Building a Gamming Rig & need input

P

PaleRider101

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
82
I have done a little research and still cant resolve the Intel/AMD question. This is what I have found out so far.

Video Card: PNY 8800GTX 768MB ($509.00)

Motherboard: EVGA 122-m2-nf59-tr NForce 590SLi socket AM2 SATA II ($129.99)
or
Asus Striker Extreme Intel NV/Core 2x NForce 680i ($295.00)

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000= Windsor 3.0Ghz x2 socket AM2 ($169.99)
or
Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 64-bit LGA 775 ($266.50)

Memory: Mushkin 2x2Gb 996551 6400 ($329.98)
or
Corsair QQuad2x4096-8500c5df 64-bit OS ready w/ airflow fan ($253.00)

Monitor: LG L226

Hard Drives: WD 3200k 7200rpm 320Gb 16mb cache SATA II ($85.00)
and
WD Raptor WD1500ADFD 10,000rpm 16mb cache SATA II 150Gb
($184.99)

Powersupply: CoolMaster RP-650-PCAR 12v v2.01 650w ($99.99)

Before I go out and spend a butt load of money and make the wrong purchase. I would greatly appreciate any input on these products and maybe alternatives if any.
 
Go for the Gigabyte DS3R.
The 8800Ultra.
The Q6600.
Find some cheaper RAM for $180 - 4GB.
Personally I would drop the Raptor in favour of a 7200.10
Swap the PSU for the Corsair 620w.
 
RoBo said:
Go for the Gigabyte DS3R.
The 8800Ultra.
The Q6600.
Find some cheaper RAM for $180 - 4GB.
Personally I would drop the Raptor in favour of a 7200.10
Swap the PSU for the Corsair 620w.
Click to expand...

Do you think that I would notice much of a difference between the GTX or the Ultra? And, the input rate for the 10,000rpm was lower than the 7200rpm hard drive. But I would think that the 10,000rpm would be overall faster. Do you have any ideas.
 
PaleRider101 said:
Do you think that I would notice much of a difference between the GTX or the Ultra? And, the input rate for the 10,000rpm was lower than the 7200rpm hard drive. But I would think that the 10,000rpm would be overall faster. Do you have any ideas.
Click to expand...

The Ultra would run cooler and overclock higher and I think it is faster at stock. Yes the Raptor would be faster but the performance vs the price premium means I would never buy one.
 
RoBo said:
The Ultra would run cooler and overclock higher and I think it is faster at stock. Yes the Raptor would be faster but the performance vs the price premium means I would never buy one.
Click to expand...

hmm... that makes sense. Bye the way the Corsair mem says its 64-bit OS ready. I have read in several threads that people have had issues with Vista Ult 64 not recognizing 4Gb of ram without a patch. Do you think that's what this means? Also if I go with cheap 4Gb RAM do you think I would have a noticable performance decrease?
 
Intel is better, clock for clock, especially if overclocking. If you're on a tight budget (<$650), then AMD is for you.

Since you don't need SLI, the Abit IP35-Pro, Asus P5K-E, and Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R are great choices.

78MB/s: WD Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB, $160AR
65MB/s: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $80
65MB/s: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3300620AS 300GB, $60
52MB/s: WD Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB, $70
112MB/s: RAID0 'cuda's, 600GB total, $120 (ICH9R on P35-DS3R)

As you can see, the 'cuda is twice the size and half the cost, for nearly the same performance. Stick them in RAID0, and you've got an even more cost effective solution. The Raptor still has the fastest seek time, but I don't think its worth the price premium.

I also agree with the Corsair PSU suggestion.

For a Q6600, all you need is DDR2-800. You won't notice the difference between CL4 and CL5, so don't bother paying a price premium for lower latency. On Intel platforms, running the RAM higher than a 1:1 ratio with the CPU is useless. Keep it linked at 1:1:

Q6600: 9 * 266 = 2.4Ghz, DDR2-533 << STOCK speeds
Q6600: 9 * 333 = 3.0Ghz, DDR2-667 << Nice OC
Q6600: 9 * 378 = 3.4Ghz, DDR2-756 << Good OC, near max for B3 stepping
Q6600: 9 * 400 = 3.6Ghz, DDR2-800 << Great OC, near max for G0 stepping

