1)Quad is basically a marketting gimmick right now. Yeah it'll help you in a few programs that're set to use it, but most shit isn't even optimized yet for dual. Grab a e6600 or e6750, whichever's cheaper.


Do not buy that 8600 gt. If you must have a DX10 card, get the gimped version of the 8800gts. By gimped I mean 320 megs of ram versus 640.

The difference is 40 fps + in BF 2142 at maxed out settings, in native LCD resolution. Never buy any nVidia card that is numbered below x8xx The x6xx series is especially shitty, and are for uber budget gamers. Translation: With the resource hogging of XP/Vista + the game you're getting 20 fps and heavy stuttering in any game made recently.

Check the VGA guide for comparisions.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=855&model2=778&chart=277

Edit: Keep in mind if you buy EVGA, you can Step up to a new card within 90 days of purchase, if you cant afford to front end load the cost. You can get 8800's from like 250 and up. Figure you're then future proofed for 3+ years.

 

Just got my case today, it is the Antec Nine Hundred. All I got to say is, Holy Shit, this son of a bitch is fucking huge.

 

Nah it's actually on the smaller size for the average modder. The 900 for example, will fit inside my Kandalf LCS. However, it's smaller size makes it hands down, the BEST air cooling case I've ever had the pleasure to own.

I plan on building a small water cooled loop for a PC I'll build inside it, slap on some silent fans, and use it as a home theater pc.

 

AMD's will run better at stock speeds at comparable prices. They just don't have any really high end models which compare with Intel's high end C2D's The low end C2D's are shit at stock speeds and run in parallel performance vs price wise. Low end C2D's OC like crazy, but that isn't for every day users who want to keep their warranty.

8600 sucks balls. So does the 8500's, cheap ones completely. The 8800 GT is the most price effective vs performance model out now days, I don't think it is worth the extra money for only a small performance increase to the GTS.

Again, the E6750 is the better choice than the E6600 if you aren't OC'ing, different story if you are.

The Q6600 is a good core, but nothing uses above dual cores atm anyway and the programs who spout bullshit that they do, e.g. Crysis are a load of bullshit. Dual and Quad's are good for professional applications for example sound, video and graphic production but offer little for every day use in the home market.

DDR2 ram is cheap as shit right now, snap up as much as you can afford and your motherboard can support. Remember to use the right speed RAM as well to avoid a bottle neck between your GPU, RAM and CPU. Look at what the FSB of your CPU is and choose accordingly. Most people get 667 RAM if they aren't OCing and 800 RAM if they are.

 

The 8800 gt has less memory then the 8800 gts though, so in high resolution settings, using FSAA, the 8800 gts works better by 5-10 fps on average according to review sites, despite it being clocked a hair higher. it's all marketing.

And I'd disagree with your AMD comparision Murt, the architecture of the c2d series just blows anything AMD has way out of the water. I'd had low ends and high ends of both side by side, c2d wins hands down.

Also don't bother skimping on the RAM. ge the highest shit you can afford. My stuff clocks to 1137ish mhz @ 2.25 volts, which is faster then if I let my mobo run it linked 1:1, which comes out to something like 700ish mhz. Ill have to check on that number to be sure though. Either way, 1:1 ratio fsb:ram, falls way behind in scores in 3dMark06 and game loading times, versus clocking my RAM as high as it'll go stable without cranking up the volts.

Remember though, it's pointless to get 4gbs if you're using XP, it can't use all 4gbs. Vista can, just remember if you're using 4gbs to disable virtual memory, or that'll slow you down as Windows has a fun habit of using the swap file heavily and the RAM not enough as it claims it should.

 

5-10 fps for a fairly large price increase. The GT is better value for money at its current price mark. I know the GTS is better if you can afford it, but on a budget, the 8800 GT is the better option.

A lot of your thinking is coming from over clocking. If you aren't over clocking, then having a ratio which won't allow a bottleneck to occur will be better than just going for the fastest you can afford. At least that's what I've learnt. I agree in getting the best RAM you can, but the price mark when not over clocking for high memory RAM doesn't give as much value for money for my likes. 667 RAM will be enough for someone not over clocking and to avoid a bottleneck. Whilst 800 or 1333 RAM will allow a lot of room for OC'ers to get the most out of their parts performance wise. Again it just boils down to what the user of the PC wants. I am like you, I squeeze everything I can out of my parts, but for normal users I don't suggest they over clock as it voids most warranties and can sometimes reduce part lifetimes and allow more room for faults to occur in the future.

I would still get 4GB of RAM as one day in the distant future you may upgrade to Vista or linux and want to use the extra capacity the 64bit O/S's offer you in regards to the amount of RAM they recognise.

