My First PC Build

Evander

So, Wednesday day night, my PC of five years, a Gateway that was slowly fading into complete obsolecense, passed away. It had been complaining about its hard drives the night before, and maybe if I had taken it seriously, it would still be alive today. Also, if I hadn't completely dismantled it, and then put it back togeth on thursday night, it would also still be alive. (Don't worry, i tried EVERYTHING before that, including testing componants on other systems.) But Thursday evening, when I firsgt got home from class, it refused to boot to anything other than BIOS, and Thursday night, by the time I was done with it, it wouldn't even turn on.


So, I decided to build myself a new machine. I know that the price gap between self-builds and store-builds has really closed up a lot this generation, but I figured that the experience would be worth it, and I could probably get a slightly better computer this way, plus I would be WAY more familiar with how it worked, if it ever needed upgrading or fixing. I was aiming for a budget of $500, which I've already gone over by a little, but that's okay. The other thing I wanted to do was be able to use some of the componants from my old PC, such as my PATA optical drives and hard drives.


I've already picked up basically everything other than the CPU and the heatsink/fan for it. Here are the NewEgg links to what I got (I bought all of it in-store at MicroCenter, except for the case, which I got at CompUSA.)

Case: COOLER MASTER Mystique RC-632S

MoBo: ECS NF650iSLIT-A

PSU: Antec True Power Trio TP3-650

RAM: OCZ Platinum Revision 2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800

Video Card: EVGA 256-P2-N615-TX GeForce 7600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16




As far as a CPU, I am planning on picking up an OEM 3.0GHz Pentium D 930 from NewEgg. I know that it's not the top of the line model, and all, but I'm not building an intensive gaming machine here, more of just a machine that I can use for a little bit of everything. The 800 bus speed, and the 2x2MB L2 cache on the Pentium D makes it good enough for me, and the comparably priced Core 2 is only a 1.6GHz, so yeah, that's what I'm going with.

I also know I need some thermal paste, and a decent heatsync/fan for cooling the CPU. If you have any advice on those, I'd love to hear it.


So, how'd I do? I knew pretty much nothing at all about computer hardware going into this, but after some online research, I feel like I did pretty decently in throwing this together. Anyone have anythoughts on this build?

And, of course, is there anytyhing I'm forgetting?

Thanks, yo.

Deusfaux

you might as well save some more money and get the antec sonata (III) case which includes a decent 500W PSU

also get one of the new Pentium E2XXX's

Tzen

Deusfaux wrote: »

you might as well save some more money and get the antec sonata case which includes a decent 500W PSU

I got one of these for my GF when I built her PC. It's nice. :^:

Edit: Though my old Antec PSU ate shit and died, just to let you know.

Evander

Deusfaux wrote: »

you might as well save some more money and get the antec sonata (III) case which includes a decent 500W PSU

also get one of the new Pentium E2XXX's

It's not saving money when I already bought the other stuff. :P

I don't mind getting a little bit more than I need right now, it just means that I have a little bit more options in the future while upgrading.

Edit: looked at the case anyway. It might sound like I'm being too picky, but the front door opens on the wrong side for me. I always keep my tower on the right side of my monitors (that's just how I always do my set-up.) so if I had a door with a hinge on one side (as opposed to my gateway, which had a top hinge) I'd need it to be on the right side, otherwise, when I opened it, it would hit my right monitor.

Deusfaux

clock speeds are not comparable across different lines of processors, the E2140/2160 will both be faster and both a better overclocker (in terms of ease of doing so) and would be outperforming the D with the "decent" cooling of the stock intel heatsink which would come with them, if not already outperforming at stock

Or a cheap aftermarket heatsink is the Arctic Freezer Pro/64

Evander

Deusfaux wrote: »

clock speeds are not comparable across different lines of processors, the E2140/2160 will both be faster and both a better overclocker (in terms of ease of doing so) and would be outperforming the D with the "decent" cooling of the stock intel heatsink which would come with them, if not already outperforming at stock

Or a cheap aftermarket heatsink is the Arctic Freezer Pro/64

What am I looking at pricewise on that CPU?

I'm not too concerned about overclocking. Like I said, I'm not using this machine for extremely intense games, and stuff, so in the end, I don't know if the clock speed is going to matter, since I'm not likely to notice much of a difference. The only reason I didn't go with the OEM 2.66 GHz Pentium D is that it only had a bus speed of 533.

