Critique My Build

N

NightWolfe

Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
786
This will be my first system that I actually build myself .. so any input on what I'm getting would be great .. I am hoping to OC it as well .. 4+ GHz would be sweet so please let me know if you think that would be doable ...

Case - Thermaltake XASER, Armor Series
Power Supply - Thermaltake PurePower 560W
Mobo - ABIT AW8-MAX
Proccessor - Intel Pentium 4 650 3.4GHz Prescott
HeatSink - Thermaltake SILENT 775 90mm
Memory - CORSAIR XMS2 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 x2
Vid Card - BFG Tech Geforce 7800GT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI-E x16
OS HardDrive - Western Digital Raptor 36.7GB 10kRPM
Data HD RAID 0 - Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 250GB x2
CDRW - LITE-ON Black 52X
DVDRW - LITE-ON Black 16X
Monitor - ViewSonic Black 19"

Thats everything .. if anyone sees anything that doesn't look like it would work please let me know .. or any suggestions on something better to get .. the purpose of this is for Pure Gaming .. thanks
 
NightWolfe said:
Ok how bout I ask for intelligent replies only .. k ?
Click to expand...
Why are you choosing an Intel Processor?
If this is your Gaming rig you would want to go with the better processor for gaming, at the moment its AMD.

Also change your HSF to a Zalaman for the same price.
 
Alex A. said:
Why are you choosing an Intel Processor?
If this is your Gaming rig you would want to go with the better processor for gaming, at the moment its AMD.

Also change your HSF to a Zalaman for the same price.
Click to expand...

It's just personal preference .. thanks for the tip on the Zalaman Cooler
 
NightWolfe said:
Ok how bout I ask for intelligent replies only .. k ?
Click to expand...

you did ask for "any suggestions on something better to get"...

he gave u a suggestion...

AMD pwns intel in games.. and u say ur pc was PURE gaming..
 
^^ Yep sir, no question, right now, AMD cpus are better for games. Check the numbers your self, temps, performance, price etc. You're much better off purchasing an AMD processor as of right now.
 
Scroatdog said:
Pitch the 36.7 gig raptor and get a 74 gig. They are faster.
Click to expand...

Agree ... also, 36g Raptor may be too small in today's environment.
I realize the 250gb is for storage. Have almost the exact same set-up myself.
However, you must consider many newer games require upwards of 5gb HDD space.
Depends on what games & how many you plan to have installed.

Not going to get into the AMD/Intel dabate, except that the #'s speak for themselves.
 
Scroatdog said:
Pitch the 36.7 gig raptor and get a 74 gig. They are faster.
Click to expand...
Susquehannock said:
Agree ... also, 36g Raptor may be too small in today's environment.
I realize the 250gb is for storage. Have almost the exact same set-up myself.
However, you must consider many newer games require upwards of 5gb HDD space.
Depends on what games & how many you plan to have installed.

Not going to get into the AMD/Intel dabate, except that the #'s speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
USMC2Hard4U said:
This is the truth
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up but I think the way I'm planning to set it up it'll work .. I want the Raptor cus it's 10kRPM and has really nice access times .. and it is only going to hold the OS and maybe a few other things .. the 500GB RAID 0 will hold my games and whatever else ...

K10 said:
for cd/dvd-rw, i would get the nec-3520a instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16827152039

on your monitor choice...personally, i would pay a little more and get the dell 2005fpw instead.
Click to expand...

I'll take a look at the drive .. I have Lite-On now and have always heard excellent things about them which is why I chose them .. but if there are better choices I'll take a look .. thanks for the heads up on the monitor as well .. still not quite sure what to go with .. I've always had/used CRTs but I want the FlatPanel for space this time ...

Thanks for the input guys ...
 
Personally, I would not go for the thermaltake case. But again that is my opinion; choose what you want. I would recommend a blue Cooler master wave master case like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811119031.
Again, you make your move on the case.

