New High-End System Build

N

NExUS1g

Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
554
This is a system build I've been putting together for the last few weeks. There will be two systems built. The feedback I'm looking for is compatibility and overclocking concerns. I'm also interested in doing water-cooling for the components (GPU/CPU/bridge) for accoustical and overclocking reasons. I'm interested in running 1920x1200 full AA/ASF/Settings games such as Oblivion, Crysis, etc. and watching Blu-ray movies. I also do large Photoshop/Flash/Maya/3DSM projects as well as DX programming. Mutliple displays.

Is there an RF or bluetooth solution to connect my television wirelessly to my video out so I won't need a stand-alone Blu-ray player for my television?

I'm concerned about the watt requirements for overclocking this system and the 850 watt PSU; will I need more watts?

What's a good all-inclusive water cooling kit?

And last but not least, what would the general overclocking ability of this system be? Any suggestions on performance vs price?

Also, I'm completely lost on LCD monitors. Pretty much all the stats except for pixel response time and dot pitch are just arbitrary numbers that vary depending on the company (i.e. contrast ratio). Can anyone give me some tips on a good monitor for wide-screen HD viewing? I've read so many things my head is spinning such as which ratio is best (16:9 or 16:10), what's going to give me the best picture, etc? If anyone can give me a good run-down, or a single source with the most accurate information, I would be very grateful.

RAM 12 GB per sysetm
6 x Patriot Viper 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3
Timing 9-9-9-24
$300 per kit x 6 kits = $1800

Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 3.2 GHz LGA 1366 Quad-Core
$1,070 x 2 CPUs = $2,140

ASUS P6T Deluxe (X58)
2x PCI-e 2.0
1x PCI-e
$340 x 2 = $680

WD VelociRaptor 300 GB SATA 3.0 Gb/s
$270 x 4 = $1,080

MSI Radeon HD 4870 x2 2GB
$550 x 4 = $2,200

Cooler Master 850 W 80 PLUS
$150 x 2 = $300

Monitor -- Shop locally. LCD.
$300 x 2 = $600

BLU-ray Burner
$300 x 2 = $600

RAZER Copperhead Tempest Blue mouse
$55 x 2 = $110

Logitech G15
$90 x 2 = $180

Antec Twelve Hundred Black Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case
$180 x 2 = $360

Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM
$180 x 2 = $360
 
No way of connecting your TV wirelessly to your desktop in order to get HD content. You'll have to physically connect the PC to the TV if you want to watch blu-ray OR get a separate blu-ray player.

A good quality 850W PSU is all that you need. With that said, choose a different PSU from a better known/well reviewed manufacturer. I recommend this PSU:
BFG Tech BFGR800WESPSU ES-800 800W PSU - $140

Koolance makes a decent water cooling kit IIRC.

In terms of performance to price ratio, the Core i7 EE is a bad bad choice. Drop down to the Core i7 920 since it's a significantly better value than the Core i7 EE. You'll save $1500 that way but only lose a mere 400Mhz in clock speed. In addition, the Core i7 920 has been shown to hit 3.6Ghz easily.

Oh just a FYI, not even a HD4870X2 can play Crysis maxed out with AA at 1920x1200.
 
Danny Bui said:
No way of connecting your TV wirelessly to your desktop in order to get HD content. You'll have to physically connect the PC to the TV if you want to watch blu-ray OR get a separate blu-ray player.

A good quality 850W PSU is all that you need. With that said, choose a different PSU from a better known/well reviewed manufacturer. I recommend this PSU:
BFG Tech BFGR800WESPSU ES-800 800W PSU - $140

Koolance makes a decent water cooling kit IIRC.

In terms of performance to price ratio, the Core i7 EE is a bad bad choice. Drop down to the Core i7 920 since it's a significantly better value than the Core i7 EE. You'll save $1500 that way but only lose a mere 400Mhz in clock speed. In addition, the Core i7 920 has been shown to hit 3.6Ghz easily.

Oh just a FYI, not even a HD4870X2 can play Crysis maxed out with AA at 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

What about the 1.4 GT/s QPI difference between the 965 and 920?

I watched this video on Youtube that shows Crysis is playable @ 1920x1200 with 8x AA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRY9g69mB50&feature=related -- did I miss something there?
 
NExUS1g said:
What about the 1.4 GT/s QPI difference between the 965 and 920?

I watched this video on Youtube that shows Crysis is playable @ 1920x1200 with 8x AA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRY9g69mB50&feature=related -- did I miss something there?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any review showing a significant enough increase in performance with that extra 1.4 GT/s QPI to justify the extra $600.

I'm going off from this review:
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU0OSwzLCwxNjA=

In the article above, the HD4870X2 only had an avg of 26.5FPS at 1920x1200 with AA off.