But, yeah. The OEM 930 is only 85 bucks, so I guess if I could find a better dual core for about the same price, I'd be open to it, but I'd rather not spend more than that. I'm always open to upgrading it somewhere down the line, of course.

Deusfaux

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000340343+50001157+1050729314&name=Dual-Core

Evander

Deusfaux wrote: »

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000340343+50001157+1050729314&name=Dual-Core

I admit to not knowing mu0h about CPUs, but at a glance, both of those have the same bus speed as the 930, and a smaller L2 cache. The ONLY increased Spec I saw was a very slight increase in the L1 cache on only one of the cores.

Where exactly would I be getting a performance increase there? Would it honestly be anything I'd noticee just web surfing/dling torrents/playing Sam&Max?

Deusfaux

because it's entirely new architecture

your D is a presler core and derived from netburst microarchitecture which was just not a good technology

core microarchitecture - conroes, allendales, etc are all their own branch originally based on laptop cores and they run cooler, use less power, overclock better, and so on.

within a generation of products yes you can look at specs to have reasonable comparisons, but across different ones you just have to accept that the new stuff is inherently better in pretty much every way

im not sure I know of any reviews comparing those brand new procs to the "old" presler you have picked out

Evander

I guess my concern is that I'm looking at the mid-to-high end of last generation, versus the bottom of this generation, and knowing that quad cores are expected to drop in price soon too, and then core 2s will also just be seen as old news, I feel like putting the money into getting the latest whatever doesn't matter as much as putting the money into the one that looks like it will last, and I keep going back to the size discrepancy between the L2 caches. The 930 gives me seemingly 4x as much L2, which I imagine is easier to compare to each other, becauzse the size of the data in my system will be the same regardless of which processor I use.

What I really want to know is what I would need to be doing before I would notice a difference between the chips.

Deusfaux

well my advice is to try and find some reviews around the new comparing the 2, or at least some benchmarks where everything is the same except for those processors

or just make a post on a tech oriented forum like hard ocp

Evander

alright, cool, thanks.

I had one guy at Microcenter who was telling me to go with the the Core 2 until he looked at the specs on the 930, and told me it was probably a better value.

And then some kid who worked there decided to come up and look over everything in my cart. He was approving everything (like I cared,) and then remarked that I had no CPU. I told him I was going for a 930, and he started yelling that I need to get a Core 2 because they are twice as fast, so a 1.8 would be like a Pentium D 3.6. Guy was both an idiot AND a dick.

Hirocon

tomshardware.com has a bunch of charts comparing the results of different processors and graphics cards on a variety of benchmarks. Follow the links on the right under "Latest Charts". Unfortunately, they don't seem to have benchmark results for the Intel Dual Core E2140/E2160, unless they are listed under some other name? I'm not really familiar with those processor unfortunately.

Viscountalpha

Evander wrote: »

alright, cool, thanks.

I had one guy at Microcenter who was telling me to go with the the Core 2 until he looked at the specs on the 930, and told me it was probably a better value.

And then some kid who worked there decided to come up and look over everything in my cart. He was approving everything (like I cared,) and then remarked that I had no CPU. I told him I was going for a 930, and he started yelling that I need to get a Core 2 because they are twice as fast, so a 1.8 would be like a Pentium D 3.6. Guy was both an idiot AND a dick.

The core2duo is a step in better processing. I believe they redid the pipelines and are able to process more instructions per a clock cycle. The core2duo also runs cooler. I've heard of people getting crazy OC's on a 4300 cpu. If its not that much more get the core2duo. Otherwise get a motherboard that supports the penryn chip unless your 650i motherboard is already purchased.

FreddyD

The E2XXX's are monster overclockers. They were able to overclock the E2160 enough to outperform the E6700 using air cooling.

Evander

yeah, everything except the CPU and cooling for it have been purchased.

And honestly, I don't know that I'm doing enough so that clock cycles, or ammount of stuff done per clock cycle, is going to make any difference at all, least of all a noticable one. What I AM doing is a lot of multi-tasking, and I wonder if a bigger L2 cache wouldn't be more useful for that.

And I'm not messing with overclocking. As little as I know about PCs, I know even less about that.