On terms of CPU, AMD does own Intel when it comes to gaming. However, again, you make the decision. If you did decide to go AMD instead I would recommend the following:
DFI Lanparty Ut n4 SLI-DR mobo
AMD Athlon X2 3800
Zalman CNPS-7700-cu cooler
OCZ 1gb DDR400 Titanium series (x2)


As far as I see, it would cost about $30-40 more to go the AMD X2 route, which nets you a dual-core processor. If you wanted to get a slower AMD Athlon 64 to save money, I recommend an A64 3000 or 3200 with venice core as they are cheap and pretty good overclockers. I hear that the Athlon 64 X2 3800 is a pretty good overclocker. Again though, if you want intel and wont hear of it otherwise, go intel.

You spend $902.48(with shipping included) for the intel setup that you are considering. It would cost $935.14(with shipping included) for an Athlon 64 X2 setup like I recommended. It would cost $726.14 with an A64 3200 or $760.02 with an A64 3500. Also, if you get it with the 3500, you can get a PNY 7800GTX for $459 or the PNY 7800GT for $399 as part of a combo deal.

However, if at the end of my thoughts, you still want to go intel. I would at least recomment getting an intel mobo that supports SLI so that you have that upgrade possibility. Here is an Epox board for $198.99 (including newegg shipping):
Epox Ep-5NVA+SLI mobo .

Just my $0.02. You make your own decisions and your mileage may vary.
 
As said before, AMD's will perform better in games, but if you prefer Intel that's fine.

From what I've read, Raid 0 performance is negligible in most cases, and you probably won't notice a difference if you're just using it for storage... also there is a greater chance of data corruption with Raid 0.

I'm also wondering why you are getting a CD-RW drive? The DVD drive can burn CD's too, it will just take a little longer if you want to make a copy of a CD since you have to save the image of the CD to your computer then burn it to the CD.

and as the above poster pointed out, you should get a mobo that supports SLi. That way, you will be able to add another 7800GTX as an upgrade once prices drop and games start to require more powerful video solutions.
 
It's pretty stupid to store your data on RAID 0. RAID 0 is suited for applications that need fast read/write performance. A RAID 0 array will go to waste if you're just storing files and such. Furthermore, if either of the two Seagate drives in the array fails, all of your data will be lost.
 
^^^ ... just what I was going to say. If anything I'd run the 500gb in RAID 1 for data backup.
 
First off thanks for the input ...

Snobok .. thanks for the info on AMDs stuff .. I'm still pretty set on Intel though .. I may go to the PD 3.0 GHz for the Dual Core .. but I'm not sure what the performace gains would be over a higher clock speed P4 .. and if the all the current programs work better with dual core chips (I really know nothing of the dual core tech so I'll need to research it more) ...

ChingChang .. I have some friends in IT that are quite familier with RAID and they have both said that the RAID 0 would be the fastest and as long as I'm not worried about corrupton (which I'm really not) then it'll be fine .. I will look into an SLI board .. didn't really think about it .. but if I can find one with Specs like the Abit board I chose then I'll probably get it .. it just has to be OC friendly for me .. o and I'm dropping the CD-RW for a second DVD-RW .. I wasn't thinking about just burning CDs with it ...

zwbuntster .. thanks I'll take a look at that .. I really want to stick with ThermalTake so I don't have to worry about fitament issues in the case ...

xonik .. I am fully aware of how RAID works .. my work box is in my sig and that isn't going anywhere .. anything that will be on this machine I'm not really all that worried about .. I may just get another drive and do a RAID 5 seup, but again my friends are saying the RAID 0 would be faster .. of course the speed difference may be negligable so in that case RAID 5 would be my choice .. course I could just go RAID 10 as the board supports it :D ...

thanks again folks :)
 
personally, if I had to use RAID 0 for apps (Which, as someone else stated, isn't really too important in terms of speed anymore..) i'd use like.. 2 36GB or one 74GB drive for applications and games that need quick access and get a single large drive for the OS and stuff that doesn't need the sheer speed of the WD drive(s).

also- dual core on a gaming rig isn't really..great. dual core's wonderful if you're a crazy multitasker, but chances are, if you're playing a game, you're not multitasking enough to use the dualcore to its full potential, and IMO it ends up being wasted. don't let 64 bit and dualcore be the biggest selling points on a "gaming rig"

personally, (and this is coming from an intel guy) if your'e going to be doing more gaming, look at AMD--seriously.
 