I've never thought about how much windows relies on the page file to be honest. I've always had shit all RAM and had to rely on my page file to get that little extra headroom for a few things, so I always had it maxed out. It is a pity that more consumers don't follow this path. RAM is one of the most useful part in your computer as it has in my opinion the greatest effect on how fast you can do things and how much you can do at once. It is great for someone like me who does a lot of audio production, being able to run multiple instances of programs in plug-in factor at once and more instant processing is a major plus, the less pre-processing the better.

 

The other thing most folks overlook is a good quality power supply. I used to skimp here myself constantly. After a bunch of stuttering problems were taken care of by simply buying a better quality PSU, I'll never get one of the el cheapos again. Sadly it took quite a bit of swapping stuff out for me to realize a budget 600w PSU wasn't going to run my system.

I wound up spending an extra 50 bucks, and got a nice one of the same wattage, that had a more stable power output and the problems went away.

 

I fully support this, having a stable 12v rail to the CPU is very important for over clocking and CPU stability. Having a decent quality PSU will also help alot with GPU stability, avoiding some of those pesky artefacts.

Same goes with RAM. Brand name RAM of the same speed and amount of memory will perform better than generic.

 

At this moment, I have no plans to over clock any part of my system that I will be building. Perhaps later when I am more sure about what I am doing.

I do thank everyone that contributed in this thread, I have learn more than one would think from just doing research into what components will work with each other.

Unfortunately, everything but my computer case seems to be stuck at the UPS terminal in Greensboro. At least until the Holidays are over.

 

Well, everything is here at the house except for the Power Supply. It was back ordered when I bought the Mobo and should be in today.

I do have a quick question, I am having trouble getting a Windows O.S. I refuse to pay 300 dollars for software that will be obsolete in the next 3-5 years (sadly enough). And haven't had the time to order the OEM version.

Teh reason being, I am working on trying to XP or even 2000 free through my school (yes, my school had a subscription to the MSDN academic alliance, though no one can point me to anyone to talk to at this point).

Looking though Microsoft's website, I came across a trail edition of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It is free and good for 120 days (more then enough time to figure out what I am going to do).

From what I can tell, everything that I have should work with XP x64. I am going in expecting that some programs might not work, but DOSBox should help somewhat. I think that XP x64 should be more secure as far as virus go. At least that is my assumption.

I wanted to get other thoughts before I installed XP x64

 

Honestly, just freaking yank it free online. I don't agree with their bloated prices for buggy software that you're almost forced to use unless you want the hassle of fucking around with a free Linux distro.

 

So what is the final price looking to be Jamven?

 

Hard Drive - $100
DVD Lightscripe burner - $60
CPU - $190
MOBO - $100
Heatsink - $20
PSU - $60
2 GB memory - $40
GeForce 7900GT - $50 (rich friends motherfucking rock)
Case - $120 ($80 with rebate)

Total - Around $700 to $800.
---
Friend sold me his 7900GT, stepping up and was gonna to through it away. If I get a year out of it I will be happy.

Right now I am running that free trial of XP x64. Haven't really had any problems as far as drivers go. Though I have started my college's entry level programming class and QBasic doesn't work on x64 edition O.S without DosBox emulation.

I am extremely happy with this system.

 

Quick question, on June 30, 2008. Microsoft will stop licensing Windows XP to OEMs and terminate retail sales. Would it stand to reason that a price cut would be in the very near future?

Should I wait out for a price cut (that may never happen), or go ahead and purchase XP now while there are still supplies?

Link

*edit*
Sorry for 2x post, couldn't edit the one above it.

 

With so many OEMs switching back to XP Sp 2, I'd honestly not expect them to stop selling it. Either way, at this point I'd wait for a sale if you HAVE to have a legit copy of XP, or I'd prefer, to just download a OEM SP2 version.

 

Stick with XP.

Midknight has the right of it. Vista hit the market to underwhelming response.
One of the other issues with it is that of drivers. Case in point... SLI drivers for some of the higher end Nvidia boards still aren't working or in some cases don't even exist for vista.

Also, I echo his stance on memory, CPUs (intel vs. AMD... Intel is kicking AMDs ass right now), and the rest. Get the fastest memory, and the best vid card you can... but cutting back a little off the premium for memory on vid cards for performance is a good idea.

Also, considering your purposes... Intel is the brand you want for programming purposes. It's loads more stable... and with a dual or quad core you'll be able to write more multi threaded apps in the forms that customers want (meaning Intel compatible apps)... which is precisely what the industry is demanding from programmers.

Now... as to choosing the right board... check out Tom's hardware guide. They do extensive tests on all the CPUs and MBs that come through their shops. Check their comparisons... and find a board that'll offer you the best overall performance. The one thing to remember though is that it's best to avoid integrated Motherboards... ones with wireless G, a sound card, and all sorts of other crap on the MB are genuinely evil. All that extra stuff on the board just means you'll have to disable it when you want to put a good sound card or network card on the thing.. save yourself the hassle.