And from this article:
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU2OSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Granted it's Crysis Warhead and not Crysis but Warhead is a more refined version of Crysis. Or so they say. Anyway, in that review, they barely got an avg of 31.8FPS with the HD4870X2 at 1920x1200 with AA off.
 
Well, I am going to Crossfire the cards and I haven't seen a review for that -- which I've looked for. Know of a review for an x2 crossfire setup?
 
My experience playing Crysis and Crysis Warhead. I did not find Crysis Warhead more refined than the first Crysis. In the first Crysis there is video settings:

Low
Medium
High
Very High

On my 8800GT card + Q6600 cpu + 2gigs RAM. I was able to play the game at 1440 x 900 res, all settings on high an no AA. However, on Crysis Warhead, it's video settings is slightly different in labeling. They have

Minimum
Mainstream
Gamer
Enthusiast

I thought I could just set everything on Gamer setting as I would think this would be the equivalent of high in the first Crysis. But, I notice it's not smooth the gameplay. So, I had everything at its default setting which is Mainstream. Res was also at 1440 x 900 with no AA enabled.
 
NExUS1g said:
Well, I am going to Crossfire the cards and I haven't seen a review for that -- which I've looked for. Know of a review for an x2 crossfire setup?
Click to expand...

Check the Crysis Warhead article I linked to. Scroll down you'll see how HD4870X2 CF performs.
 
"playable" is subjective. My buddy played CS for the longest on 8fps -- it was like a slide show. However, to him, thats playable. To me, thats torture. The funny thing is, he always had a positive ratio... and we'd all be like, WTF?!?!?!
 
enginurd said:
"playable" is subjective. My buddy played CS for the longest on 8fps -- it was like a slide show. However, to him, thats playable. To me, thats torture. The funny thing is, he always had a positive ratio... and we'd all be like, WTF?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Lol ;) great definition of subjectiveness... I have a friend who played in similar circumstances but his limiting factor was his slow internet connection (mobile card) and not his PC. Still he killed plenty!
cool2.gif
wink.gif
 
NExUS1g said:
It's a 4850 and 4870 crossfire, but the 4870 x2 is a single card.
Click to expand...

You fail ubertastically, go look again, second article. Danny > you ;)
There's even a conclusion after the charts if you bothered.
 
I have a 4870 x2. Crysis is playable with all settings high at 1920x1200, but not at very high. Again, there is no single card that will reliably manage Crysis at 1920x1200 maxed out with all very high settings. Three GTX 280's will do it, but that is simply throwing a gross amount of money and electricity to play one game.

Also keep in mind that Crysis is an outlier in how it eats up hardware resources. Newer games which can look subjectively as good (if not technically so) require far less to run at high settings. Given the way the industry is moving, I think Crysis is a poor game to use as a base for a new build. You'll be spending a ton of money for nothing, unless you happen to eat, drink, breath, and sleep Crysis. (IMHO, aside from the impressive graphics, it's rather mediocre.)
 
Has anyone looked at the video I posted? What's the explanation for this video? It looks perfectly playable... In high quality you can see the FPS between 20-30.
 
NExUS1g said:
Has anyone looked at the video I posted? What's the explanation for this video? It looks perfectly playable... In high quality you can see the FPS between 20-30.
Click to expand...

Thats not perfectly playable by my standards. Therefore there's no card that can play Crysis on high, perfectly, for me. Many people want 60+ fps, so many people will state what I just said. Few will want 100+, like me, so even more people will say what I just said. Again, playable is subjective, which is why some people say there is no single card that will play Crysis on high perfectly. Different definitions of playable, and different definitions of perfect.
 
enginurd said:
Thats not perfectly playable by my standards. Therefore there's no card that can play Crysis on high, perfectly, for me. Many people want 60+ fps, so many people will state what I just said. Few will want 100+, like me, so even more people will say what I just said. Again, playable is subjective, which is why some people say there is no single card that will play Crysis on high perfectly. Different definitions of playable, and different definitions of perfect.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's why I put the link for the video to set a basis of what I consider playable.

Hard OCP considers an average of ~35 FPS to be considered playable in its reviews. Figured that was pretty standard for these forums taking that into consideration.

But anyway, if it can play very high @ 1920 x 1200 with 8x AA at 30 FPS, that's all I require on the minimum side.
 
I can play Crysis and Warhead at the highest settings with AA max and it plays just fine.

I don't have the FPS scores to tell you, but it does not hiccup.

I have my 9950 OC'd to 3.319 and have not OC'd the 4870x2.
 
lol is this another crysis thread?

I apologize for this not being on topic but, to those who cannot play crysis at max FPS...just download the CCC configs and enjoy Crysis' BEAUTIFUL graphics maxed out. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top