Deusfaux

you're increasing the front side bus for overclocking

lots of mobos will even have a simple one button application to overclock by 5 10 15 etc %

when you get upwards of 20% you might need to increase voltage to the chip and that's when things get more advanced

but simply changing a setting on the chip to have a higher FSB? monkey's work

Evander

Well, my mother board supports 1033 (OC), and BOTH chips are 800 standard

so yeah, maybe I'll overclock a little bit, but it looks like neither chip would be much better than the other, in that regard.

I'm going to check out tom's hardware, though. That's the site I used to pick my video card.

Evander

toms doesn't even list the lower end pentium dual cores or core 2 duos



they do show that pentiums Ds end up towards the top of midrange for multi-tasking.

And reviews on New egg seem to rate the Dual Cores, and lower end core 2 duos, as being high mostly for overclocking, and also even state that they aren't the best for multi-tasking( which is WHY I'm going witgh a dual core chip.)



Now I don't know what to think.

Kreutz

That processor in the OP is a heat monster (I bought one for my current PC, and even with a better heat sink and Arctic Silver it barely stays under 60C under load). I would definitely recommend a different CPU, and a better heat sink while you're at it. The heat sink Intel ships with socket 775 processors is a piece of shit.

Evander

Kreutz wrote: »

That processor in the OP is a heat monster (I bought one for my current PC, and even with a better heat sink and Arctic Silver it barely stays under 60C under load). I would definitely recommend a different CPU, and a better heat sink while you're at it. The heat sink Intel ships with socket 775 processors is a piece of shit.

yeah, that's why I was planning on getting it OEM, and getting the best cooling that my case would allow for it (I have an airduct accros from it, which is great, but also limits my haetsync size a little, I guess.)



After readin that Pentium dual-cores aren't very good for multi-tasking, though, I'm not sure what otherchoicesI have, if I want to stay under 100 (or just barely over) for the processor.



Of course, I'm fulling will to upgrade it later; maybewhen the quad-cores have dropped inprice.

SomethingClever

Have you considered an AMD processor? You can get killer performance for pretty cheap. Motherboards come pretty well stocked, too. I run a 3700+ AMD64 with HT with the OEM heatsink and it stays at around 85-90 degrees F. Running WoW at 1280x1024 brings the temp up to about 105-110, but that's in Linux, so YMMV. If you check out newegg you can get a AMD64 X2 (it's a dual-core with hyperthreading) for $100 including the fan and free shipping. Tons of motherboards (socket AM2) for those, too. Most of them have nvidia chipsets. Good stuff. </whoring>

wunderbar

ya, don't buy a Pentium D, if you can fine the E2xxx series(known as the "Pentium Dual Core") you'll be well off.

Evander

SomethingClever wrote: »

Have you considered an AMD processor? You can get killer performance for pretty cheap. Motherboards come pretty well stocked, too. I run a 3700+ AMD64 with HT with the OEM heatsink and it stays at around 85-90 degrees F. Running WoW at 1280x1024 brings the temp up to about 105-110, but that's in Linux, so YMMV. If you check out newegg you can get a AMD64 X2 (it's a dual-core with hyperthreading) for $100 including the fan and free shipping. Tons of motherboards (socket AM2) for those, too. Most of them have nvidia chipsets. Good stuff. </whoring>

I was going to go with an X2 3600+ at first, but after makingvarious comparisons, and looking into differences and similarities, I decided to go with intel.,

And since I've already bought a motherboard, the decision is pretty final.

Evander

wunderbar wrote: »

ya, don't buy a Pentium D, if you can fine the E2xxx series(known as the "Pentium Dual Core") you'll be well off.

what is the benefit, though? I mean, I'm cutting my L2 cahce from 2x2MB to 1MB shared.

This is NOT a gaming machine, so I don't need massive performance; what I need is multi-tasking ability so I can get multiple things done at once.

SomethingClever

If you just want multi-tasking ability then your choice of processor isn't going to matter as much as how much RAM you put into the machine. Unless you're running some programs that crunch #'s really hard and running more than one of those apps at a time then any newer processor is more than up to the task. If gaming isn't a big issue than I'd look for a lower powered processor. It will not only run cooler, but it'll use less energy, saving you some $. (maybe not a lot of $, but hey...pennies add up)

Evander

well, I'm not paying the energy bills, but temperature is a concern.

