Computer Build Help

[JayP]

I don't know too much about specific computer products so hopefully someone can help me out. Main purpose for this computer is gaming.

I'm planning on going with 2 8800 GTs for my video card. I'm expecting these to run pretty hot so am I going to need to worry about cooling them at all?

Also, I'm trying to decide between the Intel Q600 and AMD Phenom 9750 or 9850 for processor. Can anyone give me a little insight into which one would be the better choice?

I haven't even thought about the motherboard yet, but I guess I have to make a decision on the processor before I can do that.

[ken0042]

It's been a while since I built a computer from scratch, but don't Intels run a lot cooler?

Seeing as you already acknowledge you are going to have heat issues......

[FanIn80]

Personally, I always like to stick with Intel processors. I mean, there are valid arguments for both sides of the fence, but I've just found that some of the really cool things you can do out there (like installing OSX (Mac)* on a PC) will really work best with an Intel chip.

I look at it like I'm not building a computer to use today, I'm building it to use for the next 3-5 years. Who knows what I'll want to do during that time, so why shoot myself in the foot for the sake of a couple hundred nanoseconds of processing time (give or take)?


* I know you can install OSX on an AMD box now, but 1) you couldn't when people first started doing it and 2) it runs like crap.

[JayP]

Looking around online it seems like Intel outperforms on performance tests between the two. It's little cheaper too so that helps. I was leaning that way before I saw the tests so I'm definitely going to go with the Q6600.

That leaves me with the motherboard decision. I really don't know anything about the differences in motherboards. Processors and Video Cards are a lot easier to pick out. I'll need an SLI motherboard to run the two 8800 GT's, but that's about all I know at this point.

[photon]

Intel by far.

If you're doing primarily gaming you might check out some of the dual core processors as well, they overclock better and the benchmarks show that they're faster in a lot of cases, so it depends on what you are doing with it.

Yeah going SLI limits your motherboard choices to nvidia based boards (well except for the uber expensive skulltrail Intel stuff). 790i based chipset are the top of the line ones I think.

[Bobblehead]

I'd agree with FanIn80 and say stick to Intel right now. AMD hasn't had a good release with the Phenom, and haven't caught up to Intel. Perhaps next year, but for anyone building in the next year, stay Intel.

Now for the fly in the ointment - why Q6600? Very few games use quad core, and the ones that do get very limited benefit. Coding for multi-core is very, very difficult. You will get better performance if you go for something like an E8400. It is dual core but runs faster (3.00 Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz). Very few programs can use the extra cores, but many can use the extra speed. Every guide I've read for the last year has said how, unless you are manipulating a LOT of video (ripping a few hundred DVDs, or producing the next Family Guy) you will get much more bang for your buck by sticking to dual core. In 3-5 years, when programs do start to use multi cores enough to justify them, most people will need to buy a new computer to run then anyhow.

[Vulcan]

Don't know your budget but I'd probably go with an Antec P182 case to start with and good power supply. It has lots of room and takes lots of fans and is good for cooling.

Since it's for gaming you may want to overclock, so I'd go with Intel and the quad 6600 is good bang for the buck.

I don't know which motherboard to choose but maybe something like this.

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...nufacture=eVGA

I'd go over to the NCIX forms and read what other peoples builds are and post your build so others will comment on it.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Now for the fly in the ointment - why Q6600? Very few games use quad core, and the ones that do get very limited benefit. Coding for multi-core is very, very difficult. You will get better performance if you go for something like an E8400. It is dual core but runs faster (3.00 Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz). Very few programs can use the extra cores, but many can use the extra speed. Every guide I've read for the last year has said how, unless you are manipulating a LOT of video (ripping a few hundred DVDs, or producing the next Family Guy) you will get much more bang for your buck by sticking to dual core. In 3-5 years, when programs do start to use multi cores enough to justify them, most people will need to buy a new computer to run then anyhow.

If I don't plan on upgrading or 3-4 years is it worth it to go for a dual core? Or will everything be taking advantage of the quad core by then, dual cores will be non-existant and they'll have released processors with even more than 4 cores?

