lot of speculation that the non-extreme quad core Q6600 is going to drop in price from $800 to $266 in a few weeks. If this is true, then consider getting this. Maybe when the Peryn's come out you'll change your mind about upgrading.

Keep in mind that if you can decide to wait a year, you can decide to wait forever. Computer technology improves and replaces itself at a maddening pace, and as soon as something comes out, the next better thing will be no more than six months away. If you're ready to buy now, then buy now. If you can wait unitl Penryns, then do so, but just make sure you buy sometime.

Good luck,

Mark.
 
I will wait as long as August of this year. After that I'm going to buy it no matter what is out. Also, even if I get a QX6700, it would be faster to have a cheaper overclocked C2D? What about if I overclock the quad-core, would it be faster than some other overclocked C2D?
 
Can you guys point me out a good secondary hard drive?
I have the 10k Raptor HDD of 150Gb.
I guess I might want a storage drive for no more than $100.
 
shivang222 said:
Can you guys point me out a good secondary hard drive?
I have the 10k Raptor HDD of 150Gb.
I guess I might want a storage drive for no more than $100.
Click to expand...

$85 - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB 7200RPM SATA300 16MB Cache
$90 - WD Caviar SE16 WD3200AAKS 320GB 7200RPM SATA300 16MB Cache
 
If a Core 2 Duo and a QX6700 are overclocked to the same speed, and the application you're using takes advantage of more than two cores, then yes, the QX6700 will be faster. It's a big if, however, because very few applications take advantage of four cores, and certainly very few games.

To answer your first question, you will very likely be able to take a cheaper Core 2 Duo and overclock it higher than you could a QX6700. Keep in mind that there are no guarantees with overclocking, but assuming you don't get a lemon, a Core 2 Duo E6600 can easily overclock to 3.4-3.6Ghz with the right cooler, and perhaps even higher. You would be hard pressed to get a QX6700 above 3.2Ghz on air. In applications and games that don't use four cores (the vast majority of them,) a 3.4-3.6Ghz Core 2 Duo will be faster than a 3.2Ghz (if you're lucky) QX6700.

Also, while there should be cheaper quad cores by August, the Peryn cores aren't scheduled to come out until the holidays at the earliest, with general availability likely to be sometime early next year.

Mark.
 
Way too much money to spend on something that $2k would get you comparable performance.
 
shivang222 said:
Whats the difference between the two drives?
Click to expand...

Seagate has a 5yr warranty, and is slightly louder. its also probably faster, but I'm not sure on that.

WD has 3yr warranty, and is slightly quieter.

Here are my test results with my drives. I dont have a 320GB WD to compare with. I only have the 250GB models.

WD2500KS: 54MB/s
ST3320620AS: 65MB/s
WD1500ADFD: 78MB/s
 
Which one do you recommend?
I only need about 100Gb, but I want the fastest available for under $100.
 
Okay guys.. think of my situation like this..
I have a coupon of $4,000.. Also, no matter how expensive of a computer I get, I will not get change from the money left over.. SO... I want to build the best PC I can with $4,000 and I don't want to spend any more and upgrade later on..
($4,000 excluding monitor)
 
I need a hard drive of only about 100Gb, but I want the most reliable and sturdy. What do you guys recommend? (It will be my secondary drive for storage so I do not want it to crash.)
A fast drive is not need for storing music in right?
 
Is RAM that runs at 1066Mhz a lot faster than the 800Mhz?
Is it worth the $300 price difference?
 
shivang222 said:
Is RAM that runs at 1066Mhz a lot faster than the 800Mhz?
Is it worth the $300 price difference?
Click to expand...

Yes, and no. Just get DDR2-800 RAM, you'll never want to get your processor over a 400Mhz FSB frequency anyway so there's no point getting expensive RAM which will allow you to get to 533Mhz FSB, is there?

alik4041, aren't you forgetting the operating system in that config.?
Also, may i ask why you've chosen Arctic Silver MX-1 over Arctic Silver 5?
 
shivang222 said:
Which one do you recommend?
I only need about 100Gb, but I want the fastest available for under $100.
Click to expand...

Then go with the Seagate 7200.10 320GB.

shivang222 said:
Is RAM that runs at 1066Mhz a lot faster than the 800Mhz?
Is it worth the $300 price difference?
Click to expand...
Yes, its faster. No, its not worth the price. But, the main question is, will you be running it at that speed? To help translate Mansize's answer, lets do some math... The stock multiplier of the E6600 is 9, and the base FSB is 266Mhz. The effective FSB is QDR, so its 4x the base FSB. Since your running ram in dual channel, its 2x the base FSB. So at stock settings:
9 * 266 = 2.4Ghz CPU Clock speed
4 * 266 = 1066Mhz Effective FSB
2 * 266 = DDR2-533 DRAM Speed

If you buy DDR2-1066, that means you want 533Mhz FSB...
9 * 533 = 4.8Ghz CPU Clock speed
4 * 533 = 2133Mhz Effective FSB
2 * 533 = DDR2-1066 DRAM Speed

Now, Intel platforms perform best at a 1:1 ratio, so you basically keep those multipliers the same. You actually can't run at 533 because I don't think theres a single board out there that can reach that high of an FSB. Furthermore, the CPU will NOT reach 4.8Ghz on air. So, the most you'll need is DDR2-800:
9 * 400 = 3.6Ghz CPU Clock speed
4 * 400 = 1600Mhz Effective FSB
2 * 400 = DDR2-800 DRAM Speed

Now thats a realistic overclock on good air. You really only need highly overclockable ram, or fast ram, if you have a lower stock multiplier on your CPU (E6300); or if you're goin for record breaking speeds with some liquid nitrogen.
 