1) The AMD vs. Intel thing is rather silly. There are plenty of people who game on Intel rigs and are just as content as those who game on AMD rigs. As long as it's a decent processor from either manufacturer, you're fine, and you should spend more time worrying about more important components, such as the RAM, video card, and disk performance.

2) Speaking of disk performance, RAID 0 is not going to help you in games. It's good for content creation where there will be constant linear transfers, but not in gaming where there will most be random seeks. Not to mention, that if one of your drives fail, you lose all your data, and you now have 2 points where failure can occur.
 
1. You can get a better psu for 100$. I recommend an Antec TruePower 550. 22A on 12v for that thermaltake simply isn't going to cut it.
2. get a combo drive rather than the simple cd burner for your second optical drive. its only 10$ more and DVD will become the standard form of media in a couple of years.
3. the G70 vpu is the first video chip that creates a true cpu bottleneck- for that 650 to keep up it will have to be doing 4.0ghz, at least. There are no guarantees that a given 650 can do 4.0 ghz stably with decent temps for an extended period of time. Every newegg review has the 650 idling well into the 50's. OCing could be very tough.
4. You made an identical thread a month ago, and people are giving you the same advice; go AMD, don't go RAID 0, blah blah blah. Through about 16 responses on this thread the same advice is given. Whats the point?
 
Last time I checked, not only are AMD processors better for gaming, but better for everything else too. All of the X2 based processors beat out any of the high end dual core Intel counterparts, not to mention that an AMD opteron will out perform it's Xeon rival. Maybe I'm wrong, or sound like a fan boy, but I haven't read a single good review in the past year or so that puts any intel processor above an AMD. The only exception was when the Dothan came out which was awesome in the mobile market. However AMD's Turion matched that even. So why choose AMD? Because it's the only choice, period.
 
Not to beat a dead horse man, and if you are set on Intel...to each his own...but if you really want a good gaming go AMD...heres why:

1) Better in games...youve heard that before
2) As far as the future in 64 bit is concerned, A64 is the Golden Standard.
3) More speed for the $$. You spend $200 on an Intel CPU and an AMD CPU, chances are that the AMD is going to be faster
4) If you are going dual core...get an X2...Intel even admitted that their PD's were sort of thrown together hastilly in responce to the X2...forgive me for no linkage.

Seriously man, go AMD...you wont regret it. You are hearing this from an Intel guy recently switched to AMD.

I WOULD GET:

Single Core:
A64 San Diego Core 4000+
Dual Core:
X2 3800+

Rest of it:
DFI Lanparty nF4 Ultra
OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2

or if you are going to dedicate some serious time to Overclocking...get the
A64 Venice 3000+
 
HighwayAssassins said:
2) As far as the future in 64 bit is concerned, A64 is the Golden Standard.
Click to expand...
That's fluff talk if I've ever heard it. How about you provide some hard data proving that the Athlon 64 will do better in 64-bit applications? Oh, wait--there are only a small handful of applications to choose from, so the moniker is quite meaningless.
4) If you are going dual core...get an X2...Intel even admitted that their PD's were sort of thrown together hastilly in responce to the X2...forgive me for no linkage.
Click to expand...
You know what--it really is beside the point whether or not someone's technlogical implementation is more streamlined than the other. Intel rightly admits that theirs is a less elegant design.

But let's do away with these considerations. What matters is performance, right? Let's judge on that basis, and leave this other talk to the hardcore fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top