Would it be better to go for a 9800 GTX instead of the SLI 8800 GT's?

[BlackArcher101]

I agree on the CPU sentiments here. Intel over AMD (at the moment and near future) and faster duo-core over quad core. I myself just built/upgraded a rig with the E8400 duo-core running at 3.0 GHz. Runs anything I put at it. Most games I run see no performance increase with a quad-core.

If you get a motherboard that supports 45nm, I don't see why you couldn't upgrade to a quad-core in the future (if you ever see fit to do so). That way you can get the performance and cost efficiency you want now and still have the upgradeability later once software supports the quads a little better.

However, I cannot say much about the video card. In my process of upgrading, I was contemplating having SLI in the future, but I found I didn't like the intel motherboards that supported sli. So I'm stuck with using a single card (I don't like ATI, so no crossfire). However, one 8800GT (512mb) runs my games just fine.

What do you plan on doing for Ram? I don't recommend cheaping out on it too much.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JayP

If I don't plan on upgrading or 3-4 years is it worth it to go for a dual core? Or will everything be taking advantage of the quad core by then, dual cores will be non-existant and they'll have released processors with even more than 4 cores?

Would it be better to go for a 9800 GTX instead of the SLI 8800 GT's?

As others have said, I'd go for the 8400 dual core and I'd also go the 9800 GTX route. I've heard of too many problems with SLI and some games won't use it.

[FanIn80]

The dual 500GB HDs can either be striped into a single 1TB drive for performance and capacity, or mirrored into a single 500GB system drive with redundancy (and then add another physical drive for storage.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by JayP

If I don't plan on upgrading or 3-4 years is it worth it to go for a dual core? Or will everything be taking advantage of the quad core by then, dual cores will be non-existant and they'll have released processors with even more than 4 cores?

Would it be better to go for a 9800 GTX instead of the SLI 8800 GT's?

Well, I have a geek desire for quad core, but I know on the build I will be doing in the near future I will stick with dual core.

Because I figure the dual core computer I can build right now will be better than the quad core I could build right now, and will remain so for at least 3 years. In 3 years, if there is a program good enough to need quad (or more) core, then a 3+ year old Q6600 isn't going to be the solution.

By the time quad core becomes necessary, a whole new upgrade will also be necessary.




* Geek note: Intel's current issue in their processor architecture is the memory subsystem. The "brains" of the CPU can process stuff much faster than the rest of the cpu can move it in and out. They have covered it up by using larger and large cache, but the benefits of this are pretty much exhausted. Their next generation of desktop processors is about a year to 18 months away. Interestingly, the memory system is one thing AMD did correctly from the get-go, but wasn't able to keep up with the Intel when Yonah was released. By the time AMD has their issues straightened out and can challenge Intel, Intel should have their memory bottlenecks resolved. Competition is good.

*and this I know just from reading many of the tech sites on the net. ars Technica, [H]ard OCP, etc

[Traditional_Ale]

Didn't AMD start as a company that cloned Intel chips, but then about ten years ago it started being the other way around (AMD engineering and Intel cloning)?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Didn't AMD start as a company that cloned Intel chips, but then about ten years ago it started being the other way around (AMD engineering and Intel cloning)?

Kind of....

They were in the semi-conductor business making memory and some other types of processors, and when Intel had pretty much established the x86 market, AMD (and Cyrix, et al) decided to reverse engineer the chips and get into the market.

Which, of course, triggered lawsuits, and so on.

Intel hasn't cloned, at least that I am aware of.

Each company has tried to put extensions onto the instruction set to make their offering a bit better. The ones that seem to be accepted and used are eventually incorporated by the competition to allow compatibility.