Mansize_tissue said:
Yes, and no. Just get DDR2-800 RAM, you'll never want to get your processor over a 400Mhz FSB frequency anyway so there's no point getting expensive RAM which will allow you to get to 533Mhz FSB, is there?

alik4041, aren't you forgetting the operating system in that config.?
Also, may i ask why you've chosen Arctic Silver MX-1 over Arctic Silver 5?
Click to expand...

Price is $3,680. That leaves room for any operating system he desires. Also The AS MX-1 is (1) better than AS5 in thermal conductivity and (2) does not conduct electricity which is a great combination.

enginurd said:
Then go with the Seagate 7200.10 320GB.
Click to expand...
Nice choice. I was thinking about recommending him this or a samsung spinpoint.
 
enginurd said:
Then go with the Seagate 7200.10 320GB.
Click to expand...

That drive is reliable, right? I want to keep all my music in that drive, so I wouldn't want it to crash. Also, is there any cheaper alternative? I don't really need any more than 100gb.

Finally, for storing music and videos, a faster drive wouldn't be useful, would it?
What should I use my 10,000rpm drive for?
 
Which memory do you guys recommend?

G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

OR

2X CORSAIR Dominator 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
 
shivang222 said:
That drive is reliable, right? I want to keep all my music in that drive, so I wouldn't want it to crash. Also, is there any cheaper alternative? I don't really need any more than 100gb.

Finally, for storing music and videos, a faster drive wouldn't be useful, would it?
What should I use my 10,000rpm drive for?
Click to expand...

Not all drives will last forever... any drive can crash at any time. You just have to make sure its running cool and gets good voltage... thats about all you can do. If it fails, then it fails. Thats why its good to have a backup system in place (eg. external hdd/dvds/cds/etc).

Cheaper alternative? The 250GB model (.10 or KS), lol. Cheaper? get a 160GB (WD1600AAJS).

Use the raptor as your main system drive, for OS and programs/games.

shivang222 said:
Which memory do you guys recommend?

G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

OR

2X CORSAIR Dominator 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
Click to expand...

Dominators are a waste of money. 4GB is somewhat a waste of money right now, too, unless you have a 64-bit OS.
 
shivang222 said:
Which memory do you guys recommend?

G.SKILL 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

OR

2X CORSAIR Dominator 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
Click to expand...

The Dominators seem highly rated and everyone seems to talk about them..
Is there anything special with the Corsairs? (They are also at 1066Mhz)
 
shivang222 said:
The Dominators seem highly rated and everyone seems to talk about them..
Is there anything special with the Corsairs? (They are also at 1066Mhz)
Click to expand...

The Dominators have a nifty heatsink, but it isn't really needed. Out of the 2 your mentioned, i would get the G.Skill set, because you get more for your money.

For this rig, any RAM above DDR2-800 speeds is, pretty much, a waste of money.
 
From which processor would I be able to expect higher overclocking results?
QX6700, X6800, Q6700, E6700, or E6600?

(Looking at overclock results, it seems the E6600 overclocks the best on air)
 
shivang222 said:
From which processor would I be able to expect higher overclocking results?
QX6700, X6800, Q6700, E6700, or E6600?

(Looking at overclock results, it seems the E6600 overclocks the best on air)
Click to expand...

The X6800; but getting it much higher than an overclocked E6600 would be difficult on air. This is why, for the price, the E6600 is "unbeatable" because you'd struggle to get something to a higher overclock, than you can on the E6600, on air anyway.

The quad cores are very difficult to overclock to high speeds because they are a lot hotter than dual cores.
 
shivang222 said:
About how much is the difference of the average overclocked X6800 and the E6600?
Click to expand...

The minimum would be about 3.2 or so? On average about 3.4-3.6. Look at the above pics that I posted. With that memory and motherboard, you should have no problems exceeding 3.4 (not a gurantee ofcourse). I also think that you need 4GB of memory. Ever since Vista arose, companys have been in production of 2x2GB memory. It's not rare to find rigs with 4GB of memory anymore (at least not as rare as it was 6 months ago). And when you use the money you have as a coupon, then I have no doubt that you should get 4GB to help you out in the future. The dominators which exceed DDR2-800 are over-rated in this situation only because, as many have posted already, they are almost useless waste of money (for this situation). I have to ask, what is it that you plan to do with this pc that you will not exceed 100GB? I think you answered this question before, but I couldn't find it :rolleyes:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1147298
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1150502
Click to expand...
I see you've been putting this off for a while eh :p
 
spend 1500-2000 on the computer. the other 2000 on the monitor or other peripherals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top