And I have two gigs of ram, for the time being, with two more slots when I need to upgrade.

How concerned should I really be about the L2 cache size, though? A close friend of mine, who I trust deeply, but is self admittedly more of an authority on software than hardware (Comp Sci major) was encouraging me to go for larger caches before anything else(after bus speed, of course), especially clock speed.

Rook

It'd probably help if you clarify what you mean by multi-tasking. If you're just running a bunch of programs at once, then really it's going to be the Ram, Hard-drive and OS that'll be making the difference, rather than shear processing power. If you are running several intensive applications then you might want to look at specific benchmarks, but generally though, the new Core (E2160) is a lot faster than the old Pentium Ds when looking at Office and Multimedia tasks, consumes much less power, and runs cooler.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-e2160_11.html#sect0

(Pentium D 935 is the 3.2ghz chip I think)

edit:

Just a clarification, on the old Pentium Ds having a large cache was important due to the poor architecture. With the new Core 2s, having a large cache really isn't as important anymore due to the more efficient architecture.

http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/cpu/reviews/0704/993288.html

Unfortuntately it's in Japanese, but you should be able to get the message looking at the pictures.

You're either comparing 1mb vs 2mb caches at stock speeds, or 1mb,2mb and 4mb caches when all the processors are overclocked to the same level, in the majority of cases the cache size makes little or no difference.

wunderbar

Evander wrote: »

wunderbar wrote: »

ya, don't buy a Pentium D, if you can fine the E2xxx series(known as the "Pentium Dual Core") you'll be well off.

what is the benefit, though? I mean, I'm cutting my L2 cahce from 2x2MB to 1MB shared.

This is NOT a gaming machine, so I don't need massive performance; what I need is multi-tasking ability so I can get multiple things done at once.

It is a completely different architecture. it's like comparing the Pentium II to a pentium 4.

The pentium D's were also notorious for running very hot, and requiring lots of cooling. The Pentium Dual Core runs a lot cooler, and much quieter.

But ya, if you want a good multi tasking machine, look first for ram. 2GB is what you should be aiming for. The processor is not as important as pretty much any processor on the market right now can handle doing 3-4 things at a time with no slowdown.

SomethingClever

It's not really that important unless you're doing something that's really heavily processor intensive. An example would be calculating pi, or some such nonsense. L2 is just a buffer space for instructions for the CPU. It's true that the more you have the better off you are, but it's not something that's noticeable to the average user. The biggest factor, if you're biggest concern is multitasking, is how much RAM you have. 2 gigs should be fine, but what programs do you plan on running at one time, just so I can get an idea.....

Evander

I almost always have trillian running, I also have MANY tabs concurrently in Avant. Usually I have some or all of the Microsoft Office Suite going. I might have Norton doing a check, and still want to be able to use my PC for something else. I've also often noticed slowdown wen using Photoshop. On top of all of that, when I'm trying to burn video files to DVD, or even sound files to CD, my computer is mostly unusable.



I'd like to be able to use my computer for active tasks, while still running passive tasks in thebackground, mostly. I don't like having to leave for an hour, or so, just so it can get somethng done. Also, in the case of tabbed browsing, and photoshop, I'd just like to be able to do what I want in these without havingto shut down all other programs I've been using, and then reopen them later.

SomethingClever

For all of that 2 gigs is OK, though 4 gigs is advisable. Something to note, though, is that while burning DVDs and CDs it's best to just leave the PC alone, even on more powerful systems. It decreases the chance of burning a coaster. Guy above me makes a good point, though. Hard drive is a factor, though not as much as the OS you choose to run. I'm not here to convert anyone, but windows is a notorious memory hog, so try to cut programs that run on boot out. go to start > run > and type msconfig and trim down your bootup processes from there. Remember, for the most part, RAM = SPEED when it comes to multitasking.

TwistedJester

I'm no expert, but honestly, I don't think you needed to spend so much on a case and power supply, considering you're not building some uber game machine. As for power supplies, you could have gotten an Xclio 500W Goodpower for $50. I have a 480W power supply from them, never had any problems with it, and they're a great dark horse brand.