So the way I saw it (at least as far as teh desktop market goes) was:
Intel was king after Apple became marginalized in the 80s.
Some other manufacturers jump on the bandwagon and create clones.
Clones struggle because of compatibility issue, but some hang on.
Eventually it comes down to Intel and AMD, both are compatible, but Intel has better performance and AMD has lower prices.
To keep the lead, Intel makes their chips faster and faster (Pentium I, II,III,IV).
AMD comes up with a design that does the same amount of work in less time (Athlon).
AMD leverages their better memory bus by releasing dual core chips.
Intel watches their market share start to erode as AMD becomes a viable alternative to the mass market.
Intel releases dual core Pentiums, but they are hot and power hungry.
Just as AMD is making money, Intel changes gears with the Pentium M, which is created as a low power processor for notebook computers.
The Pentium M then becomes the Core Duo, then that evolved into the Core 2 Duo. Lower power like AMD's offerings, but even better performance.
AMD tries to answer with Phenom, but this has been underwhelming, with frequent delays and then issues with the first batches.

That is where we are now. Intel leading on performance with some attractive pricing, AMD can't compete on performance, so are losing money trying to compete on price - just like 10 years ago.

It looks like Intel should be able to keep the lead in the foreseeable future, but who knows if AMD can pull another rabbit from their hat.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

What do you plan on doing for Ram? I don't recommend cheaping out on it too much.

I haven't decided yet. What would you consider cheaping out? I'm definitely getting from a name brand, but I really don't know how pricey I should go with the RAM.

[CubicleGeek]

Well coming from someone that has wasted alot of money on computers over the years, here's my 2 cents:

Definitely Intel over AMD. Nothing AMD, including the craptastic Phenom can touch any equivalent Intel solution for this generation. The Q6600 is a G0 stepping chip and overclocks extremely well. You should easily be able to push the thing to 3.0 GHz off stock cooling with it running rock solid. I was running 3.2 GHz for a good year with that chip and it survived a week of stressing with Prime95 and Orthos and has yet to hard lock on me for the year or so I've been running it. Quad core is the future. Everything coming out now and over the next 3-4 years that you plan to keep this build supports quad core.

Stay away from any 680i/780i boards!!! I can't stress that enough. They are wrought with problems (don't believe me? google about it). I personally was a victim of the dreaded C1 boot problem with my 680i board which I bought at launch before all the problems came to light. When the problem cropped up after about a half year of use I discovered a work around which brought it back from the dead for a good year, but at the end even that stopped working. I was lucky to run into these problems after six months, some experienced this out of the box. Not to mention, the C1 problem (being inherently a memory controller problem) took all my RAM with it. The 790i Ultra however has had very good feedback from the community and the one I've been running the last 2 weeks as my replacement for my old 680i has been extremely stable.

Memory timings make very little difference in practice unless you're running RAM benchmarks. I'd get RAM from a reputable company like OCZ, Patriot, Corsair that is reasonably priced. And I only recommend those companies because they offer lifetime warranty on their products, not that they're necessarily better in practice than a cheapo Kingston or Micron solution. In terms of gaming you'll likely notice little (maybe a 1 fps) or no difference in performance running say PC2-6400 RAM with say 4-4-4-12 timings vs. 5-5-5-15 timings. You'll likely be paying double for the former. Also you'll likely notice little to no difference running PC2-6400 RAM over PC2-8500 RAM.

If you can afford to spend twice or more on better RAM, you're better off dumping that cash into a better graphics solution, where you'll really notice the difference. Though the 8800GT is really the best bang for the buck right now. I couldn't in good conscience recommend a 8800GTX or Ultra unless you plan to game at 1920x1200 or greater resolutions. I would skip over the 9800GTX personally.

[photon]

Good post CubicleGeek!

Yeah I'd stay with the 8800GT for now, the next gen stuff is coming out this summer and some rumours have ATI's new stuff being quite competitive for a good price, though I guess we'll see.

[CubicleGeek]

Thanks for the props, Photon.

Another thing I would like to add is concerning Power Supply selection. Many people underestimate the benefits of a good power supply and go with the cheapest solution at the desired wattage. I recommend spending a little more in this area for a couple of reasons:

1) Cheap power supplies and even some recognized brands that are new to the game, such as OCZ, tend to have higher failure rate. I've personally experienced the death of several no-name brands and also had 2 OCZ power supplies (a 600W GameStream and a 600W PowerStream SLI, specifically) die on systems I've worked on for myself and friends and family. On the other hand, I've never experienced a single death on a long-time PSU manufacturer such as Enermax and I've used many over the 16 years or so I've been into this hobby, going back all the way to my 486SX. One brand that I notice that Memory Express now carries, PC Power & Cooling, is extremely highly touted by people in the enthusiast community. I'm actually very happy that a local vendor is now carrying the PSU and will seriously consider putting it in the next system I build for myself or others.