Forumlas for Intel platform @ 1:1 settings:
(CPU Multiplier) x [Base FSB speed] = CPU Clock speed
2 x [Base FSB speed] = RAM speed
4 x [Base FSB speed] = Effective FSB speed
 
enginurd said:
Q6600: 9 * 266 = 2.4Ghz, DDR2-533 << STOCK speeds
Q6600: 9 * 333 = 3.0Ghz, DDR2-667 << Nice OC
Q6600: 9 * 378 = 3.4Ghz, DDR2-756 << Good OC, near max for B3 stepping
Q6600: 9 * 400 = 3.6Ghz, DDR2-800 << Great OC, near max for G0 stepping
Click to expand...

the bold part here just made me change my mind on what cpu im going for in a few weeks when i put together my pc =).. i had no idea the c2Q could OC like that, the e6750 can only hit ~4ghz on water right? and that 3.6ghz Q is on air?
 
noct3rn4l said:
the bold part here just made me change my mind on what cpu im going for in a few weeks when i put together my pc =).. i had no idea the c2Q could OC like that, the e6750 can only hit ~4ghz on water right? and that 3.6ghz Q is on air?
Click to expand...

I hit 4Ghz on air with my E6750, lol.

With overclocking, everything is YMMV. Nothing is guaranteed. A 4Ghz Core2Duo will outperform a 3.6Ghz Core2Quad in any app/game that isnt SMP optimized.

edit: there, fixed.
 
enginurd said:
I hit 4Ghz on air with my E6750, lol.

With overclocking, everything is YMMV. Nothing is guaranteed. A 4Ghz Core2Duo will outperform a 3.6Ghz Core2Quad in almost all current apps/games.
Click to expand...

what heatsink and fan combo were you running?
e6750 stepping?
 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q6600.html

A 4.0 core2duo will not beat a 3.6quad in almost all current apps/games.. in fact, a 3.6 quad will beat a 4.0duo in most all current games/apps and certainly all FUTURE games n apps. Its always people that doesnt have a quad that's making statement like that. Not to mention that multitasking is even smoother on a quad. I have 2 rigs... E6400@3.4 and Q6600@3.5.... the Q is just smoother overall with more apps opened.





enginurd said:
I hit 4Ghz on air with my E6750, lol.

With overclocking, everything is YMMV. Nothing is guaranteed. A 4Ghz Core2Duo will outperform a 3.6Ghz Core2Quad in almost all current apps/games.
Click to expand...
 
I'll admit, my statement was based on the assumption that most of the current apps aren't SMP optimized, and would therefore not make much use of 4 cores. So, logically speaking, a faster dual core would outperform a slower quadcore. The flaw in my statement resides in my assumption that most current apps aren't SMP optimized. Though, it really depends on what you're doing with the machine and what apps you're using.

I actually have 3 quadcore systems at work, and none of them are faster than a dual core for most of the stuff I do. This is probably because my work doesnt use a wide array of apps, and most embedded development environments I work with are not optimized for SMP. Multi-tasking is a bit smoother with a quadcore.

Generally speaking, though, an app can only be, at most, 50% faster than it was when it wasn't SMP optimized.
 
Thanks for all of the feedback. I will get the Corsair PSU and I wont go for the High end RAM. However are there any thoughts about the LCD LG L226..... I was about to go with the Samsung before I read about the Lottery. Then I decided on the LG l226WTQBF before I read about all the ghosting issues. Finally I ended up dropping the "WTQBF" and just going with the L226........ Any better ideas would be helpful.

Thanks
 
Don't bother with the 8800 Ultra. You simply won't need it, nor will you need the power of the 8800GTX. Buy the 640MB GTS, that will be easily fast enough for your needs. Then, buy a Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0. TBH, although the quad will get beaten by the dual core, it will barely be noticeable. Forget the Raptor, and TBH, just buy 2GB of memory, or by two 2x1GB kits for 4gigs. You won't need to upgrade that amount for years anyway, I would say that more than 4GB would become standard in about 4 years.
 
That link is broken, but I found the article. It only compares 3.8Ghz Dual vs 3.6Ghz Quad. I still don't think Firefox will run faster on a slower clocked quadcore, hehe.

Though, I must agree with you and lamboman. Even if the dual core is faster in a few apps/games, you won't really notice the difference and future ones will make much more use of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top