Evander

TwistedJester wrote: »

I'm no expert, but honestly, I don't think you needed to spend so much on a case and power supply, considering you're not building some uber game machine. As for power supplies, you could have gotten an Xclio 500W Goodpower for $50. I have a 480W power supply from them, never had any problems with it, and they're a great dark horse brand.

part of my goal was to make it so, for the next long while, I don't have to get an etirely new PC all at once. I'll just upgrade one or two parts at a time, as needed, and eventually maybe nothing will be the same except for the case, but it'll also mean not ever having to spend too much money all at once.

I've also kept the case from my gateway so that, as I upgrade my new computer (tentatively named "Deep Thought") I can build myself a less powerful secondary computer, with the old pieces.

Edit: AR, I only spent fifty on the case, and seventy or so on the PSU. I didn't get anything at NewEgg yet, I just linked there so y'all could see whatthe stuff was.

Veevee

I would honestly get a e4300 for a couple reasons. The price is just above $100 at the moment ($117 on newegg), and it is super overclockable. It really is that fucking easy to get that chip to run at speeds that are comparable and even greater than the x6800.

Evander

Interesting thingI've noticedisthat, within the same CPU family, it seems to generally come down to 10$ per 100MHz, between models, starting at whatever base price it starts at.

Evander

Veevee wrote: »

I would honestly get a e4300 for a couple reasons. The price is just above $100 at the moment ($117 on newegg), and it is super overclockable. It really is that fucking easy to get that chip to run at speeds that are comparable and even greater than the x6800.

alright, all of you have me listening at this point.

why a 4300, though. why not a 4400? the price difference isn't that much (22 at NewEgg) so Ican rationalize the expense. Is it worth going up one?

TwistedJester

The thing is, 600+W is a lot. And what's more important than wattage is the voltage on the 12v rails. Personally, I'm looking to get a C2D (4300 to be exact), overclock it, use it with my 7900GT, and maybe add a second hard drive to the mix. And my 480W PSU should be fine. I realize you have the PSU already, but you could have used the money saved to get a a better GPU.

Also, with the C2Ds, the higher the stock speed, the less overclocking capacity it has, at least until you need to get expensive cooling solutions. So a 4300 could probably overclock to the same speed as a 6300, but why spend the extra money?

Evander

TwistedJester wrote: »

The thing is, 600+W is a lot. And what's more important than wattage is the voltage on the 12v rails. Personally, I'm looking to get a C2D (4300 to be exact), overclock it, use it with my 7900GT, and maybe add a second hard drive to the mix. And my 480W PSU should be fine. I realize you have the PSU already, but you could have used the money saved to get a a better GPU.

Also, with the C2Ds, the higher the stock speed, the less overclocking capacity it has, at least until you need to get expensive cooling solutions. So a 4300 could probably overclock to the same speed as a 6300, but why spend the extra money?

The GPU is MORE than what I need already.

also, I'm starting out with Two PATA optical drives, and two PATA disc drives, with the intention of getting more drives later, and maybe going with an SLI solution if I ever REALLY need that graphical boost.



All I knew about power was that the gateway had a 150W, and used to complain that it didn't want to power my USB ports. Having an iPod run out of power while syncing is not fun.

edit: and I'm not considering any of the 6xxx line, just wondering ifthe 4400 would be any better than the 4300

Evander

jus for the heck of it, how is Vista these days.

My plan was to install XP on this system, and wait for vista to get decent, but since I'm starting thesystem fresh, if vista is good enough already, it might be worth it to just as well use it from the get go.

Veevee

Evander wrote: »

Veevee wrote: »

I would honestly get a e4300 for a couple reasons. The price is just above $100 at the moment ($117 on newegg), and it is super overclockable. It really is that fucking easy to get that chip to run at speeds that are comparable and even greater than the x6800.

alright, all of you have me listening at this point.

why a 4300, though. why not a 4400? the price difference isn't that much (22 at NewEgg) so Ican rationalize the expense. Is it worth going up one?

I only recommend the 4300 because its what I have. Looking around, the only thing a e4400 would provide over a e4300 is one additional multiplier (4300 is max at 9 while 4400 goes to 10 [both are stock FSB at 200mhz]). This would let you hit higher speeds with a lower FSB (300 mhz instead of 333 to get a 3.0ghz clock speed). If you can afford the additional $20 I would say go for it, but its not vital.

I have no idea about Vista, but everything I've heard is to stay away for now.