2) Higher end power supplies have much better efficiency than their cheaper peers. What I mean by efficiency is that the wattage pulled from the wall experiences a loss when applied to the system. So say a power supply with 70% efficiency will only supply 70W of usable energy for every 100W drawn from the grid. This inherit to all power supplies, not just those seen in computer systems and is a function of the loss realized by converting AC power from the wall to DC power for the system. The implications of this is 2-fold. A more efficient power supply will actually save you money in electric bills over the long run, as every watt pulled by the system equals less wattage drawn from the grid. It is not true that a 600W power supply always draws 600W from the wall, it only draws what it needs, so a 1000W and a 600W with the same efficiency graph running the same hardware under the same load will draw the same power from the wall. The 2nd point is that if you select a good power supply you can get away with powering more hardware with a smaller PSU, which usually translates to saving money as the big power supplies tend to cost more. From research I've done, I know that the Enermax Galaxy power supply, which I'm currently running in my main rig, have an 85% efficiency on full load, which is actually fantastic. You should really be looking for something that yields in the 80%-90% range. Many lesser power supplies are around 70% and some can be as low as 60%.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

Thanks for the props, Photon.

Another thing I would like to add is concerning Power Supply selection. Many people underestimate the benefits of a good power supply and go with the cheapest solution at the desired wattage. I recommend spending a little more in this area for a couple of reasons:

1) Cheap power supplies and even some recognized brands that are new to the game, such as OCZ, tend to have higher failure rate. I've personally experienced the death of several no-name brands and also had 2 OCZ power supplies (a 600W GameStream and a 600W PowerStream SLI, specifically) die on systems I've worked on for myself and friends and family. On the other hand, I've never experienced a single death on a long-time PSU manufacturer such as Enermax and I've used many over the 16 years or so I've been into this hobby, going back all the way to my 486SX. One brand that I notice that Memory Express now carries, PC Power & Cooling, is extremely highly touted by people in the enthusiast community. I'm actually very happy that a local vendor is now carrying the PSU and will seriously consider putting it in the next system I build for myself or others.

2) Higher end power supplies have much better efficiency than their cheaper peers. What I mean by efficiency is that the wattage pulled from the wall experiences a loss when applied to the system. So say a power supply with 70% efficiency will only supply 70W of usable energy for every 100W drawn from the grid. This inherit to all power supplies, not just those seen in computer systems and is a function of the loss realized by converting AC power from the wall to DC power for the system. The implications of this is 2-fold. A more efficient power supply will actually save you money in electric bills over the long run, as every watt pulled by the system equals less wattage drawn from the grid. It is not true that a 600W power supply always draws 600W from the wall, it only draws what it needs, so a 1000W and a 600W with the same efficiency graph running the same hardware under the same load will draw the same power from the wall. The 2nd point is that if you select a good power supply you can get away with powering more hardware with a smaller PSU, which usually translates to saving money as the big power supplies tend to cost more. From research I've done, I know that the Enermax Galaxy power supply, which I'm currently running in my main rig, have an 85% efficiency on full load, which is actually fantastic. You should really be looking for something that yields in the 80%-90% range. Many lesser power supplies are around 70% and some can be as low as 60%.

I'm a fan of Corsair PSUs, myself.

[JayP]

Thanks for all the input.

I'm going to go with the 8800GT for the time being. I can always upgrade in a year or two using the $150+ I save going for the 8800GT.

RAM should be pretty easy to pick out. Newegg has some awesome deals on RAM right now with several PC2-6400 Corsair and Patriot models for half off (down to $30 for 2 GB).

I've been reading up on power supplies lately and they echoed your comments, CubicleGeek. I got to look around for the best deals this week.